Deceptive temperature record claims

[flacaltenn]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

Rather than argue with statistics lets simply talk about how global warming is said to be occurring by our own actions. The burning of fossil fuels and massive amounts of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere right?

You seem to be very informed on the subject so tell me what do you think are the primary direct and indirect consequences of this specific event?

CO2 does have power to warm the surface. What it DOESN'T HAVE is the superpowers attributed to it by the GWarming theory. According the theory -- man's emissions are just the "TRIGGER" that will set off a chain of events (positive feedbacks, runaway GreenHouse effect, Hollywood scale destruction and mayhem) that will cause the planet to commit suicide. All of the nasty world-ending stuff you've been fed --- man emitted CO2 by itself cannot do.

HOW MUCH warming to expect from man-made CO2 emissions? Basic science (based on the warming power of CO2 by ITSELF) is about 1degC/doubling. So you go from 280ppm CO2 in pre-industrial age to 560ppm sometime in the future and you get 1degC warmer.

Global Warming theory however started out circa 1980 or so predicting 4 or 8 degC by 2100 and up to 11degC in the Northern Lattitudes. Hence the frightening of the masses and the political involvement.

NONE of those early projections still stand. But the POLITICAL AMBITION to keep the hysteria going is strong..

 

[westwall]

The Alaska Climate Research Center

Temperature Changes in Alaska
The topic of climate change has attracted widespread attention in recent years and is an issue that numerous scientists study on various time and space scales. One thing for sure is that the earth's climate has and will continue to change as a result of various natural and anthropogenic forcing mechanisms.

This page features the trends in mean annual and seasonal temperatures for Alaska's first-order observing stations since 1949, the time period for which the most reliable meteorological data are available. The temperature change varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean annual temperatures, the average change over the last 6 decades is 3.0°F. However, when analyzing the trends for the four seasons, it can be seen that most of the change has occurred in winter and spring, with the least amount of change in autumn.

Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

Temperature Changes in Alaska Figures


You may view charts of temperature climate trends by location here.

What I immediately noticed was every single weather station is in an urban area and they track amazingly well to the population increase. So basically they are measuring the Urban Island Effect and not the actual interior temps.

 

[flacaltenn]

The Alaska Climate Research Center

Temperature Changes in Alaska
The topic of climate change has attracted widespread attention in recent years and is an issue that numerous scientists study on various time and space scales. One thing for sure is that the earth's climate has and will continue to change as a result of various natural and anthropogenic forcing mechanisms.

This page features the trends in mean annual and seasonal temperatures for Alaska's first-order observing stations since 1949, the time period for which the most reliable meteorological data are available. The temperature change varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean annual temperatures, the average change over the last 6 decades is 3.0°F. However, when analyzing the trends for the four seasons, it can be seen that most of the change has occurred in winter and spring, with the least amount of change in autumn.

Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

Temperature Changes in Alaska Figures


You may view charts of temperature climate trends by location here.

What I immediately noticed was every single weather station is in an urban area and they track amazingly well to the population increase. So basically they are measuring the Urban Island Effect and not the actual interior temps.

Here's the best part.. When they use those urban stations to cover all that "empty space" with invented data -- guess how THAT turns out?? Especially if the interpretators are not big fans of UHI adjustments.

 

[Old Rocks]

Them thar damned urban islands are melting all the permafrost in Alaska, yessirreee......... Bob!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

^ irony.

When the guy who dismisses 2% land uses events on a tiny fraction of 2% land as irrefutable "proof" of his flawed, failed theory

 

[Old Rocks]

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) - The National Weather Service (NWS), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense operate this network of 968 stations located throughout the United States (48 in Alaska). The data generally available from ASOS stations includes hourly (and special) observations of air temperature, dew point, wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, visibility, present weather, and precipitation. Via modem data can be obtained every minute (typically the most recent ~8 hours of observations are kept at the stations). For further information on the NWS ASOS home page or the FAA Automated Sensors home page.



Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS) - The FAA and various state agencies (particularly Aviation Divisions of state Departments of Transportation) operate this network of 900 stations located throughout the United States (66 in Alaska). While data is generally available from 552 of these stations (55 in Alaska), the data from the other 348 stations (11 in Alaska) is currently only available via dialup modem (typically the most recent ~3 weeks of observations are kept at the stations). These stations typically provide 20-minute observations of air temperature, dew point, wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, visibility, altimeter setting, present weather and precipitation. For further information on the AWOS network visit the FAA Automated Sensors home page.



Other METAR Reports - In addition to the ASOS and AWOS there are a number of other observation stations that provide. These include several military stations and sites that report manual observations. There are 249 such observation locations located throughout the United States (33 in Alaska). A large proportion of these observations are limited in some fashion (e.g. no observations at night or just one or two observations in a day). The parameters available vary from station to station, but most provide air temperature, dew point, wind speed, wind direction, cloud cover, and present weather.



NOAA/NWS Cooperative Observer Program - The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Weather Service (NWS) oversees this network with 11852 participating cooperative observers located throughout the United States (297 in Alaska). This network provides daily observations (7am local time) of maximum and minimum air temperature, precipitation, snowfall, and snow depth. Some stations also provide soil temperature, evaporation, and wind run. These data are archived at NOAA/NCDC. For further information visit the NOAA/NWS Cooperative Observer Program home page.



Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) Network - The United States Forest Service oversees this network of stations owned and operated by state and local wildland fire agencies. The network typically provides hourly values of air temperature, dew point, relative humidity, wind speed, wind direction, precipitation, fuel temperature, and fuel moisture. The network consists of 726 stations located throughout the United States (42 in Alaska), but heavily concentrated in the forested areas of the western mountains. These data are included within the University of Utah MesoWest and the NOAA/FSL MADIS data sets. For further information visit the USFS RAWS home page. The Western Region Climate Center has a RAWS USA Climate Archive. The Alaska Fire Service also has a Fire Weather Database.



Hydrometeorological Automated Data System (HADS) - The NOAA Office of Hydrologic Development operates the HADS real-time data aquisition and data distribution system. HADS collects data from Data Collection Platforms (DCPs) operated by a number of federal, state, and local agencies throughout the US and a few nearby countries. The network currently includes 10079 observation locations (180 in Alaska). The temporal resolution and parameters collected vary widely by network and station but can include a variety of meteorological and hydrologic parameters. For further information visit the NWS HADS page.



Why all the lies concerning the weather coverage of Alaska? Not as well covered as the lower 48, but, as these maps show, certainly covered well enough to know what the temperatures are in even the remote portions. And every agencies data shows the same thing, a very rapid warming, with the increase far higher than that for lower latitudes.

 

[Old Rocks]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

^ irony.

When the guy who dismisses 2% land uses events on a tiny fraction of 2% land as irrefutable "proof" of his flawed, failed theory

Alaska's size compared with the 48 contiguous states. (Albers equal-area conic projection)
Alaska is the largest state in the United States in land area at 663,268 square miles (1,717,856 km2)

Now Mr. CrusaderFrank, we understand that your third grade education did not include geography, so here you go. As you can see, Alaska is somewhat more than a tiny fraction of the area of the lower 48.

 

[Freewill]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

Rather than argue with statistics lets simply talk about how global warming is said to be occurring by our own actions. The burning of fossil fuels and massive amounts of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere right?

You seem to be very informed on the subject so tell me what do you think are the primary direct and indirect consequences of this specific event?

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) - Ap

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

^ irony.

When the guy who dismisses 2% land uses events on a tiny fraction of 2% land as irrefutable "proof" of his flawed, failed theory

Alaska's size compared with the 48 contiguous states. (Albers equal-area conic projection)
Alaska is the largest state in the United States in land area at 663,268 square miles (1,717,856 km2)

Now Mr. CrusaderFrank, we understand that your third grade education did not include geography, so here you go. As you can see, Alaska is somewhat more than a tiny fraction of the area of the lower 48.

