The Hottest Year Ever

Experts tell us that 2015 was the hottest year ever™, despite the fact that there was very little hot weather.

2016-04-21104520

Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs

During July, 1936 afternoon temperatures at Fairfield, Iowa averaged 19F hotter than 2015. Every single July day in 1936 was hotter than 2015 (the hottest year ever™ .)

FAIRFIELD_IA_DailyMaximumTemperatureF_Jul_Jul_1936_2015

2016-04-20133234

, Page 1 – Carroll Daily Herald at Newspapers.com

It was by far the longest heatwave at Fairfield.

FAIRFIELD_IA_#ConsecutiveDaysAboveMaxTempThreshold100F_Jul_Jul_1850_2015

Fairfield had a total of 20 days over 100 degrees during July, 1936.

FAIRFIELD_IA_#DaysAboveMaximumTemperatureThreshold100F_Jul_Jul_1850_2015

They set their all-time temperature record of 114 degrees during July, 1936.

FAIRFIELD_IA_HottestDailyMaximumTemperature_Jul_Jul_1850_2015 The “hottest year ever™” doesn’t seem to have anything to do with actual hot weather, but lots to do with hot air ahead of  the Paris Climate Fraud Summit.

About stevengoddard

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

13 Responses to The Hottest Year Ever

  1. RAH says:

    RSS and UAH satellite data have consistently revealed the lies the alarmists create with their limited coverage surface stations with their adjusted data homogenized with SSTs and their adjusted data in order to give the impression the world is burning up. So far they have unsuccessfully striven to make observations appear to follow the projections of their obviously inaccurate and flawed models. But I wonder what will happen in the future with the RSS now that Mears appears to have buckled.

  2. A real scientist says:

    While it is admirable to critically evaluate data, in general (a very useful skill). Using high temperatures in the U.S. as rigorous evidence against global climate changes is not compelling. In the 1960’s, 70’s and 80’s scientific consensus built a strong case that smoking causes lung cancer. During that time there were a small number of skeptics driving the idea that the evidence was unclear and similarly picking at flaws in selective data sets, as this blog does for climate change. It was possible to identify smokers that didn’t get lung cancer, but anecdotal evidence does not disprove that smoking causes lung cancer. Today, no one with half a brain would say that smoking does not cause lung cancer. Soon the same will be true for climate change. It is nearly undeniable now. The difference is that the internet will archive these ridiculous arguments against climate change for posterity. Real scientists know when to reject a false hypothesis in favor of one that best fits ALL of the available data.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Soon the same will be true for climate change.”

      Yep. Any day now…Just a matter of time. Just a little more waiting and then it will be obvious. It’s coming. Soon. Very soon. You better believe it, it’s coming. I can feel it. It’s close. Closer. Closerest. Very closerest!

    • Real scientist:

      The good thing is the internet will archive your statement about “undeniable” certainty of present day climate science as well. Also, let’s discard this stupid canard of skeptics “denying climate change”. This blog and the overwhelming majority of skeptical literature concern themselves with atmospheric “global warming” caused by the increase of anthropogenic CO2 and you know it. Such atmospheric warming is the precondition of any possible anthropogenic CO2-caused climate change.

      I’d like to believe your passion for science just got the better of you for a moment. Only propagandists and crooks use the stupid and dishonest “climate denial” argument and I’m sure that as a real scientist you are not endorsing such methods.

      I want to ask you about your endorsement of scientific consensus against the claimed “a small number of skeptics”:

      How many skeptics do you believe there are and how many does it take so that a real scientist no longer considers it a small number and what “rigorous evidence” can you cite to back up your claim?

      I am sure you will provide good answers to support your certainty because you do not want to sound like a fool but in the end you are left with another, much bigger problem.

      Do you remember the undeniable “scientific consensus” about the causal relationship of the consumption of saturated fats and heart disease? Even without the internet I remember the “real scientists” and the small number of skeptics who questioned their “rigorous evidence”. The United States government threw its authority and power behind the findings and created a long list of far-reaching policies based on these scientific results—so strong was the case, so undeniable the evidence, so crushing the consensus.

      Are you aware of the current status of medical sciences? Are you still endorsing the scientific consensus of the 80s and 90s?

      This is of course just one example of many because history is littered with cases of discarded undeniable theories and overwhelming consensus. Do you know how many real scientists like you vilified the “terrible person” Barry Marshall? And do you know what Einstein said of the strength-in-numbers argument of One Hundred Authors?

