NOAA Claims 2015 Hottest On Record - Wrong

Subtitle: US Pristine Areas Show No Warming Trend

This being mid-January, it is the time when summaries of last year are announced.  NOAA, via the NCDC (National Climate Data Center) announced this week that 2015 was the warmest year ever recorded when both land and ocean records are considered.  Well, that may be true, given the false and misleading data that is in their database, and all the adjustments to that data.   This post shows some of why the NCDC conclusion is not valid.   In short, the land temperature data for the US from pristine areas, the USCRN data, shows a cooling trend since 2004 and 2015 is far from the warmest in that data.   What NCDC includes, wrongly, is data from known warming locations such as cities and other sites where artificial warming occurs.   In addition, 2015 was the warming phase of an El Niño, so ocean temperatures are temporarily a bit warmer than usual.  

As written before on SLB, (see link  to "Cities and UHI Warming Corrupt Temperature Databases,") the cities are warming, have warmed, and will continue to warm no matter what provides the electricity, heating energy, and transportation energy to them.  The simple facts of a great amount of heat being dissipated in a relatively small area creates a heat bubble.   More population in cities over time creates an even greater heat bubble.   It is a simple, but stark fact that even if all electricity on the planet were from hydroelectric dams, a source that creates zero carbon dioxide, CO2, and every vehicle was electric, plus all energy used in the cities was electricity, the warming bubble would still exist.  For False-Alarmists to conclude that CO2 in the atmosphere must be reduce to prevent catastrophic global warming is simply false.  Even if CO2 production ceased 200 years ago, the temperatures as measured by NCDC would still show a warming trend.  

From the NCDC website (see link),

"The January–December map of temperature anomalies shows that warmer-than-average temperatures occurred across the vast majority of the globe during 2015, combining to bring overall record warmth for 2015, at 0.90°C (1.62°F) above the 20th century average. This easily surpasses the previous record set just last year by 0.16°C (0.29°F). The global temperatures were strongly influenced by the strong El Niño conditions that developed during the year. The 2015 temperature also marks the largest margin by which an annual temperature record has been broken. Prior to this year, the largest margin occurred in 1998, when the annual temperature surpassed the record set in 1997 by 0.12°C (0.22°F). Incidentally, 1997 and 1998 were the last years in which a similarly strong El Niño was occurring. The annual temperature anomalies for 1997 and 1998 were 0.51°C (0.92°F) and 0.63°C (1.13°F), respectively, above the 20th century average, both much lower than the 2015 temperature."

2015    0.90 deg C above average
2014    0.74
1998    0.63
1997    0.51

Here is the map that NCDC refers to in the first sentence.  This shows land and ocean by different colors, with cooler in blue and warmer in red.  

from NCDC website 23 January 2016

It is notable that NCDC did not mention, that I could locate, the cooling (blue areas) in the eastern Canada, southern Greenland, and north Atlantic areas.   It is a feature of good science to discuss the contrary data that is opposite to one's conclusions.   A valid reason should be put forth for why the contrary data exists.  Only a few hundred miles apart, eastern Canada is cooling, while the remainder of Canada was hotter than normal.  Also, the map above shows the western Atlantic Ocean hotter than normal, while the north Atlantic is much colder.   Yet, we know the Gulf Stream carries warm water north and a bit east across those same areas.    Similarly, the region around Japan is colder, yet surrounding areas are warmer.   No mention of these differences.  

While this will be covered in more detail in a future post at SLB, the USCRN data for 2015 from pristine sites shows no warming trend for the contiguous states for the relatively short period (11 years) of the USCRN data. 

Conclusion

The fact is, and has been for a long time, that the official keepers of the temperature records reach their conclusions of alarming, rising temperature trends by over-inclusion of data that has no business being included in such temperature databases.   To put it in the simple vernacular, "Cities gonna warm."   Also, fact-finding and analysis of temperature-measurement sites in the US show that most of the sites also have artificial heating and are not measuring what they are intended to measure.   The was recognized a bit more than a decade ago and resulted in the creation of measuring instruments in pristine areas, the USCRN sites that are far from human influences such as cities, power plants, and asphalt parking lots.   NCDC and NOAA's problem is that the USCRN data is only a decade long, perhaps a bit longer for the oldest sites.  The USCRN data is not global, being limited only to the USA.   SLB has a post on the first decade results from USCRN, see link.   The results for that decade, 2005-2014 (inclusive) show a pronounced cooling in the contiguous US, with a severe cooling trend for winters.   A short record, of only ten years, is subject to pronounced end-point effects.  We can expect that additional years may change the trend a bit until a longer period exists.   An update to that USCRN post is imminent, likely in early March 2016 when the data for the full winter 2016 is available. 

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved.   

Most Important Event of 2014

Subtitle: Weak Sunspot Cycle - Most Important Event was Not On The Radar

Cycle 24 - weakest, at bottom.  Source: solen.info

As the year 2015 has arrived and 2014 is gone, many writers have already discussed what they view as the most important event or events of 2014.  This is a very common thing, reviewing the old year as the new year arrives.  

This article addresses briefly a half-dozen events (more or less) that made the news in 2014, in no particular order, then discusses the most important event of the year: Sunspot Cycle 24 (the current cycle) peaked right on schedule, but far below most previous cycles.   The world-wide climate implications are grim. (see chart showing the relative activity of the four most recent solar cycles, 21, 22, 23, and 24)

1.  US midterm elections - resulting in conservative majorities in House and Senate for the remaining 2 years of Liberal Obama presidency.   Many of Obama's presidential accomplishments will be criticized, and a few will be reversed.   The defection of some Democrat legislators to vote with conservatives will be required.  However, the defection will likely save their electoral lives as they can show increasing distance from a wildly unpopular president.  

2.  Ebola outbreak, treatments improved, vaccines tested.   The deadly virus spread to many countries with this most recent outbreak, including the US and some in Europe.  Treatment systems and protocols work, at least for those who seek early treatment and are correctly diagnosed.  

3.  Space - first landing on a comet, successful test blastoff and return to Earth of Orion system.   The comet-lander bounced a bit and landed in a shadow, which is unfortunate because the batteries are solar-powered.  The solar panels are essentially useless in the shade.  We may never receive data from the lander again.  

Meanwhile, the Orion spacecraft was a huge success.    The Orion may be the technology that carries men to other moons and planets in the solar system, and perhaps asteroids.  SLB soon will carry an original article on the idiocy of a Mars manned colony.  As a preview, the hard reality is that Mars has strong radiation, very little protection from meteors, an unbreathable atmosphere, and is very cold, to mention only a few deadly issues.   

4.  China passed the US as the world's largest economy.  The diplomatic implications are staggering, as China can, and probably will, either threaten or impose economic sanctions on the US to achieve their goals.   

5.  OPEC caused the world price of oil to decline more than 50 percent by maintaining cartel output.  Gasoline prices have dropped to under US $2 per gallon, although California in its infinite wisdom increased state gasoline sales tax as part of the futile effort to combat global warming under state law AB 32, "The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006."   Worldwide, the lower oil price has many important implications.  Russia, a major oil exporter, will have greatly reduced revenues.  OPEC members will also see reduced revenues.  As SLB predicted years ago, this will very likely see OPEC fractured and member nations withdraw so they can pump all the oil they want.  Natural gas prices in many countries will also decrease, which will make electricity prices also decrease.  Consumers will have more disposable income, which will boost economic activity. 

6.  Nuclear power - Another US plant shutdown, Vermont Yankee; Sowell published 30 articles on SLB on Truth About Nuclear Power showing the futility of building and operating nuclear power plants, as not economic, not safe, and not sustainable long-term; as predicted, plants under construction are hopelessly delayed and have escalating construction costs; French plants are aging and are not reliable.   Providers of small, modular nuclear plants failed to attract investment or orders, completely as predicted - the small plants cannot possibly hope to be economic.   

7.  CO2 capture plant started operating in San Antonio, Texas - a commercial scale and economically viable plant designed and operated by Skyonic, Inc. of Austin, Texas.   This falsifies the statements made by many (ill-informed?  Deliberately misleading?) who maintain that there is no viable technology to reduce atmospheric CO2, therefore draconian reductions in fossil fuel use are required.    

8.  World coal consumption passed 9 billion tons annually, further decreasing the remaining years of economically viable coal.   An economically viable, and long-lasting (sustainable) source of 40 percent of the world's electricity production must be found and proven, long before the coal runs out.  This should be a strong priority for planners and policy makers around the world.  Economically produced coal is expected to run out in approximately 50 years.  

9.  Sunspot Cycle 24 had a weak peak and is now declining.   This is the single most important fact of the year 2014.   The sun's magnetic poles reversed, indicating the maximum has occurred.  The long, slow decline in sunspot number is now underway.   The Cycle 24 peak was approximately 80, compared to 120 (cycle 23), and 160 (both cycles 22 and 21)  (see graph at top of post).  

Some prominent solar physicists are on record calling for awareness that the weak solar activity is strongly associated with cold, sometimes bitterly cold, temperatures on Earth.   They also predict a return of the cold based on the very weak Cycle 24.   The winter of 2014-2015 has already started, with unusually cold events across the northern hemisphere.  As just one indication, winter ice appeared on the US Great Lakes far earlier than normal.   As another, Heating Degree Days for November in the US, per EIA, were 13 percent above average, however some regions experienced 30 and 36 percent greater than normal HDD.   Data for HDD for December will be published by EIA soon.   And yet another, the NOAA-predicted El Niño did not occur.   Finally, a new media term emerged: Polar Vortex, to describe vast areas of bitterly cold air plunging southward from Arctic regions and causing ice storms, heavy snow, and cold temperatures.  

As stated in other posts on SLB, there is no man-made global warming from burning fossil fuels.   Tiny increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere have no measurable effect on Earth's temperatures, as stated (paraphrased) by the imminent climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen (professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT).  

The area of grave concern, however, is the sudden and dramatic decrease in solar activity and the associated cold weather.   More detail on the implications are at an earlier post, Warmists are Wrong - Cooling is Coming (see part II), see link. 

There is no doubt about it:  the sun is weaker than it has been in the past 60 years.  Winter weather is earlier and colder.   The implications of prolonged and bitter cold are grim.   The most important event of 2014 was the weak peak of Sunspot Cycle 24.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California
Copyright (c) 2015 by Roger Sowell

Skeptics on Climate - Lovers of Nuclear

Subtitle: They Know Not What They Do

Reflecting on the 9th International Climate Change Convention earlier this week, there were many moments when I agreed with the words that were spoken, but there were also a few moments when I cringed.  I also muttered a few quiet words at times, such as "BS" or "Not true!."   I didn't quite do a Wilson and yell out YOU LIE!!!, but I did feel like I could have.  

The moments at issue were those when somebody at the microphone said something pro-nuclear energy.  I cannot recall who, nor the exact words.  What concerned me most was the obvious approval across the room, and it is a big room.  It comfortably held 600 people seated at round tables.  There was a smattering of applause.    I knew before the convention that many, if not most, climate skeptics are pro-nuclear.  I knew I would be in a small minority, perhaps a minority of one at the meetings.  

I remember thinking, if only they all knew what I know about nuclear power.  I wish I could convey to each one of them the truth about nuclear power, have them read and understand the many, many issues that show nuclear power is not economic, not safe, and will not ever be safe nor economic.   Instead, it appears they have blindly accepted the talking points from the nuclear advocates.  (a 30-part series on Truth About Nuclear Power begins at this link)

This is just a bit odd, because nuclear advocates have taken to cheering for nuclear because it emits no carbon dioxide - it is "carbon free power" in the latest incarnation of their talking points.  Yet, as climate change skeptics, why would anyone want a power source on that basis?  Surely, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not harming the planet, so why use a source that produces zero carbon dioxide?  

One of the speakers mentioned that Germany's government is shutting down nuclear plants because, and I believe I have the quote correct, "Chancellor is afraid a tsunami will hit Germany."  That line drew laughter from the audience.    The Chancellor is well aware that a tsunami will not hit Germany - but she is also keenly aware (after Fukushima) that nuclear plants will meltdown with devastating consequences for any number of unforeseen circumstances.  In short, if the grid goes down for an extended period, and the backup generators fail, the nuclear plant and surrounding population are in a world of trouble. 

I have also read in other places the talking points that nuclear power is low-cost (it is not), see link, the fuel is readily available for thousands of years (it is not), the reactors are perfectly safe and new ones are much safer (they are not), see link,  nuclear power reduces dependence on foreign oil (not true, unless a country is actually burning oil for power, which almost no country does), nuclear plants use very small land area (true only in some cases, but not for those that built their own cooling lake such as South Texas Nuclear Project, and the land area does not consider the uranium mining and processing plants).    Few web sites mention the points raised by Professor Derek Abbott, that both uranium fuel, plus raw materials for the plants are limited and running out, and that suitable plant locations are few and getting fewer as more plants are built.   see link

Also, almost nobody mentions the huge consumption of cooling water in a nuclear plant - four times that of a comparable gas-fired combined cycle plant.   see link

I also read in other places that nuclear plants are highly reliable, yet I wonder if those people who repeat that talking point know the truth: nuclear plants shut down at a moment's notice and with great regularity.  Upon shutdown, the grid operator must somehow find 900 to 1200 MW of power rather quickly, as in a few minutes, or drop some load to balance the grid until the replacement power is humming.   These same pro-nuclear voices complain that wind power and solar power are both unreliable, that they must have "full-time backup" power.  Actually, every nuclear plant also must have 100 percent backup for the times when they shut down.  

I also read that nuclear plants "last for 60 years," which they do not.   see link

Finally, I read that alternative energy technology requires subsidies for their very existence, that no wind turbines and no solar power plants would be built absent these substantial subsidies.  I wonder, though, how many of these people making those subsidy claims are aware that nuclear plants also are heavily subsidized, that nuclear plants would not exist at all unless the government takes on the substantial liability of a major nuclear accident - a meltdown with radiation release that injures or kills people.  see link

Yes, I felt a bit sad at the ICCC9 when people were applauding the pro-nuclear power statements.  I suppose it is best to forgive them (for now), for they know not what they do.   Hopefully, I will be able to present to them the truth.  Whether they will follow the data and question the dogma from the nuclear industry, as they have done with climate science, is another matter.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

Climate Change Deception from President

Subtitle:  UCI Commencement Speech 2014 Full of Lies

A few weeks ago, President Barack Hussein Obama gave the commencement address at University of California at Irvine (UCI).   His theme was climate change is man-made, it is real, it is a serious threat, and the young graduates from UCI should do something about it.   [Update - 6/22/2014:  Added lie number 13: President said solar in California reached 18 percent of total consumption in California -- see below for more -- end update ]

[Update - 6/28/2014 - added link to nuclear power articles; see point 11 below] 

A friend and colleague, a UCI alumnus in chemical engineering, asked me to review the commencement speech and offer my comments on where the President is wrong.  The speech is long, but I have excerpted a dozen whoppers (lies, false statements) and make some comments below.  

How can the statements be labeled as false, as lies?  The evidence shows the statements are false.  A US President is expected to appoint the best people available to advisory positions, but modern Presidents such as Obama appoint those with his own political agenda.  This is unfortunate for the progress of science and discovery.  However, eventually, Nature wins.  Or as we say in baseball terms, Nature bats last.  

The twelve false statements, with Obama's statement in italics, my comments below:

1)  "you already know the science.  Burning fossil fuels release carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide traps heat.  Levels of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are higher than they’ve been in 800,000 years." 

BS (Bad Science) The change of CO2 since 1950 has been steadily upward while global temperature – as measured by the scientists themselves – shows ups, downs, and stagnant periods.  Any competent engineer knows that CO2 cannot control temperature.   The second part of that statement addresses current CO2 levels (400 ppm) as greater than the past 800,000 years.  This is based on dubious ice-core samples.  It is mere supposition that measured gas samples from bubbles trapped in the ice are representative of the atmosphere at that time.  

2)  "We know the trends.  The 18 warmest years on record have all happened since you graduates were born.  We know what we see with our own eyes.  Out West, firefighters brave longer, harsher wildfire seasons; states have to budget for that.  Mountain towns worry about what smaller snowpacks mean for tourism.  Farmers and families at the bottom worry about what it will mean for their water.  In cities like Norfolk and Miami, streets now flood frequently at high tide.  Shrinking icecaps have National Geographic making the biggest change in its atlas since the Soviet Union broke apart."

BS.  Temperatures were as warm or greater during the 1930s, but scientists have repeatedly adjusted the past temperature record downward. Longer fire seasons are due to years of forest mismanagement, particularly fire suppression.  Average snowpack has not changed over long periods, but it does have fluctuations about an average.  Credible scientists know this, but apparently the President does not.  If he does know, he is lying. 

 Ground subsidence, both natural and due to man's extraction of fresh water, is the main source of "sea level rise."  On the oceans themselves, sea level generally is not rising except where it rains heavily in the ocean.   Arctic ice is shrinking, but Antarctic ice is growing.  Air temperatures have nothing to do with either, while ocean temperatures do. 

 3)  "The overwhelming judgment of science, accumulated and measured and reviewed over decades, has put that question to rest."  

BS  When anyone tells us the science is settled, ask them why there is any more research done?  There are hundreds of scientists publishing papers that conclude that man-made global warming is false.  See SEPP publications for the real story, also NIPCC, GWPF.

4)  "A UC Irvine glaciologist’s work led to one of last month’s report showing one of the world’s major ice sheets in irreversible retreat."  

BS. Antarctic ice is growing year by year, now at all-time maximum in the modern (post 1978) era.   

5)  "to help coastal communities adapt to rising seas."

 BS.  Seas are not rising due to man-made global warming, but land is falling in a few places due to natural subsidence.  The entire history of humans, for the past 12,000 years, has been a slow retreat from the then-existing shoreline.  As the last global glaciers melted, the sea has been rising.  There is nothing unusually rapid about recent sea level rises.  As proof, one can examine modern maps that show underwater canyons located in a line with major rivers.  The river mouth was far out to sea.  The Congo river in Africa is a striking example, but there are many others. 

6) "Since 2006, no country on Earth has reduced its total carbon pollution by as much as the United States of America."

BS.  There is no such thing as carbon pollution, unless it is soot.  The US has reduced carbon dioxide emissions, and did it without a carbon tax.  Producing more natural gas led to lower gas prices, therefore more power generation via natural gas.  Also, industry retired older less efficient coal plants as scheduled.    

7)  "hundreds of scientists declared last month, that climate change is no longer a distant threat, but “has moved firmly into the present.”  That’s a quote." 

BS The fact is that global measured temperatures (even with all the NASA-provided adjustments) shows zero warming for 18 years.  

8) "In some parts of the country, weather-related disasters like droughts, and fires, and storms, and floods are going to get harsher and they’re going to get costlier." 

BS He is repeating himself, see point 2 above.  Past droughts, storms, and floods were much, much worse.  Fewer people back then led to less damage.  Forest mismanagement leads to more and stronger fires.  CO2 has nothing to do with it.

9) "Now, their view (skeptics) may be wrong -- and a fairly serious threat to everybody’s future -- but at least they have the brass to say what they actually think." 

BS  All the warmists’ predictions are false, based on broken models that use corrupted input data and failed to predict the 17 years of no warming that their own measurements (after adjustments) show. 

10) "the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put that debate to rest."  

BS The 97 percent figure has been debunked many times.   The fact is that thousands of scientists have placed their names on a statement that man-made global warming is bunk.

11)  "But they’re waiting to see what does America do.  That’s what the world does.  It waits to watch us act.  And when we do, they move.  And I’m convinced that on this issue, when America proves what’s possible, then they’re going to join us."  

BS.  There are so many things wrong with this statement.  It is, firstly, a huge insult to citizens of other countries.  With coal being exhausted in 60 to 70 years, the biggest threat is finding economic, reliable renewable replacement power.  It cannot be nuclear power due to costs, resource availability, and decommissioning concerns, also meltdown hazards.  [UPDATE- 6/28/2014: this comment by me generated quite some interest, both in the comments below and in emails to me.  My position on nuclear power is presented in a 30-part series Truth About Nuclear Power, see link. -- end update] 

12)  "You’ve got to educate your classmates, and colleagues, and family members and fellow citizens, and tell them what’s at stake.  You’ve got to push back against the misinformation, and speak out for facts, and organize others around your vision for the future." 

BS.  We must combat the disinformation that CO2 is bad.  We must examine the data and conclusions critically, and not accept the wild, unsupportable conclusions of agenda-driven politicians and their paid scientists.  

Conclusion: 

I repeat here what I wrote in January, 2010: "The tragedy of all this is, of course, that the "science" behind global warming due to greenhouse gases (which includes CO2 in the scientists' view) is completely false. Engineers such as Dr. Pierre Latour, and myself, have published on this, and have each made acclaimed speeches across the country on this topic. Recent developments (late 2009 and January, 2010) show that the supposed warming of the earth's average temperature in the 20th century was falsified, the peer review process was perverted, the temperature records themselves were adjusted and manipulated, and the IPCC report relied on questionable studies (not peer-reviewed, in fact, taken from general non-science magazines). The Wall Street Journal reported that the IPCC's alarmists predictions for melting glaciers in the Himalayan mountains was completely wrong (they are not melting), and the IPCC's statement that warming produces more intense storms and natural catastrophes (heat waves, droughts, etc) were also bunk. The IPCC authors clearly knew the truth, but published their outlandish claims anyway. (As an aside, one must wonder how long they thought they would hide the truth, especially in this era of the internet, and literally hundreds of millions of internet users world-wide. The ability to fact-check by millions of independent persons should give pause to those who seek to dis-inform.)"

[UPDATE 6/22/2014:  . 13) "And this state, California, is so far ahead of the rest of the country in solar, that earlier this year solar power met 18 percent of your total power demand one day."  

BS.  Off by a factor of 3, roughly.  Possibly just wrong information, though.  The fact is that California has installed more and more solar-generated power, both PV and thermal.  The highest amount generated thus far, appears to be from 6/19/2014 when combined solar (PV plus thermal) produced 44,500 MWh.  That is barely 6.4 percent of the total power demand that day of 694,697 MWh.    Note that June 19 is near the summer solstice where hours of sunshine are the greatest.  June is also not the hottest month (that is typically August) so total demand is not at the peak.  One could expect, then, that mid-June will usually have the greatest solar energy as a percent of total energy consumed. 

However, total renewable power on that same day was 17.4 percent, where renewables are comprised of solar, wind, small hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas and biomass.  Note that large hydroelectric does not count, at least not in California.   see link for daily results of renewable energy in California. -- end update ]

Links to supporting posts -

Warmists Are Wrong - Cooling Is Coming

From Man-Made Global Warmist to Skeptic - My Journey

Obama Lies And Economies Will Die  (shows more climate lies from Obama in 2009)

Climate Science Is Not Settled

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California