US Climate Becoming Much Less Extreme

The graph below plots the total number of all time record daily maximums plus record daily minimums set or tied for all 595 GHCN HCN stations which have been active from 1900 to the present. Both record maximums and record minimums have been on the decline, indicating that the climate is becoming less extreme. The year 1936 was by far the most extreme year in US history. It had the coldest February and the second hottest July on record.

NOAA claims that temperature extremes are increasing, because they are incompetent, dishonest, and using bogus statistics (like including recently added stations.) When an Appells-to-Appells comparison is done, the current year doesn’t even crack the top 50.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

81 Responses to US Climate Becoming Much Less Extreme

  1. Leo Morgan says:

    Is ‘Appells to Appells’ some wordplay that I’m missing, or is it just a typo?

  2. Leo Morgan says:

    Thanks.

  3. Anthony Bremner says:

    This article confirms the lack of melting visible on the GRACE satellite maps that does not get discussed much in the media. Some other interesting articles on the site that reflect what Steven has been saying. Thanks to Steven for all his uncompensated efforts.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/28/sea_levels_new_science_climate_change/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/17/no_more_droughts_than_in_1950/
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/

  4. David Appell says:

    “Steve” — or whatever the fuck your name is: please try to get over you obsession with me. It makes me uncomfortable, and can’t be good for you either.

    • You posted on your blog that I am a climate criminal, and then posted that you had spied on me and found out who I worked for.

      Do you have any idea how irrational you are?

    • David, are you 12 years old?

      • David Appell says:

        Why won’t “Steve” sign his name to his opinions? What is he afraid of?

      • How would I know? Why does “Tamino” (Grant Foster) post anonymously yet the eco-worriers never complain about that?

      • David Appell says:

        You just gave Tamino’s real name, which everyone knows — so how is he anonymous, and how is the situation comparable?

        Why is Steve afraid? Of what? He’s a coward, more concerned for his rent than the truth. Not a man…. I suspect he’s a massive troll, completely insincere, who knows the scientific facts but gets off on getting a rise out of people….

      • A troll is someone who goes off topic on idiotic rants. Hint hint.

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        David – the scientific facts are that CO2 is responsible for about 1/6th of temperature rise during the 20thC. Measured climate sensitivity is about 0.6 C/doubling or thereabouts. Models fail to include the secondary forcings identified by people like Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, also oceanic cycles. I’ve done a great deal of modelling, I know well what an omitted variable does for what are effectively regression models (yes, GCM’s fit to the temperature record, therefore this is what they are).

        We are trying to save hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, from dying because of misguided green policies. Is that not an admirable thing?

      • Me says:

        Toshinmack is a nutcase that’s fer sure. :lol:

      • David Appell says:

        I do think “Steve” is a kind of troll, toying with the likes of the Wills of the world. “Steve’s” graphs are so amateurish, so thrown up without proper documentation or explanation, put up as fast as he can in order to get on to the next one, that he’s clearly taking advantage of his reader’s gullability. Nothing else explains his inanity.

      • David Appell says:

        “Bruce” (or whatever your name is): Prove your assertions, with supporting documentation.

      • I don’t buy into Christensen and Svensmark theories yet, but maybe there is something to them. I’d like to see Appell prove his claims though… all he has are the usual empty arguments from authority.

      • David Appell says:

        Will, I won’t waste my time trying to disprove a theory even you don’t believe. And that the CERN CLOUD scientists didn’t accept either.

      • Wallace says:

        “David – the scientific facts are that CO2 is responsible for about 1/6th of temperature rise during the 20thC. Measured climate sensitivity is about 0.6 C/doubling or thereabouts. Models fail to include the secondary forcings identified by people like Friis-Christensen and Svensmark, also oceanic cycles. I’ve done a great deal of modelling, I know well what an omitted variable does for what are effectively regression models (yes, GCM’s fit to the temperature record, therefore this is what they are).

        We are trying to save hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, from dying because of misguided green policies. Is that not an admirable thing?”

        What natural processes account for the other 5/6? It’s not volcanic output or the sun, so what is it? Wait, you’re saying it’s warming, and Steven is saying it’s not. But then you include Svensmark’s research, but there is no longer a correlation according to his data so it cannot be that.

        I’m not sure how green policies will kill people. I thought the people who accepted global warming were the alarmists? That sounds pretty alarmist to me. Or is it only alarmist when we do it?

