Current Decade Is The Fourth Hottest In The US Since 1920

 

[update – this graph is wrong, the current decade is #2 not #4 will update later.]

ScreenHunter_393 Jan. 12 12.37

According to the measured thermometer data, the hottest decade in the US was the 1930s – followed by the 1940s and 1950s. Despite a hot 2012, the current decade only ranks #4.

Katherine Hayhoe thinks the world began in 1970.

About these ads

About stevengoddard

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

67 Responses to Current Decade Is The Fourth Hottest In The US Since 1920

  1. Gary H says:

    Just having fun. So you going to up-date it, or what? hehe

  2. When somebody uses one single tidbit of data (plucked from a looooonnng report that has a stated goal of clarifying conflicting tidbits of data gathered over a century, using a blend of modern and caveman-era instrumentation and methods) and tries to pass that off as The One Real Piece Of Truth, ya just have to chuckle at the desperation. This stuff isn’t just fodder for talk radio, the science of global climate has REAL ramifications for farmers and the millions of people inve$ted in low-lying coastal locales. I guess we should just rest assured that The Powers That Be make decisions based on the work of degreed scientists from places like MIT and NASA instead of non-degreed know-it-alls with a laptop and a LazyBoy

  3. LOL! That chart is not from a reputable source for climate data/science…it’s from a site that offers users a software tool for making their own charts based on whatever ingredients they want to add to their little art projects! “Actual climatologists” wouldn’t DREAM of creating a chart for serious consideration without including the source of the data used in the chart!
    The webste on which you created that chart even warns users against trying to convince people of phony long-time trends by manipulating short spurts of info.
    (from their “ABOUT” page)
    “””Beware sharp tools
    However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility… Please read the notes on things to beware of – and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it’s easy to get misled – or worse, still to mislead others.”””
    We do still have freedom of thought, so if you want to believe stuff based on manipulated junk science, that’s your business, your right, but it’s deceitful to try to convince others to see things your way based on half-truths.

    • One of the stupidest comments I have seen on this site.

      • “Stupidest”,eh? LOL! That alone is priceless!
        The part wherein I quote the site from which you got your chart? I disagree…I think they were quite wise to predict that somebody would try to pass-off a single chart as a comprehensive study.
        I think we’ve passed the point where we’re wasting each other’s time so I guess this is where you can get back to believing and spreading conspiracy theories and I’ll get back to being mildly skeptical of scientists but more so of conspiracy theorists.

      • You shouldn’t comment about things you know nothing about. Now run off and look up the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and Phil Jones.

      • Steven, I’m sorry I criticized your chart-creating software page, but a chart is NOTHING without a comprehensive scientific review…a chart is just a TIDBIT of the whole story. I ‘googled’ your original chart until I found it used in a 100+-page report that explained the details, stressed the important caveats, educated on the historical advances in weather and climate data-collection. Your original chart was RAW data and was intended to be used as a single small component of a bigger picture.
        Pretending that a single chart (that shows only raw data, devoid of caveats and explanations) explains climatic history is as irresponsible as claiming that temperatures charted for a week at random times of day and night, from a thermometer located in full sun, is an accurate rendering of the global climate.
        If that is all your mind requires to draw conclusions, then more power to ya. And why shouldn’t I be allowed to comment on things I know nothing about when you’re the one who set the bar? I welcome a diversity of opinions, but I only value opinions formed around scientifically attained concensus as opposed to half-truths and suspicions.
        Again, we’re wasting each other’s time.

      • “World class moron” That’s a convincing argument against global climate anomalies being explained by the industrial activities of Man…well done.
        Steven, when others read these exchanges, they will notice that you never once tried to explain why you posted an itsy bit of raw data as if it were a fully fleshed out concept. You very well may have an argument, but you’ve provided nothing of value here. (other than a demonstration of the fact that you can muster the courage to toss schoolground names at an unknown woman on the internet)
        (PS; for your next post to me, the bigger insult would be “idiot” or even “imbecile”)

      • Latitude says:

        Tootsie seems to be a cat person….
        …maybe she just can’t help it

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

    • Latitude says:

      “We do still have freedom of thought, so if you want to believe stuff based on manipulated junk science, that’s your business, your right, but it’s deceitful to try to convince others to see things your way based on half-truths.”

      the preceding public service announcement was brought to you by NASA, NOAA, and the IPCC….

    • suyts says:

      Tootsie, you are indeed, a moron.

      That chart, generated from the WFT site uses and links to the data from the various institutions that track the temps and other information. It has been entirely vetted throughout the years.

      For instance, if you were to plot the RSS data from the WFT site, and then go to RSS and plot the data, you’d see that they are exactly the same. Same for UAH, GISS, and HadCrut. That’s because the app is linked to the various sites.

      “Actual climatologists” wouldn’t DREAM of creating a chart for serious consideration without including the source of the data used in the chart!”

      Yeh, while Mr. Clark doesn’t claim to be a climatologist, he actually does source his data. There’s a tricky link below that says “raw data”. You kinda, sorta, have to read and comprehend what that link means. If you do that tricky step of clicking on the link, you can get all sorts of goodies, like the raw data and the source from where it comes from. But, you have to have an IQ above moron to understand this. Maybe cretin is more apt. Imbecile? Not sure.

  4. Glacierman says:

    “LOL! That chart is not from a reputable source for climate data/science”

    Yes, the Hadley Centre and the Climate Research Unit are not reputable sources of data/science……”climatologists” like Phil Jones either, as he is part of the CRU. On that I agree.

    Best post ever!

  5. Golly, Glacierman, you’re wound a little tight about this stuff! I’m sorry I didn’t get back to you sooner, I truly didn’t mean to cause you such angst.
    To your post time-stamped January 18, 2013 at 7:23 pm, thank you for the link. And I can’t find a post of mine claiming that Hansen isn’t reputable…I simply questioned a poster who said temps were declining as opposed to being flat.
    To your post stamped January 18, 2013 at 7:25 pm, thank you for the link. While a lot of that was over my head THAT was informative. I am not going to “pretend to know more than everybody” but I DO know that a single chart that offers a limited timeline and asserts that it comprises a real trend is bad practice.
    To your post stamped January 21, 2013 at 9:30 pm, “Hansen is not a “reputable source for climate data/science” since the paper confirms the graph that you have attacked.”
    I did not attack Hansen, nor the chart, I “attacked” the way in which tidbits of data are being presented as if they illustrate an entire fleshed-out explanation. Maybe you should go back and read what I actually said.
    To the post stamped January 24, 2013 at 3:03 pm, no, I cannot explain it…and apparently, neither can the other thirty people who looked at it.
    “It shows data from HADCRU, which I know you have stated is a not a reliable source of climate data/science” Again, go back and read what I actually said…I was opposed to presenting cherry-picked tidbits of data as if they told the whole story (AND when I wrote the post, I hadn’t seen the source of the original data…I was in a hurry and on a 10″ monitor which didn’t show the menu of data that could be summoned for the creation of charts so I ‘assumed’ that the data was questionable)(yes, shame on me for rushing, for not scrolling sideways, and worst of all, for assuming) Later, when I had spent a little more time at the site, I even found a warning to users advising them NOT to present cherry-picked tidbits of data as if it indicated a solid trend.
    That habit seems to be a trend ‘here’ I happened upon a page entitled “2012 – Fewest Forest Fires in Decades” but when I researched the data for myself, I found that three years in THIS decade saw more fires than 2012! I posted links to the data I found – – the graph was updated to include 2012 (although it shows 50,000 fires instead of the actual 67,000+ fires) and the title was unchanged. I don’t like to see people being misled.
    I believe strongly in a person’s right to their own opiniopn, but we should try to form our opinions on facts not half-truths.
    I still have an open mind on this climate debate, I haven’t seen either side prove their theory yet. I’m not even sure I’ll feel anything has been proven in my lifetime, there are simply too many variables and real trends require too many decades. So I guess you could say that I don’t have a horse in this race, I’m just an observer, so it’s not safe to make assumptions about my motives.

  6. Knock, knock, knock, Glacierman…
    Knock, knock, knock, Glacierman…
    Knock, knock, knock, Glacierman…

  7. Glacierman says:

    Tootsie,
    You didn’t try very hard: “I simply questioned a poster who said temps were declining as opposed to being flat.”

    That was exactly the conclusion of the Hansen paper.

    • Glacierman says:

      GISS manipulates the data constantly but can only get away with so much. I presented that paper as evidence that temps have not increased in recent years, which is the subject of the post. If the most corrupt climate data manipulator cannot turn the past 15 years to a positive trend, and only adjust to a flatlined condition, that is pretty good proof that the reality is temps are declining….which is in line with the raw data, and other data sets.

