E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMore than half of the country experienced "moderate to exceptional" drought conditions at the end of July, the hottest month ever recorded. And the impact of this hot weather has been felt across the nation as crops shrivel and wildfires rage out of control. NBC's Rehema Ellis reports.
It may come as little surprise with this summer's sweaty nights and blistering days across much of the country, but July marked the hottest month on record for the contiguous United States, according to government scientists. Furthermore, drought now covers nearly 63 percent of the Lower 48 states, where average precipitation is 0.19 inch below average.
A bit of hope, though, was seen for some crops in the Midwest thanks to cooler temperatures and rain.
According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the average temperature across the contiguous United States in July was 77.6 Fahrenheit, a full 3.3 degrees above the 20th century average.
The previous warmest July was in 1936, when the nation's average temperature was 77.4 degrees.
The hot July contributed to a record-warm first seven months of the year and the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since accurate record keeping started in 1895.
Virginia experienced its warmest July on record, with a statewide temperature a whopping 4 F above average. In all, 32 states had July temperatures among its 10 warmest, with seven states having their second warmest July on record.
While heat and extreme events such as drought and wildfires are often associated with global warming and climate change, it's unclear if the latest pattern is part of a much larger trend.
Related: Drought socks crops despite recent showers
"These events are kind of what we'd expect with climate change, we'd expect expanding drought, we'd expect warm, record breaking temperatures," Jake Crouch, a NOAA climate scientist, told NBC News. "But it's kind of hard to pinpoint this month or past several months as a telltale sign that climate change is happening. The drought is more of a local factor and isn't necessarily driven by large scale climate change, but is impacting local temperatures. But we've also seen an increase in U.S. temperatures overall."
Still, there's no doubt this summer is taking a human toll, with warmer nights making it difficult for some people to sleep, and causing physical stress, Crouch said.
And the drought rollls on, with drier-than-average conditions continuing across the Central Plains and Midwest. Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri had July precipitation totals ranking among their 10 driest.
Some rain and cooler temperatures in the drought-stricken Midwest, however, are expected to provide relief for late-season soybeans, but the change in the weather is arriving too late to help the already severely damaged corn crop, an agricultural meteorologist said on Wednesday.
"It's definitely better than what we've had but I'd be hesitant to call it a drought-buster. Longer-term outlooks still look like a return to warm and dry," said Jason Nicholls, meteorologist for AccuWeather.
Related: Blame blistering heat waves on global warming, study says
Nicholls said up to three-quarters of an inch of rain, with locally heavier amounts, was expected in roughly 75 percent of the Midwest from Wednesday through Friday morning, and a similar weather system is expected next week.
Though the heat can be uncomfortable, not everyone is complaining. “The heat is definitely a blessing for us after coming off the warm, dry winter without a lot of weather events,” Alan Ayers, general manager at Crisafulli Brothers Plumbing and Heating Contractors in Albany, told The Associated Press.
The 73-year-old company has seen an 18 percent increase in new air conditioner installations over last year and has its 16 technicians working long hours to install, replace and repair units taxed by the swelter.
A storm pattern in the Southwest contributed to California's fifth wettest July on record and Nevada experiencing its eighth wettest, NOAA said. Wetter-than-average conditions were also reported through the rest of the Southwest, along the western Gulf Coast, and through the Ohio Valley where West Virginia had its tenth wettest July.
The warm and dry conditions over a large swath of the United States were seen as ideal wildfire conditions, NOAA said. More than 2 million acres burned nationwide in July because of wildfires. That is nearly half a million acres above average, and the fourth most on record since 2000.
Over the weekend the fires that burned across the state damaged nearly 94,000 acres and on Monday a body was found in a Norman home. NBC's Gabe Gutierrez reports.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
More content from NBCNews.com:
- Minister stands trial in international lesbian kidnap case
- Are nuns getting ready to spurn the Vatican?
- Girl, 6, found clinging to corpse in middle of lake
- Missing best friends found dead in New Jersey river
- Video: Athletes reveal the royal who makes them swoon
Follow US News from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Welcome to the GOP anti science congressional witch hunt
In recent congressional hearings, one of the GOP congressmen brought up the tired skeptic argument, that "scientists in the seventies were warning us about a coming ice age, now they claim it's global warming."
John Christy, the Republicans only climate scientist witness, encouraged this line of conversation, even though he knows it's a bogus argument. Honest scientists don't do that kind of thing.
Christy said something like "yes and it's still just as uncertain".
Really? 7 research papers verses the 10,000 papers behind the IPCC's AR4 report? A minor hypothesis verses a major scientific theory with a mountain of evidence from 9 or 10 independent lines of evidence, and agreed on by basically the entire world scientific community. Those are equivalent?
Not only that, but Christy is ingoring the facts about the 1970s.
Global cooling was a minor hypothesis, with 7 scientific papers published in peer reviewed journals.
During the same time period, there were 44 papers published that pointed toward greenhouse gas warming from human emissions.
Six times as many for global warming.
BTW, misinforming congress is a felony.
The 2007 IPCC report was based on over 10,000 research papers. there have been thousands more peer reviewed papers published since then.
Compare with a minor hypothesis with 7 papers, 35 years ago.
And just last week, John Christy, who is Roy Spencer's partner at UAH, was misinforming congress again.
He had the hubris and dishonesty to refer to the recent amateur paper by Anthony Watts, retired TV weatherman and host of the misinforming denier blog WTFUWT. Anthony will not give up, after being shown to be wrong numerous times, on his favorite topic of Urban Heat Island Effect or UHI.
His paper is heavily flawed and outright wrong. It has been widely debunked, and will never be published in peer review, in it's present form.
For starters, climate scientists already adjust for this effect.
