The US Is Not Getting Hotter

Maximum temperatures in the US have not changed since 1895, and 2012 was only fourth hottest after 1921, 1925, and 1934.

July temperatures have cooled slightly.

About stevengoddard

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

50 Responses to The US Is Not Getting Hotter

  1. Andy DC says:

    While nothing has happened with respect to warming, we have been subjected to an endless cacophony of lies and drivel from alarmists over the past 30 years. As a result, we have squandered untold millions on climate “reseach” (results rigged) as well as untold trillions with respect to the mindless rush off a cliff in the name of “going green”. Not to mention the irreparable damage to the economy and national security as a result of not exploiting the various sources of cheap energy. This green movement is an abomination, which needs to be thwarted and swept into the dustbin of history. Hopefully, the next election will get us pointed in that direction.

  2. Andy DC says:


  3. Try this report from the UK Met Office, sneaked out without a “Press Release” on the internet while they hoped no one was looking.–chart-prove-it.html?ITO=1490

  4. Hugh K says:

    We’re alive…we’re alive. Party at Hansen’s Manhatten penthouse tonight?

  5. Somehow we need to get back to robust individual station readings. For instance, according to NOAA, Virginia had a record temp for July, but an analysis of all the USHCN stations says this is BS.

  6. physicist says:

    Since y’all are so fucking cock-sure that climate scientists are cooking the books, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is? Why don’t you do some RealScience? Why don’t you publish your analyses? Why don’t you submit your analyses as a paper at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union – you know all those folks doing the climate science? Do you have the guts to stand up to the scrutiny?

    Hint: Just plotting raw data is not RealScience. You do have to account for instrumental drift, changes in calibrations, systematic errors, etc. But you all are so smart I’ve got great confidence in you.

    Better yet, how about another paper for the AGU based upon all those old newspaper articles. There must be some fundamental science to report on.

    I bet there is even a Nobel Prize in there. I can even see the headlines. “RealScience Blog Team wins Nobel Prize.” “Old newspaper articles found to disprove 180 years of climate science.”

    But I suspect that there is something else going on.

    Climate science doesn’t agree with right wing ideology, climate scientists must be cooking the books.

    Polling results don’t agree with right wing ideology, pollsters must be cooking the books.

    Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs numbers don’t agree with right wing ideology, the BLS must be cooking the books.

    There is a pattern there. You are welcome to you own opinions, but not your own facts.

    • Eric Barnes says:

      Why don’t you move to North Korea where scientists are not subject to annoying things like freedom of speech?

      • physicist says:

        the old favorite ‘why don’t you move’ argument. can’t you do anything better than that?

        you are free to say as many ignorant things as you wish.

        I perceive a certain lack of courage to take your ideas and present them to real scientists, as opposed to RealScientists, for critique. sort of like the monday morning quarterbacks who would never have the real courage to hang in the pocket with a 300# lineman bearing down on them.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        LOL. Do you know what ignorant means?
        Your original statement is amazingly egocentric and condescending.
        Taxpayers pay for all of the climate science research that’s criticized here. Taxpayers don’t need to ask Climate Scientists if it’s OK to criticize their work. It’s up to Climate Scientists to produce something of use to taxpayers and for tax payers to determine it’s value. I’ve contacted all my representatives regarding the rampant waste in climate research. Steven had a post the other day that listed the benefits of climate research. It’s a very short list. You’re welcome to add to it if you’d like.

        Reading your post again, it seems quite obvious that your drunk. If I I was you I’d start with the addressing your drinking problem. Your other problems are probably incurable.

    • NikFromNYC says:

      This data has already passed climate scientist peer review, has already been published. We’re just helping get that product shipped and into the hands of consumers.

      Your argument worked fine before Climategate. Now it literally fails to pass the laugh test:

    • I published it right here. Be a hero to your cause and prove me wrong, if you think you are up to it.

    • savebyj says:

      Because the Church Climate Change isn’t going to allow anything to be published that contradicts their religion. Scientists observed what the Catholic church did to the heretics in the 17th century who dared to contest their power structure (and clergy like Martin Luther in the 16th century) and the Church of Climate Change said, ‘hey, we can do that’.

      So this is basically how it works. Any scientists who contests the Church of Climate Change is immediately fired or forced to resign. If for some reason he has a backbone or a really good lawyer and you actually have to abide by the law and keep him employed because he won’t be bought out by a bunch of corrupt priests then you never, never ever and I mean never ever allow any of his work to be published and you accomplish this because all of the people who publish scientific journals are themselves priests of the Church of Climate Change.

