## US Temperatures Have Dropped Almost 3C Over The Past Year

The graph below plots the three month trailing mean of US temperatures, from March 2012 to April 2013.

If the current trend continues, the US will approach absolute zero by the end of the century. This is appropriate, because we have a bunch of zeroes running the country.

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

### 75 Responses to US Temperatures Have Dropped Almost 3C Over The Past Year

1. Robertv says:

Godfrey BLOOM UKIP

2. Olaf Koenders says:

Let’s see how long it takes until Hansen manages to adjust this into a warming signal.

Then again, all the “adjustments” they’ve done to the records to show warming when the planet appears to be cooling leaves them and their AGW boat “Climatanic” suddenly with an iceberg dead-ahead Cap’n.. ๐

3. R. de Haan says:
4. Jambon-X says:

1300 CDT – Rush Limbaugh just cited this on the air

5. JayTee says:

When I plot the RSS Monthly MSU AMSU Channel TLT Anomalies from Jan 2012 through March 2013, I get a similar but slightly different graph. In particular, it shows values of 1.593 for 1/2012, 0.631 for 2/2012, and 3.297 for 3/2012. My values towards the end of the plot, in 2013 also deviate from your plot. Are you looking at a different channel? I don’t see data with those characteristics in the TLT channel.

It should be pointed out that these are _anomalies_ from the mean temperatures measured from 1979 through 1998. For instance, the January 2013 value is the average of January 2013 minus the average of every January from 1979 through 1998, inclusive. This means the values that are above the 0 on the Y-axis all represent temperatures above the long term mean.

Also, these are data from only the contiguous US. if I plot the -70 to 82.5 data (looking globally) the data is much closer to the 0 degree anomaly line and shows a small increasing trend from 1/2012 through 3/2013.

(Would you like to see the data plot?)

• My plot is March 2012 through April 2013. If you plot the same data you will get the same graph.

• JayTee says:

Nope… still don’t get the same graph. I see an anomaly of +3.297 for year 2013, month 3(March). That’s clearly not where your graph is starting. Your first two values are both less than 3. The March anomaly is also the highest I see in the “Cont. US” column and your data set shows two data points higher than your initial point.

• I looked at my spreadsheet again. What I was plotting was the three month trailing mean. I added that into the post. The monthly numbers show an even larger drop.

6. JayTee says:

That makes more sense. You are still starting from a relative maximum in the recent data and stopping at a relative minimum and inferring a trend. That will over estimate the longer term trend. The data from the global data set also still will show a much smaller and slightly positive trend over this period. (The trend involves more than just Chicago and DC ๐ )

• NOAA made endless hay about last year’s US warmth being due to global warming. Obviously they were wrong. Perhaps you should go complain to them?

• JayTee says:

I _have_ complained about attributions which are too specific in space and time from both ‘sides’ in the debate. The research into attribution of extremes is very interesting but still very young. The long term trends remain troubling.

• USHCN raw data shows that the US has been cooling for 90 years, and the 1930s was by far the hottest decade. Only the tampered data shows a warming trend in the US.

• Apparently you have a little to worry about then. The long term trend (30 years) is about 1C per century. If that actually happened, nearly everyone would be better off as we would have a slightly warmer planet. Fingers crossed.

7. PhilJourdan says:

8. stacase says:

Count me among those that dislike claims made on short snippets of data, I prefer to look at trends over the entire data set, and USHCN provides exactly that when it comes to how they have adjusted the data over the last century. I’m rather sure most people on these boards have seen this graph

but it does bear repeating every now and then because it brings up the obvious question of why changes to the raw data are rather consistently lowered for earlier dates and elevated in the later half of the century. By the 1990s temperatures were routinely bumped up over half a degree Fahrenheit. It may in fact be on the up and up, but it sure looks fishy.

9. Russ Wilcox says:

Just curious, as an engineer… How do you calculate a ‘trailing mean’?? Thanks.

