Jump to content


The Right Reasons News Forum Blog






Photo

Global Warming or Mainstream Media Hot Air?

Posted by Rokke , 15 March 2008 · 4,455 views

Posted Image EYE ON THE NEWS


In a continuing effort to highlight the fraudulent agenda perpetuated by our media, I present to you the following article published on 13 March 2008 by the Associated Press. After reading the article, ask yourself what conclusions you draw from it. What information are your conclusions based on? Is that information scientifically sound? Do you trust the author is giving you an unbiased assessment of the subject he is reporting on?
After considering those questions, please review my effort to investigate the basis of its facts. And then, feel free to contribute your own information. This is the type of "journalism" feeding the opinions of the average American. They tend to believe it. Do you?


Winter Has Been Warmer Than Average
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:42 p.m. ET
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Winter storms and snow notwithstanding, this winter was still warmer than average worldwide, the government reported Thursday.

The global temperature for meteorological winter -- December, January and February -- averaged 54.38 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.58 degrees warmer than normal for the last century, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported.

Temperatures have been rising over recent years, raising concerns about the effects of global warming, generally attributed to human-induced impacts on the atmosphere.

While it was warmer than normal, the just completed winter was the coolest since 2000-2001, which climate experts attributed to the presence of moderate-to-strong La Nina, or cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, which can affect conditions around the world.

For the United States, this winter's average temperature was 33.2 degrees, 0.2 degrees above the 20th century average.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center said winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.

The agency said the winter was unusual for the above average rain and snowfall in the Southwest, where La Nina usually brings drier-than-average conditions.

For example, in January 170 inches of snow fell at the Alta ski area near Salt Lake City, Utah, more than twice the normal amount for the month, topping the record of 168 inches that fell in 1967.

Mountain snowpack exceeded 150 percent of average in large parts of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Oregon at the end of February. Spring run-off from the above average snowpack in the West is expected to be beneficial in drought plagued areas.

In the Northeast, February rain and snow helped make the winter the fifth wettest on record for the region. New York had its wettest winter, while Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, and Colorado to the West, had their second wettest.

Some locations had record winter snow totals including Burlington, Vt., which received 103.2 inches, 6.3 inches above the previous record set during the winter of 1970-71.

Global winter highlights included:

-- Severe winter storms struck southern China; the causes are still under study.

-- Record Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent in January was followed by unusually high temperatures across much of the mid- and high-latitude areas of the Northern Hemisphere in February, reducing the snow cover. By the end of February, snow cover extent was below average in many parts of the hemisphere.

-- February was the 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record.


Now, as a review, ask yourself the following questions: What conclusions do you draw from this article? What information are those conclusions based on? Does the information in the article support those conclusions? Is that information scientifically sound? And do you trust the author is giving you an unbiased assessment of the subject he is reporting on?

Keep your answers in mind while you review the following analysis. I will examine the article sentence by sentence....

First sentence: "Winter storms and snow notwithstanding, this winter was still warmer than average worldwide, the government reported Thursday."

The "government" reported this? The title of the government report is: NOAA: Coolest Winter Since 2001 for U.S., Globe. Why did the author of this AP article focus on a conclusion that was not emphasized in the NOAA report? And since he did, what evidence is he relying on to state his conclusion? He states "this winter was still warmer than average worldwide". What average? What period of time does that average include? One decade? One century? A thousand years? What time scale would you consider sufficient to determine a trend in global temperatures?

The temperature data cited in the NOAA report starts in 1880. It is based on the combined temperatures of the land surface and sea surface. Global sea surface temperatures have only been actually recorded since 1982. Interestingly, and probably not coincidentally, the temperature of our world's oceans took a dramatic jump in the early 1980's when compared to previously estimated data. And while sea surface temperatures are collected by satellites, land surface temperatures rely on a network of land reporting stations of varying reliability. Both sets of data are combined to create a "global temperature". Based on 127 years of calculated data, we just experienced the 16th warmest Global Winter. But as the NOAA points out, it was the coldest winter since 2001. Their data also shows the winter of 2007 was colder than a majority of the winters in the 90's, and was similar to several winters in the first half of the 20th Century.

