« Memo To GOP/Republicans: Americans Not Fooled By Democrats' Global Warming Lies & Climate Change Hysteria | Main | Those Stubborn Facts: NOAA Confirms U.S. Drought Conditions Lessen, Opposite Of Expert Predictions »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a010536b58035970c01a5111d0e7b970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference US Temps versus NASA 1988 Global Warming Predictions: 25 Years Later, NOAA Documents Embarrassing Failure:

Comments

C3 Editor

rjs: With all due respect, there is no such thing as a "normal" temperature. It is a bureaucrat's construct to be able to portray scary 'red' images on visuals - ergo, those are the type of charts NOAA and NASA publicize.

Now what we do know from the very oldest temperature datasets and the ice cores is that global warming has been taking place ad nauseum since the Little Ice Age (depending on location, a general warming since the early 1800s).

Thus, the real normal is that temperatures are still climbing. So on average, every region of the world will likely be above NOAA's "normal" on annual basis.

However, the important question is actually how fast warming (or cooling) is taking place, combined with how soon said warming (cooling) becomes dangerous (catastrophic).

As this article's U.S. chart from 1895 to 2013 shows, the "warming" in the contiguous U.S. is not large, not accelerating and not dangerous. That's important for 'C3' American readers, not necessarily important for those on the other side of the planet.

'C3'

rjs

speaking of the globe, you'll see that the US was the only place on the planet that was below normal in 2013: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201301-201312.gif

Jay

Brian: Good plan. When one doomsday prediction fails, quickly switch to another. We might run out of fossil fuels in only 400 years? Wow, I just can't imagine there being any economic changes, technological changes, or new discovers in such a short time.

C3 Editor

Interesting, rjs. I did note that the NASA satellite measured the Australia's December 2013 temperature below December 1988's.

If I am not mistaken, December is one of Australia's hottest months.

Yep...that CO2 "global warming" evidence can be pretty mysterious in how it can go unexpectedly AWOL in any given part of the world, at any given point in time, no?

rjs

Australia was actually more than 2C degrees above their '88 level in 2013; in fact the country broke its all time temp record by more than 1 degree Centigrade (~2F)

Mervyn

On 23 June 1988 climatologist Dr James Hansen, head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, appeared before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee of the United States Senate to testify about his certainty that the record high temperatures were the result of human activity. Here are the first two paragraphs of his testimony:

“Mr Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to present the results of my research on the greenhouse effect, which has been carried out with my colleagues at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe with a degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer simulations indicate that the greenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves.”

What a joke!

yo

i came across this place, and i could express that I find the quality that were done immensely amusing. personally i suspect that that does not necesserily greatly help the way it helps the functions outlinedbut partially I find myself able to apply their view so, I am grateful that it happens like that cheers!

halfacarafe

We obviously have to quit using "fissile fuels" or will have to find another source of energy before the end of 400 years? I heard of this new thing called nuclear that might do the trick if the global warming crowd would let us give it a try.

Brian

The discussion of energy should be rerouted into something that neither side can bend the science. Instead of talking about climate change. Why don't we discuss the limited resources of fissile fuels and how going with renewable power really isn't about climate change, it's about running out of power in less then 400 years.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Categories