      For a real scientist you seem to march rather exuberantly past these ruins of argumentum ad verecundiam.

      And last but not least, what do you as a real scientist propose to be the falsification of the CO2-based anthropogenic global warming hypothesis? Is AGW falsifiable and how? What event, test or discovery would force us to revert to the null hypothesis?

      I am confident you have a definition ready because you have more than half a brain and you are a real scientist.

      • Neal S says:

        Careful there Colorado. “A real scientist” might sue you for causing him mental and emotional distress. You are asking him to actually think. For people un-used to it, this can be hazardous to their health.

      • RAH says:

        Some past predictions from Really Real Scientists: Whole article here:
        http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/
        But the gist of it is that on “Earth Day” 1970 these are some predictions made by really real scientists:

        1: “Civilization Will End Within 15 Or 30 Years”
        Harvard biologist Dr. George Wald warned shortly before the first Earth Day in 1970 that civilization would soon end “unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Three years before his projection, Wald was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine.

        2: “100-200 Million People Per Year Will Be Starving To Death During The Next Ten Years”
        Stanford professor Dr. Paul Ehrlich declared in April 1970 that mass starvation was imminent. His dire predictions failed to materialize as the number of people living in poverty has significantly declined and the amount of food per person has steadily increased, despite population growth. The world’s Gross Domestic Product per person has immeasurably grown despite increases in population.
        3: “Population Will Inevitably And Completely Outstrip Whatever Small Increases In Food Supplies We Make”

        Paul Ehrlich also made the above claim in 1970, shortly before an agricultural revolution that caused the world’s food supply to rapidly increase.
        Ehrlich has consistently failed to revise his predictions when confronted with the fact that they did not occur, stating in 2009 that “perhaps the most serious flaw in The Bomb was that it was much too optimistic about the future.”

        4: “Demographers Agree Almost Unanimously … Thirty Years From Now, The Entire World … Will Be In Famine”
        Environmentalists in 1970 truly believed in a scientific consensus predicting global famine due to population growth in the developing world, especially in India.

        “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions,” Peter Gunter, a professor at North Texas State University, said in a 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.”By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
        5: “In A Decade, Urban Dwellers Will Have To Wear Gas Masks To Survive Air Pollution”
        Life magazine stated in January 1970 that scientist had “solid experimental and theoretical evidence” to believe that “in a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching Earth by one half.”

        Despite the prediction, air quality has been improving worldwide, according to the World Health Organization. Air pollution has also sharply declined in industrialized countries. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas environmentalists are worried about today, is odorless, invisible and harmless to humans in normal amounts.
        6: “Childbearing [Will Be] A Punishable Crime Against Society, Unless The Parents Hold A Government License”
        David Brower, the first executive director of The Sierra Club made the above claim and went on to say that “[a]ll potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.” Brower was also essential in founding Friends of the Earth and the League Of Conservation Voters and much of the modern environmental movement.
        7: “By The Year 2000 … There Won’t Be Any More Crude Oil”
        On Earth Day in 1970 ecologist Kenneth Watt famously predicted that the world would run out of oil saying, “You’ll drive up to the pump and say, ‘Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, ‘I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”
        American oil and natural gas reserves are at their highest levels since 1972 and American oil production in 2014 was 80 percent higher than in 2008 thanks to fracking.

        Furthermore, the U.S. now controls the world’s largest untapped oil reserve, the Green River Formation in Colorado. This formation alone contains up to 3 trillion barrels of untapped oil shale, half of which may be recoverable. That’s five and a half times the proven reserves of Saudi Arabia. This single geologic formation could contain more oil than the rest of the world’s proven reserves combined.

    • gator69 says:

      A real scientist would have some real science and not the same old worn out strawman tobacco talking ponts, and a real scientists would understand falsification of a hypothesis.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “Real scientists know ”

      How the **** would a brain-washed scientifically illiterate git like you have any idea what real scientists know.

      I doubt you know one single real scientist.

  3. Andy DC says:

    Alarmists are claiming that every one of the last 11 months was the hottest on record. I guess if you are going to lie, you might as well make it a whopper.

  4. Menicholas says:

    I honestly believe Tony, that if everyone in the country would read your posts, and do so with an unbiased ear, the CAGW scam would evaporate within days.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s