10. Richard Koeneman says:

Ah, the global warming deniers — they are an interesting crowd. They bob and weave, bend and twist, and jump through hoops to deny science. They jump on every temporary cooling trend and, frothing at the mouth, scream, “See, it’s getting cooler.”
But let’s see: Ocean temperatures are rising. The sea level is rising. Heat-loving plants, insects and animals are expanding their ranges northward in the Northern Hemisphere and southward in the Southern Hemisphere. The Arctic ice pack is diminishing (unless you don’t believe the satellite photos). Migrating birds head north sooner, stay north longer, and return south later. Permafrost in Asia and North America is thawing. Averaged across the planet, mountain glaciers are retreating. The Greenland ice pack is losing mass. Physicists tell us that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are increasing.
I could go on, but you get the point. In case you don’t, here it is: The evidence of a warming climate does not come just from meteorologists and climatologists. It comes from biologists, oceanographers, ornithologists, geographers, etc. If you want to deny warming, then you have to explain all those other corollary occurrences. Playing games with yours cherry-picked statistics won’t cut it.

• The raw USHCN data shows no trend in US temperatures since 1895. The short term trend is for ignorant people like you to pretend that you know something about science.

• Richard Koeneman says:

Why resort to name-calling? I assure you that I’m not ignorant. I merely pointed out that lots of non-meteorological data (and I gave a few examples) show the effects of higher global temperatures. Do you really think that biologists, oceanographers, geographers, physicists and researchers from many other fields from all over the world have all joined together to perpetrate a global warming myth?

• Richard, that’s because one gets to the point where you can only mock idiots. Do you actually read the shit that you write? How does an ornithologist know that global warming theory is ‘true’ ? He might get a grant to study flocks of birds over a few different time periods. Sometimes there is more, sometimes there is less. Maybe that’s due to changes in their migration patterns or a million other reasons. Your main problem is that you genuinely don’t appreciate how stupid you are.

• Richard Koeneman says:

A general comment: Why are those of you who argue against global warming so antagonistic to others who disagree with you? I’ll ask yet again: Explain to me (because I’ve been told I am ignorant and that I am writing shit) why sea levels are rising; why permafrost is melting; why heat-needing plants and animals are expanding their ranges; why land ice is melting; why Arctic ice is diminishing; why the Greenland ice cap is losing mass; why ocean temperatures are rising; why the effects of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations are not important. Any one of those, by itself, could be a fluke, but taken together, they (and many other factors that I didn’t mention) make a reasonable argument for higher global temperatures.

• Hank Justice says:

Hundreds of green turtles have beached themselves on the Eastern shores of South America due to hypothermia. Seems like the ocean waters have suddenly turned too frigid during their annual migration to warmer waters. Usually, they see on a very few beachings per year. These are the younger turtles (with less body fat?). Not everything in nature is pointing toward warming!

• I am antagonistic because you are reciting propaganda, and not looking at any of the data I am providing which directly contradicts what you are saying. Are you too lazy or too scared to look at the data for yourself?

• Note how Koeneman accuses his opponents of engaging in conspiracy theory mongering yet his side bubbles on endlessly about Big Oil funding the Evil Denier community. A sad case of projection.

• philjourdan says:

I am just curious. What is the motivation of ghouls like you to deny science and to rejoice in the death and misery of others? How do you justify your inhumanity to further your political gains?

I really have no reference point to understand such abhorrent behavior. So perhaps you can shed some light on the justification or reasoning that ghouls such as yourself use in order to live with yourself.

• Justa Joe says:

“… rejoice in the death and misery of others?”

I missed that. Can you provide an example? It is typically the domain of the AGW adherents to seek to exploit death & misery. The warmists welcome more death & misery.

• philjourdan says:

No, nor are they doing so. The team is coordinating the perpetuation of the Myth (as was proven in the CG I, II & III emails).

And as we saw with Cook, the claims of a vast consensus are greatly exaggerated. Most of the scientists are doing their work in their fields and relying on the integrity of other scientists – which is their mistake. As we see, the members of the “team” have no integrity.

• Replace ‘global warming’ with ‘UFO’s’ in this rant and it sounds just like something you’d read published by the UFO & Paranormal Research Society.

• sunsettommy says:

Wow, what a long recital of worn out warmist talking points that does not add up because skeptics long acknowledged some warming since the end of the LIA back in the mid 1800’s.

