2009: 34th coolest summer in U.S.
Anthropogenic global warming and its believers have been left out in the cold—literally—by a new report issued today by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, summer temperatures were far below normal; in fact, the NCDC goes so far as to rank 2009’s summer as the 34th coolest on record since 1895. (The report cites temperature data collected from June and August 2009 in the contiguous United States.)
Among the report’s main findings:
- The average temperature of 71.7 F was 0.4 F degrees below the 20th century average. Also, last summer’s average temperature was 72.7 F.
- States such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota notched some of their coolest summers ever.
- Precipitation remained low in the desert southwest—averaging 0.85 inches, which is well over an inch below normal. Arizona had its fourth driest August; New Mexico had its fifth; and Colorado, Texas, and Utah all posted their eighth driest August on record.
- More than 300 low-temperature records (including highs and lows) were set across Midwest states in the last two days of August.
The news comes hot on the heels of another NOAA report: one that establishes that aerosols – airborne particulates from pollution – are actually ushering in a global cooling of the atmosphere. This echoes a growing consensus that the planet is actually undergoing a phenomenon of global cooling—an event that may be more dramatic and incontrovertible than claims of global warming.
Still, Clevelanders will have to wait for the evidence to bear itself out: We were 0.8 degrees above normal for the first three months of summer. Still, Cleveland hasn’t exactly ruined the class curve. Scientists are paying close attention to the larger picture that’s being painted about global cooling. It won’t be long before some blogger sits down to hammer out another story about global warming, heads to the closet for a sweatshirt, and suddenly realizes it’s the middle of summer.
Thermometers don’t lie—and neither does our planet.
Comments
Take a look at this - from 1985!
Put the http in front of this: articles.latimes.com/1985-12-11/news/mn-859_1_astronomer-carl-sagan?wwparam=1252604593
We've been warned for EVERY that the time is NOW - that if we don't do something, we're ALL doomed!
Professor Svensmark in Denmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”
"Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable"
"solar activity is heading towards its lowest level in about 100 years’. Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state"
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/global_dimming.html
Skeptics of the current global warming now refer to the period between 1998 and 2008 and claim that global warming has ended. Some go one step further and claim that global cooling has begun. Of course, the observed data shows that this is nonsense. GISS, HadCRU, RSS, and UAH represent the four organizations that publish online the global average temperature estimates. Many experts believe that GISS data is the preferred set because it is the only set that uses all regions of the globe. HadCRU, RSS, and UAH do not include polar regions.
View the data and trends between 1998 and 2008 at:
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/temperature_trends_1998-2008.png
Three of the four global average temperatures indeed are decreasing in their trends (although the actual global mean temperatures are still warmer than the previous decades).
Continued above...
Now view the data and trends between 1999 and present at:
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/temperature_trends_1999-2009.png
Simply by shifting our starting point by one year, all four global average temperatures are increasing in their trends!
So why did the 1998 - 2008 plot show cooling? 1998 experienced an historic El Nino event which caused a large warming spike that year. 2008 experienced a La Nina which causes cooling and also an absence of sunpsots which also causes some cooling.
The point made here is that if one cherry-picks a small subset of the data, one can make just about any claim with a nice plot to back it up. The correct way to view global temperature trends is to look at ALL of the data.
View:
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/images/temperature_trends_1880-2009.png
This plot shows the global average temperatures along with trends from 1880 to present. (Note: UAH and RSS data does not exist before 1980)
It is quite obvious that global temperatures have been increasing since 1880 and at a faster rate in the past two decades!
Furthermore, much of the heat that is delivered by the sun is stored in the Earth's oceans while only a fraction of this heat is stored in the atmosphere. Therefore, a change in the heat stored in the ocean is a better indicator of climate change than changes in atmospheric heat. Figures 27a and 27b (Richardson et al., 2009) displayed on my Modern Day Climate Change page at www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html clearly show that the oceans have warmed significantly in recent years and the trend is 50% greater than that reported by the IPCC in 2007. There is certainly no global cooling in the oceans!
First of all, it is not called "global warming". Which would imply that the mankind's destruction, or pollution of the Earth only causes a warming effect. And here is where most begin to spin the truth. To set the record straight, we must look at how some area's are experiencing record droughts, hurricanes, wind pattern changes, ocean current direction shifts, red tides, ocean acidification, acid rain, mercury poisoning in the water from coal plants, pharmaceuticals in the water table, pesticides in the water, depletion of important elements of the soil, over fishing, honey bee colony collapse, animal migration and population, and just about anything else that is imaginable due to the effects of man's foot print on this Earth. That is why the term "Global Climate Change" is a more modern term to describe these effects.
