No matter the drilling method, natural gas is a much-needed tool to battle global warming: study

Jul 10, 2012

No matter how you drill it, using natural gas as an energy source is a smart move in the battle against global climate change and a good transition step on the road toward low-carbon energy from wind, solar and nuclear power.

That is the conclusion of a new study by Cornell Professor Lawrence M. Cathles, published in the most recent edition of the peer-reviewed journal Geochemistry, Geophysics and Geosystems. Cathles, a faculty member in Cornell's Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, reviewed the most recent government and industry data on natural gas "leakage rates" during extraction, as well as recently developed .

He concluded that no matter the timeframe considered, substituting natural gas energy for all coal and some oil production provides about 40 percent of the global warming benefit that a complete switch to low-carbon sources would deliver.

"From a greenhouse point of view, it would be better to replace coal electrical facilities with , wind farms and solar panels, but replacing them with natural gas stations will be faster, cheaper and achieve 40 percent of the low-carbon-fast benefit," Cathles writes in the study. "Gas is a natural transition fuel that could represent the biggest stabilization wedge available to us."

Cathles study, "Assessing the Greenhouse Impact of Natural Gas," includes additional findings about expanding the use of natural gas as an energy source, and the of "unconventional" methods, including hydraulic fracturing in shale formations. They include:

-- Although a more rapid transition to natural gas from coal and some oil produces a greater overall benefit for climate change, the 40-percent of low-carbon energy benefit remains no matter how quickly the transition is made, and no matter the effect of ocean modulation or other climate regulating forces.

-- Although some critics of natural gas as a transition fuel have cited leakage rates as high as 8 percent or more of total production during drilling – particularly extraction – more recent industry data and a critical examination of Environmental Protection Agency data supports leakage rates closer to 1.5 percent for both conventional and hydrofractured wells.

-- Even at higher leakage rates, using natural gas as a transition to low-carbon energy sources is still a better policy than "business as usual" with coal and oil, due to the different rates of decay (and hence long-term global warming effect) of CO2 released in greater amounts by burning coal and oil and any methane released during natural gas extraction.

-- Using natural gas as a transition fuel supports the push to low-carbon sources by providing the "surge capacity" when needed, or a buffer when solar and wind production wanes.

"The most important message of the calculations reported here is that substituting natural gas for coal and oil is a significant way to reduce greenhouse forcing, regardless of how long the substitution takes," Cathles writes. "A faster transition to low-carbon energy sources would decrease greenhouse warming further, but the substitution of for other fossil fuels is equally beneficial in percentage terms no matter how fast the transition."

Explore further: Dog waste contaminates our waterways: A new test could reveal how big the problem is

Related Stories

Fracking leaks may make gas 'dirtier' than coal

Apr 12, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of Climatic Change Letters (105:5).

Low-carbon technologies 'no quick-fix', say researchers

Feb 15, 2012

Could replacing coal-fired electricity plants with generators fueled by natural gas bring global warming to a halt in this century? What about rapid construction of massive numbers of solar or wind farms, ...

Recommended for you

Report IDs 'major weaknesses' at nuclear-arms lab

6 hours ago

One of the nation's premier nuclear weapons laboratories is being called out by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Energy for "major weaknesses" in the way it packaged contaminated waste before shipping it to ...

User comments : 128

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (43) Jul 10, 2012
" no matter the timeframe considered, substituting natural gas energy for all coal and some oil production provides about 40 percent of the global warming benefit that a complete switch to low-carbon sources would deliver."

Obvious.

" replacing them with natural gas stations will be faster, cheaper and achieve 40 percent of the low-carbon-fast benefit"

If you are against the switch the Shale Gas, and you believe CO2 is harming the environment, you are are an idiot or evil ... or an evil idiot.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2012
CO2 from any source is still CO2. Methane does not produce a better CO2 than wood or coal.

But we should use our abundant methane along with other energy sources.
docmordin
4.2 / 5 (29) Jul 10, 2012
[if] you believe CO2 is harming the environment, you are are an idiot...

Your statement is false, and I could post references all day showing that it is:

H. Kurihara, "Effects of CO2-driven acidification on the early development stages of invertebrates", Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 373: 275-284, 2008
S. I. Siikavuopio, et al., "Effects of carbon dioxide exposure on feed intake and gonad growth in green sea urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis", J. Aquac. 266: 97-101, 2007
H. Kurihara, et al., "Effects of raised CO2 concentration on the egg production rate and early development of two marine copepods (Acartia steueri and Acartia erythraea)", Mar. Pollut. Bull. 49: 721-727, 2004
H. Kurihara, et al., "Effects of increased seawater pCO2 on early development of the oyster Crassostrea gigas", Aquat. Biol. 1: 91-98, 2007
H. Kurihara, et al., "Sub-leath effects of elevated concentration of CO2 on planktonic copepods and sea urchins", J. Oceanogr. 60: 743-750, 2004
docmordin
3.8 / 5 (27) Jul 10, 2012
Oh, just in case you want to try and refute that ocean pH is rising due to CO2 levels, I'll direct you to:

K. Caldeira and M. E. Wickett, "Anthropogenic carbon and ocean pH", Nature 425:365, 2003
K. Caldeira and M. E. Wickett, "Ocean model predictions of chemistry changes from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and ocean", J. Geophys. Res. 110:C09S04, 2005
J. C. Orr, et al., "Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the 21st century and its impact on calcifying organisms", Nature 437: 681-686, 2005
C. L. Sabine, et al., "The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2", Science 305:367-371, 2004
H. O. Portner, "Climate change affects marine fishes through the oxygen limitation of thermal tolerance", Science 315:95-97, 2007
H. O. Portner, "Climate change and temperature dependent biogeography: Oxygen limitation and thermal tolerance in animals", Naturwissenschaften 88:137-146, 2001
R. A. Feely, et al., "Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in oceans", Science 305:362-366, 2004
Shootist
2 / 5 (39) Jul 10, 2012
Call me when it's warm enough for dairy farms to have been in Greenland for 300 years. Until then, the climate remains within the parameters established by the historical record.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (32) Jul 10, 2012
CO2 from any source is still CO2. Methane does not produce a better CO2 than wood or coal.


It produces less of it.

"greenhouse gas emissions from burning natural gas average

13.7 g C of CO2 per million joules of energy compared to
18.6 for gasoline,
18.9 for diesel fuel, and
24.0 for bituminous coal "

TheHealthPhysicist
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 10, 2012
Using round numbers, assume CH4 emits 50% of the carbon than does coal/oil. But CH4 leakage is 25x more insulative than CO2. If CH4 leakage is 1.5%, then:

CH4:coal/oil = 50% plus (1.5%)25= 88%

That's not much.
ZachAdams
3.2 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2012
docmordin, you over zealously interpreted NotParker's sentence which is in the form of If A AND B then C. His remark says "AND you believe CO2 is harming the environment"
rubberman
3.2 / 5 (27) Jul 10, 2012
Call me when it's warm enough for dairy farms to have been in Greenland for 300 years. Until then, the climate remains within the parameters established by the historical record.


What does this mean? If you are insinuating Greenland had operational dairy farms for 300 years then proof would be required. Otherwise we can stick to the historical, and archaeological evidence that there were 1 or 2 farms with some cattle that existed for a considerably shorter time period than 300 years. Also, given the historical parameters you speak of, (I assume the MWP) those temperatures with todays CO2 level would be globally devastating.
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2012
If you are against the switch the Shale Gas, and you believe CO2 is harming the environment, you are are an idiot or evil ... or an evil idiot.


docmordin, you over zealously interpreted NotParker's sentence which is in the form of If A AND B then C. His remark says "AND you believe CO2 is harming the environment"


OK, I believe that shale gas is better than coal and oil, and that CO2 is harmful to the environment...what does that mean?

NotParker
2.1 / 5 (26) Jul 10, 2012
Using round numbers, assume CH4 emits 50% of the carbon than does coal/oil. But CH4 leakage is 25x more insulative than CO2. If CH4 leakage is 1.5%, then:

CH4:coal/oil = 50% plus (1.5%)25= 88%

That's not much.


