- Al Gore and his Illuminati buddies to rake in billions for nothing - VIDEO
Average temperature over past 10,000 years is 15°C - In literature published after the 1997 report by Worldwatch Institute, the leaders of the global warming movement seem to have started using 14 degrees Celsius for the global average temperature.
- "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," appeared in Science in August 1981
- Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling | 05/16/2018.
Fourteen Is the New Fifteen!
According to the leaders of the global warming doomsday cult, the average surface temperature of Earth is 14 degrees Celsius (57.2 degrees Fahrenheit), but this is a new value which has quietly replaced the original average of 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit).
One of the scientists, Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, said he used the 30-year period 1950-1980, when the average global temperature was 59 degrees Fahrenheit, as a base to determine temperature variations.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/29/science/temperature-for-world-rises-sharply-in-the-1980-s.html
__
In July of the same year, a report in the Connecticut-based newspaper The Day was consistent with this claim. According to the Day's report on Hansen's congressional testimony:
Dr. Hansen informed the lawmakers that the first five months of 1988 were the hottest five-month period on record, averaging four-tenths of a degree above a 30-year (1950-1980) norm of 59 degrees Fahrenheit.
Although Hansen's recent publications provide his version of the differences from the base temperature for various years, he is careful enough not to provide either the observed temperatures or the value of the baseline temperature. However, Hansen at one time revealed his base value in an academic publication.
That paper, "Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide," appeared in Science in August 1981 and states:
The mean surface temperature is Ts ~ 288 K.
Two hundred and eighty-eight K, or 288 Kelvin, is the same as 15 degrees Celsius.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha04600x.html
A report in the Schenectady-based Daily Gazette indicates that Hansen and his colleague Helene Wilson used this value at least as late as 1992. Thus, Hansen consistently used 15 degrees Celsius as the baseline average for several years.
Byron of Atlanta gets a workout while using an environment-friendly mode of transportation to haul his Christmas tree to a Georgia Power pickup point. The discarded Christmas three will be recycled into mulch.
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=S2xGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=7ugMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4134,2440761&dq=helene+wilson+59+fahrenheit+hansen&hl=en
James Hansen was not the only person to use this value. When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was set up soon after Hansen's 1988 testimony before the Congress, came out with its First Assessment Report in 1990, a table on page xxxvii of the report listed the "Observed Surface Temperature" of Earth as 15 degrees Celsius.
According to McMichael's 1993 book;
"Planetary Overload: Global Environmental Change and the Health of the Human Species"
Average temperature over past 10,000 years = 15°C
As it turned out, the average temperature of 15 degrees Celsius was an inconvenient value that did not support the allegations of global warming.
The paper pointed out that the predictions made by climate models were not consistent with observed data and the variability in temperature likely resulted from natural phenomena.
... the signature of greenhouse warming is scarcely evident in the observational data[.] ... It is possible that observed trends in phase, largely influenced by mid-latitude continental interiors, do not arise from greenhouse warming, but rather from natural variability. Such a notion is reinforced by the fact that marginally-significant trends are found in the control GFDL annual cycle, presumably due to organized century-scale internal variability.If, on the other hand, the observed variation in the seasonal cycle truly represents a "fingerprint" of greenhouse warming, the GFDL and CCM1 models do not appear capable of capturing the detailed responses of the seasonal cycle to greenhouse forcing....Discrepancies between the observed and model-predicted trends must be resolved before a compelling connection can be drawn between 20th century changes in the behavior of the annual cycle in temperature, and anthropogenic forcing of the climate.
Significantly, Mann used 15 degrees Celsius as the baseline temperature while calculating the parameters of the annual temperature cycle (see Figure 2 in his paper). Although he could have picked any value in the cycle, he picked 15 degrees Celsius, and it is reasonable to assume that he did so because it was the accepted long-term global average temperature.
https://web.archive.org/web/20060608161936/http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3604
In literature published after the 1997 report by Worldwatch Institute, the leaders of the global warming movement seem to have started using 14 degrees Celsius for the global average temperature.
In 2002, the Sydney Morning Herald quoted James Hansen, who mentioned this new average.
