Summers Used To Be Much Hotter In The US

One year ago this week, President Barack Obama waited for a hot day in Washington and hurriedly held an outdoor speech, where he could perspire, engage in third rate acting,  and blame global warming.

ScreenHunter_629 Jun. 23 07.08

The president might be surprised to learn that temperatures are normally hot in the summer. The graph below shows the annual percentage of US June temperatures above 100 degrees through the 21st of the month.

Prior to 1954, 100 degree June days were much more common, and this June has been below the 1895-2014 mean.

ScreenHunter_628 Jun. 23 07.02

For the entire summer, the frequency of 100 degree days has dropped dramatically since the 1930s.

ScreenHunter_403 Jun. 10 04.43

About stevengoddard

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

117 Responses to Summers Used To Be Much Hotter In The US

  1. jay352 says:

    Front page of the Drudge report. Pitch, swing, out of the park. LOL

    • Drudge actually links to this site about once every week or two.

    • Eric Simpson says:

      I really wish Drudge would link to this video somehow, because in ~ 3 minutes it changed me from a warmist to a skeptic. And it will change others if only they see it! (So spread the word about it.) Well, I saw the entire hour long Great Global Warming Swindle show, but it was really just this short section that had major impact. And actually it was after I had googled extensively for an effective rebuttal to the point made (about the CO2 lag), and found no effective rebuttal, none, it was then that I realized that there was no longer any point in me believing the warmist hog wash:

      • Eric Simpson says:

        Why does the above video on CO2 matter?

        Because it shows that the very foundation of their agw theory has been discredited. At the ipcc’s inception they claimed that there was solid empirical evidence from the ice core data that CO2 increases climate temperatures. So they threw in their arguable theoretical model of the CO2’s greenhouse effect and highly unlikely extreme positive feedbacks from water vapor, and they were off and running with the agw scam. But in 1999 a fully peer reviewed paper came out disputing the point that the ice core data showed a causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures. The ipcc fought this tooth and nail, but finally in 2003 even the ipcc had to concede that their claims about CO2 were wrong. The incredible thing is that though this got a lot of publicity and Al Gore would have certainly known that even the ipcc had retracted it’s claim about CO2, despite this Al Gore in his 2005 movie went ahead and knowingly propagated the blatant and obvious deceptions cataloged in the video above. Yes, the very foundation of the warmists’ theory was removed, but it never got much publicity thanks to the leftist press. But if the people see the above video en masse, it will have a major impact.

      • Eric Simpson says:

        There’s a seeming contradiction in my paragraph above that I need to correct, or clarify. The discrediting of the IPCC’s claim that there is evidence of a causal correlation between CO2 & temperatures did get a lot of publicity in scientific circles, but NOT in the mainstream press. And btw, the warmists fought hard to prevent The Great Global Warming Swindle from airing on UK TV. They failed. But it never ran on US TV. All we need is the 3 minute video above to run on our TVs!

  2. Jim says:

    I am neutral to skeptical on global warming. Both on whether the evidence supports that things have warmed, and if it has on the underlying causes. Having said why is the “number of june days above 100′ a useful data point?

    • Lyn Anderson says:

      “I am neutral to skeptical on global warming…”

      Me too. It’s like a religion and I am agnostic. Whether a person believes in it, or not, all of the people I know are taking it on someone else’s word because none of us have the time or inclination to sift the raw data for our own conclusions.

    • atthemurph says:

      Perhaps because if we are seeing “unprecedented warming” then we should be seeing more warmth. 100 degree June days today with these “record’ CO2 levels should exceed 100 degree June days when human caused CO2 was much lower. We should see all sorts of other things too like the heat bubble over the tropics that is the tell tale signature of Co2 caused global warming yet that too is missing.

  3. rgREG says:

    Well no, all you have shown is that the percentage of temperatures recorded above 100 F has been higher. This says nothing about the average temperature. For example, just because Shaquille O’Neal was in my high school class and we haven’t had a seven-footer in the high school since that time does not mean that the average height of high school students has fallen. Plus, the United States is not the world….so I don’t see how you have added anything to the debate with this……

    • Civics 201 says:

      Don’t be so dismissive. The warmest argument relies upon these same data points. Except their data set has been altered. If this data is so insignificant, why have they had to rely on altered data? The thing is, they have the burden of proof; so attacking the significance of the data sets they have been shown to have falsified isn’t persuasive as a counter argument. That the warmest position is built upon a myriad of constantly shifting computer models that depend upon secondary effects of water vapor and you can see why the have to adjust the backend data in order to arrive at the “correct” result. Basically, a reverse extrapolation.

      The problem also is that there are no comprehensive global historical temperature data sets, only partial ones of which this is a significant one. This actually is a positive if your trying to make historical data fit a preconceived outcome. you know, like declining numbers of polar bears based on incomplete polar bear population and migration studies.That allows more “flexibility” in interpreting the data since, after all, this is settled science.

    • bigfootersteve says:

      Funny how that “United States isn’t the world” argument never came up when you guys were arguing that global warming is real because the U.S. had record high temps.

    • Mike D says:

      You should hang out a while and check much of the other posts, like the much lower than historical mean temperatures in the arctic. Last I checked, the arctic wasn’t the world either, but the mean is the mean. There are also posts about the total sea ice extent, including that other pole, being above average.

    • As has been shown at Real Science in many ways, NCDC, GISS, and who knows how many other research organizations have altered temperature records according to certain ideas that may or may not yield accurate results. And they continue to do so, repeatedly.

      The end-result of the alterations is, in general, to exaggerate (if not invent) a warming trend in the temperature record by artificially cooling temperatures from the more distant past and artificially raising temperatures from the more recent past. This is not universally true for each meteorological station, but it is true for the global temperature, for CONUSA temperature, and for temperature of other regions (only Australia comes to mind right now): government scientists alter the temperature record to generally cool the past and warm the present.

      Thus, temperature records published by GISS nowadays show a much cooler USA in the earlier part of the 20th Century than the records published by GISS 15 years ago showed.

      Though CONUSA is not a very large portion of Earth’s surface, it is indeed the portion of the planet’s surface that has the most long-term, high-quality temperature records.

      That more 100+ degree days were actually recorded by thermometers in the USA in the 1930s than more recently, coupled with media reports of how blazing hot it was back then, demonstrates with rare clarity that the data alterations made by scientists artificially cooling the past must be wrong.

      If you still don’t understand how these facts add something to the debate, you don’t even know what’s being debated.

    • MusicCityDawg says:

      If “global warming” is truly global, then it should be happening everywhere.

    • Scott says:

      If a distribution shifts the average shifts and so do the tails. In regards to global warming that would mean a higher average temperature, more extreme high temperatures, and fewer extreme low temperatures. CO2 would be modeled in this way better than most other forcing’s since it is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere.

  4. Jeff says:

    True science does not generate a conclusion, the fabricate evidence to support it, and suppress all contrary evidence. Unfortunately, the climate alarmists have plenty of LIVs they can fool.

  5. as a young man fresh out of school– i had read all that i could about science’s claims of the coming ice age– during the 70’s. I remember explaining these facts to older workers in the dinner hole. These guys had a field day of making fun of me. Then in 1977 southern WV had its coldest winter ever recorded. This was my greatest shortest lived got-ya moment. Now, I fully understand why others made fun of me. It’s quite simple— science is a machine that must have funds– it will create problems to get MONEY to fight them. Political leaders will use these scary stuff to fit their agenda,
    As a X-coal miner my job is hated by the warmist — and has almost been done away with. I can stand in my back yard and hold my hand up sky-word. It is impossible to find a hand space of blue sky without a contrail of burnt fossile fuel of jet trails. Even Branson wants to have joy rides in space– yet he like all the other flying hypocrates have spoken out about COAL. I have never sat on a airplane in my whole life. Political leaders won’t speak out about all the burnt fossil jet fuel because everyone is doing it — these jets don’t even have scrubbers as do powerplants.
    It would be funny if it were not for all the jobs lost. When a beer brewery is built. The first thing ask is what is the qualty of the water– and how certain the source— A small factory– very small factory, will use over 15 million dollars of electic power a year. The first question asked when selecting a building site is– about labor. The second question is what about the electicity.

    • Those jet contrails are nothing but condensed water vapor + a little bit of combustion gasses. They will all dissipate quickly. Not to worry; see?

      • I belive you got it backwards– the powerplantts heat water– which goes up as steam– they have never made a jet engine that don’t burn lots of fuel on a flight– you need to watch them fuel up– or check on the computer about miles per gallon on a flight– ps –are you a flyer

        • _Jim says:

          Are you a chemist, or do you know any chemists? What are the products of combustion of Jet fuel?

          Do you recognize this formula: C(x)H(x)+O(2)→H2O(g)+CO2(g) + heat

          Also, re: “the powerplantts heat water– which goes up as steam” would seem to indicate a primary “open” cycle plant, rather than a closed cycle loop plant, which would use a heat exchanger as a condenser rather than simply venting the ‘steam’ to atmosphere. You might be referring the sight of cooling towers from which wisps of what appears to be ‘steam’ escaping; a better ‘call’ would be to cite that as water vapor evolving, I think, from the surface of the water at the top of the cooling tower.

          If you are referring to a natural gas fueled plant, then, again, H2O (water vapor) is also a product of combustion besides CO2.


    • _Jim says:

      re: thomas taylor June 23, 2014 at 1:12 pm
      these jets don’t even have scrubbers as do powerplants.

      It should be said, these jets burn ‘refined’ fuel that is quite a bit cleaner than coal, too. Coal is not ‘refined’ and filtered, etc. prior to combustion, as is jet fuel.

      A quick Google search on Jet fuel particulates results in a number of applicable standards and testing methods and procedures.


      • If i was still working– i could take you through a coal cleaning plant– thats where I worked toward the end— you couldn’t be more wrong about coal– believe me it is cleaned — or it can’t be sold— about 45% of what we took out— was buried back in the ground— PERIOD– I must ask you– are you a flyer— seems they are the ones who claim there is nothing in contrails— plenty of stuff you can google on them— for you neutral readers

        • _Jim says:

          Coal is not refined NEAR to the degree liquid fuels such as Jet-A are …

          And what does flying have to do with this?

          Are you one of those contrail Keepers Of Odd Knowledge Specialists (K.O.O.K.S.)? Is this the basis for your continued curiosity as to whether we are all aircraft pilots?


    • Dan Kimble says:

      excellent post.

      Your candor and truthfulness is refreshing. You have never been on an airplane, yet your truthfulness and logic probably makes you many times more qualified to be sitting in a position of high government power than someone like Hilary Clinton, who lies as a matter of course, and simply does not have the honesty, the trustworthiness, or the wisdom to make major decisions which are devastatingly consequential to the nation.

      The leftist movement which controls most of the western democracies have shown to be brazen liars on an everyday basis. They have been brazenly lying about hte myth of Global Warming, and now we see them brazenly lying and destroying evidence about their coordinated efforts to use the IRS to destroy conservative groups which are the grass roots efforts of citizens to stop the dictatorial type actions of the government, such as in promoting the myth of Global Warming, and using the myth to gain more monopolistic power over the economy, such as in their desire to destroy the coal industry and people’s livelihoods for no logical reason what so ever.

      We are living in a dictatorship at this point. The dictatorship has been building, growing over many years. In the main, it is a dictatorship of the LEFT, of the democratic party in this nation .

      The ruling elite such as Obama, Hilary Clinton, have simply gone over the edge. They only seek power so that their LEFTIST cause will take over the nation completely. Thus we have the myth of global warming being shoved down our throats by the democrats, and massive immigration of poor people into America being forced upon us by the democrats, for the only reason to recruit these tens of millions to the voter rolls of the democratic party. Yes, the democrats know that Americans have wisened up to their LEFTIST party, and Americans have been walking away from the democrats for years. The only reason the democrat party is NOT a small minority party now, is because of the Massive immigration the democrats forced upon us, which destroyed our jobs, our wages, and our working conditions.