NOAA studied this and found no warming bias on a global basis. (70% of the earth is ocean, which has no UHI, for one thing.)
NOAA actually found a slight cooling bias in the temp instruments.
The recent BEST study also found no warming bias, as well as confirming that the various temp data sets that climate scientists use are accurate.
Why would a climate scientist like Christy give reference to a bogus paper like Watt's created, in congressional tesitmony? Because he's a fake skeptic
"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar"
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
I am not a scientist and no very little on the subject.
There is one thing I do remember from science classes though.
It would be foolish to make a conclusion with .00000000025 of the information, which is what is being done.
How so? If you are talking about Earth history, we don't need to know how many times the climate has changed in the past to answer the question of whther it is changing NOW.
So you are happy using that percentage of data to draw a conclusion?
Does not make sense. Did they change the rules since I went to school? It has been a while.
Jocko, that is not true. As I have asked before, and you have ducked, what is the "correct" temperature.
Obviously, in lieu of records that go back more than 150 years, "global warming" is speculation. It is certain that the massive glaciers melted. I don't have to be a scientist to believe that it wasn't SUV's that caused that little warmup. The earth used to be molten, and then half covered with ice, and all before humans.
WHAT is the RIGHT CLIMATE??? Can you answer that? No, you can't. When there are a substantial number of people making a lot of money espousing "global warming", it is phony.
That's not a question. There's no correct answer because the Earth doesn't care what temperature it is. There ARE temps that can harm climate. Higher temps are already having an adverse affect on this country let alone others.
Let's try this for fun. :)
So, because God hates the United States so much the attack on 911 was successful.
Same form of logic... Doesn't work does it dog?
Right climate? Wrong climate? Not the point, dude. It's the sudden changes in climate that do not allow the necessary time for human adaptation (especially that of world economies and food production) that is the problem. Rapidly increasing rates of climate change can push an already teetering world system over the edge, and quicker than you would want to imagine. And to put the "money" issue in better perspective, the money saved and pocketed by the Kochs by avoiding regulations puts anything Gore made off his little movie to shame.
Steve: "As I have asked before, and you have ducked, what is the "correct" temperature."
I answered you before, or at least explained why it is the wrong question. Of course there is no "correct" temperature. Nobody ever claimed there was. We are talking about global WARMING, not global WARMTH. It is the rate of change that matters.
Government Scientists, my aching arse. Government Dip Sticks. Do they not understand that the big bright thing we see in the sky, called the Sun has an output higher than at any time in the last 500 years? Solar storms are raging across the Sun. Have those idiot scientists figure out a way to turn down the heat from the Sun and they will have a winner. Idiots.
Yes, they do understand the role of the sun in this. Apparently you don't.
What's hilarious "wakani" is there is some ignorant lying leftist propagandist (Rick Sails) with a couple of retards tagging along with him to complete the band of idiots and each has suggested the sun has been its calmest over the last 12 years when the FACTS are EXACTLY the opposite.
You can't argue with liars and fools, just call them the names they deserve to be called for being such menaces to society and bringing down the intellectual value of the conversation ... silly children.
So you are actually that lame to come up with this argument? Do you really feel that you're being smart by posting something this thick?
First of Einstein the Sun is STILL the same temp and solar output is has for a while now. Solar Iridescence is not a factor for the rising temps because ITS NOT GETTING HOTTER. Not measurably in the short term overall that is. Even the Sun has cycles and YES scientists know them, they discovered them...
Let's use an analogy for you to understand.
Do this. Turn your oven on to 400 and wait for the oven to come up to temp. Now think of the oven as the sun and the oven door as the climate. Now open the door and by thus doing changing your pretend climate.
Did the oven get hotter? Nope, it's still 400 degrees but you just got a blast of heat that you didn't have before.
Temps can rise without increasing temperature of the heat source. Don't confuse one for the other.
Jeff
When you open the oven door the oven does not stay at 400 degrees, it gets cooler, and more energy is needed to bring the oven back to 400.
As the sun releases excess energy that energy radiates as heat to earth. So if the sun has to stay at the same temp per your argument, then energy output from the Sun would increase or decrease due to sun storms and sun spots, has to enter the Solar System, thus becoming a factor in global cooling, or warming.
can't eat money or oil ..... can't eat steel or coal ... cant harvest concrete for food ... that is what some people seem to think we need more of ....
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Just a bunch of hacks. Just like you.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... sure thing Jethro!!
Not citing your source is not only disingenuous it is also lazy. Try again.
He's only quoting the handful of scientists, not related to climate change, who have made an opinion on the subject. Richard Muller was on the same list until he changed sides after the Koch brothers study he led.
21 scientists, most of whom rely on studies that are already out of date, have doubts that humans are causing climate change that range from minor problems with methodology to declaring the whole thing a hoax. Meanwhile, thousands of other scientists support the idea that the earth is warming up and that that change caused in some measure by human actions. The nice thing about science, however, is that eventually the evidence will overwhelm ideology. We will find out the truth. Let's hope we don't find out too late.
The good news is that "records" of the weather only go back 150 years out of billions.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... don't try and explain that harsh reality to the propagandist here!Aat least one guy calling himself Jock thinks they have the data going back that far which is what allows them to accurately "predict" what is going on with the climate ... isn't that neato??!!!!
Panther, you misrepresent what I say, naturally. If you understood or were even aware of the science, you would understand how and why they can predict what they do. Nobody claims to be able to predict exactly how many degrees we will warm, but we do know that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere will warm the climate, and we have known that for over 150 years.
I will repost your exact comment if you wish ... you made a comment to the effect of "that is how they are able to understand the effects". I know you don't understand much about this stuff but you don't have to start lying like Sail Rick and that "Normal Person" person.
Panther, yes, I said that the study of past climate has helped scientists understand the effects of many factors that control climate, including carbon dioxide.
"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar"
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Several recent studies show that the net effect of all the natural climate forcings that 'skeptics' claim are the real cause of global warming, would have Cooled the planet, over the last 50 years or so.
The current warming cannot be explained by anything but human emissions and their enhancing of the greenhouse effect.
------------
Lean and Rind Estimate Human and Natural Global Warming
In a paper a few years back, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a very similar study to one we recently examined from Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), filtering out short-term effects on global temperature to tease out the human and natural contributions to global warming
"None of the natural processes can account for the overall warming trend in global surface temperatures. In the 100 years from 1905 to 2005, the temperature trends produce by all three natural influences are at least an order of magnitude smaller than the observed surface temperature trend reported by IPCC [2007].
According to this analysis, solar forcing contributed negligible long-term warming in the past 25 years and 10% of the warming in the past 100 years"
{Skeptical Science}
------------------
Huber and Knutti Quantify Man-Made Global Warming
"They take an approach in this study which utilizes the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to determine and quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming since 1850 and 1950. Over both timeframes, the authors find that human greenhouse gas emissions are the dominant cause of global warming
The authors also note that the relatively small contribution of natural variability to the observed long-term temperature change is consistent with past climate data........
Since 1950, the authors find that greenhouse gases contributed 166% (120-215%) of the observed surface warming (0.85°C of 0.51°C estimated surface warming). The percentage is greater than 100% because aerosols offset approximately 44% (0.45°C) of that warming."
{read at Skeptical Science}
"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & Consummate Idiot"
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming
{Read it at Skeptical Science}
"When the fluctuations in temperature over the last 32 years (which tend to obscure the continuation of the global warming trend) are accounted for, it becomes obvious that there has not been any cessation, or even any slowing, of global warming over the last decade (or at any time during this time span).
In other words, any deviations from an unchanging linear warming trend are explained by the influence of ENSO, volcanoes and solar variability....It is worthy of note that for all five adjusted data sets, 2009 and 2010 are the two hottest years on record....All five data sets show statistically significant warming even for the time span from 2000 to the present."
exogenous factors contributed to very slight cooling of global temperatures over the past 32 years, with the execption of UAH, for which they have had no net impact on the trend. (note, UAH is one of several temp data sets)"
-------------------------
A new study in Nature Geoscience
"Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balance"
{read at Climate Progress}
"Our results show that it is extremely likely that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 was caused by radiative forcings, and less than 26% by unforced internal variability. Of the forced signal during that particular period, 102% (90-116%) is due to anthropogenic and 1% (-10 to 13%) due to natural forcing.....
The combination of those results with attribution studies based on optimal fingerprinting, with independent constraints on the magnitude of climate feedbacks, with process understanding, as well as palaeoclimate evidence leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times"
Absent the increasing GHGs, we probably would have cooled, since
1.We’ve had a couple of big volcanoes.
2.We’re just coming off "the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century."
3.The underlying long-term trend had been cooling (see Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, "seminal" study finds).
That's right. The net effect of the natural climate forcings was cooling.
Skeptics often claim that the warming is from natural forcings.
(note: volcanoes tend to cool the earth, because they emit lots of aerosols, which reflect sunlight back into space - This effect only lasts a few years, because aerosols are not long lived in the atmosphere, like CO2 which can remain resident for hundeds or thousands of years)
If you view history over the course of millions of years instead of less than 100, the earth ranges from molten to about half covered with ice. (all before humans).
What then, Rick, is the CORRECT TEMPERATURE? Last time I checked we are neither molten nor coated with miles of ice, so I am certain that we are within normal parameters.
But really....what is the politically correct temperature? Where is it found? Before 1950, what caused the climate to go up and down? (little ice age, etc.)
And lastly, who was making a huge profit from predicting the horrors of climate change before about 1970? Aristotle? Alexander the great? Nostradamus?
Quoting phony science from phony scientists who are coming up with findings they are paid to come up with doesn't impress anyone. Polls show the number of people concerned with global warming are less than ever. Why would that be? Yeah, it's hot this summer. Hot in the summer...gee, who saw that coming.
Steve, nobody ever said there was a "correct" temperature. The argument is that climate wioll warm faster than ecosystems and human populations can keep up, and much damage will result. Nothing else you mentioned is even relevant to that question.
Steve: " phony science from phony scientists who are coming up with findings they are paid to come up with"
That is an assumption on your part about people you have never heard of. As such it is doshonest and slanderous. Assuming that people who diagree with you are liars is one way to make yourself feel better, but it doesn't actually win any arguments.
Actually Jock, what he said is 100% factual and there is a great deal of proof to back up his assertions ... far more evidence actually than the charlatan scientists have for their man-made global warming hoax.
No, Panther, there is no proof of any fraud claims. I know that doesn't matter to you, but honesty does matter to me. But I am not here to convince you of anything. I am here only to defend science.
When the bottom falls out on us all, and there is no longer food on the grocery store shelves, take a good look at all those fatassed deniers and think barbeque.......... and remember that with a few chili peppers the sour dumbfux taste will not be noticable.
You are either extremely uneducated and poorly read or are a liar ... after considering many of your comments I believe it to be a little of each. Either way, you are WRONG and that is a fact ... sorry dummy.
LOL. Panther, you are too funny. It's like Junior High all over again. You should just listen to yourself some time. Do you actually have anything to say about science, or is it all just insults and hate for you?
Yawn ... just keep up he lies, propaganda and misinformation champ, whatever works for you.