This was published 17 years ago
'Global warming blamed for heat'
This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world.
See the acticle at the end of the page
The IPCC too now uses 14 degrees Celsius as its base temperature, as can be seen from a graph that is part of its 2007 document :
(As an aside, it was in 2007 that IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. IPCC certainly deserved a Nobel Prize, but it should have been for literature, as the organization had excelled in writing fantasy.)
Linear trend fits to the last 25 (yellow), 50 (orange), 100 (purple) and 150 years (red) are shown, and correspond to 1981 to 2005, 1956 to 2005, 1906 to 2005, and 1856 to 2005, respectively.
Note that for shorter recent periods, the slope is greater, indicating accelerated warming. The blue curve is a smoothed depiction to capture the decadal variations. To give an idea of whether the fluctuations are meaningful, decadal 5% to 95% (light grey) error ranges about that line are given (accordingly, annual values do exceed those limits).
Results from climate models driven by estimated radiative forcings for the 20th century (Chapter 9) suggest that there was little change prior to about 1915, and that a substantial fraction of the early 20th-century change was contributed by naturally occurring influences including solar radiation changes, volcanism and natural variability.
From about 1940 to 1970 the increasing industrialisation following World War II increased pollution in the Northern Hemisphere, contributing to cooling, and increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases dominate the observed warming after the mid-1970s.
(Bottom) Patterns of linear global temperature trends from 1979 to 2005 estimated at the surface (left), and for the troposphere (right) from the surface to about 10 km altitude, from satellite records. Grey areas indicate incomplete data. Note the more spatially uniform warming in the satellite tropospheric record while the surface temperature changes more clearly relate to land and ocean.
More recently, a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office attributes an estimated average surface air temperature of 287 K, or 14 degrees Celsius, to James Hansen and his colleagues.
But Hansen and colleagues have estimated that Earth's actual average surface air temperature between 1951 and 1980 was approximately 287 K (14 degrees Celsius) (Hansen et al. 2010).
It is hard to pinpoint the exact date when the change from 15 degrees to 14 degrees was introduced. It most likely happened sometime in 1997, and definitely no later than January of 1998.
The 1998 edition of the annual publication of Worldwatch Institute uses 14 degrees Celsius as the global average temperature and provides details of how it was informed of the change from 15 degrees Celsius.
On page 69 of the report, a footnote below the table listing the global average temperatures for several years states:
Base number is 1 degree Celsius lower than in earlier Vital Signs.
Vital Signs 1998: The Environmental Trends that are Shaping Our Future
On page 174 of the same report, we see the explanation for the change.
In earlier versions of Vital Signs, Worldwatch added the temperature change reported by the Goddard Institute to an estimated global temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, but the institute has since informed Worldwatch that a better base number would be 14 degrees Celsius. James Hansen, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, email to author, 18 January 1998.
In other words, James Hansen sent word that 14 is the new 15.
106 Comments
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2012/11/fourteen_is_the_new_fifteen.html
____
Al Gore and his Illuminati buddies to rake in billions for nothing - VIDEO
This was published 17 years ago
Global warming blamed for heat
December 14, 2002 — 11.00am
This year has been the second warmest year on record, say NASA scientists in the United States who monitor global air temperatures.
A record-breaking spell of warmth in recent years - with 2001 going down as the third warmest year on record and 1998 still holding the record - has scientists and climate experts concerned that greenhouse gases are heating up the planet more quickly than previously expected.
"Studying these annual temperature data, one gets the feeling that temperature is rising and that the rise is gaining momentum," said Lester Brown, an economist and president of the Earth Policy Institute in Washington.
This year the Earth's average temperature was 14.64C, compared with the long-term average of 14C, said James Hansen, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who analyses the data collected from thousands of weather stations around the world.
The meteorological year runs from December to November. During that period, 2001 temperatures were 14.51C. The record remains with 1998, when global temperature rose to 14.67C - the highest since records were first compiled in the late 1800s. The string of warmer years provides evidence that humans are largely to blame for changing the climate, said Peter Frumhoff, an ecologist and senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"It's important we pay attention to this drumbeat of evidence as the signal of human impact starts to emerge from the noise of natural climate patterns," he said.