        Frankly, David has a good point. Steven has no climate credentials, or math credentials, and he publishes a blog (which anyone can do) under a false name. He censors posts that disagree with him, and if anyone does disagree with him he doesn’t address any of their points and just calls them an idiot.

        He also frequently misunderstands statistics and even fundamentals of weather.

        But then again, the far right sure loves their echo chamber. I guess that’s why they lost the 2012 election.

      • Wallace says:

        “Math is trivial”
        Then how come you repeatedly fail at statistics?

        * The US is 2% of the earth’s surface, so it’s trivial to even use it as a base of discussion for global temps
        * Of course temps have to be adjusted because you can’t just average them all out. If you did, then the east and urban areas would be more heavily weighted than places like WY and MT which have few stations. They are adjusted so that they give a better picture of average temps over time. That’s how statistics work. It’s akin to looking at the 2012 election map by county and not taking into account the actual population of each county.
        * You always cite the 1930s. Did you realize that the dust bowl was actually made worse by humans because of poor farming methods?
        * You always cite storms that killed more people 100 years ago. Did you not realize people were not as well prepared back then and that more people on average died during storms because of this? Take a look at the tri-state tornado. There were no tornado warnings then like we have them now. A tornado just like that will not kill as many people due to adequate warning systems thanks to the NWS.
        * You constantly cherry pick data to show whatever trend you want to show. You rarely show the formula of your trend lines, and rarely do you adequately cite your data. You constantly confuse units of measurement, and you don’t select long term averages for trends.
        * You constantly doctor your own images, or other images just to be dishonest. A few people have called you out on it before and you either ignore them or in the 1% of cases where you cave you hand wave it away.
        * You are an electrical engineer. You have no credentials in meteorology or climate science. Yet, you think publishing a blog and doing google searches for newspaper headlines and making graphs in excel makes you an expert.
        * You blame us for being alarmist, then you post old newspaper headlines about tens of thousands of people getting killed in disaster X, Y, or Z. You blame us for being alarmist then you claim there’s some huge conspiracy with the government, or the president, or the NWS. That’s pretty alarmist, is it not?
        * You’re also a birther. That’s all that needs to be said in terms of the fantasy that you accept as reality.

      • Why are you raising straw man arguments? The topic is that the 1930s had many more extreme temperatures in the US and that Hansen has altered the data. You and David Appell are constantly trying to change the subject.

        This is the standard MO of alarmists. When confronted with problems, you run away.

      • Wallace says:

        “This is the standard MO of alarmists. When confronted with problems, you run away.”

        You didn’t address any of my posts. You’re the one who is running away. I’ve shown you a lot of problems you just ignored.

        If you research 1934, you’ll see why your claim is somewhat faulty. Helpful hint, man was responsible for a good part of the dust bowl due to bad farming practices. It made the problem much worse.

      • Wallace says:

        Every point I made to you, Steve, was valid. Address them or not, or do you still want to say you’re a birther?

        Any other conspiracies you’d like to share?

      • Wallace, I don’t doubt that you hate humans or that Hansen hates humans, but data tampering is unacceptable.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      David – There is a logical explanation why a minority might wish to remain relatively anonymous. Recall this recent example from your own country.

      It is OK for you in the university system which has self organised into a very strongly left-oriented tribe. People with dissenting views hide them or face persecution.

      The Stasi in East Germany had great freedom. The ordinary people did not. This is why Orwell wrote Animal Farm.

      • Keep in mind this question is being posed by an imbecile who has gone on the public record promoting the concept that those who don’t share in his belief system should be punished for crimes against the planet. There are a lot of crazies out there, and as far as I can determine by reading Appell’s posts, he is one of them.

      • David Appell says:

        In other words, “Steve” is more interested in paying his rent than communicating the truth, as he sees it.

        This is precisely what makes him a coward, and a lesser man than most.

      • Me says:

        See Me comment above Toshinmack! :lol:

      • Can’t speculate on other’s motives but I’m deeply impressed with the work Steve is doing here. Do I agree with all his opinions? No. Do I conclude you’re a dickhead? Yes.

        And BTW, I’ve been personally affected by terrorist bombings and the deaths they have caused. It’s easy to scream ‘coward’ when you think no harm can come to you.

      • Bruce says:

        David is a scientist. I wish he would address the data and dissenting climate science, which tends to be empirical and emphasises measurement of actual data rather than the output of models.

