Extreme Weather Whining

Romm and friends are constantly whining about an imagined increase in extreme weather, but as usual, they have no clue what they are talking about.

In the US, the 1930s had nearly as much extreme weather as all other decades combined. In fact, the past decade (2000-2009) may have had the least extreme weather.

Twenty three states set their record high temperature in the 1930s, compared with one during the past decade.

Eleven states set their low temperature record in the 1930s, compared with none during the past decade.

Dr. Hansen described droughts in the 1930s :

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s “Dust Bowl” that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath.

The most powerful hurricane to ever hit the US was the Great Labor Day Storm of 1935. It was the only storm to ever hit the US with a pressure lower than 900 mb, and may have had winds as high as 185 MPH at landfall.

The conclusion is that extreme weather has not increased, but extreme whining and whiners have.


About stevengoddard

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

75 Responses to Extreme Weather Whining

  1. MikeTheDenier says:

    We’re headed for some VERY extreme (COLD!!) weather if Dr. Tim Ball is correct.

    Climate History Key to Future; Inuit Travels Provide Political Direction
    By Dr. Tim Ball Thursday, October 28, 2010

    Manipulation of global temperature data to prop up claims of current global temperatures being the warmest on record due to human production of CO2 continue.
    Meanwhile nature ignores the false science. Solar activity declines, global temperatures decline and both will continue to do so.

    Temperature conditions similar to those of the Dalton Minimum, and if the quiescence continues, the Maunder Minimum are anticipated (Figure 1).

    What does that imply?


  2. MikeTheDenier says:

    And this… Thanks to WUWT

    As this graph of UAH TLT from D Kelly O’Day’s site shows, The current global anomaly is 0.044C – or very nearly zero. That’s a big drop from last month when we eneded up at 0.60C.


  3. Green Sand says:

    Sorry for OT, but of interest I think. Can’t find an unthreaded place to put it.

    Funny how Norfolk keeps cropping up!

    Take a long hard look at this, it could be comming your way soon! If you let it.

    “Norfolk Island to trial world’s first personal carbon trading scheme”

    “Norfolk Island, a former British penal colony in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, is to become the first place in the world to trial a personal carbon trading program.”

    “During the trial, residents will use the card when they pay for petrol and power. Those who use fewer units by walking or cycling instead of driving or using less electricity at home will be able to exchange any remaining credit at the end of the year for cash.”

    “Over time the number of carbon units handed out on the cards will go down, forcing individuals to work harder to maintain a low-carbon lifestyle.”


  4. BarryW says:

    As you said, if there is Arctic amplification we get milder not more extreme weather, so if there actually is global warming what’s the problem?

  5. truthsword says:

    Didn’t that Brendon guy say he would swear off AGW if here were more cold records than hot ones? Oh yeah… globally.

  6. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Joseph D’Aleo, decrease of heatwaves in the USA, not an increase

  7. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    Was the Southern Hemisphere cooler in the 1930’s? Did heat from there migrate to the Northern Hemisphere during that decade? I’m trying to figure out why that decade was extreme.

  8. This article focuses on the different trends in the northern and southern hemispheres, estimating the opposing forces of particulates and co2: “Global Cooling?”, Paul E. Damon and Steven M. Kunen, Science, 6 August 1976.


  9. ChrisD says:

    These are individual (single-day) records. There’s only one per state over the entire historical record–a grand total of 50. That’s not a whole lot of data.

    Far more interesting, IMO, is the total number of record highs vs record lows. This yields many, many, many more data points.

    If you look at this on a decadal basis, this used to come out pretty close to even, i.e., in a given decade, the numer of record highs and record lows in the US was about equal. In the 50s, for example, the ratio of record highs to record lows was 1.09:1. In the 60s it was 0.77:1.

    For the decade just ended, the 2000s, the ratio was 2.04:1, meaning there were a bit more than twice as many record highs as record lows.


    • ChrisD says:

      Clarification: These are the total number of daily record highs and lows.

    • You have got to be kidding. That is one of the most clueless comments I have seen yet. Do you think the high and low records were all set on the same day?

