NOAA report shows warmer weather in U.S.
By Ashlie Rodriguez, Los Angeles Times
The new normal is warmer.
“The climate of the 2000s is about 1.5 degree Fahrenheit warmer than the 1970s, so we would expect the updated 30-year normals to be warmer,” said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center.
That recent temperature trend was enough to drag the three-decade moving average, from 1981 to 2010, up by half a degree Fahrenheit from the 1971 to 2000 period, according to the report by NOAA.
The 30-year baseline is used by scientists to understand climate conditions and trends, including climate change. Besides providing a perspective for daily weather records, the data are widely used by utilities to project energy use, by farmers to make decisions on crop selection and planting times, and by others whose livelihoods are dependent on weather.
“”The use of 30-year normals is misleading because the temperature pattern within each is different,” said Tim Ball, chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, who is currently speaking at an international conference on climate change put on by the Heartland Institute, which is skeptical of global warming.”
The Heartland Institute, the same people who took money from tobacco companies to say that cigarettes are not harmful. They are not a group that is keen on science. They are paid to present what appears to be science in a light that makes their customers look good. Notice how they say a 30 year average is not a good indicator of climate, yet they offer no alternative way to analyze the data. They probably never will. All skeptics have to do to win is fault the discussion from going anywhere.
Just like conservation robot I believe everything our government tells us. They have no axe to grind like attempting to control your life and behavior.
Please folks, climate would be considered metascience by any honset scientist, if you can find any who depend on government handouts for funding.
The earth gets warmer, the earth gets cooler as it has for billions of years. In fact even before evil homo sapiens came along.
The government doesn’t hand them money and say ‘we want to show that the climate is changing’ They say ‘go collect climate data’. The first example is what the Heartland Institute is involved in.
I think you are a little paranoid. And don’t know but about the scientific process.
Also the scientific consensus is global.
It is part of planning for the future, because what is happening is a rate of change in the climate that might by too great to be sorted out naturally.
The rest of your arguments are pretty weak cop-outs.
I would love to hear your explanation for why climatology is metascience. Let me guess, you read or heard someone else call climatology metascience as a way to cheapen their opponent and further their skeptic message.
THE WORLD HAS BEEN WARMING UP SINCE THE ICE AGE AND THAT WAS NOT LAST WEEK OR LAST YEAR AND WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT, CANT CHANGE IT, ALL WE CAN DO IS MAKE STUPID PREDICTIONS AND USELESS ARGUMENTS, THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE SO POWERFUL AND CLEVER THAT THEY CAN CHANGE THE WEATHER.
All caps is so 1990s.
Chicken Little was right! Remember the cries of “Little Ice Age” from the 70’s? Why can’t we just accept that the weather changes?
Few scientists predicted warming during that time period.
Learn more about the ‘1970s little ice age’ argument and its flaws here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm
Well said, Where is the turnip truck! And David Dewitt, pretty much agree with you! Yep, it’s a nice vague report! Someone will try and be an Al Gore and profit from it, including a few government agencies!
Yes, news flash! Our Climate will be different in the future, just like it was different in the past!!
A vague report you say….
The compressed dataset is at least 200 megabytes. And it clearly show an increase in temperature.
How could that possibly be vague? I am going to go out on a limb and say that you didn’t go to noaa’s website to view the entire report.
Why does everything you say end in an exclamation point?!
You know, I must be doing something right the way you go after me and I garner so much of you attention, The Conservation Robot?! I found the report vague! Others clearly do! You disagree, great! That’s what makes America and Freedom of Speech great!
Counter with whatever points you like-such as your 200 megabyte comment. That’s what’s called a counter point!
When it’s stated, “so we would expect the updated 30-year normals to be warmer,” I consider vague. In fact that is vague! If I sated, “I can expect the stock market or real estate to be up in value 30 years from now,” that would be vague! Saying, “The stock market will be up 10% in one year based on the following data…” would be a specific prediction!
We expect 30 yrs. from now.., can be interpreted and used and misused in all sorts of ways!! And I use exclamation points, because that’s how I choose to express myself!!! Happy Independence Day to the Good Old USA!!!!!!!
And I meant to say, “garner so much of ‘your’ attention”.
CONSERVATION ROBOT AT LEAST I USE MY NAME ON MY COMMENTS I DONT HIDE BEHIND SOME DUMB NAME I WAS BORN IN 1932 WHAT IS YOUR EXCUSE
WE MUST REALIZE THAT WHAT YOU READ HERE ARE OPINIONS
NOT FACTS, SOME OF OUR OPINIONS ARE ARRIVED AT BY READING
OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS, AND TIME HAS PROVEN THAT EVEN THE SO CALLED
EXPERTS CAN BE WRONG. SO THERE IS NO REASON TO GET YOUR NICKERS
IN A NOT OVER SPELLING AND CAPS OR EVEN PSEUDO NAMES ON OPINIONS.
Seriously I can’t even read anything that is in ALL CAPS. Just press the button and the off Caps Lock. It is hard to read. If you don’t want to use the shift key to capitalize things, don’t, that is fine, because lower case letters are easier to read.
My hobby is outing climate change deniers as being unfamiliar with the topic and the science.
Did you go to NOAAs website and read the reports? I don’t think you did. You didn’t even read the summary report or watch the slide show. I know this because of the quote you use, to call the report ‘vague’.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2010.php
The sentence you quoted that is ‘vague’ is actually you a scientist is supposed to talk about statistical data.
The report, is not vague. It makes clear statement about multiple indicator of climate, over the entire earth. The full report is 218 pages. The data set from the report is massive.
HA! I just realized that you quote isn’t even from the report….. I don’t even know what to tell you about that. The scientist was speaking about the report, that at the time hadn’t even been released. He was being vague because he didn’t want to make a strong statement about an unreleased report.
My goodness you are dense.
I guess the use of exclamation points at the end of every sentence, even if it is just a simple statement, is a Berkeley thing.
The report is out here are some links.
Slideshow: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/2010/webinar-briefing-slides.pdf
Full report, with data, can be found here: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/normals/1981-2010/
Full report with images, etc, 218 pages: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2010.php
No The Conservation Robot, you’re the dense one!! If you had an argument to make, you’d make it! Instead of making an argument, you engage in personal attacks!
Have one of the people that are helping you, (I noticed you slipped up and used the word ‘we’ in one of your previous blogs!) coach you on how to rebut someone. Here’s a hint: You counter with facts, not personal attacks!
The amazing thing in all this is that very few people are stating that the climate in the future will be exactly, 100% the same as it is today! Many are just pointing out that there have also been changes in the climate in the past! We’re talking from 30 yrs ago, 100, yrs. ago, and thousands of years ago, before there were factories, farms and even mankind! That’s a simple fact!!! And it requires multiple exclamation points because people need to understand that!
So you didn’t actually read the report before you called it vague?
My argument: The report is not vague. My proof, the report.