      • _Jim says:

        Dan Kimble June 23, 2014 at 2:27 pm
        The ruling elite such as Obama, Hilary Clinton, have simply gone …

        They are still human and have biological clocks just like us. And they contract disease and heart ailments just like us. Hillary may be about to exit stage left, anyway. Via Drudge, a developing history of Heart problems and fainting:

        – – – –

        To begin with, Hillary fainted while she was working in her seventh-floor office at the State Department, not at home, as Reines told the media. She was treated at the State Department’s infirmary and then, at her own insistence, taken to Whitehaven to recover.

        However, as soon as Bill appeared on the scene and was able to assess Hillary’s condition for himself, he ordered that she be immediately flown to New York–Presbyterian Hospital in the Fort Washington section of Manhattan. When Reines subsequently released a statement confirming that Hillary was being treated at the hospital over the New Year’s holiday, it naturally intensified speculation about the seriousness of her medical condition.

        While she was at the hospital, doctors diagnosed Hillary with several problems.

        She had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot between her brain and skull. She had developed the clot in one of the veins that drains blood from the brain to the heart. The doctors explained that blood stagnates when you spend a lot of time on airplanes, and Hillary had clocked countless hours flying around the world.

        To make matters worse, it turned out that Hillary had an intrinsic tendency to form clots and faint.

        In addition to the:

        o fainting spell she suffered in Buffalo a few years before,
        o she had fainted boarding her plane in Yemen,
        o fallen and fractured her elbow in 2009, and
        o suffered other unspecified fainting episodes.

        Several years earlier, she had developed a clot in her leg and was put on anticoagulant therapy by her doctor. However, she had foolishly stopped taking her anticoagulant medicine, which might have explained the most recent thrombotic event.

        “The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed into a stroke,” said a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary’s condition.

        According to a source close to Hillary, a thorough medical examination revealed that Hillary’s tendency to form clots was the least of her problems. She also suffered from a thyroid condition, which was common among women of her age, and her fainting spells indicated there was an underlying heart problem as well. A cardiac stress test indicated that her heart rhythm and heart valves were not normal. Put into layman’s language, her heart valves were not pumping in a steady way.

        When the author attempted to contact the Clintons’ cardiologist, Dr. Allan Schwartz, he refused to comment, which made it impossible to determine the exact nature of Hillary’s medical status or its long-term significance. However, sources who dis- cussed Hillary’s medical condition with her were told that Hillary’s doctors considered performing valve-replacement surgery. They ultimately decided against it. Still, before they released Hillary from the hospital, they warned Bill Clinton: “She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life.”

        – – – – – –

        • Dan Kimble says:

          Hilary, Obama, Harry Reid, Elizabeth Warren, Pelosi, Coumo ….they are all the same.

          So, if Hilary has to drop out, or if she runs with Warren, say, it’s the same thing. Not much will be different. The democrats will still lie and push propaganda down the low info voters, and ‘the children’, to push their LEFTIST, politically correct agenda.

          The results will be similar to the disastrous Obama regime.

          They’ll still be pushing Global Warming, in order to take over another HUGE chunk of the economy and get huge new taxes from energy, and start to push nationalization of all the energy companies. Watch.

          Let’s just hope enough Americans have had enough of the BS, the lies, the dictatorial actions, using the IRS and other agencies as their shock troops, to stiffle dissent and to punish their opposition.

        • _Jim says:

          re: Dan Kimble June 23, 2014 at 8:38 pm

          They are all still human; they can be defeated. They don’t have ‘brains’ on their side, just emotion … the problem is, their opposition is nick named The Stupid Party (for a reason) at the moment, but really due to a lack of guts if you want to get down to brass tacks.


      • Dirk says:

        Did you mention “Benghazi?”

        • _Jim says:

          I don’t want her to blow a gasket, not just yet, which at this stage is a distinct possibility. I wonder if they had medics on standby in the studio during her interviews on the networks these past couple of weeks.