Second sentence: "Temperatures have been rising over recent years, raising concerns about the effects of global warming, generally attributed to human-induced impacts on the atmosphere."

Actually, the trend of global temperatures in the last 5 years is toward cooling. The author's first statement in this sentence is false. And while global warming is attributed to human impacts on the atmosphere by some environmentalists, the scientific community has formed no consensus on the issue, and most recently, the most widely stated opinion is that man's impact on climate change is unknown. The author is 0 for 2 in a single sentence.

Third sentence: "The global temperature for meteorological winter -- December, January and February -- averaged 54.38 degrees Fahrenheit, 0.58 degrees warmer than normal for the last century, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported."

So we've established the winter of 2007 was the 16th warmest since 1880. Now, the AP writer is acknowledging the actual magnitude of the higher than normal temperature. A whopping .58 degrees Fahrenheit. Without any context, it is impossible for the reader to determine if that is a significant amount or not. So let's add some context. In 2006, the global winter temperature was 1.5 degrees higher than normal. Or almost 300% greater than this year's difference. And as the NOAA points out, 2007 was the smallest amount above normal since 2001 and below the average since the late 1980's. Perhaps that is why they put more emphasis on its comparison to the last decade rather than the last century.

But while were on the topic, is 100 years enough to establish a significant change in global climate patterns? Is 1880 the best we can do with regard to tracking global temperatures? Our friends at JunkScience.com have a whole series of climate data stretching back thousands of years. Obviously, such data would precede any form of industrial pollution sufficient to impact the climate in the way global warming advocates claim we are today. Their conclusion...global temperatures have risen and fallen for eons, with or without the input of man. And the current trend of rising temperatures can actually trace its origins to early 16th Century which marked the end of a period of global cooling significant enough to be considered a "mini ice age". So while our AP writer chooses to emphasize a .58 degree temperature rise over a 100 year average, in the context of global climate history, .58 degrees would not even register.

Fourth sentence: "While it was warmer than normal, the just completed winter was the coolest since 2000-2001, which climate experts attributed to the presence of moderate-to-strong La Nina, or cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, which can affect conditions around the world."

Hmmm, apparently, this coldest winter in years is caused by a natural cycle of ocean currents. If a "moderate-to-strong" shift in naturally occurring environmental cycles is enough to produce a 300% difference in global temperature differences in the space of a single year, how much impact on the environment does decades worth of man made CO2 really have on climate change? CO2 emissions have been progressively increasing. But global temperatures are trending cooler. This would indicate the author's assumption that "human induced impacts" are the primary cause of global warming is as inaccurate as his statement that such an assumption is generally believed. If a "moderate-to-strong" shift in the currents of the Pacific Ocean can drive us to have the coldest winter this decade (this century even), exactly how much relative impact does our ever increasing CO2 emissions have on world temperatures. Apparently not much.

Fifth sentence: "For the United States, this winter's average temperature was 33.2 degrees, 0.2 degrees above the 20th century average."

Since the United States is most frequently blamed for having the largest impact on global warming, one would think our impact would be reflected in our own temperatures. But despite supposedly existing in the center of a global meltdown, we've only managed to warm our own winter by .2 degrees over the 20th century average. .2 degrees? This chart provided in the NOAA report puts that number in context:

Posted Image

Note the overwhelming trend in that chart. By far, the most noticeable trend in the last one hundred years of American winter temperatures is a consistent pattern of changing temperatures. That chart looks like an EKG. As recently as 2000 we experienced a winter 2 degrees colder than average. This year, we were almost exactly average, and the trend line is very clearly headed toward the historic norm. Yet, the title of this AP article is "Winter Has Been Warmer Than Average". Based on the above chart, is that the first conclusion you would reach on examination of the data?

I'll end this here as I think the point has been made. Think back to your initial conclusions after reading the article and determine if they have changed after looking more closely at the actual data. On the surface, this article seems to provide more evidence that our world is getting warmer. The title tells us so, and the very broad and unsupported statements that open this article provide meaningless sound bites to perpetuate that idea. The agenda of the author is clear. And a vast majority of Americans who read this piece will accept its premise without question. That is a lazy, and dangerous practice. Until average Americans are willing to question what they are fed by our media, this country will slip further down the pathway carved out by its liberal media.

The solution toward reversing that process starts on websites like this by people like us. Expose the media for what it is. Take a few minutes to question the legitimacy of the conclusions you are fed by our media. Respond publicly. Let's stop the attack against this country and our way of life by the excessively influential mainstream media. Our future depends on it.




Articles like this make me crazy! It seems ridiculous to me that anyone would assume that our planet's temperatures would remain the same for hundreds of years.
This statement:
"But while were on the topic, is 100 years enough to establish a significant change in global climate patterns"
is also so true.
We don't really have accurate temperature recordings. Even today, as I drove the five miles from the interstate to my house, the temp. dropped six degrees....What is an accurate long range temperature measurement? :wacko:
Snoozen
  • Quote
  • Report
Photo
pollyannaish
Mar 16 2008 11:15 PM
Excellent analysis, Rokke.

And I agree with Snoozen that this stuff drives me crazy. Not only does the evidence not support the hysteria, the absolute HUBRIS it takes for human beings to believe that we can impact the weather in any meaningful way is the most difficult part for me to grasp.

We can certainly impact it on a micro level. But we have to discount a lot of history and not to mention the vastness and compexity of the universe to think we can impact it on a macro level.

Sometimes, I think that there are just people who are intent on finding ALL the unmanageable portions of life someone's fault because it makes them feel less insecure on some level. The truth is, however, that while Al Gore, is important to himself and perhaps a few other fans in the scope of things he's not even an gnat on the backside of the universe. It may surprise him, but the universe existed before he arrived, and it will exist after his departure.

We'd all do well to remember that now and again. Our lives here are a gift, and our opportunity to live them often impacted by things way outside human control. That just makes it a bigger miracle in my book.
  • Quote
  • Report
Well done Rokke.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to put this together.
I loved the ending.

-------------

I'll end this here as I think the point has been made. Think back to your initial conclusions after reading the article and determine if they have changed after looking more closely at the actual data. On the surface, this article seems to provide more evidence that our world is getting warmer. The title tells us so, and the very broad and unsupported statements that open this article provide meaningless sound bites to perpetuate that idea.

The agenda of the author is clear. And a vast majority of Americans who read this piece will accept its premise without question. That is a lazy, and dangerous practice. Until average Americans are willing to question what they are fed by our media, this country will slip further down the pathway carved out by its liberal media.

The solution toward reversing that process starts on websites like this by people like us. Expose the media for what it is. Take a few minutes to question the legitimacy of the conclusions you are fed by our media. Respond publicly.

Let's stop the attack against this country and our way of life by the excessively influential mainstream media.

Our future depends on it.
  • Quote
  • Report
Nice effort Rokke, just don't have the patience to do what you did debunking these numbskulls but appreciate it. Mind if I pile on off the cuff?

As a one who has a particular fascination with quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, astrophysics, quantum cosmology, and astronomy (I can follow the math, largely) this GW is the most irritating of all topics. Death by a 1000 cuts.

Of course the planet warms. All one needs to do is stand on the shoreline of Lake Michigan and picture the whole thing frozen solid. Now that is cold, and it obviously has melted.

What is so-o-o-o annoying is the methodology being used in the nonsense. Schrödinger's cat always comes to mind, quantum measurements can be described as a paradox, so if a temperature is taken to Nth degree, what is it a split second before or after the measurement? Then it gets into things like the laws of thermodynamics, and since the physical quantum mechanical measurement will change the outcome of the prediction because the actual measurement (which has an effect) will influence particle flow.

So don't know if the planet is actually warming or cooling, but regardless, it is either warming or cooling - but what is it relative to?

Bottom line is we would need billions upon billions of samplings from around the world every hour from standardized, protected, secured, callibrated equipment for dozens of years to get even an inkling of a trend. And that includes from the bottom of the oceans, largest lakes, ground levels, and many layers of the atmosphere.