To reiterate: You discounted the USA because it's only 2% of the land mass, but you're now highlighting an event on an area less than the 2%.

 

[Old Rocks]

Not at all, Mr. CrusaderFrank. You discounted the USA. You tried only to consider the lower 48. You see, Alaska is also a state. Include the whole of the USA, and, because of the large increase in temperatures in Alaska, the average for the USA is in line with the rest of the world. You silly asses just try to get away with defining the US as only 48 states.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Not at all, Mr. CrusaderFrank. You discounted the USA. You tried only to consider the lower 48. You see, Alaska is also a state. Include the whole of the USA, and, because of the large increase in temperatures in Alaska, the average for the USA is in line with the rest of the world. You silly asses just try to get away with defining the US as only 48 states.

Did someone hack your account in an effort to make you look silly and dishonest? In a prior post someone logged onto your account and said 2% does not count because its too small, now someone else also on your account and is hopping up and down to highlight a far smaller area.

It's downright funny

 

[Billy_Bob]

The Alaska Climate Research Center

Temperature Changes in Alaska
The topic of climate change has attracted widespread attention in recent years and is an issue that numerous scientists study on various time and space scales. One thing for sure is that the earth's climate has and will continue to change as a result of various natural and anthropogenic forcing mechanisms.

This page features the trends in mean annual and seasonal temperatures for Alaska's first-order observing stations since 1949, the time period for which the most reliable meteorological data are available. The temperature change varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean annual temperatures, the average change over the last 6 decades is 3.0°F. However, when analyzing the trends for the four seasons, it can be seen that most of the change has occurred in winter and spring, with the least amount of change in autumn.

Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

Temperature Changes in Alaska Figures


You may view charts of temperature climate trends by location here.

What I immediately noticed was every single weather station is in an urban area and they track amazingly well to the population increase. So basically they are measuring the Urban Island Effect and not the actual interior temps.

Here's the best part.. When they use those urban stations to cover all that "empty space" with invented data -- guess how THAT turns out?? Especially if the interpretators are not big fans of UHI adjustments.

Inflating the bigger area temps is what they do to keep the lie going... Its what they do! There is no science to Man Made global warming it is simply made up crap to push their agenda and creative reasoning to take peoples monies, lands and sovereignty..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

Was your account hacked when you posted the above?

 

[Muhammed]

Permafrost Degradation and Ecological Changes Associated with a WarmingClimate in Central Alaska - Springer

Abstract
Studies from 1994–1998 on the TananaFlats in central Alaska reveal that permafrostdegradation is widespread and rapid, causing largeshifts in ecosystems from birch forests to fens andbogs. Fine-grained soils under the birch forest areice-rich and thaw settlement typically is 1–2.5 mafter the permafrost thaws. The collapsed areas arerapidly colonized by aquatic herbaceous plants,leading to the development of a thick, floatingorganic mat. Based on field sampling of soils,permafrost and vegetation, and the construction of aGIS database, we estimate that 17% of the study area(263,964 ha) is unfrozen with no previous permafrost,48% has stable permafrost, 31% is partiallydegraded, and 4% has totally degraded. For thatportion that currently has, or recently had,permafrost (83% of area), ∼42% has been affected bythermokarst development. Based on airphoto analysis,birch forests have decreased 35% and fens haveincreased 29% from 1949 to 1995. Overall, the areawith totally degraded permafrost (collapse-scar fensand bogs) has increased from 39 to 47% in 46 y. Based on rates of change from airphoto analysis andradiocarbon dating, we estimate 83% of thedegradation occurred before 1949. Evidence indicatesthis permafrost degradation began in the mid-1700s andis associated with periods of relatively warm climateduring the mid-late 1700s and 1900s. If currentconditions persist, the remaining lowland birchforests will be eliminated by the end of the nextcentury.

