Global Warming

1) Demonstrate “climate change” is real.
	No problem there! There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth has been much warmer for most of its existence. The Jurassic period, for example, was quite a bit warmer than today. In fact, there have only been a few colder times in Earth’s history compared to today. And ‘climate’, in the strictest sense, changes daily.
2) Demonstrate that “climate change” is manmade.
	This is tougher, since we already know for a fact that the Earth has been through far warmer periods before man ever showed up. Indeed, evidence is mounting that an increase in CO2 is causing less extreme weather, not more.
3) Demonstrate that any changes, regardless of origin, happening now are man-reversible.
	Good luck with that.
4) Demonstrate that they can be reversed, primarily, by crippling the American economy in particular, while nations like China and India continue polluting the planet at record rates.
	And that’s where you lose your audience.

~:~

	Yes, climate changes. But there is absolutely no evidence that humans are having any impact on the climate whatsoever. In order to establish an actual human impact in a statistically significant way, you must show a modern trend that deviates from a baseline of appropriate duration. Because geologic processes spanning millions of years are responsible for tremendous amounts of variation in global temperatures, an appropriate baseline must necessarily include millions of years of data to account for this variation. Not only are we not in a period of “record high temperatures,” we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years.

http://i.imgur.com/kcQnmYF.png

	There is absolutely no evidence that current temperatures are outside the trend of totally natural variation, and all attempts to make it appear that way are misleading you by truncating the data to a sample of statistically insignificant size. And then they apply their misleading, exponential curve-fits and smoothing effects for dramatic purposes. The earth had had ice caps for maybe about half of the time over the past 500 million years. The picture shows rapid periods of melting and re-glaciation over periods of a few thousand years. There is nothing abnormal about current melting rates.

http://i.imgur.com/NfSDp1Y.png

	The sea level has been rising at a very steady and predictable rate over the past 8-10,000 years since the emergence from the last major glacial period with no deviation at all from this trend even as humans began industrializing. When environmentalists show you graphs going back 50-100 years of rising sea level data, they omit the fact that this is both on-trend and completely expected.

http://i.imgur.com/JzjDP5v.png

	We have no actual data that indicates that climate is in any way behaving abnormally, much less due to human impact. The only thing we have is a hypothesis that CO2 affects climate in a meaningful way, which is what climatologists attempt to model. But those models make terrible predictions.

http://i.imgur.com/uVtD4Ch.png

	If your hypothesis consistently churns out inaccurate predictions–no matter how many times you tweak the knobs and change little fudge-factors here and there–then your hypothesis is shit and must be discarded. Morons who believe in this garbage have no understanding of basic epistemology, let alone science–and that goes for the so-called “scientists” peddling this mystical bullshit.
	CO2 is only hypothesized to have the impact on global climate that the alarmists claim. But this has failed to be demonstrated in two major (but related) ways. First, carbon dioxide levels are currently being measured at several hundred ppm higher than measured from ice core samples. Now, it must also be cautioned that you can’t necessarily compare these two sets of data because they represent two different methods of measurement, and have other potential biases. However, even assuming that its true that CO2 levels are much higher–and that they’re caused by human activity–current temperatures are not deviating from the normal historical trends in line with CO2.
	A doubling of preindustrial CO2, absent any feedbacks, would result in a maximum forcing of +1.2 ºC. Everyone agrees on this point because it’s a simple computation given the physical characteristics of CO2 which is well mixed in the atmosphere. Actual warming, again absent feedbacks, would likely be much less due to bandwidth overlap between CO2 and H2O, something that we understand but find difficult to model (H2O levels vary dramatically day to day and even hour to hour with regional weather).

http://i.imgur.com/3JzLrS4.jpg

	The General Circulation Models, and the IPCC, predict 2-8 ºC of warming because AGW theory assumes a positive H2O feedback. They assume that if CO2 causes a little warming, the atmosphere will hold more water vapor which will lead to a lot of warming until a new equilibrium point is reached. The warming predictions cover such a large range because everyone assumes a different average feedback rate. Again, modeling H2O in the atmosphere is extremely difficult because it varies so much with weather. Every GCM based on this assumption has failed to model temperatures for the past 15 years. They are all trending too high. In the late 1990s, the modelers themselves stated that if they missed their predictions for more then a decade that would falsify AGW theory.
	There is no data to suggest a positive H2O feedback either now or in Earth’s past. Indeed, we cannot model some periods in Earth’s history with an assumed positive H2O feedback. It would appear that Earth’s atmosphere is remarkably adept at dampening forcings from either direction and does not amplify them. If there is no positive H2O feedback, we literally have nothing to worry about. The average climate change believer knows none of this. Politicians, citizens, activists, and surprisingly even a lot of scientists are literally ignorant of the theory and the math. In their mind, it’s simply “CO2 = bad” and “experts say we’re warming faster then ever.” The more you know.