And a way to measure how much heat escapes every night without sunlight - the radiation that is vented on the dark side, we have no way to measure this. Might as well add in Earth's wobble and axis parameters as well, they add up. Gravity? Why would that be important? Just because in frigid places like Jupiter's domain the gravitational forces are significant enough to cause volcanoes on IO because the stresses heat it to boiling temps?

No, the Earth could not be affected by gravity, the tides and the Moon landings are fake, gravity is an illusion. Well, to an AP writer maybe.

No point in including solar radiation, since the SUN is perfect, static, like the rest of the Universe. And of course these folks are incapable of seeing our entire solar system rotating, not even a speck of sand in the Galaxy around the incredible black hole in the center - as we whiz through space at incomprehensible speeds.

Rush is dead wrong when he agrees Earth is warming. Although it may be, it cannot be proved. Yet.

And the second final idiocy has to do with 'average' temperature. These folks like to model that the whole planet is one and the same. Just because polar ice caps might have higher than average melting in a given year does not mean ocean temperatures have. How come no one talks about the oceans boiling off because Earth is warmer?

The final idiocy is the superposition of concluding that global warming that has not been proved, also has a causation that is man-made.

To be sure given enough time, humankind is quite capable of ruining the planet, but not 20 years.

Post Script: There are nuclear reactions taking place in Earth's core, it's molten, but na-a-a-aw, it couldn't possibly have an effect on what happens on the surface, not even a degree over a century.
  • Quote
  • Report
Quantim,

Your analysis and input here are a perfect addition. I'll just go ahead and say that anything with the word "quantum" in it, generally sails right over my head. But the way you've applied it here makes clear sense.
As I looked into the information from the original article, what became clear to me was the fact that based on the time scale you are looking at, you can declare any number of trends. There are a series of graphs on global temperatures which illustrate this beautifully. I'll post two here to illustrate the impact of timescale on determining "trends".

First, a chart with a relatively short time scale (160 years) with respect to the age of the earth....

Posted Image

Now a chart with a longer time scale (4000 years) but still relatively short in the life of the earth...

Posted Image

Another looking at 50,000 years....

Posted Image

And finally, one over 420,000 years....

Posted Image

Obviously, trend analysis without a discussion of the timescales involved is useless, and can be twisted to produce any result you want to find. My father has done considerable study of the chaos theory. I don't think I could find it, but he had a great illustration of the same concept. An electron microscope image of a grain of sand reveals a jagged edge similar to a close up photo of the rock from which it came, which is similar to the cliff from which it fell, which is similar to the shoreline in which the cliff exists and so on. That's a lousy description, but the point is, everything depends on the scale at which you view something.
  • Quote
  • Report
Photo
clearvision
Mar 18 2008 06:29 PM
Hmmm, Your father wouldn't be a retired Lt. Gen. USAF. And if so did your sister inherit all the brains?
  • Quote
  • Report
Rokke, IMHO the principle error in the left's argument is that the Earth, its temperatures and dynamics are static.

It's the same sort of arrogance that got Copernicus in trouble even though he was right - he's proving that the world is going around the Sun, not the other way around. He was arguing with people that actually believed Earth was the center of the Universe. And today's left, America haters as they are will always blame America first.

I'll go even farther and suggest this whole topic has less to do with GW and more to do with finding a way to beat up the nation, and have the rest of the world pile on us. The UN mandates sort of junk, Kyoto, etc. Sure, there's taxes, controlling your life and all that standard stuff, but believe the motivation is simply rather a way to dumb down our lives like everything else the left gets involved in.

Perhaps I stated maybe too scientifically in the above post, but was trying to make the point that the way to combat the moonbats on this topic is with bigger bats; say "Sunbats" (phrased just coined here now) and take a whole different approach to combating this mantra of GW.

As some might say, "look outside of the box" for a better way to debunk. The problem is we are trying to argue on the left's playing field and that's a false premise in the first place. Kind of like wrestling with a pig, the pig loves it and you get dirty. So we Sunbats need to step out of the box and not engage in man-made GW arguments, (the pig sty) but instead discuss planetary science from the outside looking in.