CH4 is measured in the atmosphere in parts per billion.
CO2 is measured in the atmosphere in parts per million.

Ch4 in atmosphere = 1800ppb = 1.8ppm
CO2 in atmopshere = 400ppm

During the Eemian, CH4 (without human help of course), rose from 300ppb to 700ppb.

http://www.ferdin...ian.html
chasehusky
3.4 / 5 (25) Jul 10, 2012
Docmordin, you over zealously interpreted NotParker's sentence which is in the form of If A AND B then C.

It may seem that way. But, one only need to look through NotParker's post history, on just about any global warming press release posted to physorg, to see that he vehemently rejects the idea that excessive CO2 is hurting the environment, that global warming is anthropogenic in nature, etc. With that knowledge in hand, the AND in the aforementioned logic equation could be softened to an OR, as, I imagine, he'd still consider A (against shale gas) OR B (believe that CO2 harms the environment) then C (idiot) to be true.
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (25) Jul 10, 2012
In the USA, over 70% of CH4 emissions are anthropogenic,
dominated by biogenic sources. The five major sources of CH4 in
North America are
(1) wetlands,
(2) landfills,
(3) enteric fermentation in animals,
(4) animal waste disposal, and
(5) fossil sources including leakage from natural gas distributions systems and coal production.

Other sources such as
(6) sewage disposal,
(7) paddy rice cultivation,
(8) biomass burning may be important regionally and/or seasonally.

The agricultural sector accounts for ~50% of the human-induced CH4,
and ~30% of total CH4 emissions in the US.
runrig
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2012
.................... one only need to look through NotParker's post history, on just about any global warming press release posted to physorg, to see that he vehemently rejects the idea that excessive CO2 is hurting the environment, that global warming is anthropogenic in nature, etc......................


Not only that but Parky even denies that there is warming at all.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (28) Jul 10, 2012

Not only that but Parky even denies that there is warming at all.


From when to when and where?

7th coldest June in Washington State.

8.7F Colder than the warmest June.

http://sunshineho...n-state/

See, if CO2 causes heat waves in Kansas it must also be causing cold waves on the west coast.

June 2012 in Oregon was the 16th coldest ever. 7.8F colder than 1918.

California was 74th coldest. 6.4F colder than 1896!

Idaho ... 6.6F colder than 1918.
TheHealthPhysicist
2.5 / 5 (19) Jul 10, 2012
Using round numbers, assume CH4 emits 50% of the carbon than does coal/oil. But CH4 leakage is 25x more insulative than CO2. If CH4 leakage is 1.5%, then:

CH4:coal/oil = 50% plus (1.5%)25= 88%

That's not much.


CH4 is measured in the atmosphere in parts per billion.
CO2 is measured in the atmosphere in parts per million.

Ch4 in atmosphere = 1800ppb = 1.8ppm
CO2 in atmopshere = 400ppm

During the Eemian, CH4 (without human help of course), rose from 300ppb to 700ppb.

http://www.ferdin...ian.html


Your points are distractios. It doesn't matter the units, it doesn't matter what happened in the past. Replacing coal/oil with CH4 is only about a 12% reduction in warming. And if CH4 is cheaper so less conservation, it will be close to no reduction.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (27) Jul 10, 2012

Your points are distractios. It doesn't matter the units, it doesn't matter what happened in the past. Replacing coal/oil with CH4 is only about a 12% reduction in warming. And if CH4 is cheaper so less conservation, it will be close to no reduction.


Your math is wrong for many reasons:

"Coal mining accounts for about 10 percent of US releases of methane (CH4) ... It is the fourth largest source of methane following landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation."

If you aren't in favor of replacing coal with shale gas:

1) You are an idiot
2) Evil
3) Both
Parsec
3.4 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2012
I so wish that the physorg editors would weed out the obvious Luddites, religious fanatics, etc. and ban them. However, it would be impossible to simply ban people simply because they lack a functional brain. Being a complete idiot isn't actually against the guild-lines. Mentioning names is also against the guild-lines, so I won't say who I am talking about (but his initials are NP).
runrig
4.1 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2012

Not only that but Parky even denies that there is warming at all.


From when to when and where?

7th coldest June in Washington State.

8.7F Colder than the warmest June.

http://sunshineho...n-state/

See, if CO2 causes heat waves in Kansas it must also be causing cold waves on the west coast.

June 2012 in Oregon was the 16th coldest ever. 7.8F colder than 1918.

California was 74th coldest. 6.4F colder than 1896!

Idaho ... 6.6F colder than 1918.


I/we continually, and to no avail it seems ( you cant be this thick - must be another agenda at hand ).

Look, the clue to where, is in the word GLOBAL, you know, as in GLOBAL WARMING. So the where is the GLOBE - EARTH - THE PLANET. IT HAS TO BE AVERAGED OUT.

The when is where the increase in CO2 became the overriding driver. The 1970's on.

TheHealthPhysicist
2.7 / 5 (21) Jul 10, 2012

"Coal mining accounts for about 10 percent of US releases of methane (CH4) ... It is the fourth largest source of methane following landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation."

Yes, it is the fourth largest source. It falls BEHIND CH4 production already. So as CH4 production grows, so will CH4 emissions!!!

It's pretty obvious who the idiot is.

rubberman
2.7 / 5 (23) Jul 10, 2012
"(you cant be this thick - must be another agenda at hand )."

BINGO!!! Notice he stayed away from the doc though?
Like a frightened mole.
ZachAdams
2.8 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2012
The thrust of NotParker's sentence is pointed at those who are opposed to Shale Gas (by implication, to fracking). He implies that, as suggested by this article, natural gas is better for the environment and extends this inference to include Shale Gas. Therefor, it suggests that if one is pro environment one should also be pro natural gas (in the form of Shale Gas)

docmordin changed the meaning of the original statement turning it into an assertion that believing CO2 hurts the environment is false. That's not what he said.

To docmordin's credit he gave good references in support of the harmful affects of CO2.

I would also point out that CO2 notwithstanding, coal is a very particulate dirty fuel which has other adverse environmental affects.
wealthychef
2.7 / 5 (15) Jul 10, 2012
CO2 from any source is still CO2. Methane does not produce a better CO2 than wood or coal.


It produces less of it.

"greenhouse gas emissions from burning natural gas average

13.7 g C of CO2 per million joules of energy compared to
18.6 for gasoline,
18.9 for diesel fuel, and
24.0 for bituminous coal "



I thought you didn't care about CO2 emissions? IF you want less CO2 emissions, I'd say it makes even MORE sense to not burn nonrenewable carbon-based fuels at all, including methane. So focus on solar and nuclear fusion, IMO.
ZachAdams
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2012
Well, NotParker, now you are arguing like a politician on someone's payroll by picking and choosing some data points to fallaciously make a case. I don't see anyone here buying this.

What is beyond comprehension is this. If we assume that:
(1) atmospheric CO2 is increasing due to the use of fossil fuels
(2) studies show this 'may' have a long term affect which 'could be' causing global warming.
(3) that there is a significant lag time and an accumulated affect of CO2 potentially causing an increase in global temperatures.

What is an appropriate course of action? There obviously does not seem to be any positive reasons for wanting to increase atmospheric CO2. Even if we aren't sure of the science behind the projections, given the potential disaster, who would argue against attempting to reduce CO2 emissions ASAP?

Why has this issue become so politicized when it could negatively affect your children's future?
djr
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2012
Quick lesson on cherry picking - it is very instructive.

Parker refutes the idea that there is a warming trend with this statement "7th coldest June in Washington State." Interesting - now check out this data from NOAA

"47 of the 48 contiguous states were warmer than average over the 12-month period, with Washington the lone exception."

"In all, a total of 28 states, all east of the Rocky Mountains, had a record warm first six months of the year. Another 15 states had their top 10 warmest January-June. Only Washington state recorded a cooler-than-average first half of 2012"

Notice which state Parker chose to reference....

Here is the link - http://www.weathe...20120709

See how Cherry picking works? - something about the last refuge of scoundrels I think....
ZachAdams
2.9 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2012
If we assumed that the science behind global warming projections was not 100% reliable (we don't have all the facts). Suppose that it was only reliable in some statistical way, pick a number, any number.

Now consider what the drawbacks would be to reducing CO2 emissions?

We would have cleaner air, hardly a drawback. Less overall pollution as alternative energy sources are brought online. Less international political risk due to offshore oil sources. By making our appliances (cars, electronics etc) more energy efficient we would reduce demand (or keep in in line with the rising population) and lower our energy individual costs.

Who stands to benefit from denial? The politicians who have been bought. There is no other reason.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 10, 2012
Quick lesson on cherry picking - it is very instructive.

Parker refutes the idea that there is a warming trend with this statement "7th coldest June in Washington State." Interesting - now check out this data from NOAA

"47 of the 48 contiguous states were warmer than average over the 12-month period, with Washington the lone exception."

"In all, a total of 28 states, all east of the Rocky Mountains, had a record warm first six months of the year. Another 15 states had their top 10 warmest January-June. Only Washington state recorded a cooler-than-average first half of 2012"

Notice which state Parker chose to reference....


I did mention Oregon 16th coldest June.

Jan-June in Oregon was ranked 71st coldest. 4.9F colder than the the warmest Jan-June.

Notice that while technically Jan-Jun Oregon was in the "top half", it didn't even make the top 40.

Vendicar_Decarian
Jul 10, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2012

"Coal mining accounts for about 10 percent of US releases of methane (CH4) ... It is the fourth largest source of methane following landfills, natural gas systems, and enteric fermentation."

Yes, it is the fourth largest source. It falls BEHIND CH4 production already. So as CH4 production grows, so will CH4 emissions!!!

It's pretty obvious who the idiot is.



It falls behind all NG systems. 80% of which are old fashioned NG wells and the whole distribution network.

If coal was replaced by shale gas, it would be vast improvement in CO2 (not that I really care).

More importantly to me, if the USA replaces as much diesel etc with shale gas, it will deprive many dictatorships of trillions of dollars over the next 50 years and keep that money in the USA.

And the air would be a lot cleaner.

But none of you actually care about the environment. Thats just your cover story. You all work for Saudi Arabia or Gazprom protecting their sales.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (12) Jul 10, 2012
And yet the continental U.S. as a whole continues to warm.

"I did mention Oregon 16th coldest June." - ParkerTard

All ParkerTard has are lies based on cherypicked nonsense.

He is mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2012
ParkerTard has been posting to this thread for the last 4 hours. From about 1pm EST until 5pm EST. Prior to that he was posting to other threads.

He does this kind of thing daily, as well as maintaining his own BLOG under the pseudonym sunshinehours1 - which he also uses to post to various blogs elsewhere on the net.

Who are his financial backers?
Benni
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 10, 2012
Methane as a component of natural gas, is many times more potent a greenhouse gas than is CO2. Better to burn the methane before it dissipates from the surface into the atmosphere, then deal with the lesser problem of CO2, this is what we do inside our homes & energy producing power plants.

Burning off the near surface pools of methane is a much more efficient manner of controlling release of greenhouse gases than dealing with the release of CO2 from coal burning.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 10, 2012
And yet the continental U.S. as a whole continues to warm.


Not for June.

According to the NOAA, the warmest June in USA history was 1933.

Followed by 1918, 1994, 1988, 2002, 2006, 1952, 2010, 1931, 1934, 1911, 1936 and then in 14th place: 2012.

http://sunshineho...hat-hot/
DavidW
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 10, 2012
Opinions as science? Phyorg has just destroyed any reputation of honesty. Fire the writer and issue and say sorry to the public.

Reminds me of FOX, MSNBC and CBS all in one lie.

The writers name is not even mentioned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jeddy_Mctedder
2 / 5 (21) Jul 10, 2012
the anti-natural gas 'green' crowd is actually secretly funded by big coal.

have you noticed how coal companies have suffered in the last year?

patriot coal declared bankruptcy yesterday. a billion dollar company only a couple of years ago. destroyed by natural gas.

all the anti-fracking morons out there don't understand how problematic coal is, and how much more important it is to solve coal NOW than it is to pout and complain about the world not running exclusively on solar power and unicorn farts tomorrow. As if they understood the dynamics of energy infrastructure, or as if their dreams of a command and control economy would be realized as oppposed to result in simple financial catastrophe that leads us right back to using exclusively coal for electricity as it is cheapest.
ZachAdams
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 10, 2012
NOAA? So what? It's only the global temperature trend that matters.

So you are admittedly in favor of adding CO2 to the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate driven by the increasing world population and industrialization? Is there some point where this might matter?
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 10, 2012
Opionions as science? Many of the articles referenced by Physorg are opinion pieces - Physorg acts as a reference source. Rygg et al constantly level the charge of bias. Perhaps there is a bias in the decision making that goes in to the selection of the articles they reference - so what? If there is a bias - like maybe they are a bunch of liberals all pushing a specific political agenda (does not seem that way to me) - but let us suppose there is - so what? That is there right. I don't see any statements from Physorg that claim they are totally neutral, impartial, and present no bias in there decision making. All the major newspapers have a bias - come to Oklahoma and see how bias our one daily rag is. That is there right - they own the newspaper. If there is a bias, and you don't like it - move on - please....
runrig
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
"Who are his financial backers?"

Interesting question. And one that I've come to think must be valid.

Do you think he/she gets paid piece rate or just puts in the hours?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Jul 10, 2012
"As if they understood the dynamics of energy infrastructure, or as if their dreams of a command and control economy would be realized as oppposed to result in simple financial catastrophe that leads us right back to using exclusively coal for electricity as it is cheapest." I actually support the use of gas as a bridge fuel - until we can realistically scale up alternatives. However - I do have a pretty good understanding of our energy infrastructure - and I think your analysis of coal as the 'cheapest' is very outdated. Check out the data referenced in this report - http://www.skepti...wer.html Interestingly solar is still over double what you might call grid parity (about $100 per MWh) - but if you install our own system - then it will cost you about the same as you pay the local utility co.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

"And yet the continental U.S. as a whole continues to warm." - VD

Here is the trend for June temperatures in the continental U.S. from the NOAA data set.

https://docs.goog...kZnVld0U

The trend line (Green) is clearly upward with a rise of about 1.3'F since 1900.

"Not for June" - ParkerTard

Once again, Parkertard has been exposed as a congenital liar.

He is mentally diseased.
djr
5 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2012
Parker said "I did mention Oregon 16th coldest June" I hope it is still pretty obvious to the community that picking specific states - and referencing specific months within those specific states - constitutes cherry picking - especially when put against the backdrop of the NOAA data - http://www.weathe...20120709 of course you could argue that the NOAA data is still cherry picking - but then you would have to go to a global data set - and I don't think Parker et al would want to go there.....http://data.giss....aphs_v3/
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (23) Jul 10, 2012
I personally think 4 Junes in the top 13 from 1930s and 2 from the 1910s indicate that the idea that this century is warmer than the last is kind of bogus.

The US population has quadrupled since 1911. The urban heat island is 7 - 9C in the summer according to NASA satellites and the NOAA is selectively cooler older temperature records.

If all 2012 can do is hit #14, it ain't very hot. In fact, the odds are the 1930s were a lot warmer than now. UHI just makes it appear closer.

Pressure2
3.2 / 5 (13) Jul 10, 2012
NP just keeps ignoring the facts.

The first 6 months of 2012 the warmest on record for the lower 48 states.

http://www.bing.c...?q=first six months 2012 warmest on record&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=first six months 2012 warmest on record&sc=8-17&sp=-1&sk=
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (24) Jul 10, 2012
NP just keeps ignoring the facts.

The first 6 months of 2012 the warmest on record for the lower 48 states.



Only because they have been adjusting the old data downwards.

"However, if we look at the current NCDC temperature analysis (which runs from 1895-present) we see that for Arizona in February 1934 they have a state average of 48.9°F, not the 52.0°F that was originally published"

http://wattsupwit...records/

http://notalotofp...t-again/

The NOAA/NCDC people are true believers, so they are now blatantly cooling the past to make it appear warmer now.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2012
Yup. It's all a conspiracy by the worlds scientists.

"Only because they have been adjusting the old data downwards."

ParkerTard is mentally diseased.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2012
Why do you make that a criterion? Greenland never had dairy farms that lasted 300 years, and most probably never had dairy farms at all, since there is no evidence for such.

"Call me when it's warm enough for dairy farms to have been in Greenland for 300 years." - ShooTard

You are living a lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Jul 10, 2012
That is what he is paid to come here and do.

"NP just keeps ignoring the facts." - Pressure2
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jul 10, 2012
The claimed personal opinions of congenital liars does not interest rational, thinking, people.

"I personally think 4 Junes in the top 13" - ParkerTard

Poor Mentally Diseased ParkerTard. He will "Believe" anything he is paid to "Believe".
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 10, 2012
Here is an explanation from NOAA of how they do the adjustments to try to make sure the temperature data is consistent and reliable. It is not a secret that these adjustments are done - and the process is open and documented. http://www.ncdc.n...h/ushcn/

If someone has a problem with the process - they need to develop their own data set - the data is fully available - then let's see if they can do a better job. It is so easy to write a watsupwiththat article making it sound like a grand conspiracy - let's see their data set.....
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (22) Jul 10, 2012
It wasn't WUWT that originally did the article.

It was Jeff Masters and Weather Underground.

http://www.wunder...rynum=75

The adjustments cool the past and warm the present.

Dishonest.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
ParkerTard refers to WUWT which is a well known denialist circle jerk blog that is run for profit by a retired radio weather announcer.

Apparently, the bloggers can't read NOAA documents.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...2009.pdf

Apparently they are part of the grand scientific conspiracy against Conservative Americans.
djr
4.3 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2012
Parker should learn to read. If he looked at comment 5 on the Weather Underground site - he would see a comment made by the author of the original article - repudiating WUWT and their misrepresentation of his work - and validating the process of adjustment as practiced by the NCDC. You have to give parker credit for being persistent.....
Estevan57
1.8 / 5 (25) Jul 11, 2012
Trolls generally are persistant, djr. :)
vlaaing peerd
5 / 5 (3) Jul 11, 2012
then don't feed self-indentity-denying-and-reality denying trolls, obviously they need more selfhelp they we can give them.

Might I add to this conversation that the warming of the oceans not just causes warming anywhere. Global warming can just as well cause certain areas to be colder or more common, cause more extremes (higher highs and lower lows).
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (20) Jul 11, 2012
Parker should learn to read. If he looked at comment 5 on the Weather Underground site - he would see a comment made by the author of the original article - repudiating WUWT and their misrepresentation of his work - and validating the process of adjustment as practiced by the NCDC. You have to give parker credit for being persistent.....


"You might argue, well why not just stick to these same sites that reported in 1934 and compare to what they now observe in 2012? That is not possible because many of the sites that reported in 1934 have long since stopped supplying data, so it is therefore impossible to keep that timeline continuous. Plus, even the city or town sites that STILL report data now have (since 1934) relocated within their municipalities and/or effected changes in instrumentation."

Translation: We have no idea how hot 1934 was compared to today.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2012
Parker should learn to read. If he looked at comment 5 on the Weather Underground site - he would see a comment made by the author of the original article - repudiating WUWT and their misrepresentation of his work - and validating the process of adjustment as practiced by the NCDC. You have to give parker credit for being persistent.....


The investigation continues.

http://notalotofp...alabama/

" It is clear that pretty much all of the difference between the old and new datasets is due to temperature adjustments.

And it is not just Alabama. For instance the Southeast Region, covering Virginia down to Florida and across to Alabama, shows a similar adjustment, cooling the past and warming the present by the best part of a whole degree. So does the Northeast Region."

NCDC is artificially cooling the past in order to claim the present is warmer.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2012
Parker should learn to read. If he looked at comment 5 on the Weather Underground site - he would see a comment made by the author of the original article - repudiating WUWT and their misrepresentation of his work - and validating the process of adjustment as practiced by the NCDC. You have to give parker credit for being persistent.....


Burt says: "The original raw data of specific weather stations has not been changed"

Incorrect.

NCDC is now switching state data from raw to adjusted.

Guess what happens?

"Valley Head, Alabama :-

1936 Raw 60.30
1936 Adj 58.49

2011 Raw 59.54
2011 Adj 59.82"

They cool the temperature of old data and warm the new data with the "adjustment", which dishonestly makes the present seem warmer.

It isn't.

http://notalotofp...alabama/
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2012
comment 5 on the Weather Underground site


"You might argue, well why not just stick to these same sites that reported in 1934 and compare to what they now observe in 2012? That is not possible because many of the sites that reported in 1934 have long since stopped supplying data, so it is therefore impossible to keep that timeline continuous. Plus, even the city or town sites that STILL report data now have (since 1934) relocated within their municipalities and/or effected changes in instrumentation.

This is why, for the sake of determining long-term trends, it is not possible to simply use the same raw data from 1934 as in, say, 2012."

How much hotter was 1934 than 2012? No one really knows.

But they'll cool the old data just in case ... because they can.
Pressure2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2012
The minor adjustments NP and his ilk from the coal and oil industry is crying about are pretty much mute when one compares them to the recent record setting highs over much of the US.

The excerpt from the link below explains some of the reason for the adjustments to old temperature records. This is perfectly reasonable and the NCDC is not trying to mislead anyone.

"Application of the Station History Adjustment Procedure (yellow line) resulted in an average increase in US temperatures, especially from 1950 to 1980. During this time, many sites were relocated from city locations to airports and from roof tops to grassy areas. This often resulted in cooler readings than were observed at the previous sites. When adjustments were applied to correct for these artificial changes, average US temperature anomalies were cooler in the first half of the 20th century and effectively warmed throughout the later half."

http://www.ncdc.n...hcn.html
Pressure2
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2012
Notice the date, this data does not even include the last few years of 10's of thousands of record highs.

November 12, 2009
BOULDER Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.


https://www2.ucar...cross-us
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 11, 2012
Persistent Parker insists - "NCDC is artificially cooling the past in order to claim the present is warmer." No they are not. Parkers source has been refuted - links were provided to show that Parker's view are those of a conspiratorial nut job. It is an interesting disease to observe - when one can be so wrong - it is pointed out that one is wrong - and one still believes the gvt is in a grand conspiracy to decieve the world......sigh....
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (20) Jul 11, 2012
Persistent Parker insists - "NCDC is artificially cooling the past in order to claim the present is warmer." No they are not. Parkers source has been refuted - links were provided to show that Parker's view are those of a conspiratorial nut job. It is an interesting disease to observe - when one can be so wrong - it is pointed out that one is wrong - and one still believes the gvt is in a grand conspiracy to decieve the world......sigh....


The adjustments are the only warming in the 20th century. Its a con game.

http://stevengodd...ce-1900/
Pressure2
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
NP's own article refutes what he is claiming, the difference doesn't disappear. And this artlcle does not even include some of the warmest months and years yet. All time record highs in many place in just the last month. Record highs out number record lows 2 to 1 in the last 10 years.

Quote from NP's article:
"How significant is 0.7F? Well, nationally, US temperatures according to NCDC have been increasing at a rate of 0.10F/decade sine 1930, or about 0.80F during the last 80 years or so. Without these temperature adjustments, this increase effectively disappears."

http://notalotofp...alabama/
Pressure2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 11, 2012
All this argument about temperature doesn't really mean much.

The earth could be liken to a glass of ice water. If one slowly stirred the ice water in a room of 70 degrees the temperature of the water will stay nearly the same, an increase of about 0.1F, until the ice is completely melted. Even though the temperature remains essentially the same the water is gaining many calories of heat. Once the ice is all melted the water will increase in temperature quite rapidly.

The same thing applies to the earth as a whole, the ice is already melting so LOOK OUT. The last six months will seem cool in just a few decades.
Pressure2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 11, 2012
The hockey puck will soon be hitting the coal and oil industry's goalie NP up side the head!
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (21) Jul 11, 2012
NP's own article refutes what he is claiming, the difference doesn't disappear. And this artlcle does not even include some of the warmest months and years yet. All time record highs in many place in just the last month. Record highs out number record lows 2 to 1 in the last 10 years.


Last 10 years is not as relevant as looking at all years.

All time daily record highs

year count
1936 10011
1934 9704
1939 7743
1931 7424
1930 6862
1933 6808
1953 6589
1925 6567
1954 6338
1911 6206

https://stevengod...-the-us/
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (22) Jul 11, 2012
All this argument about temperature doesn't really mean much.

The earth could be liken to a glass of ice water. If one slowly stirred the ice water in a room of 70 degrees the temperature of the water will stay nearly the same, an increase of about 0.1F, until the ice is completely melted. Even though the temperature remains essentially the same the water is gaining many calories of heat. Once the ice is all melted the water will increase in temperature quite rapidly.

The same thing applies to the earth as a whole, the ice is already melting so LOOK OUT. The last six months will seem cool in just a few decades.


Globally, the last 6 months were not that warm.

NOAA, which grossly overestimates the temperature said Jan-May was the "11th warmest on record" which means 10 years were warmer.

2011 was only .3C warmer than 1944. Well within the margin of error let alone when UHI is considered.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 12, 2012
"Globally, the last 6 months were not that warm." One wonders what kind of a delusional mind would make such absurd statements. I would love to see Parkers Data that would back up such nonsense. This graph covers it for me. http://www.ncdc.n...1205.gif
PussyCat_Eyes
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2012
CO2 from any source is still CO2. Methane does not produce a better CO2 than wood or coal.

But we should use our abundant methane along with other energy sources.
- dogbert

Methane is a great fuel. Here are some links:

http://www.redice...?id=6958

http://www.techno...ture.php

http://www.popsci...e-system
This is a great idea.IF you have that many cows

http://environmen...ws/36977

http://my.opera.c...-methane

http://www.greenf...use-gas/
Pressure2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
NP: What you seem to be missing is the longer one keeps records the fewer records that will be broken. The first year of record keeping every day is a record, the second year about 1/2 will be a record, etc,etc.

So the records of the last few years are OUT of the norm. The ones set in the 30's, not so much.
Pressure2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2012
Here again Parker your statistics refute your own claim. For example, a record set after 30 years of record keeping has about 1/3 the value of a record high after 100 years. So either have to divide the record high numbers set in the 30's by 3 or multiply the record highs set in 2011 by 3 to make a direct comparison.
Making direct comparisons the last 10 years of record highs WIN hands down when compared to the 30's!

Last 10 years is not as relevant as looking at all years.

All time daily record highs

year count
1936 10011
1934 9704
1939 7743
1931 7424
1930 6862
1933 6808
1953 6589
1925 6567
1954 6338
1911 6206

djr
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2012
"the longer one keeps records the fewer records that will be broken" You are of course correct Pressure - and in a steady state climate - the number of records being set (both highs and lows) would fall every year - at this point a record temperature would be a rare event. Of course the larger point is that we don't have to count number of temperature records being set to evaluate the climate trend - we can just look at the average temperature data. Here is an example. http://www.cru.ue...shgl.gif Now you notice I referenced data from the British climate research - to make it harder for the Parkers of the world to say - but NOAA is fudging the data. Of course they will construct an article from somewhere that proves that every piece of data out there is part of the grand conspiracy - oh well.....
Pressure2
2.3 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2012
I would like to give dir and VD a 5 (and NP 1's) but for some reason I have lost the right to rate articles and individual posting.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012

All time daily record highs

year count
1936 10011
1934 9704
1939 7743
1931 7424
1930 6862
1933 6808
1953 6589
1925 6567
1954 6338
1911 6206

https://stevengod...-the-us/


Actually, the opposite is true. If AGW ACTUALLY was happening, then the list should have 7 or 8 years from 1998 on.

There are zero.

There are 6 years from the 1930s.

Remember, despite them manipulating and adjusting and cooling all the old data, 1934 is still the 3rd warmest year in US history.

If you look at the warmest months by state from before 1980, you will see that it was warmer in the past.

Arizona Jun Sep Dec
Arkansas Jan Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
California Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Dec
Colorado Feb Apr May Oct Nov
Connecticut Jan Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Delaware Jan Feb Mar Aug Sep
Florida Jan Feb Mar Apr May Sep Oct Dec
Georgia Jan Feb May Jun Sep Oct Dec
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012

If you look at the warmest months by state from before 1980, you will see that it was warmer in the past.

Idaho Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Dec
Illinois May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Indiana Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Iowa Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Kansas Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Kentucky Jan Feb Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Nov Dec
Louisiana Jan Feb Mar Apr May Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maine Jan Mar May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maryland Jan Feb Mar Jun Jul Aug Sep
Massachusetts Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Michigan Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Minnesota Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Mississippi Jan Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Missouri Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Montana May Jul Aug Oct Nov Dec
Nebraska Feb May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Nevada Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Nov Dec
New Hampshire Jan Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
New Jersey Jan Jul Sep
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (18) Jul 12, 2012

If you look at the warmest months by state from before 1980, you will see that it was warmer in the past.

New Mexico Jan Feb Mar Oct Nov
New York Jan Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
North Carolina Jan Feb Mar May Jun Aug Sep Oct Dec
North Dakota Feb Mar May Jul Sep Oct Dec
Ohio Jan Apr Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Oklahoma Feb May Jun Sep Oct Dec
Oregon Jan Feb Mar Apr Jun Jul Aug Dec
Pennsylvania Jan Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Rhode Island Jan Sep Oct Nov Dec
South Carolina Jan Feb Mar May Jun Sep Oct Dec
South Dakota Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Tennessee Jan Feb Apr May Jun Jul Sep Oct Dec
Texas Jan Mar Apr Sep Oct Nov Dec
Utah Feb May Nov Dec
Vermont Jan Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Virginia Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Washington Jan Apr May Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
West Virginia Jan Feb Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Wisconsin Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Dec
Wyoming Jan Feb Apr May Oct Nov Dec
Pressure2
3 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
Wrong again Parker, you can have zero record highs in any given year and it can STILL be warmer than a year with many record highs. Record highs are relative to the number of years records have been kept and may also have little to do with AVERAGE temperatures in any given year. Even humidity plays a role in recorded temperatures. Like a mentioned before the first year of record keeping every day (100%) sets record highs and lows. After 33 years (1930's)on average 3 1/3% will set record highs and lows. After 100 years (now) 1% on average with all other things being equal will set new record highs and lows.

Quote from NP: "Actually, the opposite is true. If AGW ACTUALLY was happening, then the list should have 7 or 8 years from 1998 on.

There are zero.

There are 6 years from the 1930s."

Pressure2
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2012
I wish I had the resources of the coal and oil industries to do my research because for every warmer period you mention before 1980 one could probably find 2 or 3 warmer periods after 1980.

Like I mentioned before temperatures are relative to humidity, and that is why the Dust Bowl of the 30's set many record high temperatures.

But if you take out the relative humidity and figure in the length of time records were kept the last ten years are the warmest ever. Click on Dir's link and see for yourself.
http://www.cru.ue...shgl.gif
djr
4 / 5 (4) Jul 12, 2012
There is a question Parker cannot answer - and therefore refuses to answer - and therefore clutters the airwaves with volumes of cherry picked data - one month at a time. The question is - how do you account for the very clear data trend - demonstrated by multiple global data sets? - an example of which is here http://www.cru.ue...shgl.gif
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
I wish I had the resources of the coal and oil industries to do my research because for every warmer period you mention before 1980 one could probably find 2 or 3 warmer periods after 1980.


If the average temperature goes up (and no manipulation is taking place) it can be because:

1) Maximum has gone up
2) Minimum has gone up
3) Combination of the 2

1998 and 2006 were the USA's supposed warmest years.

If 1998 and 2006 were warmer than 1934 because of #1 (higher maximums) then 1998 and 2006 should be at the top of the list of daily heat records.