Now permafrost is like ice. It is a very good measure of whether the area is warming or cooling. If it is cooling, the permafrost gets deeper, and has a shorter melt system. If it is warming, the permafrost melts on the top, and does not get deeper, also has a longer melt season. For the area in the study, it is definately getting warmer. In fact, for just about anywhere in Alaska, the permafrost is melting rapidly and actually changing the landscape.

That is pretty solid proof that Alaska is in a major warmup. And you are correct, Alaska is very big. Which means that when you throw in Alaska with the average of the lower 48, the US as a whole is actually warming. Besides which, while the Northeast was pretty cold this winter, the West was very warm, record warm in many places, and continues to be so to the present. I don't think that even the lower 48 record is going to show any cooling in 2015. Maybe not as much warming, if you exclude Alaska, as the rest of the world, but a definate warming.

Bullshit.

 

[IanC]

A significant fraction of Alaskan warming happened in 1975 when the PDO flipped. I don't think it is reasonable to fold in sudden and extreme natural factors that occur over short time spans, and then smear those events over the total measured time span as an average yearly increase. The PDO 'bumped the thermostat'.

In a similar fashion the super El Nino of 1998 appears to have bumped the global thermostat in the satellite data. 79- 97 at one level, 00-15 at a slightly higher but relatively constant level.

I am not saying that the constant warming pressure from CO2 does not exist or have an effect, just that it is very hard to quantify it when the natural factors are also in play. I am quite happy to accept the approx 1C per doubling of CO2 that is calculated via basic physics. I am unwilling to accept 3X multiplication fudge factor that has been built in via computer modelling that has a woefully incomplete understanding of the natural processes going on.

Back to the OP. Old Rocks and others proclaimed that global warming was accelerating, right up until consensus science started scrambling to make excuses for the Pause. Obviously he and the others don't understand the concept of acceleration. Or averaging, or anything else for that matter.

 

[flacaltenn]

Them thar damned urban islands are melting all the permafrost in Alaska, yessirreee......... Bob!

When's all that permafrost you think is melting gonna be gone from Alaska?. I'd rather retire up there than in Hillbilly Hollywood..

 

[Shikica]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

Rather than argue with statistics lets simply talk about how global warming is said to be occurring by our own actions. The burning of fossil fuels and massive amounts of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere right?

You seem to be very informed on the subject so tell me what do you think are the primary direct and indirect consequences of this specific event?

CO2 does have power to warm the surface. What it DOESN'T HAVE is the superpowers attributed to it by the GWarming theory. According the theory -- man's emissions are just the "TRIGGER" that will set off a chain of events (positive feedbacks, runaway GreenHouse effect, Hollywood scale destruction and mayhem) that will cause the planet to commit suicide. All of the nasty world-ending stuff you've been fed --- man emitted CO2 by itself cannot do.

HOW MUCH warming to expect from man-made CO2 emissions? Basic science (based on the warming power of CO2 by ITSELF) is about 1degC/doubling. So you go from 280ppm CO2 in pre-industrial age to 560ppm sometime in the future and you get 1degC warmer.

Global Warming theory however started out circa 1980 or so predicting 4 or 8 degC by 2100 and up to 11degC in the Northern Lattitudes. Hence the frightening of the masses and the political involvement.

NONE of those early projections still stand. But the POLITICAL AMBITION to keep the hysteria going is strong..

I'm not as well versed in the subject as I once was but I do know that international environmental agencies as well as the interentional science community subscribes to the global warming theory.

Could you take a look at their scientific arguments (at the molecular level preferably) and refute some of the important points that they make?

 

[flacaltenn]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

Rather than argue with statistics lets simply talk about how global warming is said to be occurring by our own actions. The burning of fossil fuels and massive amounts of carbon emissions being released into the atmosphere right?

You seem to be very informed on the subject so tell me what do you think are the primary direct and indirect consequences of this specific event?

