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:
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.