Global Warming Science: www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming
New York Times: Time to PANIC !
[last update: 2019/03/05]
|
“The age of climate panic is here.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/fear-panic-climate-change-warming.html
The planet is getting warmer in “catastrophic ways” – according to the dictionary, catastrophic = “involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state”
|
|
The Data
The following graphs for the US for the most recent 20 years are from the NOAA climate graphing tool at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/national/time-series
January is getting colder, both in daytime maximum and nighttime minimum temperatures.
August is also getting colder: cooling in daytime maximum temperature, no trend in nighttime.
Drought is in decline:
What the actual data show is NOT catastrophic – no “sudden and large-scale alteration in state”
|
|
Data for min and max temperatures for all 12 months for the most recent 20 years are shown below.
Only June is consistently getting warmer, other summer months are flat or decreasing. August maximum temperatures are declining. Temperatures are decreasing in November, January and February – i.e. winters are getting colder.
Somehow the CO2 is no longer working as advertised. Now it only works in June when the sun reaches the summer solstice.
|
|
Why examine data from just the US? The following figure shows the distribution of temperature stations used in determining climate data. As can be seen in the Figure, the 30 to 60 degree North latitude band contains 69 percent of the stations used and about half of those are located in the United States. This implies that if these stations are valid, the calculations for the US should be more reliable than for any other area or for the globe as a whole. And if CO2 was really a driver of climate, then US trends would be representative of the world in general. http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
|
|
Hurricanes are in decline:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/09/u-s-major-landfalling-hurricanes-down-50-since-the-1930s/
Winter snow is increasing.
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=namgnld&ui_season=1
|
|
The NYT
The NYT is one of the most alarmist papers.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the NYT blames Trump, they also showed how it was Obama in 2015 that is preventing CO2 from being reduced by allowing the world’s largest emitter (China) to keep expanding the emissions. The UN Paris accord also grants this to China.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/opinion/climate-change-denial-republican.html
“The Trump administration is, it goes without saying, deeply anti-science. In fact, it’s anti-objective reality.” ” there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers. … when failure to act on the science may have terrible consequences, denial is, as I said, depraved.”
Instead of presenting any scientific evidence, Krugman sets up the usual red herrings – the depraved deniers are following the lead of big tobacco, while in the pay of big oil.
Poor Krugman doesn’t even understand science and how the scientific method works. It’s not really his fault. Public education has failed. If people were educated about actual scientific methodology, all this global warming nonsense would be swept into the trash. Without actual empirical evidence of cause / effect, it is not settled science. And when most of the data contradicts the theory, science normally questions the theory. But in the case of “climate science”, the data get adjusted to match the desired theory. This is NOT how real science is done. When a hypothesis cannot be tested, it is not science. And the CO2 climate control theory is said by the scare mongers to create less snow or more snow, hotter or colder winters – no matter what, it is caused by CO2 and all bad and catastrophic. That is NOT science. Krugman and the NYT are the ones who are “deeply anti-science”.
|
|
The Conclusion The data show that there is nothing “catastrophic” happening with the climate.
So why does the NYT say it’s time to panic? The dictionary has another meaning for “catastrophic”, that is: “extremely unfortunate or unsuccessful” – so that must be what the NYT is referring to: they think it’s extremely unfortunate that the climate hoax has so far been unsuccessful.
|
|
|