What “skeptics” dispute is the amount of projected/predicted warming from rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere.The many unverified climate models that predict a large range of temperature increase that has been shown to be way too high because they overrate the positive feedback idea that so far has not been shown to exist.

It is clear you have not considred the cyclic patterns of climate and biota changes that are a part of life on the planet.

• You must be wrong because 97% of scientists agree with whatever opinion he expresses.

11. Richard Koeneman says:

To Will N.: Please read what I wrote again. I did NOT say ornithologists were believers in global warming. I don’t know what any given ornithologist’s views might be. I merely said it’s being noted that bird migratory patterns are changing in ways that are consistent with a warmer climate.

• And you just repeated the same bullshit. Are you a moron? What has a warmer climate got to do with humans causing the climate to get warmer? You’re failing basic logic by mixing different claims together. That’s why you’re an idiot.

• Richard you are the only one blathering on about conspiracy theories here. You sound obsessive. I asked you how ornithologists make the connection between milder climate and human caused warming and you just repeated the same nonsense all over again. The reason why you’re an idiot is that it is virtually impossible for ornithologists to even make climate change migration pattern connections given the huge difficulties and uncertainties in attempting such a thing, and secondly even if this was somehow magically possible, it would tell us zero about how that climate change event related to anthropogenic influences. Here is a tip: don’t crap on about things you hardly understand.

• Richard Koeneman says:

If I am understanding Will N. correctly, oceanographers who are measuring sea level rise are engaging in a “conspiracy” of some kind; as are NASA folks who are presenting satellite photographs of decreasing Arctic ice; as are infectious disease researchers who note that malaria-transmitting mosquitoes (which need warm temperatures) are spreading malaria into areas previously too cool for those mosquitoes to survive; as are Russians, Canadians and Alaskans who report that permafrost is melting; as are ornithologists who report that the migration patterns of many species of migrating birds are changing in ways that indicate a milder climate; as are the folks who are measuring steadily increasing concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere, and the atmospheric physicists to demonstrate mathematically that greenhouse gases do indeed impede the escape of long-wave heat energy into space; as are all the meteorologists, climatologists and mathematicians whose global computer models all show in varying degrees that the climate is warming; as are the folks who measure ocean water temperatures and report warming.
Will, I am not doubting the sincerity of your beliefs. But I am seriously asking why you dismiss as a “conspiracy” the huge amount of information from researchers in a wide variety of fields that show either direct measurements of higher average global temperatures or environmental changes that can only be explained by higher temperatures. Do you really believe they are all engaged in a conspiracy? And if so, to what end?
I would also point out that back in the 1960s and 1970s, most researchers who dismissed ideas about warming have since realized their ideas back then were erroneous and based upon inadequate and misinterpreted information. (For example, computer modeling of the atmosphere, a powerful tool available to researchers now was not available then.) Those researchers have changed their minds — it’s hard to construct a conspiracy theory when the so-called conspirators are switching “sides”. Remember, there should be no “sides” in science — only a search for truth.
I’m being long-winded here, but in this discussion I’ve been called ignorant and been accused of writing shit. I suppose that’s the price to be paid for questioning the validity of your various calculations and assertions. But when you say you are right-and practically EVERYONE else is wrong, and then respond to my questions by saying I am writing shit — that doesn’t speak very well of you.

• There has been no warming for almost 17 years. Facts are not altered by the length of your comment. This is the latest spring in the US in almost 100 years.

• tckev says:

Malaria carrying mosquitoes do not require hot weather, they require standing water to breed and a human population on which to propagate their parasite.
http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/climate_change/health_effects/Pages/vector_borne_diseases.aspx
“Malaria is caused by one of four species of the Plasmodium parasite transmitted by female Anopheles spp mosquitoes. Historically malaria was endemic in Europe, including Scandinavia, but it was eventually eliminated in 1975 through a number of factors related to socioeconomic development”

• Richard you are the only one blathering on about conspiracy theories here. You sound obsessive. I asked you how ornithologists make the connection between milder climate and human caused warming and you just repeated the same nonsense all over again. The reason why youโre an idiot is that it is virtually impossible for ornithologists to even make climate change migration pattern connections given the huge difficulties and uncertainties in attempting such a thing, and secondly even if this was somehow magically possible, it would tell us zero about how that climate change event related to anthropogenic influences. Here is a tip: donโt crap on about things you hardly understand.

