2010 is the hottest year ever, which explains why US winter temperatures have been dropping at a rate of more than 30 degrees per century since 1998.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Ivy league Provost Calls For Assassination
- Record Arctic Sea Ice Growth
Recent Comments
- Disillusioned on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- Disillusioned on “falsely labeling”
- stewartpid on “falsely labeling”
- dm on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- dm on CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- D. Boss on IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Robertvd on Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- arn on “falsely labeling”
- arn on “falsely labeling”
So efficient, they have the figures for Jan and Feb already!
NCDC uses DJF for Winter temperature so Winter 2010 would be Dec 2009 and Jan Feb 2010!
You are cherry picking and your findings have not been peer reviewed.
I don’t think you could possibly be this stupid, but the only alternative is extremely dishonest. I don’t see you much before this, but from reading your other posts, it’s hard to see why you wouldn’t just stretch your graph back to 1895, which I just did.
You can set your time of the graph from 1895 to 2010, then use 1998 to 2010 to set the average line for the graph. It’s amusing to see how far we were below that line for most of the century, with occasional excursions above it, until the last decade or two.
I have to assume you really want people to understand that the world is really getting hotter, or you wouldn’t refer people to a source that shows it so easily. Otherwise, you really think poorly of your readers…
If you lived somewhere where they have winter, you would be aware of the fact that winters have become much colder over the last decade.
The concept really isn’t all that confusing.
Nope. Check your numbers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/26/national/main6336484.shtml
Do you really not understand the problem with starting your graph ten years ago, in one of the warmest years ever recorded on the planet?
I see who you are, now, and I vaguely remember your “appearance” on the scene a couple of years ago.
10 years ago snow was a thing of the past.
“Do you really not understand the problem with starting your graph ten years ago, in one of the warmest years ever recorded on the planet?”
Ah – yes I get it now. We should definitely go back 30 yrs to an unusually cold period to monitor trends.
Bubba the stupid remark must be self-referential. ‘Cause youclearly do not perceive the sarcasm.
Why 1895?
Why not 1938?
Steve,
I hope you don’t think I was being serious. Some of your readers may have thought so.
Adding the peer-review mantra clarified