        The left does not need to pursue this dry hole, and ignore the increasing body of data showing that CAGW will not happen due to greenhouse gases. Obama was re-elected on policies which excluded CAGW scares. This shows the left can be truthful about climate and still do what they want. I don’t agree with most of Mr Obama’s policies, but if the voters want them, fine.

      • He is not a scientist. He works as creative writer. Presumably he couldn’t make it in academia. It is also obvious he knows almost nothing about the topic except what he’s read on activist blogs.

      • David Appell says:

        A coward is calling people frauds while hiding behind mommy’s skirt. As does “Steve Goddard.”

      • David Appell says:

        Then present some science, Bruce, instead of a couple of dumb sentences that don’t say anything.

        Do you even know what science is, and what is looks like? I do.

      • Me says:

        Again Toshinmack it……..

      • Bruce says:

        OK, David, can you explain why in long term temperature series the previous solar cycle length correlates with the temperature during the following cycle.

        I have replicated this correlation for HadCRUT and CET, using just the raw data. I suspect the correlation would tighten more if the ocean cycles and volcanic forcings were used as well.

        This alone, if you look at the SC12 and SC22 cycle lengths, explains 1/2 of the temperature increase during the 20thC.

      • Bruce, doesn’t the IPCC make the point that AGW only explains ‘more than half’ (51%+) of the warming? In which case you’re not stating anything that a climate scientist (except for the cranks) would disagree with…

      • David Appell says:

        Have you ever heard, “Bruce,” that correlation is not causation?

        Have you ever heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? That, to first order, dT/T = (1/4) dS/S, which has rarely risen above 0.1% ~ 0.1 K?

        Do you have a workaround for the basic laws of physics?

      • David Appell says:

        Where (exactly) does the IPCC say that?

      • I see he is back to his ‘applied physics’ drivel.

      • “Where (exactly) does the IPCC say that?”

        Excuse the French, but are you seriously that fucking dumb?

        Oops, sorry. That’s right, you are…

      • Bruce says:

        And David, I have also replicated the relationship shown in Scafetta’s graph of the detrended HadCRUT showing the cyclic signal. This corresponds to 1/3rd of temperature rise during the 20thC.

        If 1/2 is due to combined solar magnetic/TSI and another 1/3 due to a 60 year cycle in the oceans, that leaves about 1/6th left for everything else, including GHG’s.

        Which fits Lindzen-Choi 2011 and Spencer-Braswell 2010 and other empirical measures of sensitivity rather well. It also shows why the IPCC value for sensitivity is 6 times too high.

        I am not paid by anyone to do this stuff, but I felt it my responsibility as a scientist to examine the data before commenting in this whole controversy.

      • David Appell says:

        Where, exactly, does the IPCC say what you say they say? A simple citation, please?

      • David Appell says:

        Bruce — why do you think a couple of graphs throw up by an obvious amateur — someone also afraid to put their real name to their opinions — means anything at all in the scientific field? Do you think that’s how your doctors decide what medication to prescribe to you, or how to do a surgery — to see what “Bruce” thinks on some Flickr graph? How stupid are you?

      • You really are a dickhead aren’t you David? This is so utterly fundamental to the entire debate, and yet you don’t even know this… what a nasty little crank you are…

        “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[8] This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure 2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM}”

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html

        Hint: “Most” = 51%-100%

      • David Appell says:

        Have you heard, “Bruce,” that Lindzen-Choi 1&2 or Spencer-Braswell isn’t exactly accepted science — that lots of smart people, much smarter than you, who publish under their real names, and not on Fllickr, think they are flat-out wrong?

      • “obvious amateur…”

        David,

        “Nicola Scafetta is a research scientist at the ACRIM Lab group and an assistant adjunct professor in the physics department at Duke University.”

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Scafetta

        You’re as dumb as dog shit.

        (Although I have about as much confidence in Scafetta’s theories as I have in the cranks you worship.)

      • “Have you heard, “Bruce,” that Lindzen-Choi 1&2 or Spencer-Braswell isn’t exactly accepted science ”

        Then why did none of the researchers you worship manage to rebut the paper? Since it would obviously be a feather in their caps if they could have managed that.

      • Bruce says:

        Do you have a workaround for the basic laws of physics?

        I do not fool myself that one variable explains the empirical behaviour of climate.

        The vanilla value for Arrhenius sensitivity is about 1.3 C/doubling or so. IPCC has sensitivity at 2.5-4.0 C/doubling.

        But if the hydrocycle sends heat to the top of the atmosphere it bypasses Stefan-Boltzmann. If clouds have a stronger effect than previously thought then increased cloud albedo reduces absorbed TSI. Negative feedback rather than positive as hypothesised by IPCC associated scientists.

        If you can give an explanation why 250 years or more of data shows this relationship (ie pSCL and temperature) then I would love to hear it. I would like to know the carbon tax we have to pay here in Oz is not wasted money.

        Likewise if you can show why the 60 year cycle, which appears in numerous climate datasets, should not have a significant effect.

      • Me says:

        Toshinmack, didn’t you just say that correlation is not causation? So why are you trying to correlate AGW with what a M.D. does fer his patients! :lol:

      • The “applied physics” doubling of CO2 is 1.1C or 1.2C depending on who you cite. Even this is not “applied physics” because you can only arrive at this through modelling. I used to think Appell knew this but was just spin doctoring. But now it actually appears he is genuinely stupid…

      • David Appell says:

        A 60 yr cycle of what?

        And how does it add heat to the system over > 1 cycle? What is the physical mechanism?

        Any monkey can find cycles in any data, via Fourier analysis. That does not make them physically real.

        And real scientists don’t publish on Flickr — only clowns.

      • “Any monkey can find cycles in any data, via Fourier analysis. That does not make them physically real.”

        Exactly the problem with most of climate science.

      • Bruce says:

        David – I have read L&C 2011 and S&B 2010 several times. I have looked at their data (I tend to read the verbiage with scepticism). I cannot see anywhere where they are wrong in the science. But I’ve only been in professional science R&D for 26 years since my PhD, so I will grant I could be mistaken.

        But then I corroborated their results using the CET precisely to determine for myself that short term GHG response to transient forcing would extend to long term datasets. It does.

        David – the current fall in average world temperature fits the sceptics hypothesis. It doesn’t fit the high sensitivity hypothesis. That is called validation of the former and tentative falsification of the latter. That is ordinary experimental science.

        And yes, if I posted under my real name I could probably expect to lose work and money, as I do work associated with the climate space from time to time. Indeed I could do quite well financially if I chose to be inconsistent with my personal ethics and join the climate money train.

      • Bruce of Newcastle says:

        “Any monkey can find cycles in any data, via Fourier analysis. That does not make them physically real.

        Presumably this is why Michael E. Mann’s paper Knight et al 2005 did wavelet analysis and says:

        Using a 1400 year climate model calculation, we are able to simulate the observed pattern and amplitude of the AMO. The results imply the AMO is a genuine quasi-periodic cycle of internal climate variability persisting for many centuries, and is related to variability in the oceanic thermohaline circulation (THC).

        I’ll remind you that the AMO cycle is in phase with the HadCRUT cycle. Which explains 1/3rd of warming in that data between 1900-2000.

        Perhaps you think Dr Mann is furry?

      • Mann’s work on the PDO also crossed my mind when Appell wrote his usual drivel. But hardly worth mentioning. It would just go over the top of his head as usual.

  5. David Appell says:

    I mean, imagine what it must be like, to be so interested in a subject you spend nearly all your free time blogging about it, but you are afraid to do the most basic thing and use your real name, even when you submit something to a newspaper and they (tellingly) don’t even check to see if you are real. (And you are wrong, besides, and admit it.)

    What could be more sad than this? The pathos writes itself….

    • Me says:

      Sucks to be you now doesn’t it thar Toshinmack! :lol:

    • Bruce says:

      Remember this:

      “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many, but you be few.”

      Charming people.

      Or, David, perhaps you would like to be included on the PNAS blacklist?

      Why do you think cautious unfunded dissidents are cowards?

      • David Appell says:

        Clearly, Bruce, you have no science to present. That makes you irrelevant.

        Next?

      • Given the incoherent nature of his posts he could be drunk or intoxicated on drugs at the moment. Perhaps take this up with him later? Although you would be a sucker for punishment. I’ve been a sceptic for 40 years and I’ve learn’t there is little point in attempting rational debate with True Believers.

      • Me says:

        Same goes fer you thar too Toshinmack! :lol:

      • Bruce says:

        David – You haven’t addressed the science I’ve linked – peer reviewed papers, actual data. You don’t like me. OK, I’ll do your trick and appeal to authority, just this once.

        Do you know Dr David Evans? He has 6 university degrees in science and engineering and was a senior consultant in modelling to the Australian Greenhouse Office.

        His summary of the respective hypotheses is here. His conclusion is:

        The skeptical view is compatible with the data.

      • As soon as you start citing scientific papers Appell looses interest… Although he was good at the initial jeering that you weren’t citing any…

      • johnmcguire says:

        Yo Bruce , co2 has been going up and raw temperatures are flat for about 16 years now . And you sound like a lukewarmer , and appell with his idiocy is desperate for attention as he hopes to make a name for himself in order to get some funding . Appell has made a name for himself , it just isn’t the one he envisioned :-)

      • Rob J says:

        Davey sez: “Clearly, Bruce, you have no science to present. That makes you irrelevant.” Let me correct that for you Mr. Appel. Here’s how it should read: “Clearly, Bruce, you have no science to present that I agree with. That makes you irrelevant to my particular delusional belief system.”

  6. Rob J says:

    Lil’ Davey seems obsessed with Steve in general (mainly because Steve is right 99% of the time and David knows it) and especially his use of a pseudonym. If I were Steve I’d do the same thing, given that the large majority of political violence in this country is perpetrated by loony left-wingers. Steve is doing a lot of damage to what little remains of the alarmists’ credibility. That makes him a target for left wing nutcases out there. For much the same reason I did not put a Romney sticker on my car this fall. Too many lefty kooks out there with violent tendencies.

    BTW, Davey’s schtick is pretty entertaining. If he agrees with a study it becomes the holy grail of science no matter how incompetent or fraudulent it is (e.g. Mann’s bogus hockey stick). OTOH, any study that goes against his fragile global warming delusional system, no matter how well done, is immediately dismissed without any analysis whatsoever. Gotta love that kind of objectivity from a non-scientist doing scientific journalism!

  7. Anthony Bremner says:

    Thank you Bruce for the excellent article you posted, I put it on my facebook page where it will be ignored in favor of pictures of food that someone ate that day. Unfortunately not many people will actually read it instead of swallowing the party line that is fed them by mainstream media every day. Hopefully blogs like this will get the word out before we go bankrupt fighting Co2. It seems like actual information is met by name calling and hatespeach so I cannot blame people for not using their real name.Here is the link again. http://mises.org/daily/5892

    • Bruce says:

      Anthony – you’re welcome. Dr Evans is also Jo Nova’s husband – her excellent blog is here. She is no slouch either in both academic credentials and climate science understanding.

  8. manicbeancounter says:

    This is an excellent post, as it is a rounded test – comparing like-with-like.
    As an irregular visitor here, I thought I would do a quick check of David Appell’s blog to see if “Appells-to-Appells” jibe was fair.
    Latest posting is has a graph of soaring US corporate profits since WW2.
    http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/while-corporate-profits-soar.html
    No allowance for inflation, economic growth, or the impact of profits from overseas. It is utterly misleading.

  9. Marc77 says:

    The conclusions of this post are not surprising to me, because I have seen the same in the Canadian data. The most extreme year in Canadian history is 1936. Here is the difference between 1936 and 2011 computed on all the stations(around 150) with those years available.

    2011 minus 1936
    Jan: 3.0
    Feb: 7.7
    Mar: -1.6
    Apr: 1.2
    May: -1.1
    Jun: -1.2
    Jul: -1.2
    Aug: 0.5
    Sep: 2.9
    Oct: 1.6
    Nov: 1.5
    Dec: 4.0

    1936 had a much colder winter and a warmer summer.

  10. rw says:

    To understand David Appell, it’s worth checking out the book “Jimmy Higgins” by Aileen Kraditor. In fact this book is relevant to the whole parade of true believers that form one aspect of the AGW hysteria. As well as the way in which the two sides of the debate always seem to talk past each other – as demonstrated on this comment thread.

    David is a modern, ‘science-based’ version of Jimmy Higgins.

  11. Appell cites a graph as evidence of US corporate profits spiralling out of control on his blog, which contains no citations or references to reliable sources. Three minutes of googling locates this graph from the the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce.

    See:

    http://docbea.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/profits_2q_third.png
    http://blog.bea.gov/category/corporate-profits/

    In Appell’s mysterious graph US corporate profits are spiralling hockey stick fashion, from at least 2009 and there is no end in sight. The actual credible data from a credible source shows profits flat or in decline over the same time frame.

    Obviously, Appell is not just a climate crank but an economics crank.

    As a side note, William Connolley is the first to common on Appell’s graph and seems supportive of it rather than questioning of it’s sources. Why isn’t that even slightly surprising?

    Generally speaking it’s been my observation that if you are a crank on one topic you’re probably a crank on other topics as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s