Global Warming Data Variation - An Example

Having moved recently to Alaska, I found it interesting that local weather is not as predictable as in the lower 48 states or during my time in Europe where the weatherman would predict the highs and lows daily with almost pinpoint accuracy.

In Alaska on the otherhand, the weatherman would give a range for daily highs and lows, say 20-30F for a high and 5-15F for a low.

In addition, I started to look at average highs and lows for given months. What I found was interesting to say the least.

For the month of December, the average highs and lows according to:

The Weather Channel: 5F and -9F respectively.

AccuWeather: 4F and -15F respectively.

Intellicast: 5F and -9F respectively.

National Weather Service: 1.8F and -14.8F respectively.

While one would argue that these numbers are close together, I would argue that given Global Warming scares that say the temperatures will rise 2F or 5F and cause flooding, severe storms, etc, etc, it would seem these temperature rises are within the variability of historical observable data.

To represent another way, lets say it is 5F warmer now than historically. If I take the National Weather Service Data then that would bring my December highs and lows to 7F and -9.8F respectively. Comparing this to The Weather Channel or Intellicast data would put me right around the norm of 5F and -9F respectively.

However, if I used a rise of 5F and added to The Weather Channel data of 5F and -9F, I would get a rise of 10F and -4F respectively. If I then compared to National Weather Service data of 1.8F and -14.8F respectively, I would then have Global Warming of +8.2F and +10.8F respectively.

My point is that observable data depends on what data set and source is used. How I then combine this data will lead me to no change from normal or a +9F change from normal. Given this variability, it is hard to believe models which are much less accurate than historical data. And given the fact that with historical data, I was able to add 5F and maintain normal temperatures or rises of +9F, it leads me to question many reports.

Unfortunately, most news reports do not include links to source data, whether in print or on the internet. However, when source data is given and examined, one usually finds what I just found. Given data set A, no change. Given data set B, +9F global rise. Statistical error of + or - 5F which leads me back to my historical original error, or stated another way, given both data sets, it could either be -5F change or a +14F change.

I do not know of anybody who would bet their wealth on a 19F variation, but this is typically what is seen when analyzing global warming data when one gets into the report.

Using the high numbers, as the MSM usually does, is used to scare.

I really don't like scare tactics. I like facts. With Global Warming, the facts just are not there.