The temptation here is to look away, I know. Recent discussions going on here about weather control have left me a little flummoxed, as even as I know such things are possible, I do not imagine that our climate can be controlled. It is simply too big to manage. I am aware of things like cloud seeding, going on for decades, and HAARP, High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program, a mysterious array of satellite dishes in Alaska. In June of 2021 the city of Seattle experienced incredibly high temperatures, 108 degrees on one day, shattering all records. My eyebrows arched, as Seattle is in the vicinity of HAARP. The array, allegedly funded to study the ionosphere, or outer reaches of our atmosphere, was off-limits to aircraft at the same time that Seattle/Vancouver were frying, leading to suspicion that HAARP was active during that time. I only bring this up because I want to emphasize that I am not a stranger to weather modification. That’s weather, and not “climate.”
The reason I am writing this post and naming it “pedagogy” is that I am left coming out of these discussions about weather suspecting that many people do not know how to read and interpret graphs. I thought, if I could be so bold, that I would describe some graphs in my possession, from the book Extremes and Averages in Contiguous U.S. Climate, by Bob Tisdale. The book is a rich resource of hundreds of graphs. Tisdale has downloaded weather data for the lower 48 states for the period 1918-2018, and organized that data in graph form. That is what the graph above is: Nevada Temperature Indices Data for that time period. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, collects data, and since it is a government agency, that data is available to the public. As Tisdale says on the cover, his book is one that NOAA should have published, but hasn’t. The pressure put forward by the climate fanatics puts as lock on information as contained in the book, information that shoots down any notion of global warming. Tisdale realized that if the data would ever become public, it would only be by his hand.
I chose Nevada because that area of the country is currently experiencing drought. Later I will present drought indexes, and similar graphs for California and Arizona.
Take a look now at the graph above. There are two axes (plural of axis). The bottom, or horizontal, is the timeline, the data plotted on that axis labeled 1910-2030. Within that axis, all of the temperature data gathered by NOAA for the 100 year period 1918-2018 is plotted. The left, or vertical axis, is a range of temperatures recorded in Nevada during the time, from -5 to 95 F°. Because we are dealing with Nevada, we are dealing with high temperatures. The graph for Maine, for example, spans -10 to 85 F°.
In putting together the data in this manner, Tisdale is giving us a visual representation of Nevada temperatures, one that conveys a great deal of information. There are three lines, brown, purple and blue.
- Brown: A visual presentation of the Highest Monthly Temperature Per Year. For each of the 100 years, Tisdale has taken the month where the highest temperature was recorded. He did this to see if there was a trend, more later.
- Blue: The lowest monthly temperature within a year recorded. It is the opposite of the brown line.
- Purple: The average of brown and blue.
The next part is critical to understanding the graph. The black lines within the graphs are the “moving average”, indicative of a trend over the 100 year period. At any point, say 1960 on the brown line (it looks like about 88 F°), the point on the black line represents the average of everything to the left. Note that the brown line trend is slightly upward – temperatures in Nevada have increased over this time period at the rate of 0.143 F° per decade. That, in one of the hottest states in the lower 48, is barely discernible. The same trend is observable in each of the other 47 states, a very modest, even slight rise in temperatures, nothing to be alarmed about, even beneficial. That is what the data says. The IPCC Climate Models, which claim that dangerous warming is going on, are not just wrong, but are deliberate lies behind which a monstrous agenda is hidden.
Note that the blue line, lowest monthly temperature in any given year, is a little steeper, 0.466 F° per decade. This shows that there is a warming trend in nighttime temperatures, more so than daytime. One might conclude that this indicates a warming climate, but if daytime temperatures are barely moving, then nighttime temperatures have to be affected by something other than the daytime warming trend. This has to do with expansion of cities, which are heat sinks, and addition of things like golf courses and pavement on highways, which collect and hold daytime heat into nighttime. This is again true of all of the lower 48 states.
An important concept to grasp: The moving average lines are straight lines, while the data lines are squiggly. The variations in temperature data from the moving average are known as “climate variability.” Because this is Nevada, there is not a lot of that, but enough shown on the blue line to illustrate the point: Extremes can happen anywhere at any time, but are not necessarily indicative of a trend. In the other graphs that will be presented at the end, you will see wild fluctuations in temperature, precipitation and drought. The climate fanatics love to latch onto extremes, such as the Seattle boil-over in June of 2021, as indicating a trend, usually ominous. That’s what they are paid to do – alarm us. All trend data is contained in moving averages. Highs and lows around that line are interesting, but not meaningful in the big picture. .
Finally, and this is critical to understanding these graphs: In assembling data, we cannot just willy nilly throw things together. Data collected must be relatable, that is, temperatures measured against against things related to temperatures, such as crop yields or stroke deaths, for example. We would not have anything useful if we graphed wine sales and apple harvests in, say, Oregon. In addition, the data cannot be random. Back in 1956 a group of mathematicians in a company called Western Energy came up with a series of tests used to judge whether or not data being presented as a moving average on a graph is relatable. These are called the WECO rules, and how they came about is above my pay grade. Rule number one, for instance, states that if any point on an axis is more than three standard deviations from the mean, then the data set is grossly out of control, and a moving average should not be applied.**
There are seven more rules at the link supplied here, very nicely illustrated and easy to understand.
**I wonder if the Seattle 108 degree day in a city that has an annual mean temperature of 52 degrees F° is more than three standard deviations from the mean of Seattle daily temperatures. If so, the temperature that day is such an outlier that in doing any statistical work on its temperature variations, the 108 F° day has to be regarded as grossly out of control. The alternative is to toss the entire Seattle temperature data base.
Moving on, we will deal with the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI).
As long as we are working with Nevada, below is a 100 year graph of the PDSI for that Nevada. It is a little hard to grasp, but as I view it is measuring soil moisture. High numbers are good, lower bad. I’ll explain a little better below the graph.
From the Tisdale book: “If the the PDSI dataset is new to you, The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) at Boulder, Colorado website provides a reasonably easy-to-understand overview of the metric. They begin:”
The Palmer Drought Severity Index uses readily available temperature and precipitation data to estimate relative dryness. It is a standardized index spans -10 (dry) to +10 (wet). It has been reasonably successful at quantifying long-term drought.
NOAA uses a scale of -4 (extreme drought) to +4 (extremely moist). That in mind, it is best to simply view the Tisdale graph and draw conclusions. Keep in mind that top of graph is moisture and bottom is absence of moisture, so that a declining line means a general increase in drought conditions. The high trend (green) line shows that PDSI has been increasing at .046 per decade over the last 100 years. The entirety of the moving average of the green line is contained between -2 and 2. NOAA qualifies that as “mid-range dryness, but not critical. The averages trend (red) line is also contained within that range, while the lows trend crosses into moderate drought.
What to make of it? Nevada is a dry state, but has not appreciably suffered droughts in the last 100 years. However, take a look at the variability – notice that in the 1930s (our hottest decade on record – do not listen to the alarmists), the drought index dropped to seven, extreme drought. Also note that since 1990s it has been dipping in the -4 to -6 range, meaning that drought conditions have been persistent during that time, with years of extreme moisture (green) in between, making the whole situation tolerable. The long term trend, however, is dryer.
Maybe this visual is a little easier to understand that graphic presentations. Dark brown is the worst drought conditions, and white the best. The entire West is a drought-prone region, so I do not know how to evaluate a drought in a drought-prone region. The scuttlebutt I am picking up in the comments is that this is a weather control phenomenon. PDSI for Nevada says otherwise, that we’ve yet to approach what happened in the 1930s. I will also present PDSI charts below for California and Arizona through 2018 below. The “experts” who give us this data claim this drought will last until 2030. They don’t know that. They cannot know that. It is in the realm of the future. They are just feeding their own confirmation bias, presuming a level of expertise that requires we genuflect before them. I don’t do that with experts, ever, except Chainsaw Bob. They are telling us that that the climate is changing and man, it’s just getting worse all the time. It is not, that is, climate is always changing, but life on our planet, thanks to the CO2 we’ve put in the atmosphere, is getting better.
California was extremely dry in the 1920s, 1970s, 1990s, and in 2014. (California is drought-prone, by the way.) But years of drought are usually followed by moisture aplenty. It would be nicer to live on the moving average lines, but for that state, it is literally feast or famine. Thus has it always been.
Arizona saw extreme drought in the 1930s, 1950s, 1990s and 2000s. Again, observe the green line. Moisture does return.
So here is my question: If you are claiming that we are weather-controlled, please pinpoint on the PDSI graphs those years that were controlled, and those not. What I see is a general long-term trend towards a dryer climate in our Southwest, that trend a hundred years long and starting well before satellites or whatever devices imagined to be used to control weather. I am not buying it.
I am going to toss some more graphs your way, both temperature and precipitation for the three states selected. Nevada temperatures are at the very top of this long post.
California temperatures, highest trend is an increase of 0.115 F° per decade over the last 100 years. That is barely perceptible. Again note a steeper trend in the evenings, and note the reason: Highways, cities, golf courses, aka heat traps.
California precipitation – long term trend shows an increase of .115 inches per decade. Note the wild variability.
Arizona temperatures have increased 0.215 F° per decade over the last 100 years. Again, barely perceptible.
Arizona precipitation is basically a flat line. Again, look at the crazy variability.
What to make of it?
I admit, climate is confusing. To understand it better, we need to look at long-term trends. Temperatures are barely climbing, have been relatively stable for the last 100 years. There is no global warming in our lower 48, probably nowhere else either. Precipitation in most places in the lower 48 is on the rise, and that’s been a long-term trend. Drought, at least in the Southwest, a recurring phenomenon, appears to be intensifying, at least according to PDSI. You might notice then that the Southwest is home to some massive water projects. I flew over Glen Canyon Dam in 2019, and could not believe how immense it is. Of course, it is draining, which is why it is there, to serve us in droughts. If history is any indication, the drought will end in the not-too-distant future, and rains will return in plenitude. Then there will be another drought.
I wanted to dispel the notion of weather control, and especially of climate control. Of course they can do small projects, as with Seattle/Vancouver in June of 2021, probably HAARP-related. But in terms of the climate? In terms of the drought in our Western States? It is beyond human control. We must live with it.