      The high temperature records were spread out over the entire decade

      Del 110 July 21 8 1930 Ky 114 July 28 17 1930 Miss 115 July 29 24 1930 Tenn 113 Aug 9 42 1930 Fla 109 June 29 9 1931 Hawaii 100 April 27 11 1931 Idaho 118 July 28 12 1934 Iowa 118 July 20 15 1934 Ohio 113 July 21 35 1934 Ark 120 Aug 10 4 1936 Ind 116 July 14 14 1936 Kansas 121 July 24 16 1936 La 114 Aug 10 18 1936 Md 109 July 10 20 1936 Mich 112 July 13 22 1936 Minn 114 July 6 23 1936 Neb 118 July 24 27 1936 NJ 110 July 10 30 1936 ND 121 July 6 34 1936 Pa 111 July 10 38 1936 Texas 120 Aug 12 43 1936 W Va 112 July 10 48 1936 Wis 114 July 13 49 1936 Mont 117 July 5 26 1937

      • ChrisD says:

        No, I don’t think that. I meant what I said, that there is only one data point per state, i.e., a single day for each state over the entire historical record. I didn’t say anything about them all being set on the same day. What on Earth made you think that?

        How many data points are there, Steve? How many did I say there were?

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        stevengoddard says:
        October 30, 2010 at 2:39 am

        Do you think the high and low records were all set on the same day?

        Methinks he think propaganda.

      • ChrisD says:

        I see, posting information about any study is automatically propaganda.

        That’s good to know. Bread good, science bad. Grrrrrr.

      • ChrisD says:

        My comment was precisely on the central topic of the article. It said that better data are available than what’s in the USA Today article you’re quoting, and that it yields a quite different picture.

        If that’s not on point, I can’t imagine what would be.

  10. Mike Davis says:

    Your myopia is showing.
    50 states times total number of days since records began times 2, because you need to keep separate records for High and low as they would probably not happen on the same day.
    The entire game is meaningless due to corrupted measurement equipment and methods which gives an error of up to 5C plus or minus and most siting issues provide a warm bias according to what was shown at surfacestation org.
    What I saw of the station photos from the polar regions was even worse.

  11. Mike Davis says:

    Seeing how this is about Extreme weather I will add that historical records provide evidence that we are experiencing some of the mildest weather conditions in history and the only way to make the weather milder would be to warm the planet to equalize the temperature with properly mixed Green Hose Gasses ( If such animals exist) 😉

  12. Mike Davis says:

    Miss spelled House, then they maybe are HOSED GASSES

  13. ChrisD says:

    I didn’t say anything about “the same day.” I didn’t say it, I didn’t imply it, I didn’t think it. I have no idea why Steve thinks that.

    Steve’s record high chart has exactly 50 data points. One record per state, period. If you count both charts, it’s a hundred.

    The data I presented count all of the record daily highs and lows at 1800 US weather stations for 60 years. It’s a whole lot more data and a whole lot more meaningful.

    • ChrisD says:

      This responds to the “myopia” post. Must have hit the wrong Reply link.

      • Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

        You think it responds.

      • ChrisD says:

        Gosh, Amino, why don’t you explain exactly where the response is wrong or fails to address the point.

        Did I say anything about “same day”? Does Steve’s chart contain more than 50 data points? Does that UCAR study not contain a whole lot more?

        So who about showing exactly where the problem is rather than just using a cheap, information-free driveby?

        Or is that just too much to ask?

  14. Mike Davis says:

    60 years is less time than I have been alive and only represents an average climate cycle which might have been 40 years or 80 years depending on start and end points and other weather influences.
    If we talk about the entire weather monitoring network and the entire length of time the weather network has been monitoring weather then your example is minimal compared to what Steven is talking about. There would need to be more data points considered to realize the warm records each day in each state and the cold records each day in each state.
    All that aside, It is BS because there has been “changes” in the equipment, location, method, region, and a bunch of other s### that affected the records you are pointing to. I claim it is garbage based on garbage work.
    All you are verifying is that weather is variable and there are no trends shown in your data other than some short term due to land use and land change issues.
    I will use the WIKI site for your education as you are probably a member of that cult:
    The term is Mental Myopia!
    Also known as CHIA which requires glazing be preformed on your abdomen to see where you are walking

  15. ChrisD says:

    So why didn’t you mention this garbage data problem to Steve? Mine is garbage but his isn’t? How’s that work?

    And as for “minimal” data, wow. Steve’s chart shows one data point for each state over a timespan of a hundred and thirty years. You wait a hundred thirty years and you end up with a single datum per state. One datum every two and a half years for the entire United States. And you think mine is the minimal one?


    Myopia, feh. Look in the mirror, but find your reading glasses first.

    • Mike Davis says:

      I was making a general statement about the entire so called surface temperature record. You need to be able to see that to get one data point for each state over a time span of 130 years you need to examine “ALL” the data points from “ALL” the collections that are being used to arrive at that result. How many Million Data points would that be?
      My reading glasses are just fine thank you for the concern but the Eye Doctor just recently did and examination. At least I do not need to have a window cleaner inspect my belly button!

  16. Whytee says:

    These comments about extreme temperatures are laughable. If you want to see the results of a serious study of record high and record low temperatures in the US look at Appendix 1 of Heidi Cullen’s new book: The weather of the future. It starts on page 273. The table on page 275 shows the number of record highs (40,055) and lows (18,871) from 1,800 weather stations for the year 2000, which can be previewed on Amazon (need the book for the other years). The other years look very similar. This is from an study by Meehl and Tebaldi and others (Relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.) published in GRL (2009). You need a basic grasp of probability theory to read it. Get serious or shut up.

    • So you believe that NOAA is lying about the state temperature records?

      I haven’t heard anyone accuse NOAA of being big oil deniers before. Thanks for the insight.

      • Whytee says:

        I think the analysis is irrelevant. No one is lying. I think you and the individuals commenting are sincere. Sorry for using the term laughable–I should have deleted that. Record temperatures, both highs and lows, measured on a daily basis declined in the 20th century, as would be expected as more and more observations accumulated. But record highs have been declining less sharply than record lows since 1970. This is a reflection of temperature increases in the past 40 years. This is a steady yearly trend that has continued to the present year. These are not decadal extremes (actually counts of states) but clear and significant differences in daily extreme temperature trends. So, we have 40 years of consistent increases in the ratios of record highs over record lows measured at 1800 separate weather stations. This is compared to extreme temp counts of U.S. states in each decade, as you presented it. The Meehl article is clearly the stronger analysis. Tell us why the graphs you present are better.

      • You mean it is warmer now than during the ice age scare of the 1970s?


      • Whytee says:

        Cute and also irrelevant.

      • Mike Davis says:

        The simplest explanation for the results you provided is the UHI effect. Then natural long term weather patterns need to be taken into consideration.
        I think all these people believe they are doing a good job and using the currently accepted best method to arrive at their results.
        Two saying come to mind while view and reading about all the reports: FUBAR and SNAFU. Those fit the Climate research community in all they have produced to provide evidence of human contributions being the primary driver of climate change.
        What you so generously provided : DMS (Has No Value) (Except to the person writing the fantasy novel that you bought!)

      • It is irrelevant that temperatures have risen since a cold period?

        I hope you are joking.

      • Mike Davis says:

        That was the gist of your argument: It has been getting warmer since the 70s. Or were you trying to make another point?
        As for your question asked by your name: WHY TEE? You can not plat golf without Teeing off! See life’s questions are simplely answered!

      • Whytee says:

        Mike. The main point is that when you look at temperature records you should seek data with the finest possible texture. Looking at extreme temps for a state during one decade is very limited. Looking at daily records for 1800 sites yields thousands of data point for analysis. I am saying that this is the way that questions of extremes should be approached. Not one drought but droughts over decades and over many areas. Same for floods, hurricanes, etc. The problem is that this is nearly impossible for most large scale weather events since we have great difficulty counting and measuring them accurately. But that is not the case for temp records. So, counting states with extremes over decades is an approach that is crude. We can do better. I was reacting to that. It seems to me that the analysis in the article shows beyond any doubt that the North American continent has warmed fairly consistently from 1970 to 2010. I referred to Cullen’s book because the yearly tables in Appendix 1 (which were drawn from but were not in the Meehl study) show this beyond any doubt. WhyTee=YT=Yours Truly.

      • ChrisD says:

        Whytee says:

        The main point is that when you look at temperature records you should seek data with the finest possible texture. Looking at extreme temps for a state during one decade is very limited. Looking at daily records for 1800 sites yields thousands of data point for analysis.

        Good luck. I said essentially the same thing, and it didn’t get me anywhere either.

        What strikes me particularly odd is that there are many complaints about the quality of the temperature data in any study you can name–except the one Steve uses (which isn’t even a study; it’s an article from McPaper). That data in that one appears to be fine. Everybody’s data is affected by UHI except USA Today’s, it seems.

      • Whytee says:

        ChrisD, I came back for a second to see what was happening in this discussion. I actually backtracked and read carefully what you said and you did say essentially the same thing. On temp data, I have just started reading A Vast Machine by Paul Edwards, which is long and hard going but a detailed look at this and related issues. An interesting point is that climatologists are not generating the data that they are accused of manipulating. This is data generated by meteorologists for weather recording and forecasting purposes.

    • James Sexton says:


      40,055 record highs….lmao! For what? Each day in a square foot area? hahahahaha. Thanks for the get “get serious” laugh!

