XDA

For a long time I trusted the NOAA when it talked about average temperatures in the contiguous 48 states and regarding world wide temperatures. They relied on temperature records from stations around the nation and the world. The instruments were reliable and they had absolutely no incentive to lie. Then I discovered that: 1) After the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1980, they abandoned many of the hard to reach weather stations in Siberia (bu-bye really cold temperature records); and 2) Around our nation, many of the weather stations were sited in places they should not be--in parking lots, under air conditioning exhausts, etc. As more and more of these stations with unreliable siting were discovered, I decided that I would rely on remote sensing from space. Unfortunately, we have only had a record of satellite temperature since about the time of the break up of the Soviet Union. I was willing to trade the short record for reliability. More fool I

Then I found out that there are four different such records (RSS, GISS, HadCRUT, and UAH) and THEY DON'T ALWAYS AGREE. Now what to do? I decided to pick one. I chose RSS in part because it was the most 'conservative,' like me. I was tempted to go with the Goddard Institute's but then I remembered that the scientists there (mainly chief Warmie James Hanson) had screwed up and called 1998 the warmest year in American modern history when, without the error, it was really 1934. Here is a site with the fascinating story which has not received any press, or hardly any. Indeed NOAA is continuing to use 1998 as the gold standard for the warmest years ever.

Four of the ten hottest years ever here were in the 1930s--1934 was the hottest but it was followed by 1931, 1938 and 1939. How is that possible? The atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower then than now. It don't add up. At least in the Warmie world view.

One has to compare apples to apples and not confuse the world record with the 48 states record. Sometimes I can't tell which one the scientist is relating or relying on. That doesn't fill me with respect for their opinions when their methodology or writing up the conclusions is so sloppy.

It would be intellectually dishonest to switch among the various measurements just to support one's world view, which I suspect some Warmies do. I'm sticking with RSS come hell or high water (whatever that means) and if the climate actually starts the long anticipated (and predicted) acceleration of warming, then I have a lot of apologizing and crow eating to do. However, if it continues to go down, or merely stays flat over the next 12 years, in 2020, as I reach retirement age, I'm going to visit every Warmie I know and see if they will admit that each has been a completely gullible, utter fool. That includes you, Andy Rush.

Labels: Global Warming; Disputed Metrics