Wednesday, January 3, 2018

We could use some global warming about now

The new year came in like a lion. The average temperature in the contiguous 48 states was eleven degrees. Over 85 percent of the country was below freezing. Nearly a third was below zero. For much of the U.S. east of the Rocky Mountains, temperatures were about 30 degrees below normal. Omaha, Nebraska hit minus 20, breaking a 130-year-old record. Other records were shattered all across the nation. Now, I understand that weather is not climate, but this whole global warming narrative is becoming more and more ridiculous.

The U.K.’s Metro newspaper announced with glee that a mini Ice Age could hit by 2030 and “save us from global warming.” Save us from global warming? How many folks would love a little global warming about now? According to Science Daily, the cold kills about 20 times more people than the heat. Think about that for a moment. If we really care about saving lives then these climate change zealots should be praying for global warming. Oh, that’s right. They don’t pray. Well, maybe to a graven image of Al Gore.

It’s funny how the Branch Algorians are nowhere to be found when the temperatures hit single digits. Yes, there are a few die-hards braving the cold and the wind to preach the gospel of Al. The Guardian claimed 2017 was the hottest year on record without an El NiƱo. Of course, when you dig down you learn they’re using surface temperature data that we now know is not only highly inaccurate due to human error but has been purposely manipulated by NOAA and other so-called scientific institutions.

But authors of a study defend NOAA’s fudging of temperature data. “Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once,” they write. “They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.”

Isn’t this exactly what those of us who argue against using surface temperatures have been saying for years? Surface temperatures are too unreliable to be used as a true picture of climate. Yet this study argues that NOAA should not only use them but manipulate them as they see fit. NOAA, like many U.S. agencies, has been infiltrated by global warming zealots. We’re witnessing a scattering of so-called scientists and policymakers from the EPA now that President Trump is demanding hard science rather than hysteria.

The hard science is the satellite temperature data. We’ve been measuring surface and ocean temperature via satellites since 1979. What it shows is virtually no warming since 1979.

KING5-TV in Seattle greeted readers of their webpage with this headline: “Yes, it’s freezing. But climate change is still real.” They seemed to be trying to convince themselves more than their readers. They dragged out a Miami meteorologist who claimed the rest of the world was warmer than usual “with the warmest readings in the poles.” So, I checked the temperature for the poles. Minus 28 Celsius at the North Pole. The average for January is minus 24. At the South Pole, as of this writing, it was minus 29 Celsius. The average for January is minus 31.

The KING5 piece warns that climate is “the average weather conditions that prevail” at any given location. Agreed. Then if satellite data show we haven’t warmed globally in 40 years then the science is settled. Stay warm. 

Phil Valentine is the host of the award-winning, nationally syndicated talk radio show, The Phil Valentine Show.

1 comment:

  1. A few years ago, I chose to take a series of geology classes as part of my graduation requirements from a local community college. On the final day of the second course, the professor had us watch "An Inconvenient Truth". At first, I thought that perhaps this was a test to see how well we've paid attention during the course. Upon dismissal of that class, I inquired of the professor what her thoughts were concerning that film. Her answer? "I think it's well placed". I was so disappointed. I had truly enjoyed that class and learned much. Some of the things that I learned are:
    1. Our planet is still relatively young and, therefore, still dynamic. Earth has gone through many changes, and will continue to for a very long time. Tectonic plates are still very active. Our planet has experienced major sea level increases, ice ages (yes, plural), and global warmings (which would explain why we are not still frozen like a woolly mammoth).
    2. Volcanoes, actually, are the number one contributor of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. CO2 level readings are taken in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Right smack dab in the middle of the "Ring of Fire".

    While I am not a rocket scientist, or even a geologist, it would seem #1.logical to not just be unsurprised at our adolescent planet's changes, but to expect them, and #2. preposterous that mankind can do anything to inhibit, change, or encourage such changes.

    Your thoughts?

    Jan Shaw, Crossville, TN