CO2 does have power to warm the surface. What it DOESN'T HAVE is the superpowers attributed to it by the GWarming theory. According the theory -- man's emissions are just the "TRIGGER" that will set off a chain of events (positive feedbacks, runaway GreenHouse effect, Hollywood scale destruction and mayhem) that will cause the planet to commit suicide. All of the nasty world-ending stuff you've been fed --- man emitted CO2 by itself cannot do.

HOW MUCH warming to expect from man-made CO2 emissions? Basic science (based on the warming power of CO2 by ITSELF) is about 1degC/doubling. So you go from 280ppm CO2 in pre-industrial age to 560ppm sometime in the future and you get 1degC warmer.

Global Warming theory however started out circa 1980 or so predicting 4 or 8 degC by 2100 and up to 11degC in the Northern Lattitudes. Hence the frightening of the masses and the political involvement.

NONE of those early projections still stand. But the POLITICAL AMBITION to keep the hysteria going is strong..

I'm not as well versed in the subject as I once was but I do know that international environmental agencies as well as the interentional science community subscribes to the global warming theory.

Could you take a look at their scientific arguments (at the molecular level preferably) and refute some of the important points that they make?

The UN IPCC is the lead player in organizing the Global effort. Their goal is to NOT to research Climate Science or even be an objective judge of man's contributions to CChange.. As in their Mission Statement..

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

PRINCIPLES GOVERNING IPCC WORK
Approved at the Fourteenth Session (Vienna, 1-3 October 1998) on 1 October 1998, amended at the Twenty-First Session (Vienna, 3 and 6-7 November 2003), the Twenty-Fifth Session (Mauritius, 26-28 April 2006) and the Thirty-Fifth Session (Geneva, 6-9 June 2012)

ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

So it is in their interest to MINIMIZE weighing the question of HOW MUCH man contributes to GWarming.

The main argument is about HOW MUCH warming will occur to CO2 emissions. And as I told you in the previous post -- CO2 only has limited abilities to warm the atmos. DIRECTLY from physics and chemistry concerns. About 1degC/doubling of concentration. Which is NOT a crisis.

So the GW theory invents Magic Multipliers referred to technically as Climate Sensitivities that will occur when a small thermal trigger (say 2degC) is met by man emissions of CO2. It is because of these multipliers and various (not so well known or agreed upon) positive feedbacks provoked by that "trigger" ---- that you got those scary world ending projections of 6 or 10 degC increase by 2100...

But over the 30 years since those projections were made -- the models FAILED to predict the actual increase and these MULTIPLIERS (climate sensitivities) have been revised FAR downward. The skeptics have already prevailed. Which is why there is so much desperation to get attention for the cause recently..

MUCH more than that to the debate Shikica --- and thanks for caring about the REAL questions about this scuffle....

 

[jc456]

Here we go again. The proven ignoramouses insisting that 2% of the Earth's surface record is more important than the other 98%. And, if you include Alaska's record in that, rather than just the lower 48, you will see that the whole of the US is also warming, on the average.

^ irony.

When the guy who dismisses 2% land uses events on a tiny fraction of 2% land as irrefutable "proof" of his flawed, failed theory

Alaska's size compared with the 48 contiguous states. (Albers equal-area conic projection)
Alaska is the largest state in the United States in land area at 663,268 square miles (1,717,856 km2)

Now Mr. CrusaderFrank, we understand that your third grade education did not include geography, so here you go. As you can see, Alaska is somewhat more than a tiny fraction of the area of the lower 48.

To reiterate: You discounted the USA because it's only 2% of the land mass, but you're now highlighting an event on an area less than the 2%.

wouldn't that be .5%? He stated the USA is 2%, so Alaska would be about a quarter based on his map.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, now the deniers must claim that the records being kept by the various nations are frauds, for they are showing a record year in the offing for 2015. So that is the new meme for those in denial of reality.