      • glacierman says:

        Interesting that 25 state records came during the 1930s, a decade omitted from the NCAR graphic: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/images/temps_2.jpg

      • glacierman says:

        Try this graph:

      • ChrisD says:

        40,055 record highs….lmao! For what? Each day in a square foot area? hahahahaha. Thanks for the get “get serious” laugh!

        What’s lmao about that? It’s data for each day of the year for 1800 stations over quite a few decades. A single very hot or cold day in one region could set a hundred or more records.

        This isn’t one record per location like Steve’s (and in Steve’s case, the location is an entire state). East Mudflap’s record high for July 26 is broken in 1996. That’s one. The record high is broken again the next day, that’s another one.. It’s broken again in 1997, that’s another one. Each time the daily record for a particular day in a particular location is broken, that’s another data point, so each location can have many records. 40,000 points is easily understood..

      • Mike Davis says:

        ChrisD; Thank you for pointing out the fallacy of your statements.
        There was a high pressure that moved over a region and 250 daily records were broken each day until the weather pattern changed.
        You have used less data points than the yearly report to arrive at meaningless results.
        When in a region was the specific temperature broken? For each reported area / region / state only 2 records need to be displayed to have that answer. I do not agree with using state wide reports as states can contain many different climate regions or parts of a group of states can be in the same climate region.
        using state records is much more meaningful than using individual records and showing each time that site recorded a new record, Up or down.
        This is a good example of your attempting to Baffle With BS.

      • James Sexton says:

        What’s lmao about that? It’s data for each day of the year for 1800 stations over quite a few decades. A single very hot or cold day in one region could set a hundred or more records.

        Exactly, rendering the 40,000 this or that number meaningless. As pointed out, using the states as an index may not be ideal, but its better than having several stations in close proximity, each claiming a record for the same event. Again, look at the link I provided and then context the list to the 40,055 records set whenever. Its a ridiculous number to be tossing about.

      • ChrisD says:

        For each reported area / region / state only 2 records need to be displayed to have that answer.

        One can be interested in this if one wants to, but it yields very little data. It all comes down to a single extraordinarily hot and a single extraordinarily cold record per location. This yields very little data and greatly increases the odds that a single really, really cold (or hot) day in 1918 can cover up a meaningful trend of days getting steadily colder and colder (or hotter and hotter) over the course of decades.

        If instead you say, “Every time there’s a record high or low for this date, I’m going to make a tick mark”, you get a lot more data, and a much smaller chance that one weird day is going to hide an interesting trend. Essentially what they’re counting is the number of times the local weather guy said, “And that’s an all-time record for this date, folks!”

        There’s nothing meaningless about this. It’s quite interesting.

    • Mike Davis says:

      You owe me for a new key board and to repair my monitor. Please, in the future give warning you are including extreme humor in your postings!
      You must really have been afflicted by the cult mentality to have used Heidi as a reference as that is a few steps below Joseph and some what equal to Brother Al and Big Jim.
      Her results receive a BFD reply or even a WGAF for clarity. This is the Lady that managed to get fired from “The Weather Channel” and we all know how “Unbiased” their reporting is. This is the media group that blames earlier sunrises on global warming!

      • Whytee says:

        Sorry for mentioning Heidi and causing you apoplexy. If you read what I wrote and my response to Steven you will see that the underlying analysis is by climatologists in a peer-reviewed journal–Geophysical Research Letters. Reading it will definitely calm you down or maybe put you to sleep if you do not like stats.

      • Mike Davis says:

        I read it before and had a good laugh then!

      • glacierman says:

        Sorry to spoil the fun MD, but the Hiedi Cullen reference caught my attention. Here is something from the book review at Amazon:

        In “The Weather of the Future”, Dr. Heidi Cullen, one of our foremost climatologists and environmental journalists, offers detailed predictions of what our world will look like if we do nothing to curb CO2 emissions.”

        She shows NY under water on the cover and describes all sorts of other dooms day scenarios. If she wrote that book 30 or 40 years ago, how many of her scenarios would have come true?
        About as many as Hansen’s. Zip, zero, nadda, who predicted Manhattan would be under water by now if we did not reduce CO2 emissions. Of course, if you predict your doomsday scenarios far enough into the future, you won’t have to pay too high a price when reality comes home to roost.

      • glacierman says:

        By the way MD – In Michigan, everyone that lives below the bridge (Mackinaw bridge) is considered a troll by the folks in the UP (Superior State), so, I guess I, by definition, am a troll :).

    • glacierman says:

      There are two issues with Meehl and Tebaldi:
      1) There was no analysis of station siting; data quality. It is clear we have been in a period of warming since the 1970s and also an period of rapid growth and urbanization. Station problems are well documented as is the UHI effect.