      • Hugh K says:

        Excellent comment. It is, and at the same time is not. amazing how easily those on the left lie with impunity. That is a direct result of the state of our current media. Truth is irrelevant to those in the media. Until the media holds those in political office accountable for their lies, nothing will change. I’m not optimistic. Those involved in the media racket are no different from the politicians they are employed to cover. Unless/until the media choose to operate in an ethical manor, nothing is going to change. I don’t see that happening in the near future. Be it politicians or journalist, they are all woven from the same material. I recall the big three networks baffled when Dubya won his second term. Their group conclusion was they had just not gotten their message out. They won’t make that same mistake again, regardless of the number of lies repeated for the left to win.

  6. Andy Oz says:

    Gonna be as hot as 1930’s in Brazil today. Go Aussie! Jesus has some competitione!!

  7. Washed-up politicians like algore and Hollywood halfwits screech about global warming, or is it global cooling? Nemmine, the Earth’s climate is changing! we don’t know if it’s getting hotter or colder. Either way you driving your SUV is a problem. We can all power the planet using windmills, sunshine, and cosmic rays. Kumbaya!

  8. Wat to go Steve… QU: Has anyone in the global warming camp ever taken into consideration the “Butterfly Effect”??? 😉

  9. Brendan says:

    You really need to link to your references. Its not that I don’t believe what you are saying, but your graphs show up and there’s no way you can replicate them.

    • _Jim says:

      Hmmm … publicly accessible data via NOAA and SG has posted links to the code; how much more do you want?


    • _Jim says:

      This was really difficult to do. I found a series of links to code. The hard part was figuring out what to put in the text box to the left of the ‘search’ button; these are located in the upper right hand are on each of SG’s webpages. I finally just entered the word “code” and this is what returns:

      Searching is tough. Like “Math is tough”. “Want to go shopping?” -Barbie


      • Gordon Elwell says:

        I am a pilot. I am not a chemist. I push the throttles forward, I go faster. I pull them back, I slow down. People tell me I leave white stuff in my wake, but I cannot confirm it, because I am looking out front to where I am going, not in a rear view mirror (we don’t even have one). I am much more likely to believe a chemist than a pilot.

      • Brendan says:

        You’re an idiot. Its a few lines of code to download the entire set. I have seen that before.

        What I asked for was a specific link to what was done. “Show your work” is what is required in school. If “Goddard” wants to claim things, he needs to show his work.

        Downloading a mass of data is different than showing specifically what was done.

  10. summerwarmth says:

    Some idiot Professor in the US is offering 10,000 to anyone that can show him global warming is wrong. (basically what an idiot, but you know the old saying a fool and his money are soon parted).

    • Donna K. Becker says:

      I wonder what would constitute “proof” to this professor? He may not be amenable to facts.

    • SMS says:

      The fraud in this bet is that he has reversed the scientific principle. He should, instead, be asked to defend the CAGW theory against all questions and data. If he cannot defend against all data, then the theory that he is trying to prove is invalidated. Wouldn’t take much. Show him one untampered thermometer record showing no warming and he losses $10,000.

    • Justa Joe says:

      The burden of proof is on the warmists. man made global warming of the type we’re told to be worried about has never been proven in the first place.

    • Justa Joe says:

      MUFON could offer a million dollars to anyone that could “disprove” the existence of UFO’s. How is anyone going to collect?

  11. Matthew Baranowski says:

    I find it odd that Goddard and all the responses claim to be skeptics, but accept this post as truth when it contains almost no verifiable data. Why not link to the data used to generate these tables? As one responder pointed out, even if these graphs represent true data, how does this true data tell us anything about humanity’s impact on climate change?

    Only folks who’ve made up their mind without evidence would find this blog compelling.

    • These are all NOAA data

    • _Jim says:

      re: Matthew Baranowski June 23, 2014 at 3:54 pm
      I find it odd that Goddard and all the responses claim to be … Only folks who’ve made up their mind without evidence would find this blog compelling.

      Et tu Brute? Invoking a principle of condemnation before investigation?

      Who was it that said: “Condemnation without investigation is the highest form of ignorance.