They aren't.

Therefore it is more likely (and I may research this one day) the minimums have gone up.

UHI is a good candidate for higher minimums.

The urban heat island effect causes evenings to stay warm as all that concrete etc radiates its heat after the sun has gone down.
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (13) Jul 12, 2012
I think you people have your environmental priority all skewed. You give so much more importance to the "dangers" of CO2, which doesn't burn, while ignoring the fact that METHANE is far more dangerous...because it BURNS and it is sequestered in ice crystals under water and in tundra/permafrost. On page 3, I submitted links that explain how dangerous the stuff is and how it gives off CO2 when it burns, but no one here seems to care except for dogbert who brought up the subject of methane. In 2015, many countries will be attempting to "harvest" that methane in a wholesale attempt to use methane clathrates to replace the usual fossil fuels. There are inherent problems that they will have to deal with, most notably the escape of the methane from the ice crystals in which it is captured, and rising into the atmosphere. The methane from tundra is a renewable source from rotting animal and vegetation. You should all be advocating methane to replace fossil fuels from all sources.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
dir, 2011 was only warmer than 1944 for some months of the year.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1944

And the natural warming caused by the LIA ending was just as steep.

http://www.woodfo.../to:1944
Pressure2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
Parker, you should probably delete some of the records you listed previously because these new recent records have bested them. The 2100 record highs mentioned happen in just 9 days! Oh my, that does not even count June or last March.

July 9, 2012
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

"The average temperature during that period was at 52.9 degrees F, which is 4.5 degrees above the typical average. Twenty-eight states east of the Rockys were had record warm temperatures, with an additional 15 states in the top 10 for warm temperatures. Every state across the contiguous U.S. had warmer than average temperatures, except Washington. " - - -

- - - - "The higher temperatures were aided by the recent heat wave that caused at least 65 deaths. While temperatures have cooled down, the temperature has broken more than 2,100 temperature records since July 1."

http://www.cbsnew...n-record
Pressure2
2.8 / 5 (9) Jul 12, 2012
dir, 2011 was only warmer than 1944 for some months of the year.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1944


Parker are you zzzzing, do you even look at your own links?
Both clearly show a decades long warming trend.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
Parker, you should probably delete some of the records you listed


The monthly data from the NOAA was published yesterday and is up to date for June 2012.

Warmest Junes for each state:

Arizona 1896
Arkansas 1953
California 1896
Colorado 2012
Connecticut 1925
Delaware 2010
Florida 1998
Georgia 1952
Idaho 1918
Illinois 1934
Indiana 1934
Iowa 1933
Kansas 1952
Kentucky 1952
Louisiana 2011
Maine 1930
Maryland 1943
Massachusetts 1930
Michigan 1919
Minnesota 1933
Mississippi 1914
Missouri 1952
Montana 1988
Nebraska 1933
Nevada 1918
New Hampshire 1976
New Jersey 2010
New Mexico 1990
New York 1949
North Carolina 1952
North Dakota 1988
Ohio 1934
Oklahoma 1953
Oregon 1918
Pennsylvania 1943
Rhode Island 2010
South Carolina 1952
South Dakota 1933
Tennessee 1952
Texas 2011
Utah 2007
Vermont 1949
Virginia 2010
Washington 1992
West Virginia 1943
Wisconsin 1933
Wyoming 1988
PussyCat_Eyes
1.6 / 5 (14) Jul 12, 2012
(contd)
IF warming continues year after year, and each year is warmer than the last, as you people seem to believe, then the tundra/permafrost is also warming and the ice crystals that sequester the methane will melt and release the methane. If the methane can be captured and piped for storage, that's fine. But whatever isn't captured will burn as the tundra vegetation burns, releasing even more CO2.
Eventually, liquified methane will be used in vehicle engines and methane gas will be burned to power turbines for electricity. Until this is accomplished, we have to use what is still available.
But in /- 2 years, there will be changes made and the fossil fuel industry may become a thing of the past. I think it will take about 2 years before things start to happen, because further studies have to be made of the methane clathrate situation, and the feasibility of creating the right conditions so that it is, indeed, renewable. My money is on methane.
:)
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
dir, 2011 was only warmer than 1944 for some months of the year.

http://www.woodfo...rom:1944


Parker are you zzzzing, do you even look at your own links?
Both clearly show a decades long warming trend.


Right. And even the most rabid AGW cult member agrees CO2 had little or no warming effect before 1950.

Therefore 1909 to 1944 was natural.

And that means some or all warming after 1980 could have been caused by the same mechanism that caused the 1909 to 1944 warming.

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
Also consider where these temperatures are being collected from.

GISTemp uses (as of 2009) 1079 stations for its GAT.

134 were in the US.

"This means that all of the US temperatures including those for Alaska and Hawaii were collected from either an airport (the bulk of the data) or an urban location"

http://wattsupwit...han-row/

Can you UHI????
Pressure2
3 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
Parker, can you provide a link for your post of the warmest Junes on record?

The information below trumps your individual June records hands down. Notice it is the warmest first six months on record BUT only 16th driest on record. Remember what I said about relative humidity?
"January to June 2012 was the warmest period on record for the United States, - -
The data published covers both temperatures and precipitation and spans 118 years, from 1895 to 2012.

On a state-by-state basis, Ohio and 27 other states recorded their warmest January to June periods on record. An additional 10 states recorded their 2nd warmest January to June periods on record.

Along with the warmth, it's been dry as well. According to NCDC, January to June 2012 ranks as the 16th driest on record for the United States."

http://www.wkyc.c...n-record
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
Parker, can you provide a link for your post of the warmest Junes on record?


ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...mpst.txt

The warmest 6 months on record thing is still relying on March.

"14th warmest June in 118"

13 were warmer.

1934 beats 2012 as warmest last 3 months - Apr-Jun

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
As for Precipitation.

Last 3 months driest years:

1988 5.83 1 1
1934 6.05 2 2
1936 6.05 2 2
1931 6.40 4 4
1925 6.71 5 5
1956 6.72 6 6
1926 6.80 7 7
1966 6.87 8 8
1911 6.94 9 9
2012 7.01 10 10

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
As for Precipitation.

Last six months driest years:

1988 11.12 1 1
1934 11.59 2 2
1931 11.89 3 3
1925 12.01 4 4
1910 12.31 5 5
1963 12.82 6 6
1985 12.88 7 7
1966 12.92 8 8
1977 12.99 9 9
1956 13.04 10 10
1918 13.07 11 11
2002 13.07 11 11
1971 13.11 13 13
1911 13.12 14 14
1954 13.15 15 15
2012 13.22 16 16
1936 13.24 17 17
1930 13.25 18 18
1924 13.28 19 19
1926 13.30 20 20
1955 13.38 21 21
2006 13.50 22 22

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (16) Jul 12, 2012
As for Precipitation.

June

1933 1.43 1 1
1988 1.60 2 2
1936 1.86 3 3
1931 2.09 4 4
1911 2.15 5 5
1952 2.16 6 6
1918 2.19 7 7
1956 2.19 7 7
1966 2.22 9 9
1980 2.27 10 10
2012 2.27 10 10
1930 2.28 12 12
1917 2.39 13 13
1954 2.42 14 14
1910 2.44 15 15
1926 2.45 16 16
1955 2.45 16 16
1977 2.45 16 16
1990 2.46 19 19
1971 2.48 20 20
1979 2.50 21 21
1978 2.51 22 22
1953 2.52 23 23
1934 2.55 24 24
2002 2.56 25 25
2011 2.56 25 25

http://www.ncdc.n.../na.html
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
If 2012 is supposed to be so dry .... why does 1988 and 1934 and some of other 1930s kick the butt of this whole century for dryness?
Pressure2
2.5 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
Parker, can you provide a link for your post of the warmest Junes on record?


ftp://ftp.ncdc.no...mpst.txt

Three months don't beat 6 months!
Pressure2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2012
If 2012 is supposed to be so dry .... why does 1988 and 1934 and some of other 1930s kick the butt of this whole century for dryness?

You are proving VD correct in his assement of you. You don't even understand the basics.
Let me give you a clue at any given temperature moist air contains more calories of heat than dry air.
That is why the 30's were such a warm period, duh dry air, look at your own post. But they still weren't as warm as the last few years which have a higher humidity. Your post are just proving that global warming is here!
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012
If 2012 is supposed to be so dry .... why does 1988 and 1934 and some of other 1930s kick the butt of this whole century for dryness?


If you are interested, only 3 states set a driest month in the last 12 months.

http://sunshineho...y-state/

Thanks for encouraging me to look up precipitation.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Jul 12, 2012
If 2012 is supposed to be so dry .... why does 1988 and 1934 and some of other 1930s kick the butt of this whole century for dryness?

You are proving VD correct in his assement of you. You don't even understand the basics.
Let me give you a clue at any given temperature moist air contains more calories of heat than dry air.
That is why the 30's were such a warm period, duh dry air, look at your own post. But they still weren't as warm as the last few years which have a higher humidity.


I'm not sure your logic is correct ... however, since H2O is the #1 GHG, if 2012 is wetter than 1934, it means 1934 was warmer despite have less GHG's in the atmosphere by a huge amount.

And even more strangely, the AGW crowd has been claiming GHG's like CO2 cause it to be drier, but it isn't.

It is only by ignoring how dry and hot it was in the past that you can con people into thinking CO2 and "global warming" causes extreme's in drought and heat.
Pressure2
2.6 / 5 (10) Jul 12, 2012
Parker, there is a lot that is not completely understood yet about a warming earth and some thing compete with themselves.
For example moist air contains more calories of heat than dry air BUT it is also lighter than dry air. So moist air rises being replaced by cooler drier air which would lower the temperature. But dry air also heats up faster than moist air, which leads to higher temperature reading.

So let's just look at the earth as a whole. If the average water vapor content in the air is higher today then 80 years ago the earth atmosphere contains more calories of heat at any giver temperature. So higher humidy readings would indicate that the earth is also warming even at the same average temperature. This and many other interacting forces make the picture very confusing.

The bottom line is the earth is warming when the ice caps glaciers are retreating. It is taking on more calories of heat than it is radiating back into space, period.

The End
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (17) Jul 12, 2012
Humidity is a GHG. Is it more humid now? Some weather station record that data.

If it is more humid, then that could cause warming since H2O is by far the most powerful GHG.

If it was drier in the 1930s, then the heat must have been amazing (which it was).

If it is more humid now, it could be because there are now 10s of millions of A/C units pumping out warm humid air in cities. Near the thermometers.
Pressure2
2 / 5 (8) Jul 12, 2012
You bring up some good points Parker but if it is more humid now it could only come from more heat energy (calories) being retain on the surface of the earth to evaporate water into the atmosphere. You are soon into the chicken and egg thing. Why is more heat energy being trapped at the surface of the earth? Ah, more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, CO2 being the most likely original culprit.

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (16) Jul 13, 2012
You bring up some good points Parker but if it is more humid now it could only come from more heat energy (calories) being retain on the surface of the earth to evaporate water into the atmosphere.


The rule in the AGW cult is that GHG's cause warming and warming does not cause GHG's.

In the real world, the previous interglacial (for example) saw CO2 and methane rise after the warming started.

The LIA was cold. For it to end, the earth had to warm a little. Warming causes more CO2. etc

The idea that warming causes more GHG's is sacriligious to your cult.

But I await your data on water vapor/humdity.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Jul 13, 2012

The rule in the AGW cult is that GHG's cause warming and warming does not cause GHG's.

In the real world, the previous interglacial (for example) saw CO2 and methane rise after the warming started.

The LIA was cold. For it to end, the earth had to warm a little. Warming causes more CO2. etc

The idea that warming causes more GHG's is sacriligious to your cult.

But I await your data on water vapor/humdity.


Another lie in basic ignorance of meteorological science. The quantity of water vapour the atmosphere can hold is dependent on it's temperature. It is a follower of temperature not a leader. ( a positive feedback effect yes ). WV in the Earth's climate does not drive temperature rise as it is self regulating - any excess will form cloud and precipitate out. But of course you know this as it's been explained to you on numerous occasions.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Jul 13, 2012

The rule in the AGW cult is that GHG's cause warming and warming does not cause GHG's.

In the real world, the previous interglacial (for example) saw CO2 and methane rise after the warming started.

The LIA was cold. For it to end, the earth had to warm a little. Warming causes more CO2. etc

The idea that warming causes more GHG's is sacriligious to your cult.

But I await your data on water vapor/humdity.


Another lie in basic ignorance of meteorological science. The quantity of water vapour the atmosphere can hold is dependent on it's temperature. It is a follower of temperature not a leader. ( a positive feedback effect yes ).


1) The question of negative/positive feedback is not settled.

2) Humans put 390 millions of gallons of water per day into the atmosphere just by burning gasoline.

3) Evaporation and transpiration losses from farming and the watering of lawns and landscapes

4) Evaporation losses from canals and artificial lakes
Estevan57
1.8 / 5 (21) Jul 14, 2012
Don't forget the 7.5 Billion pounds of CO2 that go with the H2O created. And noone has ever seen a CO2 cloud form rain.
runrig
1 / 5 (1) Jul 14, 2012


1) The question of negative/positive feedback is not settled.

2) Humans put 390 millions of gallons of water per day into the atmosphere just by burning gasoline.

3) Evaporation and transpiration losses from farming and the watering of lawns and landscapes

4) Evaporation losses from canals and artificial lakes


All insignificant in comparison with what is naturally evaporated over the oceans, which make up 70% of the Earth's surface, and what is evaporated from precipitation events over land. Not to mention sublimation from the worlds snow/ice fields.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2012


1) The question of negative/positive feedback is not settled.

2) Humans put 390 millions of gallons of water per day into the atmosphere just by burning gasoline.

3) Evaporation and transpiration losses from farming and the watering of lawns and landscapes

4) Evaporation losses from canals and artificial lakes


All insignificant in comparison with what is naturally evaporated over the oceans, which make up 70% of the Earth's surface, and what is evaporated from precipitation events over land. Not to mention sublimation from the worlds snow/ice fields.


I await your numbers.

However, the amount of water vapor is not insignificant in relation to the location of thermometers.

Thermometers are surrounded by massive heat and humidity bubbles.

Some people claim those thermometers are measuring an increase in global temperature, but they are measuring an increase in water vapor and UHI temperature in areas humans live.
Newbeak
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 14, 2012
Maybe if we used liquid metal batteries for grid backup,solar and wind could do much more to reduce CO2 emissions,and we could avoid using nearly as many CO2 power sources: http://www.youtub...b0Khx0yA
djr
3 / 5 (4) Jul 15, 2012
"Some people claim those thermometers are measuring an increase in global temperature, but they are measuring an increase in water vapor and UHI temperature in areas humans live."

And the satellite data is being adjusted by the evil scientists in order to conceal the hoax!!!!!!!

My favorite cartoon this week.

http://redgreenan...hing.jpg
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2012
"Some people claim those thermometers are measuring an increase in global temperature, but they are measuring an increase in water vapor and UHI temperature in areas humans live."

And the satellite data is being adjusted by the evil scientists in order to conceal the hoax!!!!!!!


If you have satellite data from the 1930s, I'd love to see it.
djr
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
"If you have satellite data from the 1930s, I'd love to see it."

The point is not regarding satellite data from the 1930's - that was a leap of logic.

The point is regarding your claim that "the thermometers are not measuring an increase in global temperature" (I quote your exact words to make sure of no leaps of logic). Now if the thermometers are not measuring an increase in global temperature - and therefore the data is incorrect - and there is no increase in global temperature - then the satellite data - that validates the thermometer data - must also be incorrect - thus my assertion of a grand hoax being perpetrated by the evil scientists.....
djr
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2012
Here is an interesting article from the economist that covers the thermometer recording controversy pretty well - as well as good references to the Berkeley projects attempt to address the issues. A good summary - "At a time of exaggerated doubts about the instrumental temperature record, this should help promulgate its main conclusion: that the existing mean estimates are in the right ballpark. That means the world is warming fast.

http://www.econom...21533360

This is an interesting graphic for people who want to consider the idea that the earth was warmer in the 1930's than it is today. Notice multiple data sets that agree. Any suggestion of data manipulation would have to entail a global conspiracy. http://media.econ...C819.gif

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2012
"If you have satellite data from the 1930s, I'd love to see it."

The point is not regarding satellite data from the 1930's - that was a leap of logic.


I don't think so.

The argument is that current temperatures are "unprecedented".

I would argue that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the USA.

Satellite data has no idea what the temperature was in the 1930s. Or how much H2O is in the atmosphere. Or how UHI affects the planet globally.

We do know that parts of the lad are in fact 7 - 9C warmer than they should be and satellites do see that.

NASA says so:

"Summer land surface temperature of cities in the Northeast were an average of 7 °C to 9 °C (13°F to 16 °F) warmer than surrounding rural areas over a three year period, the new research shows. "

http://www.nasa.g...-sprawl.

Satellite picture:

http://www.nasa.g..._all.jpg
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (13) Jul 15, 2012
"This is done in several steps. The conversion from raw daily to raw monthly mysteriously lowers most pre-1980 temperatures by about 0.2 degrees. Then they knock another 0.6 degrees off of the older raw temperatures for the TOBS adjustment, and then another huge chunk gets knocked off older records for things like anti-UHI effects. (Cities were of course much hotter 100 years ago, due to all the farting horses and lack of air conditioning.)

By the time these buffoons are done, they have created a man-made warming trend (red line) of about 1.5 degrees which accounts for all of the claimed warming in the published USHCN data."

http://stevengodd...t-seems/

djr
1 / 5 (1) Jul 15, 2012
"I would argue that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the USA."

Do you think the 1930's was the warmest decade globally? Are you able to look at these multiple lines of data - and claim that it was warmer in the 30's than today? http://media.econ...C819.gif

If not, what exactly is your point?
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jul 15, 2012
"I would argue that the 1930s were the warmest decade in the USA."

Do you think the 1930's was the warmest decade globally? Are you able to look at these multiple lines of data - and claim that it was warmer in the 30's than today? http://media.econ...C819.gif

If not, what exactly is your point?


I think the warmest decade is different for every region since climate is not synchronous around the world.

The adjustments made to US data are somewhat transparent and the raw data points to the 30s as warmest decade.

Even with all the adjustments, 1934 was the 3rd warmest year.

10 US states had 1934 as the warmest year (even with manipulated data)

28 US sates had a pre-1940 year as the warmest year.

Only 12 US states have 1998 or later as the warmest year.

We really have no idea what adjustments were made to global data/
djr
2.3 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2012
So you have listed a lot of data - but have not answered the question "what exactly is your point?" Again - here is the data regarding global climate - http://www.econom...21533360]http://www.econom...21533360[/url] Do you accept this data, or believe there is a global conspiracy?

Acknowledging that climate is not synchronous - is surely giving weight to the idea that we should watch global temperatures - rather than focus on specific areas.

You say that the adjustments in the U.S. were transparent - which is accurate - and the Economist article sums it up pretty well -
"A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming" http://www.econom...21533360]http://www.econom...21533360[/url]

So we can argue ad nauseum about which year was the warmest year in the U.S. - but that clearly is just a distraction from the real point that the globe is warming - and we would be smart to pay attention to what that means for us.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2012
I've given you a reference to the massive adjustments in the US.

The raw data says the 1930s were warmer.

The other GAT scams are even more secretive.
djr
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2012
I've given you a reference to the massive adjustments in the US. Sure - and I have given you references that have dealt with that issue (see the economist article). Regardless - you agree that is only regional - so does not address the bigger global issue. Again - here is an excellent graphic - showing multiple lines of data - with a very high degree of agreement - and they all tell us 'Houston - we have a problem'. Do you truly believe in a global conspiracy - and that the glaciers are not melting, and the ice sheets are not melting, and the seas are not rising, and the data is all manipulated? I would love to hear you answer that question head on.....http://media.econ...C819.gif
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2012
I've given you a reference to the massive adjustments in the US. Sure - and I have given you references that have dealt with that issue (see the economist article). Regardless - you agree that is only regional - so does not address the bigger global issue.


Regional? No. All climate data is adjusted. They just hide it better.

djr
3 / 5 (2) Jul 16, 2012
Do you truly believe in a global conspiracy - and that the glaciers are not melting, and the ice sheets are not melting, and the seas are not rising, and the data is all manipulated? I would love to hear you answer that question head on..

"Regional? No. All climate data is adjusted. They just hide it better."

Kind of strange response to such a direct question... To me it implies that your objective is simply to spread doubt confusion - but you will not come right out and commit yourself - that would be too easy to refute....
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2012
Do you truly believe in a global conspiracy - and that the glaciers are not melting, and the ice sheets are not melting, and the seas are not rising, and the data is all manipulated? I would love to hear you answer that question head on..

"Regional? No. All climate data is adjusted. They just hide it better."

Kind of strange response to such a direct question... To me it implies that your objective is simply to spread doubt confusion - but you will not come right out and commit yourself - that would be too easy to refute....


Sea level isn't rising.

http://theinconve...-levels/

The real question is why isn't it if there is so much melting going on?
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2012
"Sea level isn't rising." So again - you refuse to answer the bigger questions - and then you drop a bomb shell like "sea level isn't rising". Finally you have exposed yourself. Let me give you a quote from the article that you referenced - "All of the different measurements agree that the rate that the sea level is rising is not increasing. All of them show a steady decrease in the rate of sea level rise." So - there is no conclusion from this direct contradiction - other than - finally Parker has been exposed. Just for kickers - I will throw in a graphic for you - http://sealevel.c...obal.png And just in case you did not get the point - I will re quote your ignorance - "Sea level isn't rising."
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2012
"Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C]."

http://wattsupwit...re-67591

The raw data in the USA shows no warming.

http://stevengodd...ratures/
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jul 17, 2012
Sea Level Isn't Rising


... any faster. And as your graph shows, it went DOWN from 2010 to 2011.

2010.0085 48.624
2011.0130 42.933
2012.0174 50.074

6mm drop from 2010 to 2011.

A whole 1.4mm rise from 2010 to 2012.

.7mm a year.

.7mm is essentially flat for 2 years.

And that data is very, very adjusted. (even thought they say raw)

The AGW scare mongers predict 1000mm to 1700mm sea level rise by 2100.

That would be 10mm to 17mm a year.

http://sealevel.c...obal.txt
djr
3 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2012
Your statement was that sea level is not rising. No one could look at the graph that I referenced (the same data that you referenced from Colorado) and conclude that the sea level is not rising. You did not qualify 'any faster'. You simply stated that sea level is not rising. You are wrong. You are pushing a political agenda - and doing everything you can to manipulate data to fit your nonsense - you do exactly what you falsely accuse NOAA and other scientists of doing. Again - you are wrong - you have no credibility - go away.....
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Jul 17, 2012
Your statement was that sea level is not rising.


Don't be a baby. So I left off "faster than normal" once in a while.

I know sea level has been rising for 20,000 years. It used to be 100m lower.

AGW cult keeps making cataclysmic predictions of 10mm per year to 17mm a year of sea level rise.

It actually dropped 6mm from 2010 to 2011.

So guess what, Colorado created a new adjustment in 2011 to get the propaganda machine back on track.

"But what happens when sea level in the real world does not rise nearly as much as alarmists predict? If you are a NASA-funded gatekeeper of sea level data, you merely doctor the data.

Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorados NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series."

djr
5 / 5 (2) Jul 17, 2012
Don't be a baby. It is not being a baby - to expect someone to be careful with their statements regarding such important issues. You have no credibility - and need to go away. Your conspiracy bullshit shows you up for what your are - someone with a political agenda who will manipulate and cherry pick to twist reality - go away.....
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 17, 2012
The title of the article would be better if it said;
No matter the panel, solar energy is a much-needed tool to battle global warming: study