      This is like my son’s High School Biology teacher calling me up years ago and we actually have this conversation:

      “Hello Mr. Powell. I have a problem with your son.” (Teacher)
      “I’m sorry to hear that. Tell me what it is and I will take care of it. (Myself)
      “Your son is asking me questions in class.” (Teacher)
      [Complete and total awkward silence for 15 seconds] (Myself)
      “I need him to stop asking me these questions.” (Teacher)
      “What questions is he asking you?” (Myself)
      “He is asking questions about evolution.” (Teacher)
      [Silence again as I control my composure] “You teach science. Correct?” (Myself)
      “Correct.” (Teacher)
      “And science is about asking questions and finding answers, correct?” (Myself)
      “Correct.” (Teacher)
      “So why don’t you just answer his questions?” (Myself)
      “Because he is answering questions I don’t have answers for.” (Teacher).
      “So why don’t you find out the answers, or just tell him there are presently no answers for his questions? Evolution is a theory, correct?” (Myself)
      “Sir, evolution is a fact.” (Teacher)
      “You mean evolution as in a species mutates to adapt to its environment, which is a fact, or evolution as in a species through random mutation and natural selection evolves to another species, which is a theory.?” (Myself)
      “What are you talking about?” (Teacher)
      [Really, really trying to keep my calm at this point]. “Look, I know your busy, but can you do me this favor? He’s a smart kid. He asks a lot questions. Your a teacher. A SCIENCE TEACHER. You think you can answer his questions or maybe like do some RESEARCH into the answers?” (Myself)
      [Click]. (Teacher).

      BTW — my son, who finished all his High School Credits needed by his Junior year in High School and loves science is pursuing a degree in Computer Engineering. I don’t think I have to tell you why.

    • Andy DC says:

      If you would take the effort to look, this site has posted tons of documentation backing its case. The only period where there has been significant warming since 1940 is from 1980 to 1997. There was net cooling between 1940 and 1980. So 17 years of warming out of the last 72 years does not make much of a case for catastrophic warming and the need for drastic action, which would destroy our economy and way of life.

      Anyone with a rational mind should question data manipulation by agenda driven, highly politicized concerns. The adjustments to the raw data have a strong warm bias that makes no sense.

      • physicist says:

        Write it up and publish it. Prove it. Otherwise, it does not mean jack shit.

        You can’t claim to be a championship tennis player, unless you enter tournaments and prove it.

        All scientists are skeptics, but not all skeptics are scientists. And it shows.

      • physicist says:

        Doesn’t work that way. You have to prove you are right.

        And you have to prove it to those whose data analysis, not to mention ethics, you are questioning.

        I know it takes a little courage to stand up to those you are accusing of manipulating data, lying, etc. But you have to get off the sidelines, and engage. Right now you are just trying to throw grenades from the sidelines. Otherwise you know, it’s just chicken shit.

      • Eric Barnes says:

        “You can’t claim to be a championship tennis player, unless you enter tournaments and prove it.”
        Physicist, you are purposely confounding publishing scientific papers and truth, and you are only doing this because you know the case for AGW is extremely weak. Go find something else to do (besides drinking).

      • Like a lot of warmists, “physicist” doesn’t have the brains to repeat the straightforward data analysis Steve has done.

      • Andy DC says:

        All you are saying is that Mr. Goddard needs validation from agenda driven alarmists to make his case. That makes no sense at all.

    • Drewskilives says:

      What you say makes too much sense.

      It is not about science, it is about the worldwide conspiracy and how the UN is trying to enslave us.

  7. Me says:

    😆 the pHDouche err I mean pHCyst is having a tantrum! LMAO!

  8. physicist says:

    The emperor has no clothes. The emperor cherry picks data. The emperor posted a chart of a ONE tidal gauge at ONE location (there are over 2000 tidal gauges) that showed no increase in sea level at that one point I think on the west coast of the US (i.e., the eastern Pacific). Ergo, that proves that sea level must not be rising anywhere. Classic cherry picking

    I suggest you peruse the satellite (yes, satellites do orbit, they do follow the laws of physics, or do we have another conspiracy theory about Newton) altimeter data:

    You will see indeed a large area of the eastern Pacific where essentially there is no sea level rise.

    But check out the rest of the oceans, up to 10mm/year.

    So keep on cherry picking, and the conspiracy theories coming, I need a little humor.

    Next conspiracy theory about NOAA and satellite altimetry is………… I’m waiting anxiously for the next piece of comic relief.

    BTW, those newspaper articles really are interesting history to read, I do enjoy them, but they don’t prove anything.

    • Is there something wrong with you which makes it impossible to discuss the topic of the post – USHCN adjustments?

    • Sundance says:

      AMS has already established the parameters of falsification of the IPCC climate models and they have been falsified according to the HadCrut4 data. Nature just wrote their “Caveat Emptor” article on models as they are slowly backing away from the models. You sound much more like a crazed Al Gore warmist/activist than a physicist. If you would like to see how a real published physicist approaches the science on this topic, look here. Note his tone and his data presentation. 🙂

  9. David says:

    aphysicist not; Steve has posted dozens of SL charts from many locations, usually in response to some claim of upcoming tragic SL rise in that area if we don’t do something now (usually involving stealing other peoples money) Each time the chart for that area shows the same thing, basically flat to very minor SL rise. So you are apparently cherry picking without a reference or link to what you are talking about.

  10. Andy DC says:

    There are millions of people living at or near the coast, some for a very long time. If there was significant sea level rise, wouldn’t those people have noticed by now? Where are the stories about mass migrations away from the shoreline? To the contrary, development along the shoreline keeps increasing.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s