      • Justa Joe says:

        how does this true data tell us anything about humanity’s impact on climate change?

        Don’t you mean …or lack of climate change, or lack of impact by humanity? Don’t you think that we should actually experience some “climate change” before you assume it as a given?

    • philjourdan says:

      For the google impaired, here ya go –

    • tom0mason says:

      “Only folks who’ve made up their mind without evidence would find this blog compelling.”
      Sounds just like a believer in the IPCC reports.

  12. James Strom says:

    Congratulations on the indirect link from Drudge. It would be great if the publicity forces an independent audit of the data production practices of NOAA, NASA, et al.

  13. Tim says:

    When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
    When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found lnothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology. -Christopher Booker

  14. When he made that speech, the temperature at the nearby USHCN station of Laurel was 82F.

    Would it surprise anyone to learn that the AVERAGE max temperature there in June is 83.8F?

    Or that the all-time record temperature for June there was 101F set in 1899?

  15. philjourdan says:

    Another Drudge link – albeit indirect. Of a story in the Telegraph by Christopher Booker. Congratulations!

  16. Gingerbaker says:

    And this proves that “summers used to be much hotter” exactly – how??? You have any data on average or mean temperatures? You have any data on global summer temps?

    Or is it just when YOU use imprecise terminology it doesn’t matter; but when NOAA or NASA corrects data sets its a conspiracy, right?

    • US summer temperatures were much hotter during the 1930s, particularly daytime temperatures. During one week in July 1936, 12,000 Americans died from heat stroke.

      • Gingerbaker says:

        Again, I ask the question: How does the fact that more days were above 100F in the past make those summers “hotter”? You completely avoided answering the question.

        • _Jim says:

          Gingerbarker:I ask the question: How does the fact that more days were above 100F in the past make those summers “hotter”?

          More sweat *.

          I would have thought this was elementary …


          * Sweat – Sweating – the release of a salty liquid from the body’s sweat glands. This process is also called perspiration. Sweating is an essential function that helps your body stay cool. Sweat is commonly found under the arms, on the feet, and on the palms of the hands.

          /humor (this tag specifically for the humor deficient or impaired)

  17. goodknave says:

    Steven Goddard’s fabricated statistics get better and better. Even on the rare occasions that they are true, they are always used out of context. What a criminal imbecile.

  18. Justa Joe says:

    Gotta love the warm-tards’ excuses. It’s getting hotter, but the peak temperatures just don’t reflect it they suggest. What does that mean? There are more days in the mid 60’s instead of the low 60’s than there used to be? Sounds like a real crisis of epic proportions.

  19. Nic says:

    I think this is pretty indisputable: I live in Canada and can say first hand it is undeniably warmer now that it was 30 years ago. A lot warmer especially in the winter. Just google pine beetle infestation if you don’t believe me. Those who say global warming isn’t happening obviously live somewhere where it’s effect is not as significant.

  20. Nic says:

    Always an excuse for every point in favour with you. No one ever said climate change is uniform…it’s called climate CHANGE.

    • _Jim says:

      Or climate NO change.

      Climate change-for-the-better?

      It’s ALL in the marketing, and so far, ‘they’ want you to think CC is baaaaaad.

    • tom0mason says:

      Two things you fail to acknowledge with the above graphics –
      1. Peak temperatures were, 75years ago or so, significantly higher than recently.
      2. Climate has always changed.

      • Nic says:

        Both of these might be the case, however for one, I’m not sure how reliable thermometers were 75’s years ago compared to today’s technology and for two, If you just open your ears you hear people talking at least in southern California, that the winters have never been so warm. Also, RECORD temp in Corona CA for May was 86 degrees, this year the record was decimated with 106 degrees. I think it’s pretty ignorant to think that man spewing all sorts of pollution into our small biosphere wont’ have any additional effect on the climate.change that naturally occurs whether for good or for bad. However the animal species being displaced ie Polar bears in Manitoba would I’m sure argue that climate change is bad despite the marketing bias as pointed out above.