• tckev says:

Just to upset your fearmongering on malaria some more education for you in this study –
Endemic malaria: an ‘indoor’ disease in northern Europe. Historical data analysed
http://www.malariajournal.com/content/4/1/19

Based on real facts (not computer generated junk) of malaria deaths in Russia, Sweden, Norway and Finland may be of interest to you – dates covered 1750 – 1940.

• Chewer says:

Richard,
Have you looked at the wealth of data collected over the past 35 years?
Do you see why the climatologists have reintroduced their efforts into upper atmospheric intermediates, including conductive & organic particles?
You do know that the spheres above us, all of which fall into the magnetosphere (troposphere, stratosphere, mesosphere, ionosphere & thermosphere) are areas not readily available in the lab. The full Monty of electromagnetic wavelengths received from our star, the magnetic patterns generated from our planet and the temperatures of the earths surface and below are unknown, unstudied and elusive to what we can measure.
Using modeling is a great tool, but the inputs drive the outputs and all 40ish of them have failed miserably for the past 30 years, for the obvious reasons.
When climatology can predict physical phenomena based on empirical Scientific Theory, such as changes in ocean circulation (dipole changes & what causes them) and how the ocean-air circulation interacts, we’ll be well educated.
All scientists agree upon all empirical Scientific Theories, yet conservatives and liberals disagree upon the working hypothesis of AGW, to which, you should ask yourself WHY.

• Hank Justice says:

You are wrong to infer that malaria is only a tropical disease that manifests itself only in warmer climes. Some of the largest outbreaks of malaria early in the 19th century have been in the Arctic. The Northern climes also have and always will have their warm days too.

12. sunsettommy says:

“Richard Koeneman says:
May 22, 2013 at 7:12 am

Why resort to name-calling?”

The same man who just before that says:

“Richard Koeneman says:
May 21, 2013 at 6:40 am

Ah, the global warming deniers โ they are an interesting crowd. They bob and weave, bend and twist, and jump through hoops to deny science. They jump on every temporary cooling trend and, frothing at the mouth, scream, โSee, itโs getting cooler.โ

You are quite a fool there Richard.

• And he probably considered a genius among his circle of loons.

13. Richard says:

Well, the “circle of loons” includes most of the world’s climatologists. I suppose it also includes oceanographers who are measuring sea level rises, and all the people associated with 35 years of satellite photographs that document decreasing ice cover on the Arctic ocean. And that “circle” also includes Canadian, Russian and Alaskan geographers who report widespread thawing permafrost.

Regarding my earlier comments about those who deny global warming, my comments were polite compared to what I’ve been called here (ignorant, stupid, writing shit, lazy, moron, fool, scared, repeating bullshit, genius among loons). You folks sure do get uptight when someone disagrees with you.

So, okay. I admit you’re right. I guess the oceans aren’t rising; all the global climate models are wrong — I agree with Tckev when he says it’s just computer-generated junk; the satellite photos of the Arctic Ocean are fakes; increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases don’t affect the atmosphere’s temperature because all the rules of energy transfer developed by physicists and mathematicians during the last few hundred years are wrong; the cool spring in the U.S. automatically means all other data about warming is wrong (even if most of the Northern Hemisphere had a MILD spring); the silly birds don’t know what they’re doing by responding to non-existent changes in their environment. The consensus belief among climatologists that global warming is happening is just plain wrong. It’s crazy of me to think that climatologists who are experts in their field might know what they are talking about when someone like Will says it just ain’t so. And of course any data that indicates warming has to have been doctored. And those crazy Alaskans, Russians and Canadians –how ridiculous of them to think that sinking buildings and heaving roads mean permafrost is melting.