I have posted the names of scientists from MIT, England, NASA and other highly educated and respected individuals within this field of study. All you have done is ride the coattails of a serial spammer propagandist and occasionally thrown out a couple of unfounded and highly contested assertions mixed with a few flat out lies. Of course that doesn't remind me of Junior High, it reminds me of this MSNBC Psyche Ward and the detestable mindless lunatics that continue to stand behind the racist traitor in the White House and his cohorts, of which, you are one.
Name one lie.
It's fairly obvious ... find a post of yours where I have clearly stated the fact that you are a liar ... I believe those would be the ones I was specifically referring to and the one above would be your closest place to start.
Ivar Giaever: Ivar Giaever's name appears on a full-page ad funded by the CATO Institute that was featured in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, New York Times, and the Chicago Tribune in 2009.
The advertisement criticizes President Obama's declaration that "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change," by saying "with all due respect Mr. President, that is not true."
According to ad, "there has been no net global warming for over a decade," and the dangers of global warming are "grossly overstated."
The Cato Institute has received $125,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, and lists Phillip Morris as one of its "national allies." They have also received undisclosed amounts of funding from the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Koch Family Foundations.
Richard Lindzen: Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC."
David Douglass: http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/02/leaked-docs-heartland-institute-think-tank-pays-climate-contrarians-very-well/ Paid Douglass well?
Look Panther Hunter dude, need I continue?
You know, in the ancient world all priests wore capes made of big cat skins. Leopards, tigers, lions, panthers, etc. What that meant was that anyone claiming to really be in the know would, when they got cold, go out and call, "here kitty kitty". I doubt if you would have it in you to do that. So I find your choice of handle to be somewhat amusing.
Your long lists of "scientists" mean nothing taken in context of who is paying them.
Ah, glad you brought up all those fake skeptics.
Good old Sallie Baliunas and Wilie Soon who's paper was so bad, that 6 editors of the peer review journal that published it - Quit in protest.
Richard Lindzen who has been consistently WRONG
Lindzen's Sandia Talk Contains his Usual Errors
1. Lindzen claims "We’ve already seen almost the equivalent of a doubling of CO2 (in radiative forcing)."
In reality the net radiative forcing is most likely less than halfway to the equivalent of a doubling of CO2.
2. Lindzen claims "that [radiative forcing] has produced very little warming"
In reality the amount of warming we've observed is consistent with a climate sensitivity in the range cited by the IPCC.
3. Lindzen concludes that his argument proves climate sensitivity must be low.
In reality aside from Lindzen's arguments being wrong, the full body of evidence points to much higher climate sensitivity than Lindzen believes.
Climate scientists have focused a lot of research on the climate effects of aerosols, black carbon, solar irradiance, volcanoes, natural cycles, and many other climate influences. Lindzen's criticism of climate scientists ignoring non-GHG effects has no basis in reality, but it quite accurately describes his own arguments............The mistakes Lindzen keeps making in his presentations are not complicated ones. Ignoring all non-GHG forcings and the thermal inertia of the oceans are two glaring errors which any good climate scientist should immediately recognize. On the contrary, Lindzen has been making these same wrong assertions in talks since at least 1989, and has continued making them at minimum on an annual basis since 2002.
{read at Skeptical Science}
------------------------------
I have already covered Roy Spencer and his partner John Christy, who have also been consistently wrong.
Spencer just happens to be on the board of directors of the J. C Marshal Institute, a decidedly anti environmental group. Plus he is a creationist.
Just Put the Model Down, Roy (Spencer)
by: Barry Bickmore July 26, 2011
"I could go on with more nitpicks, but I’m going to stop here, because it should be clear that, once again, Spencer has made a big deal out of something that doesn’t have any evidentiary value. So if, as Spencer claims, "[t]he evidence for anthropogenic global warming being a false alarm does not get much more convincing than this," then can we please move on? Can Roy PLEASE put his toy model down?"
"Actually “this” (as in this post) is about whether Spencer is right or wrong. But Hansen’s model does in fact “fit reality” quite well, and has for several decades."
- comment by Dana1981- from Skeptical Science
{read at bbickmore at WordPress - Barry Bickmore's blog}
Bickmore is a conservative Republican and used to skeptical of climate science
"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar"
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Panther, how many times are you going to cut and paste those carefully selected quotes? And the first set by your own admission do not even refute climate chage.
As many times as your buddy continues to post his asinine garbage and you lying about something I said does nothing but make you look like your lying propagandist buddy Sail Rick ...
I have already told Rick that I think his long posts are inappropriate for this forum, but at least he has done some good research. You have cut and pasted some carefully selected quotes from a denial industry web site.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... his copy and paste is "good research" and my copy and paste is "carefully selected from denial sites ... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... what a funkingn idiot you are little boy.
For your information troll, the information I posted is from Wikipedia ... I did that purposefully especially because of ignorant dolts like you ... get a life loser, you're pathetic.
Kittyhunter,
I started searching that long list of "scientists" and of the first three found that all were on the payroll of either the Kochs, the oil industry in general, libertarian think tanks, etc. etc.............three up, three down, struck out dude. No need to waste any more of my time. So what else ya got?
lol ok like wikipedia is a reliable site???? panther hun you know ANYONE and their brother can "update" it to say whatever they want??? .... sigh .... E.B.C.A.K. ..... Error Between the Chair And the Keyboard ...
Peer reviewed paper presented at the European Geosciences Union meeting in 2012:
Homogenization errors of data account for half of the warming claimed by the IPCC.
Follow the money. From the governments, to the "impartial" science researchers.