http://i.imgur.com/AJXwGoj.png

	Not only are current temperatures not outside the normal trend, we are in one of the coldest periods in the past 65 million years. Also, current temperatures (at the peak of the current 100ky cycle) are actually lower than past 100ky cycles, meaning that we are expected to either warm further just by way of natural variation or we are in an unusually cold peak period.
	Second, climate models that use CO2 as a major driver for global temperatures are not producing accurate predictions for global temperatures. This is at least good initial evidence that the alarmist stance on the CO2/climate hypothesis is false. Notice that current temperatures are in no way deviating from normal trends. and that the two “scary red dots” are not observed data, but “predictions.” But, as we already know, the observed data is wildly lower than the predictions. These people are completely full of shit.

~:~

	When glaciers recede, it’s called “calving”, and it is considered a normal process of climate. Sea levels have been declining recently. (search NOAA’s database to verify for yourself)
	During the last ice age, sea levels were ~375 feet lower than today. During the last ice age, the Jersey Shore was 100 miles further east.
	Ice ages return like clockwork throughout Earth’s history. It’s called the Milankovitch cycle. What are signs that an ice age is starting? Simple; it’s a mark of weather “extremes.” It’s important to note that during last ice age, temperatures around the global weren’t too much colder then they are today. Example:
	1) Seattle was covered with 4000 feet of ice, however ice only went as far south as Olympia. If you went 150 miles south of Olympia, temperatures were 7 degrees lower then they are today.
	2) Temperatures in the tropics were 2 to 3 degrees lower then today.
	3) Temperatures in the subtropics were nearly the same.
	4) Chicago was covered in ice, however South Carolina was probably only 2-3 degrees lower than today.
	Yellowstone is a supervolcano that erupts every ~600,000 years. The last eruption was ~640,000 years ago. We are overdue for one. If Yellowstone goes off, we would be in an ice age in 3 months.
	One of the signs of an oncoming ice age was increased volcanic activity. In the previous ice age, called the “Younger Dryas,” we found mammoths with 3 feet of volcanic ash on them. 40% of all mammals where wiped out in that Ice Age. If volcanic activity keeps increasing on Earth, that is a warning sign an ice age is imminent. Interesting Note: Some mammoths remains were found still standing up. The conclusion was that giant snow/ice storms covered them up.
	It takes 100 feet of snow to compact to create 1 foot of ice. It would take 80 feet of snow per year for 5000 years to get 400 feet of ice in Seattle.
	Snowblitz is a term for the continuous accumulation of snow, which happens in ice age conditions. https://answersingenesis.org/answers/books/frozen-in-time/the-snowblitz/ ~11,500 years ago, something happened which caused the ‘Carolina Bay’ and magnetic reversal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay
	In 1600, the “Maunder Minimum” happened when there weren’t any sunspots. Sunspots affect the amount of radiant energy hitting Earth. Less energy means the climate gets cold. The Maunder Minimum resulted in a little ice age across the globe. Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov–the chief astrophysics responsible for the Russian portion of the International Space Station–says we are heading for a little ice age.
	In the 1980s and ’90s, the Sun was the most active in a thousand years. Now the Sun is becoming less active. Does it take thousands of years for ice ages to start? No. Research project “GRIP” (Greenland Ice Project) drilled ice cores (2 miles down, 4 inches in diameter). They discovered that every single ice age from the past 250,000 years, without exception, began in less then twenty years. Ice ages swing from normal temperatures to full blown glaciation.

~:~

Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-mails
	A few days after leaked e-mail messages appeared on the Internet, the US Congress may probe whether prominent scientists who are advocates of global warming theories misrepresented the truth about climate change.
	Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said on Monday the leaked correspondence suggested researchers “cooked the science to make this thing look as if the science was settled, when all the time of course we knew it was not.” According to a transcript of a radio interview posted on his website, Aides for Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, are also looking into the disclosure.
	The leaked documents come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world’s largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it “relies on most heavily” when concluding that CO2 emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.
	Last week’s leaked e-mails range from innocuous to embarrassing and, critics believe, scandalous. They show that some of the field’s most prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data (“have to respond to more crap criticisms from the idiots”), cheered the deaths of skeptical journalists, and plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing in peer-reviewed journals.
	One e-mail message, apparently from CRU director Phil Jones, references the UK’s Freedom of Information Act when asking another researcher to delete correspondence that might be disclosed in response to public records law: “Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.”
	Another, also apparently from Jones: global warming skeptics “have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.” (Jones was a contributing author to the chapter of the UN’s IPCC report titled Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes.)
	In addition to e-mail messages, the roughly 3,600 leaked documents posted on sites including Wikileaks.org and EastAngliaEmails.com include computer code and a description of how an unfortunate programmer named “Harry”–possibly the CRU’s Ian “Harry” Harris–was tasked with resuscitating and updating a key temperature database that proved to be “problematic.” Some excerpts from what appear to be his notes, emphasis added.
	I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by Delaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived at from a statistical perspective–since we’re using an off-the-shelf product that isn’t documented sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn’t coded up in Fortran I don’t know–time pressures, perhaps? Was too much effort expended on homogenization that there wasn’t enough time to write a gridding procedure? Of course, it’s too late for me to fix it, too. Meh.
	I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that’s the case? Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight… So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!
	One thing that’s unsettling is that many of the assigned WMO codes for Canadian stations do not return any hits with a web search. Usually the country’s met office, or at least the Weather Underground, show up–but for these stations, nothing at all. Makes me wonder if these are long-discontinued, or were even invented somewhere other than Canada!
	Knowing how long it takes to debug this suite–the experiment endeth here. The option (like all the anomdtb options) is totally undocumented so we’ll never know what we lost. 22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim’s labyrinthine software suites–let’s have a go at producing CRU TS 3.o! since failing to do that will be the definitive failure of the entire project.
	Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can’t get far enough into it before by head hurts and I have to stop. Each parameter has a tortuous history of manual and semi-automated interventions that I simply cannot just go back to early versions and run the update prog. I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections - to lat/lons, to WMOs (yes!), and more. So what the hell can I do about all these duplicate stations?
	As the leaked messages, and especially the HARRY READ_ME.txt file, found their way around technical circles, two things happened: first, programmers unaffiliated with East Anglia started taking a close look at the quality of the CRU’s code, and second, they began to feel sympathetic for anyone who had to spend three years (including working weekends) trying to make sense of code that appeared to be undocumented and buggy, while representing the core of CRU’s climate model.
	One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”
	Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICIAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend–so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”
	It’s not clear how the files were leaked. One theory says that a malicious hacker slipped into East Anglia’s network and snatched thousands of documents. Another says that the files had already been assembled in response to a Freedom of Information request and, immediately after it was denied, a whistleblower decided to disclose them. (Lending credence to that theory is the fact that no personal e-mail messages unrelated to climate change appear to have been leaked.)
	For its part, the University of East Anglia has posted a statement calling the disclosure “mischievous” and saying it is aiding the police in an investigation.
	The statement also quotes Jones, CRU’s director, explaining his November 1999 e-mail, which said: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Jones said that the word trick was used “colloquially as in a clever thing to do” and that it “is ludicrous to suggest that it refers to anything untoward.”
	Also unclear is the ultimate impact of the leak, which came before next month’s Copenhagen summit and Democratic plans for cap and trade legislation.
	On one hand, over at RealClimate.org, Gavin Schmidt, a modeler for the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has been downplaying the leak. Schmidt wrote: “There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research… no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no ‘marching orders’ from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords.”
	On the other, groups like the free-market Competitive Enterprise Institute, the target of repeated derision in the leaked e-mails, have said: “We have argued for many years that much of the scientific case for global warming alarmism was weak and some of it was phony. It now looks like a lot of it may be phony.”
	ScienceMag.org published an article noting that deleting e-mail messages to hide them from a FOI request is a crime in the United Kingdom. George Monbiot, a UK activist and journalist who previously called for dramatic action to deal with global warming, wrote: “It’s no use pretending that this isn’t a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging.”
	Complicating matters for congressional Republicans who’d like to hold hearings is that East Anglia, of course, is a UK university. The GOP may intend to press the Obama administration for details on how the EPA came to rely on the CRU’s predictions, and whether the recent disclosure will change the agency’s position. Another approach lies in e-mail messages discussing grants from the US Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to East Anglia; one says: “We need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.”
	The irony of this situation is that most of us expect science to be conducted in the open, without unpublished secret data, hidden agendas, and computer programs of dubious reliability. East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit might have avoided this snafu by publicly disclosing as much as possible at every step of the way.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/congress-may-probe-leaked-global-warming-e-mails/

~:~

Land “readings” are [diverging](http://i.imgur.com/8RwdDFT.png) from satellite data (which [NASA itself says is accurate](http://i.imgur.com/OISZ078.png) and should be the standard instead) because over 40% of land “readings” are estimates made for places ***without recording equipment.*** To illustratively do something that the psychopaths love to do, I’ll cherrypick the last 20 years to show that there has [been no warming there](http://i.imgur.com/S4Kgh4k.gif), despite CO2 continuing to rise. Even using [just the satellite record](http://i.imgur.com/IF42Uf2.gif), the world isn’t warming. If we refer back to one of the hottest years in recorded history, [we see the difference.](http://i.imgur.com/4HWcKSz.gif) Never mind that there have [only been ecological benefits to rising CO2](http://www.edsanders.com/global/c02up2.htm).

>“Waaaaa! What about the ice caps!”

They’re not melting. They go through [cycles](http://i.imgur.com/px9Zr2X.jpg). 1974 had [less ice](http://i.imgur.com/ShRXILK.png) than today. Oh, and don’t listen to what [scientists](http://i.imgur.com/kMGh1nT.gif) say, [whatever you do](http://i.imgur.com/14m2Ix8.gif). Nowhere is melting out of turn, not even Greenland (where it has been [growing](http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/) for something like 30 years). Oh, and the ice cores themselves? [They show that the past was hotter.](https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf)

>“But the sea level is rising!”

It has been rising for 13,000 years. In that time, it has never risen more slowly than right now. Were our ancestors belching out CO2 faster than we were? Maybe they were farting a lot more. It’s rising more slowly than at any time in that history, and it’s also rising more slowly than [any claim](http://i.imgur.com/bNUCnvg.gif) made public by any outlet. [Here’s the source data](ftp://ftp.marine.csiro.au/pub/legresy/church_white_gmsl_2011_tg_list.zip) for that chart. It’s an FTP link, so it should automatically download the raw file (which you don’t need to worry about, as it’s a bunch of undifferentiated numbers). Turns out that [NOAA](http://i.imgur.com/H1JISaD.gif) marks the average as 0.63 mm per year. Not 3.3. Not 2.8. Certainly not a foot per year, which is needed for the most modern public “predictions” about this bullshit.

>“But ocean acidity!”

Guess what? [It’s also cyclical.](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272771410002167)

>“Okay, not ice caps, but what about the glaciers?”

[They’ve been melting since at least the 1780s](http://i.imgur.com/UGMfILq.gif) when we started measuring them. I also have information for the Alps and other areas. Was our pre-industrial civilization responsible for “greenhouse gases” too? (There were no glaciers in Europe in the Middle Ages.](http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/94383187) That’s called the Medieval Warm Period, something your “scientists” have been trying to erase from the record for decades (ironically, since, 1984) because it goes against their narrative. Gee, we must have had even more factories then than we do now… right?

>“But but but but but but but but muh consensus! They agree! Because I say they do! That makes what they say true!”

[Sorry, there never was any consensus.](http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf)

>“Then why don’t climate change deniers publish papers?”

[Because they do](http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html) (and because [papers often aren’t published](http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12129-009-9149-z) because the publishing groups are owned by AGW liars).

>”So what the hell is this all about?”

The [purposeful destruction](https://archive.is/i29K7) of the [economy and infrastructure](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/) of the Western world and [only the Western world](https://www.rt.com/news/256861-climate-change-un-hoax/).

***[None of the data](http://i.imgur.com/Yyx254S.gif)*** ***supports the existence of AGW.***

>“WAA! IT’S ONLY UNITED STATES TEMPERATURES!”

Because there is no other record of meaningful scientific value anywhere. Only the United States (and parts of Japan) has [a temperature record that has been around long enough](https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/McKitrickCriticalGHCNReview.pdf) for climatological statements can be based on it. The GHCND set of stations has slowly been closed down… and what’s this! The stations being closed down ARE FAR FROM THE EQUATOR. What does that mean? The average latitude of GHCND stations IS [FIFTEEN FUCKING DEGREES](http://i.imgur.com/yvuGBwi.gif) CLOSER TO THE EQUATOR than it used to be. Do you imagine that might raise temperatures? If you answer no, don’t bother answering in the first place.

The United States has a network of [1200+ USHCN stations](http://i.imgur.com/lX30V8X.gif) with data going back to 1895 and earlier. The raw USHCN temperature record shows that there has been a slight cooling since 1920 (see above). USHCN is a subset of GHCND (Global Historical Climatology Network Daily.) Cooling doesn’t suit the needs of your masters, so [they cherrypicked a small subset of GHCND stations](http://i.imgur.com/zUywF21.gif) (which show a large amount of warming since 1920) for use in the global GSN temperature record.

So let’s stop this madness, right? What happens when we take data from [SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND SOURCES?](http://i.imgur.com/WxjeGtP.gif) That is, 1. stations active for a long time and 2. stations that don’t move (meaning keeping the same latitude). We see what I said above. [NO. FUCKING. WARMING.](http://i.imgur.com/sk2JZuI.gif)

At the very best (for your delusions), you (meaning your own authorities) can say that [there has been zero change since modern recordings began.](https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sar/wg_I/ipcc_sar_wg_I_full_report.pdf) Your bastard king himself, James Hansen, [ADMITTED TO THIS.](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/)

>"WAAAAAA THE DOCUMENT ENDS IN 1995!"

And yet there has been [zero](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1990) warming [SINCE THEN](http://i.imgur.com/0N7BEg4.gif), too, so you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Funny how sea level is identical to 1870 and 1901, huh? ([La Jolla](http://i.imgur.com/Gkw4yCG.gif) and [La Jolla](http://i.imgur.com/M1D5yMu.jpg); [Sydney](http://i.imgur.com/beYZsdR.gif) and [Sydney](http://i.imgur.com/ecilgkv.gif), respectively)? Funny how [all the gauges](https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/mslGlobalTrendsTable.htm) show [a 0.63mm/yr rise](http://i.imgur.com/TS4MYXU.gif) (which, again, is smaller than at any time in the last 11,000 years). Not 3.3. Not 2.6. Not 1.4. Certainly not “a meter by 2050.”

>“But weather is becoming more extreme!”

Nah, less. Universally. What’s more, do you imagine? Not [fires](https://www.fs.fed.us/research/sustain/criteria-indicators/indicators/indicator-316.php). [Ha](http://i.imgur.com/hrnfDBC.jpg)! Not [floods](https://water.usgs.gov/floods/events/2015/Joaquin/HolmesQA.html).

>USGS research has shown no linkage between flooding (either increases or decreases) and the increase in greenhouse gases. Essentially, from USGS long-term streamgage data for sites across the country with no regulation or other changes to the watershed that could influence the streamflow, the data shows no systematic increases in flooding through time.

Not [tornadoes](http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/). Five (nearly six now) consecutive [years](http://i.imgur.com/cYdfjJP.png) of below average events. Not [hurricanes](http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/hurdat/All_U.S._Hurricanes.html). Every [single](http://i.imgur.com/MeTkQa8.png) indicator [shows](http://i.imgur.com/jdS93uF.png) they’re not only becoming [less frequent](http://i.imgur.com/0TCxneE.png), but also less powerful. Not even [drought](http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/30/graphic-californias-droughts-in-the-past-1200-years/). [Hilarious](http://i.imgur.com/Xuq8mo6.gif)! So what is it? What’s worse? Tell us. Is it anything at all? Anywhere? At any time? No. Of course, [this has been](http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1298497) known for [a while](http://i.imgur.com/0Vahnon.gif). It’s [global cooling’s](http://i.imgur.com/LBAGLs4.gif) fault, [after](http://i.imgur.com/94wMMS3.jpg) all! [Oh, wait…](http://i.imgur.com/rTKiP7j.gif) NOAA [wouldn’t](http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1981/11/25/page/27/article/perspective/) want you to [hear this](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19790311&id=tIwyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=JecFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6679,1789504&hl=en) now, would they?