      • When that trend lasts for thirty years or so, then I’ll be at the point of pounding my fist on the table too. Until then, look at the overall trend for the last century and you will find other dips and flatlines which eventually return to climbing…but we only know that because decades have passed. Hindsight is 20/20 but short-term speculation is just that. If you want to believe that this is a lasting trend, then more power to ya.

      • Glacierman says:

        It has been 17, which I believ Santer said was the minimum to recognize a trend. Is he an unrealiable source of Climate Science?

      • Glacierman says:

        “If you want to believe that this is a lasting trend, then more power to ya.”

        Your words. I think it is all part of natural cycles. Nothing we have observed is outside known natural variability. If you want to believe in fantasies, more power to you.

      • “Nothing we have observed is outside known natural variability. If you want to believe in fantasies, more power to you”

        One more time for those with such high intelligence they are apparently overwhelmed with simple-minded concepts; my mind is still open…periods of flat or even declining temps COULD be caused by natural variability. I am simply not yet willing to pound my fist on the table and shout that that is indeed the cause. AGAIN, I like to see substantial trends…have I neglected to mention that? I could have sworn I did.
        I’m not “believing in fantasies” I am not BELIEVING in anything! I’m aware of your opinion of my intelligence but that doesn’t mean you’ll get it right if you attempt to read my mind…read my words for some clues! I AM a more reputable authority on MY thoughts and feelings than YOU!

    • The “Hansen paper” used the word, “flat.” It even reminded readers that even though the global temperature rise had flattened-out, that it was still hotter than it was a few years ago.
      If I “didn’t try very hard” is your response to a question of climate trend semantics, you’ve chosen the wrong opponent…you need to find someone more interested in short -term minutia.

  8. Glacierman says:

    Is HUDRCU an unrealiable source of data/science?

    • “Is HUDRCU an unrealiable source of data/science?”
      I don’t know, my best guess in no, they are not unreliable.

      • Glacierman says:

        That is the source of data you attacked.

      • Glacierman says:

        You should have just attached Micro Soft for producing Excel which also produces graphs.

      • “You should have just attached Micro Soft for producing Excel which also produces graphs.”

        My problem was not with the graph-producing software, my problem was with the act of presenting a bit of raw data without including the scientists’ accompanying caveats and explanations. Half-truths can be as dangerous to understanding reality as outright untruths.

  9. Glacierman says:

    Your original point was that he need a link to the actual data…which is HADCRU.

    • “Your original point was that he need a link to the actual data…which is HADCRU.”
      Didn’t I already explain that I didn’t realize that woodfortrees used only HADCRU data? I could have sworn I typed-out an overly-long explanation with the requisite ‘shame on me’

      • Glacierman says:

        “I could have sworn I typed-out an overly-long explanation with the requisite ‘shame on me’

        OK enough said. Shame on you.

  10. Glacierman says:

    Is the green trend line for HADCRU declining, or flatlined?

    How is it that temps are not going up when so much additional carbon has been added to the atmosphere?

    Are you good with the AGW hypothesis?

    You say: “So I guess you could say that I don’t have a horse in this race, I’m just an observer, so it’s not safe to make assumptions about my motives.”

    OK, you have demonstrated your impartiality.

  11. Glacierman says:

    Bonus question: how much did Hansen/GISS have to fudge the data to make the recent temps flatlined as opposed to declining? Even he/they couldn’t fudge enough to make it an increasing trend.

  12. Glacierman says:

    “That habit seems to be a trend ‘here’ I happened upon a page entitled “2012 – Fewest Forest Fires in Decades” but when I researched the data for myself, I found that three years in THIS decade saw more fires than 2012! I posted links to the data I found – – the graph was updated to include 2012 (although it shows 50,000 fires instead of the actual 67,000+ fires) and the title was unchanged. I don’t like to see people being misled.”

    This is a strawman argument.

    Your original point, which you have not defended was: “Temperatures have been declining for the past ten years? You’ll need to supply a link to your data so we can all pretend we know more than actual climatologists:

    The HADCRU data shows it, the unadjusted GISS data shows it, and Hansen even concluded that temps have not increased……which is pretty darn close to declining, and flies in the face of AGW theory, and Hansens own models give the increase amount of CO2. Without getting into his reasons, which can be argued another time, What is your issue with the post? Do you stand by your claim that it is wrong? Didn’t supply a link to reputable data source? Please no other strawmen or backpeddling.

    • “temps have not increased……which is pretty darn close to declining”

      LOL! Is “pretty darn close to declining” a scientific term?
      Sorry, couldn’t resist, my Righteous Outrage Level is CLEARLY insufficient for a ‘proper’ discussion of The Weather!

      • Glacierman says:

        Your intelligence level is clearly insufficient for a proper discussion.

      • glacierman says:

        As i As i said before it is only flatlined based on hansens corrupt adjustments post 2000. The temps are actually decreasing. You want to just LOL smarty?

      • “Your intelligence level is clearly insufficient for a proper discussion”

        Thank you for demonstrating YOURS with that statement.
        …and that’s really ironic considering your first several posts to me predicted that I was going to insult your intelligence, the intelligence of your preferred climatologists, and the intelligence of everyone else inhabiting this site.

      • Glacierman says:

        “…and that’s really ironic considering your first several posts to me predicted that I was going to insult your intelligence, the intelligence of your preferred climatologists, and the intelligence of everyone else inhabiting this site.”

        I was right. You did. And I gave it back to you which you now try to use to say I did it first. Ironic indeed. You can’t even understand sarcasm if you believe Phil Jones, or James Hansen would be my preferred climatologist.

        Also, based on the way the time stamps work, your original post was early am this morning in EST. You then responded with a very rude post 12 hours later. Just for the record.

      • Glacierman says:

        As to insulting the intelligence of everybody else that posts here, your original point was wrong based on your lack of understanding of the data and how it was presented. You have since admitted that so nothing left to argue.

        It has been fun though.

      • “I was right. You did. And I gave it back to you which you now try to use to say I did it first. Ironic indeed. You can’t even understand sarcasm if you believe Phil Jones, or James Hansen would be my preferred climatologist.”

        No. You weren’t right. I insulted arrogance, not intelligence.
        I don’t know you and the written word makes it difficult to discern nuances like sarcasm, so I have NO idea who is your preferred climatologist.

      • “nothing left to argue.”

        Maybe arguing is The Problem.

  13. Glacierman says:

    “Knock, knock, knock, Glacierman…
    Knock, knock, knock, Glacierman…
    Knock, knock, knock, Glacierman…”

    You didn’t answer my posts for days, then make a post at 1:30 am then come back 12 hours late and post this? But you have told us you are an unbiased observer without a horse in the race…….

  14. Trust me, I did not post anything at 1:30 am…it appears that we post in different time zones. I am in Northern California and at this very moment, it is 11:35 am.

    • LLAP says:

      The time stamp that appears on these posts is off by about 5 or 6 hours.

      • LLAP says:

        5 hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time (in other words, GMT).

      • Me says:

        I suggest you look at it again LLAP, Just saying…..

      • LLAP says:

        @Me: The first post I made has a time stamp of 8:27 pm. I posted it at 3:27 pm E.S.T.. The time stamp is 5 hours ahead, meaning it is G.M.T. (Greenwich Meridian Time). What did you have in mind?

      • Me says:

        So Tootsie Hinkle’s post was not in response to Glacierman’s just above it?

      • Me says:

        You need to look at again, the whole thing not just the couple of post, Just saying…..

      • Me says:

        Let Me make it easier, notice how the focus is on the time and not the days later part.

      • Me says:

        Tootsie probably didn’t like that, so maybe it will take days to respond….. :lol:

      • Me, I don’t know why I need to respond to you???
        …but I did get a good chuckle out of, “Tootsie probably didn’t like that, so maybe it will take days to respond….. ”
        …it’s nice to see that somebody here has a sense of humor…I feel like I stumbled onto the set of Grumpy Old Men where EVERYONE is shaking their fist and shouting, “Get off my lawn ya gall-derned kids!”
        just between you and me, I wasn’t going to respond to …him…until he calmed down…this is, afterall, just conversation and he was getting a little wound-up and NOTHING I could say was going to meet with anything besides abuse.
        I’ve learned that if conversing participants can’t even agree on the parameters of the topic’s raw data, nothing productive will follow besides perhaps some creative new insults.
        (the original premise of this page, even the misleading/incorrect title, haven’t even been updated/corrected)
        …at least we’ve established the time zone of the timestamp : ]

        for the record, I responded to Me on January 26, 2013 at 10:51 am PST

      • Me says:

        :lol: You are too funny.

      • Me says:

        But I am sooooo happy you posted what you just did. :mrgreen:

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