Climate Skeptic Fool's Gold
models
intead of constraining his variables using physical measurements and then running his model to see if it fits observations, Dr. Spencer just runs his model without limits and tweaks the parameters until it matches the data. This is a practice known as "curve fitting" or "cooking a graph
{read at Skeptical Science}
-------------------------
Andrew Dessler's New Paper Debunks Both Roy Spencer And Richard Lindzen
{read at Skeptical Science}
------------
Editor-in-Chief of Remote Sensing agrees that Spencer and Braswell (2011) should not have been published; resigns
{read at Deltoid blog}
-----------------------
Spencer and Braswell fundamentally flawed, journal editor resigns
{read at Our Changing Climate}
-----------------
The Damaging Impact of Roy Spencer’s Serially-Wrong ‘Science’
by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham, and Peter Gleick
{read at Climate Progress}
Ian Plimer has also NEVER been correct. He is another misinformer with no credibility among climate scientists.
101 responses to Ian Plimer's climate questions
The Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency have put together a handy and recommended resource: Accurate Answers to Professor Plimer's 101 Climate Change Science Questions (direct link to 1.4Mb PDF). This is in response to Plimer's book "How To Get Expelled From School", a compilation of climate misinformation targeted at school children. One section of the book features 101 questions that he suggests children ask their teachers. The DCCEE summarise it well:
"Many of the questions and answers in Professor Plimer’s book are misleading and are based on inaccurate or selective interpretation of the science. The answers and comments provided in this document are intended to provide clear and accurate answers to Professor Plimer’s questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer reviewed science, and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists."
{read at Skeptical Science}
-----------------------
"Royaul43"...
You will never make it anywhere with a lying propagandist like Sail Rick ... he has the hook in his stomach and it is affixed to his ribcage ... there is no helping that poor mindless troll.
For you, science is propaganda, and denier ludicrous conspiracy theories are facts.
SailRick-
Dude- You continue to say the same quotes, yet don't respond to what was said. You posted another out of context quote.
Authors: Steirou and Koutsoyiannis
European Geosciences Union meeting in 2012
Homogenization errors of data account for half of the warming claimed by the IPCC.
The more I read these posts the more clear it becomes that we are being sucked into a meaningless conversation with an infantile who has learned to cut and paste from reichwing propaganda sites. The man has no credible arguments, only crass demagoguery, lies and distortions carefully crafted by those much above his personal intelligence level, and made available for idiots like him to try and perpetuate. Cutting and pasting can be done by even those of low intelligence.
None of you are even looking at what the others are posting, so there really isn't any point anymore. If anybody would like to discuss science, let me know, but I am not interested in dueling insults and repeated cut-and-paste.
My cut and paste is the result of taking notes for 4 years, on the 5,000 - 6,000 climate science articles I've read over the past 4 years. Not to mention the 50,000 to 100,000 comments at those articles, mostly by scientists, many of whom are climate scientists.
I appreciate that but you are just cutting and pasting past each other and nobody is debating or learning or even reading anything.
clouding the issue is what they are trying to do;
some of them are probably paid off by big oil;
it is ironic that big oil is eyeing the "drilling prospects" beneath the melting ice as we speak
Jock,
I agree. Even though I tend to accept Sailerdude's side of the argument, playing bouncey-ball with people like Kittyhunter is a waste of time. Nothing to be gained at all there.
I Don't find .02 Alarming in what 76 years! Ya got your Highs and Ya got Your Lows!
Fred Singer? You must be kidding.
His credibility disapeared long ago.
Fred has been an 'expert' on the side of industries trying to deny science, on acid rain, tobacco, CFCs that damage the protective ozone layer, global warming, asbestos, etc.
Fred is an 'expert' on everything it seems.
Singer has been funded by Phillip Morris, Exxon, Unocal, Shell, Atlantic Richfield, Sun Oil and the Reverand Sun Myung Moon. That's Moon as in Moonies. He owns the Washington Times rag
"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar, Loser & Consummate Idiot"
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Panther, I doubt you have even read or understood that list you have pasted 20 times. You certainly have never made a comment that suggests you understand anything about the science of climate change.
Yes, but we know an ignorant lemming like you that agrees with the propagandists on this thread is well versed on the matter ...
Actually dummy, I have never intimated that I fully understand why the earth (and most assuredly all other planets) go through climactic changes but I do not for a fact that it has happened for far longer than we have been around and to a much greater degree.
I don't need to be an expert or a scientist to understand that people like you and Sail Rick, both whom know absolutely nothing about the subject, are little more than blowhards and propagandist heII bent on taking anyone's side, regardless the issue, that disagrees with those that you do not agree with.
I am very familiar with the "any enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine" mindset ad you and your ignorant buddy are personifications of that failed thought process.
panther,
I have never read where someone ADMITS their ignorance so blatantly.
Here is a lesson: insulation traps heat
He doesn't. He stopped trying to make a point and broke into full tilt troll-mode now. Just ignore the child.
Indeed, but please don't reference the troll I was trolling, by all means!
Panther has never tried to make a point. He has never made one scientific argument of any kind. It is all just variations on "we disagree, so you're an idiot."
And no, I don't know why I bother to repsond to such trolls. But it makes me mad when people malign science.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ... you're responding within a thread of a post of mine that contains more links and references to scientist that refute everything you have try to say here today than all of the gibberish you have spewed on the matter combined.
Geez, you really are one dumb mother funker ... WOW.
Hey genius, look up!!
Panther, the quotes are interesting, but they refute nothing. They are opinions, and some of them even have some good points. The science on this is extremely complicated. Many of those quotes only address how well we can predict climate change, not whether or not it is happening.
Even if the scientific community was evenly divided, your need to insult people who disagree with your "side" would be pathetic. That is not how legitimate scientific debate is conducted. But in fact anyone who has actually studied the scientific literature knows that there is a strong case to be made for AGW. That doesn't prove it, but it does prove the lie of anyone who calls it a "hoax."
Somehow:
Scientists can send an ultra-complex rover to Mars, but (according to a bunch of red-necks) they can't make simple observations here on earth.
The selfishness and irresponsibility of the far right has reached new heights.
Rednecks aren't the ones that got caught manipulating data from across the globe and if you scroll up a bit I'm sure you'll find a post of mine that has a fairly nice list of people I am fairly sure are not rednecks.
Of course you may be a redneck if you make blanket statements about people that are most likely more intelligent than you.
"Shallow" ... how fitting.
"Of course you may be a redneck if you make blanket statements about people that are most likely more intelligent than you."
Same for you, dear.
And nobody was caught manipulating data in any sort of fraudulent way.
panther,
It is truly stunning to me that you obviously do not have even TWO brain cells to rub together and generate enough computing power to reason that:
Dumping eons-worth of accumulated carbon (atmospheric insulation) into the air over a relative short period of time can overwhelm earths coping mechanisms.
Oil-companies have distracted you with "shiny objects" with surprising ease.
"Shallowred" ... you're simply too dumb for words.
"Jock",
You are a bold face liar ... I know you're no that bright but you cannot expect me to believe you were in a coma last year when the biggest "man-made' global warming scandal was exposed, on a scale that covered the entire "man-made' global warming science community and that that you do not have a browser with a search tool on it.
Jeez, that statement puts you at the very botyom of the food chain when it comes to the human condition. People like you are exactly what has happened to this nation's education system. I hate liars but I especially hate people that lie for no reason ... you are a loser of the most epic proportions.
I'm done with you liar ...
guys the term is E.B.C.A.K. .... look above for reference # 216.8
Guys, I went to the trouble to search that long lists of scientists Kittyhunter was posting........and of the first three found that they were all either being paid by the Kochs or the Cato institute, or Opec, etc. etc. etc. and saw that it would be futile to even continue. Everything he posted faded into complete irrelevance. Pure demagoguery, nothing more. It's not worth your time to even engage the nut. Someone assembled the information and made it available for those like him with an agenda to use. They tried to make it appear "scientific", but any scientist who makes good money publishing what the Kochs or Opec, or the Cato institute want them to is not much of a scientist in my book. They are low life hired guns with no regard for the truth nor concern for any harm their misinformation might be causing the rest of us.
i love to see the teabilly douchstains deny anything remotely related to science. it must seem as magic to them, and thus unreliable. they cannot grasp the scientific model, nor open their tiny, pinched minds wide enough to let in anything resembling a fact. best to just laugh at them, as that is all they are good for. clowns, one and all.
July 2012 0.2 degrees warmer than 1936! Horror of horrors. Man made global warming is so powerful so overwhelming that in 76 years the temp haas risen 0.2 degrees!!!!!
And remember that this is only for the lower 48.
The rest of the world is seeing cooler than normal temperatures. Alaska with its 4th coolest July. The UK with the coolest July in 12 years. And many more cooler temps around the globe.
If anyone is interested in what is really going on with US temperatures:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/dear-noaa-and-seth-which-1930s-were-you-referring-to-when-you-say-july-is-the-record-warmest/
What part of the word TREND do you not understand?
And the article did not claim this had anything to do with global warming.
" in 76 years the temp haas risen 0.2 degrees!!!!!"
That is FALSE
And are you talking celsius or fahrenheit?
Temps have risen over 0.8 % since the late 1800s. there is another 0.6 C warming already cooked in from our current emissions. That makes 1.6 C warming, if we were to magically stop all emissions today.
We won't see all the warming from current emissions for another 20-30 year. That's because there is a time lag in the climate response to radiative forcings, due to the thermal inertia of the oceans.
Temps have risen 0.5 C in the last 50 years.
SailRick-
Dude- You losing it?
You continue to say the same quotes, yet don't respond to what was said.
Authors: Steirou and Koutsoyiannis
European Geosciences Union meeting in 2012
Homogenization errors of data account for half of the warming claimed by the IPCC.
"You continue to say the same quotes, yet don't respond to what was said."
As do you.
All studies of the temperature record at least agree that the heat island effect does not account for ALL of the warming, so I fail to see how that tidbit is any kind of "last word."
Jock-
So the UHI effectr does account for some. Then how much of the warming does UHI account for?
And read the paper I quoted- not related to UHI, but to data manipulation that skewed
the warming results proffered by the IPCC.
That is Anthony Watts co author. And their paper is nonsense as i already pointed out.
You think that just because a skeptical paper got published, it is the last world. Peer review is only the beginning. what you want to look at is how many other scientists cite that paper.
Is there a case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature? Part 3
{from Skeptical Science}
"To reiterate the principal conclusions of this series:
70% of the global warming skeptics identified, including some of the most outspoken, have no scientific publications that deny or cast substantial doubt on global warming.
None of the papers provides the “killer argument,” the one devastating fact that would falsify human-caused global warming. Each skeptic argument has been debunked in other peer-reviewed papers.
The skeptics have no plausible theory to explain the observed global warming.
Even though the evidence for human-caused global warming and the scientific consensus have grown stronger, no skeptic who wrote in the first half of the 1990s has recanted. To be a climate skeptic is to remain a skeptic.
The answer to the question of this series is resounding no: there is no case against human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature."
{read it at Skeptical Science}
(comment by Sphaerica)
".....At this point, the strength of the science is so overwhelmingly strong that the burden does fall on the "skeptics" (a laughable moniker) to provide some evidence that somehow, somewhere, there is something solidly wrong with current theory."