One need not be a rocket scientist to realize there might be forces larger than forests decaying that emit C02, cow farts and all the rest that will get us burned to a crisp.

But the biggest caveat of all is not scientific, any methodology can be debunked even by rank amateurs like myself. It is the embedded leftism in society from the MSM to the institutions of higher learning, to public schools, unmotivated kids from lazy parents ad nauseum that just jump on a bandwagon because of fearmongering - just another tool to go after the right.

We must know thy enemy and best equip ourselves with better weapons and bigger ammunition. Don't want to fight them on their ignorant level, but force them to battle on ours.
  • Quote
  • Report

Hmmm, Your father wouldn't be a retired Lt. Gen. USAF. And if so did your sister inherit all the brains?


Yes and no. My father is hoarding his brains and money until his children indicate they can do something useful with either. At this point, it is safe to assume he will die a wealthy and wise man.
  • Quote
  • Report

Rokke, IMHO the principle error in the left's argument is that the Earth, its temperatures and dynamics are static.

It's the same sort of arrogance that got Copernicus in trouble even though he was right - he's proving that the world is going around the Sun, not the other way around. He was arguing with people that actually believed Earth was the center of the Universe. And today's left, America haters as they are will always blame America first.

I'll go even farther and suggest this whole topic has less to do with GW and more to do with finding a way to beat up the nation, and have the rest of the world pile on us. The UN mandates sort of junk, Kyoto, etc. Sure, there's taxes, controlling your life and all that standard stuff, but believe the motivation is simply rather a way to dumb down our lives like everything else the left gets involved in.

Perhaps I stated maybe too scientifically in the above post, but was trying to make the point that the way to combat the moonbats on this topic is with bigger bats; say "Sunbats" (phrased just coined here now) and take a whole different approach to combating this mantra of GW.

As some might say, "look outside of the box" for a better way to debunk. The problem is we are trying to argue on the left's playing field and that's a false premise in the first place. Kind of like wrestling with a pig, the pig loves it and you get dirty. So we Sunbats need to step out of the box and not engage in man-made GW arguments, (the pig sty) but instead discuss planetary science from the outside looking in.

One need not be a rocket scientist to realize there might be forces larger than forests decaying that emit C02, cow farts and all the rest that will get us burned to a crisp.

But the biggest caveat of all is not scientific, any methodology can be debunked even by rank amateurs like myself. It is the embedded leftism in society from the MSM to the institutions of higher learning, to public schools, unmotivated kids from lazy parents ad nauseum that just jump on a bandwagon because of fearmongering - just another tool to go after the right.

We must know thy enemy and best equip ourselves with better weapons and bigger ammunition. Don't want to fight them on their ignorant level, but force them to battle on ours.


Quantim, don't let my rigid slowness hold you back. Just go ahead and leap right over my head to engage the fight in a far more effective way. :lol: My wife will attest that sometimes (ok, frequently) it takes a couple of whacks with a 2 x 4 before the idea sinks into my head. I get your point now. And I agree.

The only problem I see with your approach is the fact that we can't choose the battlefield in which to engage. The war we are fighting is for the minds of the American people. As you suggest, the moonbats use global warming as one more weapon in their effort to tilt the American balance of power to the left. But they do so using a delivery system that we currently have no significant counter for. They control the media, and that is currently THE primary means of transferring information to the American people.

My intent here isn't to reveal the weakness inherent in the global warming debate. My intent is to uncover the bias and lies published everyday by our media and foisted on our public as factual information. To effectively fight the moonbats, we need to convince the average American that the moonbat controlled media can't be trusted on ANY topic. Every single thing published under the banner of Reuters, AP, CNN, NYT's....etc cannot be taken at face value. None of it should be read without questioning every part of it.

Until we do that, shifting the context of debates on topics such as global warming is an exercise in futility because most Americans will never be aware there even is a debate.
  • Quote
  • Report

The only problem I see with your approach is the fact that we can't choose the battlefield in which to engage.

That's most true sir. Perhaps we cannot change the battlefield (yet) but we can change (hate that word lately) the parameters in which it is fought.