The warm temperatures of 2001 and 2002 are especially significant when they are considered in the light of El Nino weather patterns that alter global climate, Mr Hansen said.
Some of the heat of 1998 can be attributed to a large El Nino event that year, which warmed the waters of the Pacific. But last year there was a La Nina event, which kept temperatures from soaring even higher. There is a weak El Nino developing now, but it is not generating nearly as much heat as one of 1998. "The fact that 2002 is almost as warm as the unusual warmth of 1998 is confirmation that the underlying global warming trend is continuing," Mr Hansen said.
Los Angeles Times
https://www.smh.com.au/world/global-warming-blamed-for-heat-20021214-gdfyre.html
https://archive.vn/ldRAS
___
Don't Tell Anyone, But We Just Had Two Years Of Record-Breaking Global Cooling
Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years. Not that you'd know it, since that wasn't deemed news. Does that make NASA a global warming denier?
Writing in Real Clear Markets, Aaron Brown looked at the official NASA global temperature data and noticed something surprising. From February 2016 to February 2018, "global average temperatures dropped by 0.56 degrees Celsius." That, he notes, is the biggest two-year drop in the past century.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
"The 2016-2018 Big Chill," he writes, "was composed of two Little
Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the
fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February
to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average."
Isn't this just the sort of man-bites-dog story that the mainstream media always says is newsworthy?
In this case, it didn't warrant any news coverage.
In fact, in the three weeks since Real Clear Markets ran Brown's story, no other news outlet picked up on it. They did, however, find time to report on such things as tourism's impact on climate change, how global warming will generate more hurricanes this year, and threaten fish habitats, and make islands uninhabitable. They wrote about a UN official saying that "our window of time for addressing climate change is closing very quickly."
Reporters even found time to cover a group that says they want to carve President Trump's face into a glacier to prove climate change "is happening."
In other words, the mainstream news covered stories that repeated
what climate change advocates have been saying ad nauseam for decades.
That's not to say that a two-year stretch of cooling means that global warming is a hoax. Two years out of hundreds or thousands doesn't necessarily mean anything. And there could be a reasonable explanation. But the drop in temperatures at least merits a "Hey, what's going on here?" story.
What's more, journalists are perfectly willing to jump on any individual weather anomaly — or even a picture of a starving polar bear — as proof of global warming. (We haven't seen any stories pinning Hawaii's recent volcanic activity on global warming yet, but won't be surprised if someone tries to make the connection.)
We've noted this refusal to cover inconvenient scientific findings many times in this space over the years.
Hiding The Evidence
There was the study published in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate showing that climate models exaggerate global warming from CO2 emissions by as much as 45%. It was ignored.
Then there was the study in the journal Nature Geoscience that found that climate models were faulty, and that, as one of the authors put it, "We haven't seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models."
Nor did the press see fit to report on findings from the University of Alabama-Huntsville showing that the Earth's atmosphere appears to be less sensitive to changing CO2 levels than previously assumed.
How about the fact that the U.S. has cut CO2 emissions over the past 13 years faster than any other industrialized nation? Or that polar bear populations are increasing? Or that we haven't seen any increase in violent weather in decades?
Crickets.
Reporters no doubt worry that covering such findings will only embolden "deniers" and undermine support for immediate, drastic action.
But if fears of catastrophic climate change are warranted — which we seriously doubt — ignoring things like the rapid cooling in the past two years carries an even bigger risk.
Suppose, Brown writes, the two-year cooling trend continues. "At some point the news will leak out that all global warming since 1980 has been wiped out in two and a half years, and that record-setting events went unreported."
He goes on: "Some people could go from uncritical acceptance of steadily rising temperatures to uncritical refusal to accept any warming at all."
Brown is right. News outlets should decide what gets covered based on
its news value, not on whether it pushes an agenda. Otherwise, they're
doing the public a disservice and putting their own already shaky
credibility at greater risk.
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/climate-change-global-warming-earth-cooling-media-bias/
eof
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti