Superstition Is Occurring With Alarming Frequency In The US

The New York Times believes that a warm Christmas in New York proves global warming, and that “Record-breaking temperatures are occurring with alarming frequency in the United States.

2016-04-23041613

Global Warming Feels Quite Pleasant – The New York Times

Like everything else the New York Times writes about climate, this claim is complete nonsense. The frequency of maximum daily temperature records in the US peaked in the 1930’s – and have generally declined since then.

2016-04-23040349

For stations with history extending back to at least 1930, almost all US all-time temperature records occurred before 1940.

2016-04-23040852

Last Christmas was the warmest on record in New York, beating 1982 by two degrees.

NEWYORKCNTRLPKTW_NY_MaximumTemperatureOnADayOfYear_Dec_25_1895_2016

Valentines Day this year was the coldest on record in New York.

NEWYORKCNTRLPKTW_NY_MinimumTemperatureOnADayOfYear_Feb_14_1930_2016

Last year January through March was the coldest in New York City since 1934.

NEWYORKCNTRLPKTW_NY_AverageMeanTemperature_Jan_Mar_1895_2016

This is a typical content-free climate article for the New York Times. The author obviously did no research and is just making stuff up.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Superstition Is Occurring With Alarming Frequency In The US

  1. gator69 says:

    Should greenhouse gas emissions proceed unabated, we estimate that 88 percent of Americans will be exposed to less pleasant weather at the end of this century than they are today.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKcAYMb5uk4

  2. NoOilforPacifists says:

    Tony: Do your historical HCN tables take account of “time of observation bias”? Converting all (U.S. at least) seems the sole logical and scientifically reasonable “retroactive” adjustment to existing data sets. See, e.g., https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/22/understanding-time-of-observation-bias/#more-17846

    If not, would the HCN tables, and thus your conclusions, change?

    @NoOil4Pacifists

    • tonyheller says:

      Time of Observation Bias has little or no effect on my observations. If I remove all of the theoretically affected TOBS stations, it changes the results very little. I am writing several papers on that topic now.

      • Steve Case says:

        So what happens when some one who isn’t a member of the club, no Ph.D. , writes a paper? Do you get one as a co-author or maybe lead author?

        Besides that, a good readable book done by a professional science writer needs to appear to blow this mess wide open. It’s beyond time that it should have happened.

        I bought my ticket in person for “Climate Hustle” yesterday. I asked the lady if she knew how many were sold so far. Twenty-three and she added that was a pretty good turn-out this early for a one time event. Oh, Marcus Ridge in New Berlin, WI.

        I believe you said you make an appearance. I look forward to it, I hope you smiled for the camera (-: Nine days away!

    • Ed Bo says:

      NOfP:

      Even in theory, the TOBS bias would have no effect on this metric, because it would not create a higher peak temperature than otherwise would be recorded.

      In theory, TOBS bias could affect average temperatures over a period. Consider a 5pm reading and reset on a record setting day. The max reading could be set at 5:05pm and recorded the next day at 5pm. This could be higher than the true high the next afternoon, but would still be lower than the record high of this day.

      Of course, for that to happen, you would have to assume that the volunteer monitoring the station, who is probably doing it because he is a real weather geek, would not reset the maximum the next morning, so he could get the next afternoon’s true high temperature.

    • Sparks says:

      Dumbest thing I have ever read, well it’s up there… Adjustments in the time of observation is noticeable.

  3. Edmonton Al says:

    Many of the Journos that I know about, wait until near their deadline, then muster anything sensational together, true or not, submit it, then head for the bar…………….

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      That’s what they did in college and it worked. That’s why they went into journalism and it works. They were promised no math and the employers are keeping their word.

  4. JP says:

    Over a decade ago the TOBs were the subject of a Climate Audit thread. With the snap of their fingers NOAA cooled the 1930s and warmed the present – all due to NOAA inserting its TOB homogeneity adjustments. It was at that point (maybe 2004) that I realized the AGW was fixed. NOAA and NASA were putting on the biggest Con Game in the history of US scienc

  5. It’s so much easier just to make things like data up than do all that hard slog, that it has become standard in all fields of Climate Alarm Research. As for replication of results, don’t bother us with that stuff.

  6. Patrick Egan says:

    I’m a little confused. Why was I mentioned in a comment fm 1976? I was in Alaska that summer. If you at a global warming denier, you clearly have no credibility in my world of “real science”. Get a grip on the real world and stop mouthing the lies from the old world of fossil fuel.

    • tonyheller says:

      Patrick,

      Your comment is about as rational as your article.

    • AndyG55 says:

      Patrick, I DARE you to give up everything that fossil fuels give you, bring to you… ie MODERN SOCIETY.

      Go and live somewhere without fossil fuels of any sort. No computers, no car, no cement, no steel.

      If not, then STFU, and stop being such a HYPOCRITICAL MORON.

    • AndyG55 says:

      “I’m a little confused.”

      If you are a “believer” in AGW.. you are more than a little bit confused..

      .. you are downright delusional.

  7. Jason Calley says:

    Hey Patrick! “Why was I mentioned in a comment fm 1976? ”

    There is a Patrick Egan in the byline of the NYT article. Is that you, or is that some other Patrick Egan? The article says “2016.” Where are you getting “1976” from? Did you misread the date?

  8. JG says:

    You missed a very basic statistical pattern, so your main point is moot. If you start keeping a record with no base data, of course you will get a high percentage of ‘record’ highs for the first 10 or 20 years. Unless the first year you start tracking the temps happens by a fluke to be an actual unusually high value, the natural flixuating range of temps will push your current high on record up over a certain period of time, fast at first, and more slowly over glue, until you have collected enough samples that the highs you have on record are actually truly highs – e.g. for the century or longer period.

    • tonyheller says:

      Utter nonsense. Read the text: “all time records set or tied

      Do you understand what an all-time record is? If the analysis was performed backwards starting with the most recent year, the graph would appear exactly the same.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *