Are you incapable of reading the 108 page NOAA report...
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf
Let me give you the summary... None of the weather events in 2013 are due to AGW.
Climate Change
- Thread starter dbphoenix
- Start date
Are you incapable of reading the 108 page NOAA report...
http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf
Let me give you the summary... None of the weather events in 2013 are due to AGW.
Actually ALL of the weather events were effected by global warming. ALLL of them. And the vast majority of climate experts agree.
And again. I told you. Use something other than right wing propaganda sources if you really want to know the science.
It's all absurd.
Well find your assertion in the NOAA report. Or are you incapable of reading?
Unlike FC - I thought you were actually capable of reading and basic reasoning.
Guess I was wrong.
And I thought the same of you once upon a time. Disappointment all around.
So did you read the 108 page report from NOAA?
Please enlighten us with your conclusions while quoting the reference material.
Why should I bother? You'll respond by saying it's all absurd. I don't have time for stupid.
NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012
http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html
As global warming and climate change alarmists burn tons of fossil fuel jetting around the world, lecturing people about how burning tons of fossil fuel is destroying our planet, federal government agencies and learned academic institutions are quietly revising previously published data to reflect "an inconvenient truth" -- that, contrary to their earlier claims, the earth is actually getting cooler, and weather is actually getting milder.
One of the most recent examples of this fraud was reported by The Daily Caller: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data from both the past and present.
Here's the story. A couple of years ago, NASA scientists and climatologists declared July 2012 to be the hottest month in a report titled, "Too Hot to Handle?" [See it here: http://science.nasa.gov]. During the summer months of that year, the country experienced widespread drought and wildfires burned more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA statistics and data.
Now, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the "average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on
record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895." [You can see that assessment here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov]
'You can't get any clearer proof' of fraud
"The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F," NOAA said in 2012.
When checked by The Daily Caller, that claim by the NOAA was still available on the agency's website. However:
[W]hen meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data [June 29] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
Watts wrote: "Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA's own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be 'adjustable' in NOAA's world." [See his blog post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com]
Watts had used data from NOAA's "Climate at a Glance" plots from 2012, a graphic showing that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6°F. July 1936 -- which was during the infamous Dust Bowl years -- is listed at only 77.4°F.
He ran the same data plot again on June 29 and discovered that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936; the average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, again, that July 1936 is the hottest year on record.
"You can't get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures," Watts wrote. "This isn't just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately."
He went on to note that in "one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.
"This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act."
(More at above url)
http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html
As global warming and climate change alarmists burn tons of fossil fuel jetting around the world, lecturing people about how burning tons of fossil fuel is destroying our planet, federal government agencies and learned academic institutions are quietly revising previously published data to reflect "an inconvenient truth" -- that, contrary to their earlier claims, the earth is actually getting cooler, and weather is actually getting milder.
One of the most recent examples of this fraud was reported by The Daily Caller: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been criticized for manipulating temperature records to give the illusion of a warming trend. Since then, the agency has been caught changing temperature data from both the past and present.
Here's the story. A couple of years ago, NASA scientists and climatologists declared July 2012 to be the hottest month in a report titled, "Too Hot to Handle?" [See it here: http://science.nasa.gov]. During the summer months of that year, the country experienced widespread drought and wildfires burned more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA statistics and data.
Now, according to NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the "average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on
record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895." [You can see that assessment here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov]
'You can't get any clearer proof' of fraud
"The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F," NOAA said in 2012.
When checked by The Daily Caller, that claim by the NOAA was still available on the agency's website. However:
[W]hen meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data [June 29] he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.
Watts wrote: "Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA's own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be 'adjustable' in NOAA's world." [See his blog post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com]
Watts had used data from NOAA's "Climate at a Glance" plots from 2012, a graphic showing that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6°F. July 1936 -- which was during the infamous Dust Bowl years -- is listed at only 77.4°F.
He ran the same data plot again on June 29 and discovered that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936; the average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, again, that July 1936 is the hottest year on record.
"You can't get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures," Watts wrote. "This isn't just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately."
He went on to note that in "one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why.
"This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act."
(More at above url)