And I’ll add something you folks failed to mention: The research conducted by thousands of university people here and around the world is all wrong if any of it even hints at the possibility of a warming climate. How could I have been so foolish to have believed any of that?

So I’ll sign off with what I said earlier: You folks sure do get uptight when someone disagrees with you.

• Oceans have been rising for 16,000 years.

Where do you morons come from? You comment without even reading anything that has been written on this blog. Take your copy and paste bullshit somewhere else.

• philjourdan says:

Sock puppetry. Do you do other magic tricks as well?

• sunsettommy says:

Ha ha,…….. Richard,

You give us rants without evidence and you have the gall to complain about how we write and think.You have not provided a counterpoint to Steve’s blog article about a year long temperature plunge maybe because you can’t bring up one thus the stupid generalized rants.

You are pathetic.

• Whatever stuff he makes up is true because 97% of the world’s scientists think his rants are 100% correct, because… He says so. I’m starting to think he is not so much stupid as delusional.

14. Richard says:

I’ll repeat: You folks sure do get riled up when someone disagrees with you.

• LLAP says:

@Richard: The first line of your first comment on this thread reads, “Ah, the global warming deniers…”. What kind of response did you think you were going to get with an opening salvo like that? When you poke a stick in a tiger’s cage, don’t be surprised when it gets pissed off.

• tckev says:

You sure get slippery when you can’t answer the question.

15. Richard says:

Yes, Stevengoddard, ocean levels HAVE been rising since the bottom of the last ice age approximately 15 thousand years ago. The rise continues to this day. That is consistent with the general trend of rising global temperatures. Thank you for making my point for me.

• Richard says:

I’m a “climate moron”? Thank you kindly for that fine contribution to the discussion.

• Still whining like a little bitch that you are being insulted? Only you are allowed to insult people,right? ๐

• tckev says:

Maybe you should look at the less hysterical headline an stick to the scientific papers such as http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818107000239.
Please note their sea level rises are in millimeters per year, nothing too drastic.
“For comparison purposes, we computed the global average of sea-level change according to Douglas [Douglas, B.C., 2001. Sea level change in the era of the recording tide gauge. Int. Geophys. Ser., 75, pp. 37โ64.] rules, whose estimate is 1.84 ยฑ 0.35 mm/yr after correction for the GIA effect [Peltier, W.R., 2001. Global glacial isostatic adjustment and modern instrumental records of relative sea level history. Int. Geophys. Ser., 75, pp. 65โ95.]. We obtain a value of 1.31 ยฑ 0.30 mm/yr, a value which appears to resolve the โsea level enigmaโ [Munk, W., 2002. Twentieth century sea level: an enigma. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 99(10), pp. 6550โ6555].”

16. Richard says:

reply to steveng “Ha ha,โฆโฆ.. Richard, You give us rants without evidence …”.

Well let’s just focus on one bit of evidence that you apparently missed: 35 years of satellite photos showing diminishing Arctic ice. If you don’t accept that factual information, then I suppose you wouldn’t believe me if I said Elvis is dead unless I produced a body.

• Global sea ice area has been above the 35 year mean for most of the year.

• Richard says:

I was discussing Arctic sea ice, not global sea ice. The graph above is highly weighted toward sea ice around Antarctica and is not an accurate representation of what is happening to sea ice on the Arctic Ocean.

• PhilJourdan says:

YOu also do not know the terms you use. The graph represents actual “sea ice”. It is not weighted. I guess you do not know what you are talking about. But you proved that with your opening ignorance.

• Of course you are discussing Arctic sea ice, because every other data set doesn’t support your claim. So focus on the one thing that does and ignore the other 9 that don’t.

• sunsettommy says:

Richard do you know what EVIDENCE is? I have yet to find it here from you since all you do is talk,talk and talk but no factual evidence comes.You are full of hot air and full of factless mealymouth babble.

I have read a few published science papers showing the Arctic ice cover has been much less than now during the earlier part of the interglacial period.This is well known among people who go beyond the bullshit level you give us because we read science and data while YOU post like a warmist drone.I bet you have not been aware of such papers because you are a warmist drone who only pass on the warmist propaganda you pick up from the media,SKS and other warmist hellhole websites.

