In what we’re led to believe is a universally and linearly warming world, Jackson –a town in Wyoming’s Jackson Hole valley– somehow suffered its coldest YEAR on record in 2019.
In the week where NOAA are trying to sell us the li(n)e that 2019 was Earth’s second hottest year on record, temperature data from NWS Wyoming has confirmed that Jackson had never seen a colder year than the one just gone, with the town’s weather books dating back more than a century.
Now while I accept the obvious alarmist retort, “that one small region of the planet being colder hardly disproves global warming,” it doesn’t explain why NOAA’s 2019 Land & Ocean Temperature Map reveals that North America (as a whole) is now cooling–while the rest of the world supposedly warms?
Could it have anything to do with North America’s temperature station coverage being far more extensive when compared to say… Africa’s, for example, which limits the ‘gaps’ for NOAA to ‘fill-in’?
As Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. wrote in July, 2019:
One would think that the very best data would be used to make such assessments (by NOAA and the WMO). But current official pronouncements of global temperature records come from a fairly limited and error-prone array of thermometers which were never intended to measure global temperature trends.
Spencer suggests that the global surface thermometer network suffers from three major problems:
- The urban heat island (UHI) effect has caused a gradual warming of most land thermometer sites due to encroachment of buildings, parking lots, air conditioning units, vehicles, etc. Because UHI warming “looks like” global warming, it is difficult to remove from the data. In fact, NOAA’s efforts to make UHI-contaminated data look like rural data seems to have had the opposite effect. The best strategy would be to simply use only the best (most rural) sited thermometers. This is currently not done.
- Ocean temperatures being notoriously uncertain due to changing technologies — from canvas buckets thrown overboard long ago, to ship engine water intake temperatures more recently, to buoys, satellite measurements, etc.
- [As hinted at above] Both land and ocean temperatures being notoriously incomplete geographically. How does one estimate temperatures in a 1 million square mile area where no measurements exist?
Dr. Spencer proposes there is a much better way — Global Reanalysis datasets.
For more on why reanalysis estimates of monthly global temperatures should be trusted over official government pronouncements, click here for Spencer’s full article.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have a checkered past when it comes temperature manipulation, fudging, and fraud:
But let’s for a second assume NOAA has “guessed” correctly regarding those vast areas without any surface temperature data, and let’s also assume the UHI-effect isn’t a thing… because even then, the agency’s final analysis for 2019 still sees us well-short of where the original climate prediction (Hansen, 1988) said we would be by now.
“Global Warming has Begun, Expert Tells Senate”
NASA’s James Hansen started the global warming scare during the very hot summer of 1988:
Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ”greenhouse effect.” But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.
When devising his temperature forecast, Hansen came-up with three emissions scenarios:
Scenario A was based on increasing CO2 emission growth rates, or “Business As Usual.”
Scenario B was based on a reduction (moderate) of CO2 emission growth rates.
And Scenario C was based on CO2 emissions being reduced (capped) to year 2000 levels.
You can see for yourself which scenario he nailed…
Temps have almost perfectly tracked Hansen’s Scenario C: “GHG/CO2 reduced to year 2000 years.”
Think of all those costly carbon initiatives that have been rolled-out around the world since 1988, when we could have done nothing and achieved the same results.
Here’s Hansen’s original graph with Tony Heller’s added satellite lower troposphere reading in red:
Hansen testified to congress indicating that we would be 1.5C above baseline by early 2020.
Real-world satellite observations have us at around 0.5C above baseline, and actually dropping.
Hansen was flat out wrong.
What an expensive and wholly-exhausting waste of time global warming turned out to be.
In fact now, in the year 2020, we appear to not only be not warming, but instead actually COOLING. By all reliable evidence, observations, and datasets; the lower-latitudes are once again beginning to refreeze, in line with historically low solar activity.
Even NASA agrees, in part at least, with their recent forecast revealing this next solar cycle (25) will be “the weakest of the past 200 years,” with the agency correlating previous solar shutdowns to prolonged periods of global cooling here.
With SC25 likely a stop-off on the sun’s descent into its next full-blown Grand Solar Minimum cycle:
Don’t be fooled by bogus political agendas — our future is one of ever-descending COLD, and of CROP LOSS — prepare accordingly — relocate if need be, and grow your own.
Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).
And/or become a Patron by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse
The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.
So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.
Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift