Warming lies: More ratty data
The National Climatic Data Center wrongly declared July 2012 as America's hottest July ever — and hasn't corrected itself.
Frontier Center for Public Policy advisers Tom Harris, the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, and Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, give ample reasons to doubt that NCDC claim and its ranking of 2012 as the warmest year on record and one of the top two years for extreme U.S. weather.
Writing in The Washington Times, they note:
• Recording many temperatures only to the closest whole degree means its claim that July 2012's average exceeded July 1936's record by 0.2 degrees is within the data's margin of error and therefore “not meaningful.”
• Simply averaging just daily maximums and minimums, it ignores temperature variations throughout days. July 2012 nights were a bit warmer; July 1936 days, much hotter.
• The NCDC issues monthly reports before its temperature database is complete. Including data filed on paper, July 2012's average was almost 0.7 degrees lower than initially claimed — and almost 0.5 degrees cooler than July 1936's record.
Also, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ranks 2012 as the 10th hottest year globally, with an average temperature 0.2 degrees cooler than 2010's record.
With such inconvenient truths, the NCDC will have to twist science even more brazenly to support the jobs-killing, anti-growth political agenda of the cluster-clucking global warming alarmists.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Holiday Gift Club: The spirit of the season
- A manger’s light
- Ford City’s solution: Good side to cop cuts
- The Kathleen Kane chronicles: New and serious questions are being raised about the Pa. attorney general
- Obama’s Cuba deal: More appeasement
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances
- Union ‘fairness’: The dues racket
- Picking winners & losers: Stop the idiocy