      2) Having started their study after the very high decades of the 1930s and 1940s means there is no perspective of another period of warming – when CO2 was much lower, but temps were high.

      Their conclusions are interesting, but do not really show anything definitive as to having been caused by increased CO2. I would be more convinced that it shows temp increases at weather stations likely due to changes in land use.

      • Mike Davis says:

        You ruin a really good trolling experience with facts. 😉

      • Whytee says:

        Glacierman. Finally someone who read the study. The big criticism of this whole discussion is that we are only talking about one part of the world, and looking at selected states during one decade. The temperature worldwide shows a rather steady increase with some ups and downs from 1900 forward. I know that this will probably make you see red but here is a NASA brief showing that: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

        • Selected states? One decade? Sorry, you are completely FOS.

          This article covers all states for all decades. It just happens that the 1930s was very extreme.

          Now why did your study ignore the 1930s?

      • Whytee says:

        Stephen, I do not know. You will have to ask the authors. Possibly because it would have reduced the coverage significantly, given there choice of sites with little missing data. This is just a guess.
        I know this is not your questions but some here have said that the question is why were temperatures higher in the 1930’s when CO2 was lower? The answer is that they were not. World wide they were lower than present. And, yes there was a period of cooling from 1940 to the 70s, which everyone admits was due to reduced solar radiance during that period.

      • ChrisD says:

        No, people here keep saying that particulates have an overall tendency to cool, and that it’s reasonable to believe that they are a factor in post-40s cooling.

      • ChrisD says:

        I have stated that the reduction of particulates resulting from pollution controls is a likely factor in the resumption of increasing temperatures after ~1975.

        The “removal” of particulates is, however, overstating the case. Particulates weren’t “removed.” Particulate levels stopped increasing and began to slowly decline.

    • Whytee says:

      Steve, The point is that meteorologists are not beaten up and accused of conspiring to falsify data.

      • Yes, meteorologists tend to be skeptics because they observe what is going on in the real world.

      • Mike Davis says:

        Ask Heidi Cullen about that. She want the AMA to decertify all meteorologists that did not believe in AGW. Ask John Coleman about that claim also as I believe he might have a conficting point of view on your claim.

      • ChrisD says:

        That isn’t what she said, Mike. Here is what she said:

        Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.

        It doesn’t say anything about “must believe in AGW.”

        Paraphrased: “If you’re going to go on TV and talk about climate science, you should understand some basic climate science.” That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

        If you’re going to argue that it’s not reasonable, you’ll have to be prepared to defend the idea that meteorologists should not distinguish between peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy.

        PS: You meant the AMS (weather guys), not the AMA (doctors). 🙂

      • ChrisD says:

        PS: She also didn’t say anything about decertifying. She said that meteorologists who don’t understand the science shouldn’t be given the seal–not that existing seals should be taken away.

      • ChrisD says:

        “20 hours of classroom instruction will now be required in order to obtain a driver’s license.”

        “20 hours of classroom instruction will now be required in order to obtain a driver’s license, and we will be taking away the driver’s licenses of anyone who doesn’t meet the new requirement.”

        Are you really going to insist that these are the same thing?

        (And, in anticipation of your complaint about me spamming or being off-topic, I am not the one who brought this up. If you complain about this, you are pretty much saying out loud that it’s OK for anyone to bring up anything, but it’s not OK for me to reply.)

      • ChrisD says:


        It is a matter of complete indifference to you that I’m not the one who posted the comment. I only responded to it. Yet it’s me, and not Mike, who’s off-topic.

        Exactly as predicted.

  17. glacierman says:

    Why plug Cullen’s book when the data was presented in Meehl and Tebaldi?
    Because it wasn’t given, here is a link to Meehl and Tebaldi, 2009: http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0923/2009GL040736/2009GL040736.pdf

    Interesting that they did not include the 1930s and 1940s in their study. Maybe because those decades are inconvenient to the conclusion Meehl makes from a cherrypicked portion of the US data. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/16/why-ncars-meehl-paper-on-highlow-temperature-records-is-bunk/

    Here are some other links discussing this paper:



    • Whytee says:

      See my comment above. Meehl et al. have an extensive discussion of why they chose the stations they did. They also note the possibility of a cool extreme bias in the selection of stations. See my comments above and note that this whole discussion may be insignificant since the real issue is global temperature, not U.S. temps in selected states during one decade. It would interesting to carry out a study like this on temp sites worldwide but I am not aware of anyone doing that.

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s