You have no idea who I am and how long I have followed the warmist propaganda and that you fail to realize I have a climate forum where I post a variety of information for people who want to read and learn.You are talking to a few here who are long time verterans of this climate talk and we know when someone like you come around who stick out like a sore thumb of IGNORANCE and scientific illiteracy.That is why be beat up on you since you are another empyheaded warmist blowhard we have to endure.

• Hank Justice says:

Didn’t the Arctic ice take a similar nose dive in the 1930s?

17. tckev says:

Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v361/n6410/abs/361335a0.html

• tckev says:

As outlined in this paper there are NATURAL cycles that govern the extent of ice in the Arctic (and not the CO2 levels)
Variability of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the Last 100 Years
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-3224.1

18. Richard says:

The fact remains that Arctic sea ice is in decline. Here’s something about that from NASA for the period from 1953 onward, but there are many, many research reports from other sources showing essentially the same thing.

Click to access I25M.pdf

I am making no explanations (like CO2, intrusion of warmer Atlantic water, etc) , but simply stating the fact that Arctic ice is in decline.

• Arctic ice extent is normal and the amount of multi-year ice has been increasing since 2008. Arctic propaganda is in decline

• tckev says:

Arctic Ice comes and goes in multi-decade cycles, to blow all on it being unnatural when the data does NOT support it is foolish.
Submarines have surfaced at the North Pole before, there are historical records that indicate very little ice at the Arctic.
So if the ice is gone so what. It’s happened before and it WILL happen again – get over it.

• It’s already been pointed out to you Richard that the only metric “consistent with” AGW is Arctic sea ice. Temperature trends everywhere else are not “consistent with” the theory. If you score 1 out of 10, that doesn’t make a very convincing theory. But anyway, you are only a trained parrot. You will just keep repeating this metric over and over again.

• PhilJourdan says:

Guess you have never heard of the Skate. Try Google. Then tell us the next time it happened.

• sunsettommy says:

Gosh Richard,

Since you tell us that you have no explanation to offer over the long term decline yet you are still obsessed over it?

He he……

What you really mean is that you admit that you are too ignorant as to the true reason for the decline in recent decades you try to cover over that accidental admission by going on and on over with bullshit hoping you can get away with it.

You are so dumb that you are funny.

19. Curt says:

Richard — There is a lot that you are failing to understand, not the least of which is the spirit in which the post is intended. It’s a “two can play this game” thing to counter all the warming hysteria that we are constantly subjected to. Did you write to object to all of the alarmist headlines about the hot 2012 in the US as “proving” AGW? Did you point out that the rest of the world wasn’t seeing unusual warmth?

I think the reason that many of us visit this site is that our host is particularly good at finding these tit-for-tat antidotes to the alarmist narrative. When lots of scientists, politicians, and pundits were blaming Sandy on AGW, Steve quickly posted records of worse storms hitting New York in years past, including one with a bigger storm surge in 1821, just a few years after the “year with no summer”.

In the last few days we have seen plenty trying to pin the awful Oklahoma tornado on AGW, Steve shows the real trends in severe tornados, showing they are most frequent in cool conditions.

When alarmists try to claim Pacific islands are sinking beneath the seas, Steve shows real data showing no detectable sea level rise at these islands.

Our host does not believe that because this spring in the US is 3 degrees cooler than last spring, that in a century we will be at absolute zero. But one of the leading alarmist scientists, James Hansen, claims that because he detected an increase in sea level rise from 1 mm/year to 2 mm/year (even though it’s all within the margin of error), he can extrapolate this out exponentially with the rate doubling every decade until we are at 300 mm/year (1 foot per year) by the end of the century. Yes, he really says this is plausible! And is he dismissed as a crank? No – he is showered with awards!

20. Hank Justice says:

If the climate has been slowly warming for hundreds of years, then a point will be reached where the glaciers will begin to rapidly melt, will it not be so? All this without any influence from CO2. Our biggest problem today is the lowered sun spot and loss of ocean warming UV that penetrates and warms the deeper depths, unlike the effects of CO2 wavelengths that can’t penetrate the surface.