I'll trade you your battlefield for my weaponry, semantically speaking. Just as a laser-guided device can pinpoint a target and destroy it, was there ever a battlefield that was engaged? Rokke, just love this stuff!

BTW, what is the cockpit on your avatar?

I've got numerous PC flight simulators, can't land anything though to save civilization!
  • Quote
  • Report

The only problem I see with your approach is the fact that we can't choose the battlefield in which to engage.

That's most true sir. Perhaps we cannot change the battlefield (yet) but we can change (hate that word lately) the parameters in which it is fought.

I'll trade you your battlefield for my weaponry, semantically speaking. Just as a laser-guided device can pinpoint a target and destroy it, was there ever a battlefield that was engaged? Rokke, just love this stuff!

BTW, what is the cockpit on your avatar?

I've got numerous PC flight simulators, can't land anything though to save civilization!


Let's just keep schwacking them wherever they are. Max carnage.

And my avatar is the best view of an F-16. They are beautiful from the outside, but nothing beats the view from the inside.

And if it makes you feel any better, I can't land the PC simulators either. Things are a lot easier when you can actually see in 360 degrees and feel the motion. Of course, the risks are quite a bit higher....
  • Quote
  • Report

Nice effort Rokke, just don't have the patience to do what you did debunking these numbskulls but appreciate it. Mind if I pile on off the cuff?

As a one who has a particular fascination with quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, astrophysics, quantum cosmology, and astronomy (I can follow the math, largely) this GW is the most irritating of all topics. Death by a 1000 cuts.

Of course the planet warms. All one needs to do is stand on the shoreline of Lake Michigan and picture the whole thing frozen solid. Now that is cold, and it obviously has melted.

What is so-o-o-o annoying is the methodology being used in the nonsense. Schrödinger's cat always comes to mind, quantum measurements can be described as a paradox, so if a temperature is taken to Nth degree, what is it a split second before or after the measurement? Then it gets into things like the laws of thermodynamics, and since the physical quantum mechanical measurement will change the outcome of the prediction because the actual measurement (which has an effect) will influence particle flow.

So don't know if the planet is actually warming or cooling, but regardless, it is either warming or cooling - but what is it relative to?

Bottom line is we would need billions upon billions of samplings from around the world every hour from standardized, protected, secured, callibrated equipment for dozens of years to get even an inkling of a trend. And that includes from the bottom of the oceans, largest lakes, ground levels, and many layers of the atmosphere.

And a way to measure how much heat escapes every night without sunlight - the radiation that is vented on the dark side, we have no way to measure this. Might as well add in Earth's wobble and axis parameters as well, they add up. Gravity? Why would that be important? Just because in frigid places like Jupiter's domain the gravitational forces are significant enough to cause volcanoes on IO because the stresses heat it to boiling temps?

No, the Earth could not be affected by gravity, the tides and the Moon landings are fake, gravity is an illusion. Well, to an AP writer maybe.

No point in including solar radiation, since the SUN is perfect, static, like the rest of the Universe. And of course these folks are incapable of seeing our entire solar system rotating, not even a speck of sand in the Galaxy around the incredible black hole in the center - as we whiz through space at incomprehensible speeds.

Rush is dead wrong when he agrees Earth is warming. Although it may be, it cannot be proved. Yet.

And the second final idiocy has to do with 'average' temperature. These folks like to model that the whole planet is one and the same. Just because polar ice caps might have higher than average melting in a given year does not mean ocean temperatures have. How come no one talks about the oceans boiling off because Earth is warmer?

The final idiocy is the superposition of concluding that global warming that has not been proved, also has a causation that is man-made.

To be sure given enough time, humankind is quite capable of ruining the planet, but not 20 years.

Post Script: There are nuclear reactions taking place in Earth's core, it's molten, but na-a-a-aw, it couldn't possibly have an effect on what happens on the surface, not even a degree over a century.

  • Quote
  • Report

or Sign In
Editor Help: Click in empty box below if not visible | =Plain/Rich | =BBcodes | =Text Paste