        • tom0mason says:

          Oh no no the polar bears –
          Get real. Studies on polar bears reveal that in times past they probably had their begining in Ireland. Guilt trip about polar bears – pah!
          You know when the climate was different.
          But since then the climate has changed, just like it keeps changing. Just like it does in Ca and everywhere.

    • philjourdan says:

      And has been happening for 4.5 billion years. Long before man and with no help from him.

      Trying to sneak through a non sequitur. Typical.

  21. Nic says:

    Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

    However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

    More importantly, for the purpose of establishing a temperature trend, the relative level of single readings is less important than whether the pattern of all readings from all stations taken together is increasing, decreasing or staying the same from year to year. Furthermore, since this question was first raised, research has established that any error that can be attributed to poor siting of weather stations is not enough to produce a significant variation in the overall warming trend being observed.

    It’s also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend — and hence Climate Change — are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.

    For example, a study by Anderson et al. (2012) created a new global surface temperature record reconstruction using 173 records with some type of physical or biological link to global surface temperatures (corals, ice cores, speleothems, lake and ocean sediments, and historical documents). The study compared their reconstruction to the instrumental temperature record and found a strong correlation between the two:

  22. _Jim says:

    re: Nic June 25, 2014 at 7:50 pm
    Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

    However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

    Isn’t this what the whole controversy is about?

    Given the ability to incorporate ‘adjustments’ also means an element of corruption can creep in, if there aren’t cross checks on the process, and occasional audits.

    Have there been any ‘cross checks’ or audits performed that you are aware of on this adjustment process?


    • Nic says:

      This is what stevengoddard’s controversy is about yes… however it is completely ignoring the fact that:

      “It’s also vital to realise that warnings of a warming trend — and hence Climate Change — are not based simply on ground level temperature records. Other completely independent temperature data compiled from weather balloons, satellite measurements, and from sea and ocean temperature records, also tell a remarkably similar warming story.”

      • _Jim says:

        warnings of a warming trend — and hence Climate Change — are not based simply on ground level temperature records.

        Who is it that may be ignoring these other sources of temperature? Is there somebody you have in mind that may be ignoring weather balloons, satellite measurements and sea and ocean temperature records that could indicate warming?

        And, are warming trends being seen in, say, satellite records for instance?

        You know, anyone can start their very own Worpress blog and begin to investigate these issues …


  23. Nic says:

    The thing all you gentlemen pro “man has no effect on climate change” are forgetting or ignoring the most basic of all problem solving with cause and effect relationships: Occam’s razor – among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. You want to try to discount and explain away all examples of the accelerated warming rates no matter how many you need to explain away instead of the one with only one hypothesis being “you can’t continually shit in your own back yard before it starts to stink” plain and simple folks. If you want to bury your heads in excuses or casting doubt with far fetched confusion or trying to muddy the waters when they are clear enough, go ahead but I for one drive a Prius and not and SUV because I don’t live in a vacuum in outer space, I live in on a large sphere with an effective ceiling and what goes up must come down. Simple fact of the matter is, the world is heating up & weather is changing whether you “believe in it” or not.

  24. Nic says:

    This question? CO2 does _not_ have catastrophic effect claimed by the AGW merchants?

    Yes, the whole scientific community made up global warming to ‘gain employment from it.; Yes, you’re right….that is the simplest conclusion to draw and ignore all evidence that says otherwise.

  25. _Jim says:

    re: Nic June 25, 2014 at 7:50 pm
    Surveys of weather stations in the USA have indicated that some of them are not sited as well as they could be. This calls into question the quality of their readings.

    However, when processing their data, the organisations which collect the readings take into account any local heating or cooling effects, such as might be caused by a weather station being located near buildings or large areas of tarmac. This is done, for instance, by weighting (adjusting) readings after comparing them against those from more rural weather stations nearby.

    Are you going to address the issue of incorporating ‘adjustments’ that allows the introduction or opportunity to corrupt or change the raw data, especially in these government agencies that don’t perform cross checks on the process or the results via periodic audits?

    Do you know if the government has ever done any ‘cross checks’ or performed any audits on this adjustment process?


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 )

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