What we do here on this planet has consequences, and thus we must be responsible for our actions in the long term. I think the word "pollution", better describe thi
Our planet has evolved into a very interdependent system, full of mutually beneficial relationships. If you were to remove, or change only one thing; you will find that others are affected. Such as overfishing on the west coast has left the sharks no choice but to eat more seals in their diet. Less seals in the water means more sea urchins, more urchins means less seaweed, less sea weed means less plankton, and less plankton means fewer small fish stocks. In climate; slight changes in temp, affects the habitat of bacteria, and viruses. These simple organisms are at the beginning of the chain of life. A bacilli made the Roman empire fall. Too much fresh water in the ocean will change the salinity of the water, change ocean current direction, trade wind direction, affect the food distribution for fish, and temp of nearby lands. An area that was once rainy, and windy; is now dry, and calm. Or an area that was dry, is now wet. It is a system, with feedback checks and balances.
Symbiotic relationships is an environment where we all mutually benefit. Or should I say "tread lightly", and respect life around you.
If you extend both your arms, and the birth of this planet is represented as a time line from fingertip to fingertip of the other hand. You will see that man did not come about until the very tip of your fingernail. So it be that mankind is a mistake in the evolutionary chain. If we can not harmonize, get along with our environment; then we are deemed a mistake and perish. But if you were to look at animals that have not changed over the many vast years, then you will see how that model is more perfected for the habitat and will survive. That is, until it mets us. This is all common sense, if you have half a brain, and are not working for a coal plant, oil company, lumberjack, chemical polluter, or enabler in a more general way. The spin, on spin; is just that. Don't focus on one thing. It is not about warming trends.
I was in Australia in winter, where it was the warmest August ever - probably because El Nino is starting up.
Two lessons: you can't judge climate change just based on one year, and you can't judge it just based on north American temperatures alone.
Plants need Carbon dioxide to live. The optimum level is about 1000 ppm. the current CO2 level is in the low to mid 300s. At about 200-250 Plant cannot thrive. Green houses have Co2 pumped in to help plant growth. Carbon is bound up in sea shells and deposited on the ocean floor. This is buried and converted to Limestone. This Carbon is, for all practical purposes permanently lost from the Carbon cycle.
We should apply science to this problem and find a way to free up this bound Carbon before our planet becomes uninhabitable.
Neither does the Earth have to tell the truth (within mere human timescales), She is a very complicated thing and when she "turns", there will be hell to pay!
Humanity has consumed ~ 40 cubic miles of oil alone! This will take some time to erase glaciers but once they're gone, we get to breath methane! O Gee I can't wait!
All because the skeptics said we don't have to mass produce cheap renewable energy and storage systems. Yet we do for three reasons, GW, PO and job loss
maybe anecdotal evidence... but pollution is the problem and the worst pollutant, i am sorry to say because I am an environmentalist engineer, is NOT carbon dioxide, far from it. But believe me when I tell you pollution is the problem, carbon foot prints are the distraction preventing us engineers from getting the funding to do anything about it. I am sorry al gore but you should have fought harder to win the presidency. leave the science to those trained in the scientific method. A scientist is a skeptic by nature. that is what makes it science. I quick refresher on the scientific method is in order in the general public if we are EVER going to work toward reducing the amount of pollution, garbage, and clear cutting of the rain forrest. I am optimistic that if you all just listen to all scientists they ALL say pollution, and human activity are big problems that are not being addressed. Please use this enthusiasm wisely. creating huge machines to extract co2 out of the atmosphere is
part 2
possible I know already how to design such systems and have done similar projects before. they are expensive and use huge amounts of resources and it will be like trying to heat the ocean. please understand. we cannot do much about global warming that is a sad fact. we can reduce our pollution and stop the tragic destruction of our ecosystems.
thanks for reading.
ps:
I am THE guy that is gonna get rich if we decide to focus on co2. take it from me it is the wrong way to go.
dan the engineer.
U.S. WEATHER is just that- WEATHER. LOCAL WEATHER.
Global CLIMATE is different. From the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies website:
"June-July-August 2010 was the ***4th warmest*** in the 131 year GISS analysis, while 2009 was the 2nd warmest (note 1). 2010 was a bit cooler than 2009 mainly because a moderate El Niño in the equatorial Pacific Ocean."
"The maps make clear that perceptions of how hot it was depend on where you live."
"These global temperature anomaly maps may help people understand that the temperature anomaly in one place in one season has limited relevance to global trends. Unfortunately it is common for the public to take the most recent local seasonal temperature anomaly as indicative of long-term climate trends."
Sorry. Forgot the link:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2010summer/
Again, folks... the NASA website above is talking about climate. Not weather. Weather is what happens locally. Climate is what happens globally.
The global average temperature in the summer of 2010, was the 4th warmest on record. 2009 was the 2nd warmest.
What the guy who wrote the article above is talking about, here on the Examiner, is weather. He thinks he's talking about climate, but actually he doesn't know the difference.
The thermometer does, in fact, lie-- if you use one measurement taken with it to measure climate.
A thermometer measures temperature, not climate. One temperature, at one time.
One measurement, taken at one place, at one time, means nothing. A large number of measurements, taken at a large number of locations around the globe, over a long period of time, mean a lot.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!