August 14, 2012

The Sound Of Settled Science

Posted by Kate at August 14, 2012 4:35 PM

The recent dramatic drop in anomalous weather is a clear sign of an anomalous climate.

Posted by: rabbit at August 14, 2012 5:54 PM

So, if you are older than 77, you actually experienced two warmer summers than this last summer.

Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at August 14, 2012 5:55 PM

Unless you are only 78, then you experienced only one summer warmer than this last one.


Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at August 14, 2012 5:57 PM

So the problem, once again, is the selection of data, location and time frames followed by media spin. You think thoughtful journalists might want to dig a bit deeper into the press releases.

I found this bit informative and yet it was not mentioned by any news organizations- "Before I leave this plot, someone may ask, “But what about those thousands of daily records that we were told were broken this year?” Unfortunately, there is a lot of confusion about that. Records are announced by NOAA for stations with as little as 30 years of data, i.e. starting as late as 1981. As a result, any moderately hot day now will generate a lot of “record highs."

Posted by: LC Bennett at August 14, 2012 6:07 PM

Does this mean I don't have to listen to the histrionics about CO2 emissions anymore?

Didn't think so.

Posted by: Robert of Penticton at August 14, 2012 6:54 PM

Undeniable proof that the world is cooling.

Posted by: Gord Tulk at August 14, 2012 6:56 PM

I see everyone in the MSM has forgotten the Dust Bowl, where the entire Midwest from the Mississippi to the Rockies pretty much became a drought-stricken desert from 1931 to 1939.

Posted by: The Phantom at August 14, 2012 7:16 PM

Agreed Ken (Kulak).

There are 3 things that also come out of what you say, with regard to those who support "Global Warming".

1. Most of the folks that remember the heat of the 30s have either passed away or are at a stage of life where they are not interested or involved. Certainly, no one goes to them for their opinion.

2. Most of the folks that are younger, only have the cooler weather of the 70s to compare with today's warmer temps. They are therefore more easily swayed, because they never experienced the even hotter temperatures of the 30s.

3. Warmists always alarm the younger generation and guilt their parents by projecting the danger to a time in the future when nobody today will be alive to prove whether they are right or wrong.

Warmists feel this and not honesty is the best way to get what they want out of you and me.

It has worked thus far.

Posted by: Frank Q. at August 14, 2012 8:43 PM

Weird looking hockey stick if you ask me.

Buy long johns, we are overdue for the next ice age.

Posted by: Fred at August 14, 2012 8:44 PM

Ice ages really bugger your real estate prices, but I've heard the next one will only remove the media buildings of the believers in global warming, so everyone on this blog, other than Froggie separatistee, that has the mental capacity to understand a 5 billion year old planet does what it wants, is completly safe. Unless it is hit by meteorites that open up 40 mile wide craters, then it dusts itself off, sheds the dinosaurs and continues. Only the STUPID need worry about globall warming, it is coming for the stupid only, kind of like a selective bogeyman.

Posted by: bartinsky at August 14, 2012 9:36 PM

it's them windmills, man. ever since they put them up, it's been getting cooler

Posted by: ed h at August 15, 2012 12:00 AM

The graph comes from Dr. John Christy:

"But for climatologists, the more interesting result is the average of the total number of records in ten-year periods to see the longer-term character. The smooth curve shows that 10-year periods in the 1930s generated about twice as many hot-day records as the most recent decades. Note too, that if you want to find a recent, unrepresentative, “quiet” period for extremes, the 1950s to 1970s will do (see Part 2 to be posted later)."

If data is tortured sufficiently, it will confess to anything. The alarmists are torture experts.

Posted by: Don B at August 15, 2012 8:44 AM

I work with a lot of young women - average age of 20. For them, the world began when they were about 5 (about 1997)and everything before that (history, economics) simply does not matter. So of course, this has been"like the hottest summer ever!"

Posted by: Big Momma at August 15, 2012 9:39 AM


Once again, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. While the good professor makes a number of points - the difference between min/max temperature causes chief amongst them - a diminishing number of new Tmax temps is not significant.

Do this simple thought experiment: Assume that 1934-36 established the all Tmax highs by the end of 1936. Then, for the next 70 years, although it was generally cooler, occasionally local conditions would produce a new high Tmax at a weather station. This would result in a pattern of a dropping number of high Tmax measurements, regardless of whether you measured one year or ten year periods.

Now assume, by some freak of nature, that 2010-2012 exactly duplicated the temperatures of 1934-1936. In other words, if it was 100 degrees in Oklahoma City on July 24, 1935, it was 100 degrees in Oklahoma City on July 24, 2011. How many new high Tmax measurements would you make during 2010-2012? ZERO. Would you be justified in saying that, because there no new high Tmax temps, 2010-2012 was cooler than 34-36? Clearly no; they are exactly the same.

Now, that's a bit fanciful, but here's another take on it: assume temps for one city on any given day, say August 15, are normally distributed about some mean - say 75 degrees for Toronto. Some years will be warmer, some years will be hotter. You decided, back in 1904, to start measuring the daily max temp in Toronto. All things being equal, what was the chance that the max temp on August 15, 1924 would be the new high Tmax? 1 in 20, or 5%. By 1944, the chance would be 1 in 40, or 2.5%. By 2004, the chance would be 1 in 100. In other words, you would expect to see a falling number of new high Tmax's if you don't believe the earth is getting warmer.

The chart starts at 1895, and says it's for stations with 80 years of data. I interpret this to mean they're going back to 1815. What's the chance of the temp being a max in almost 200 years of measuring? 0.5% There are 970 stations in the study. 365 days in the year. By random chance, we should be getting 0.005 * 365 * 970 = 1,770 new high Tmax each year.

But the chart shows we are getting about 3,000 of these a year, or about twice as many as you would expect from chance.

I don't believe in the CO2 scam, but to look at this chart and believe the world is cooling is naive.

Posted by: KevinB at August 15, 2012 1:06 PM