"This entire series of posts shows that despite how desperately some people would like to do that, how many of them there are, how well funded they are, and how much time they have put into the effort, none of them have come remotely close to even denting the mainstream science, let alone damaging it."
Here's what I mean
Semiletov v Dmitrenko: The tale of the tape
"look at the number of times their publications have been cited. ........whether or not their work is useful to others in the field; whether it is considered to be work that needs to be addressed or built upon. Science that doesn't stand the test of time gets superseded or just ignored. .........
One quick example of how this works. Steig (2009) analyzed temperature trends in Antarctica. A "skeptic," Ryan O'Donnell, with assistance from Steig, turned his critique of Steig (2009) into something that successfully navigated peer review -- O'Donnell (2010).
Climate Audit then triumphantly proclaimed "O'Donnell et al 2010 Refutes Steig et al 2009." Watts gloated similarly.
With both publications in print for more than a year, let's see how they're doing:
O'Donnell et al 2010. Cited by 2.
Steig et al, 2009 Cited by 163.
So that's basically how it works. Better science tends to get more citations. "
{read it at IdiotTracker}
I could be wrong about that being Watt's co author, but it's the same argument and is wrong.
Bunny Bait
Why Watts New Paper is Doomed to Fail Review season
"The time of the observation also causes a problem for the analysis. Early in the morning temperature usually is lower than in the afternoon. If the observation time of some station changes for example from morning to afternoon, it causes a warming bias to the data of the station in question. This has caused a false urban heat effect. There is practically no time of observation bias in urban-based stations which have taken their measurements punctually always at the same time, while in the rural stations the times of observation have changed. The change has usually happened from the afternoon to the morning. This causes a cooling bias in the data of the rural stations. Therefore one must correct for the time of observation bias before one tries to determine the effect of the urban heat island." -- Thomas Karl
{Read at Rabbet Run}
-------------------
Watts' New Paper - Analysis and Critique
The primary conclusion of the paper, aside from not being supported by the analysis, is simply implausible. The CONUS surface warming trend proposed by the Watts paper appears to be inconsistent with the satellite observations, and overall global trends in raw data do not differ dramatically from those in the adjusted data. Comparing raw to adjusted data globally shows a rather small difference in long-term trends; far smaller than a factor of two.
{read at Skeptical Science}
Chris de Freitas is who saw to it that heavily flawed papers by skeptics like Soon and Baulinius got published.
Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
We often hear claims from climate contrarians that climate scientists are guilty of what they describe as "pal review."
However, while climate contrarians are never able to produce any evidence to support their conspiracy theory, John Mashey has thoroughly documented a real world example of true pal review. Contrary to the standard conspiracy theory, the pal review did not involve mainstream climate scientists, but instead the climate contrarians themselves.
That particular journal was once again brought to the forefront in the recent second Climategate stolen email release.
In those emails, various climate scientists had expressed concern that Climate Research was publishing shoddy papers by a small group of climate contrarians, and discussed what they could do about it. The most infamous of these papers was one by Soon and Baliunas (2003) which concluded that current global temperatures are not anomalous compared the past 1,000 years. After publishing this paper, Soon was invited by Senator James Inhofe to testify before US Congress, and the Soon and Baliunas paper was used by Congressional Republicans to justify opposition to climate legislation.
However, the paper contained numerous major fundamental flaws, such as equating dryness with hotness, and was subsequently roundly refuted by an article in the American Geophysical Union journal Eos written by a number of prominent climate scientists. This paper, and Climate Research's refusal to revise or retract it, led to the resignation of five of the journal's editors, including recently-appointed editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, who explained the reason for his resignation:
A group of 14 climate contrarians found a sympathetic journal editor who proceeded to publish a large number of papers from this group over a very short timeframe, many of which were scientifically flawed, some of which were subsequently used by politicians to oppose climate legislation.
Ironically, the climate scientists who tried to do something about this problem have themselves been accused of trying to "hijack" or "subvert" the peer-review process. And of course the guiltiest party of all, Patrick Michaels has accused thousands of climate scientists of the sort of pal review he himself engaged in.
{read at Skeptical Science}
"Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was reported to have said in a 2003 paper for Energy & Environment:"
Energy and Environment has NO credibility as a scientific journal.
At this point; what the far right is doing is bordering on evil;
the greed has consumed the richest and most powerful and the minions are conned into supporting them;
SailRick-
Respond to comments and quit cutting and pasting mass quantities, or kindly leave this to people
that actually want to respond to what other people say.
I am responding to your comments. I am using quotes from my notes of 4 years of hard work, learning about the science.
sail,
what is your point?
Nevermind...
use your research to formulate a point;
I am not saying I disagree with you, but use your own words
He is a propagandist just like most of you losers ... none of what he has posted is his work. Exactly 100% of it is copy and paste and a great deal of it is from Skeptic Science.
That ignorant half-wit doesn't have an original thought is the entirety of his feeble mind ... just like most of you clowns.
panther,
you spew more ignorance than any poster I have ever read;
I bet you also call yourself "responsible" as well.
Romney is smart. You will be left behind; where you belong.
Panther, your insults make your case laughable at best. I don't agree with anyone copying and pasting as much as Rick or you in these types of forums, but at least he has clearly done more research on this than you. You have pasted something from Wikipedia, and made no other indication tha you even undesrtand what it says. I am interested in debating science, not quotes.
Royal
Your list of skeptics is just the usual bunch of long debunked deniers.
Don Esterbrook is another fake skeptic
read the articles and see how absurd Don Easterbrook is.
-----
The incorrigible Easterbrook
"Don Easterbrook? The retired geologist who steals other people’s work and alters it to suit his purposes? The one who uses Greenland ice core data but misunderstands and misrepresents it?
Yup, that Easterbrook. (he now claims the earth is cooling and he predicted it)"
{read at Hot Topic}
----------------------
"Lessons from Past Climate Predictions: Don Easterbrook"
"In 2008, "skeptic" geologist Don Easterbook gave a presentation at the American Geophysical Union annual meeting, re-posted on "skeptic" blog WattsUpWithThat (WUWT) in which he predicted imminent global cooling"
{at Skeptical Science}
------Prof. Don Easterbrook has a piece "Global Cooling is Here: Evidence for
Predicting Global Cooling for the Nest Three Decades" that has been getting some
attention in the blogosphere in which he claims global warming has ended and
that global cooling will occur over the next several
decades.
Easterbrook’s analysis is hopelessly flawed, and one is left to
wonder just why he would intentionally shoot down his own credibility with such
sloppiness. Any support of this work on internet sources is not a support of any
actual science or data, but an appeal to authority.
In short, there is
absolutely no science in Easterbrook’s article, and much of it is based on
misrepresentations of the IPCC and ignorance of the climate system he is
analyzing. His implication that a changing PDO almost assures us for a coming
cooling period is just wishful thinking, but he doesn’t understand the
difference between a “signal” and “noise” or what the PDO actually does. He
effectively assumes that greenhouse gases have had minimal impact, and will do
so, without quantifying this argument. As such, there is no basis for his
conclusion that global warming is over and that global cooling is awaiting us."
{Chris Colose at Word Press}
----------
"Slick Rick the Habitual Liar, Ultra SPAMMER & Consummate Idiot"
Scientists in this section have made comments that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.
This is just for you Slick Rick the Habitual Liar & "Normal Person" the Retard ...
Scientists in this section have made comments that the observed warming is more likely attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.
Why do you keep including the first group of quotes, under the category "They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low"?
Panther, would you please stop posting the same stuff over and over again. It is even more childish than your infantile name calling.
So, leftist propaganda SPAM is OK with you losers but when someone else does it then it's not Kosher ... got it, thanks for the heads up dummy.
Panther, copying the same long post 20 times is never OK whether it is propaganda or sacred truth.
SailRick-
Then READ and respond to the particular paper I talked about-
Steirou and Koutsoyiannis
European Geosciences Union meeting in 2012
Homogenization errors of data account for half of the warming claimed by the IPCC.
You continue to post mass quantities of text that have NOTHING to do with it.
What exactly do you want us to learn from this paper? Most climate scientists have long ago confirmed that the UHI cannot explain all of the observed changes.
The question of whether or not we can see the global warming signal yet is an interesting one, but of course has little to do with the prediction of AGW.
Jock-
I won"t cut and paste so here it is in a nutshell-
Statistical homogenization errors by the scientists who control the temperature log data
from stations used methods that skewed the record to show a global warming signal
66% of the time.
These skewed temperature records are what's being used to report "Hottest _______— ever!"
Fill in the blank with your choice of headline- day, month, year, summer, etc.
This is a separate issue from any UHI signal.
OK. I agree the "hottest ever" media line is not helpful, but this particular article did not claim that it had anything to do with global warming. The question of whether we can see a global warming signal yet or not is a question of statistics that is extremely difficult to answer. And of course proving a warming trend would not by itself prove anything about the cause anyway. Nevertheless there are good arguments to be made that some of the changes we are seeing are due to climate change, and that they fit the greenhouse gas hypothesis better than can be explained by natural causes alone.
SailRick=
I've posted no list of skeptics.
You're not even reading my posts.
You feeling OK?
These far-right knuckle-draggers are in for a big surprise;
Romney is smart.
He knows what we have done, and are doing, to our planet;
He is a good and responsible man;
IF HE WINS: He WILL take environmental actions, including smart-energy and oil-reduction.
And the red-necks will be left behind; huddled on an abandoned island of dogma; with the sea rising from melting ice.
It's true. Global warming is real. That's why the wooly mammoth and saber toothed tiger are extinct. That's what enabled the Cro Magnon to swarm out of Africa and overwhelm the Neanderthal. BTW, while it was a hot, dry summer in the USA, I noticed that the beach volleyball girls at the olympics were wearing warmups instead of bikinis becuse it was cold and damp in England. Do you suppose the Cro Magnons were jet setters and caused global warming?
and we are adding to the natural production of carbon (a.k.a. atmospheric insulation);
it is a simple concept;
MORE insulation traps MORE heat
Gee Bob, that's why the mammoth and the sabre toothed tiger are extinct. I didn't know that, and I thought that scientists were unsure why that happened. Apparently, these extinctions, beach volleyball, weather in England, and Cro Magnons all tie together in your mind and are somehow relevant in a discussion of the earth undergoing a very rapid warming due to a human caused increase in atmospheric CO2.
Did you learn all that scientific data at yard cutting school Jethro and why do you lemmings hate plant food so much?
Panther, why do you think that is a helpful comment? Do you think that people do not realize that plants need CO2 to survive? Do you think that anyone is suggesting reducing CO2 levels?
Don't try reasoning with Panther. He is just another run-of-the-mill right wing fool. They are ignorant and close-minded. Once an idea lodges in their brain, it is there forever and no amount of facts and logic is going to dislodge it. He'll be denying global warming when all the glaciers are gone, and you can buy ocean front property right outside Kansas City and Dallas.
Are you talking about the glaciers that are gaining mass or the ones that are losing mass dummy?
Panther, is it possible for you to make a comment without infantile name calling?
Panther, indeed some glaciers are gaining mass. Most are not.
That's not anything but a bunch of words strung together into an almost incoherent statement. In other words you made that crap up and didn't look to see if it were even remotely true, which it isn't. And it's Woolly not wooly.