The US Has Cooled Since 1920, And The Frequency Of Hot Days Has Plummeted

Gavin Schmidt explained the correct way to measure temperatures. Use only good stations.

Gavin Schmidt: Global weather services gather far more data than we need. To get the structure of the monthly or yearly anomalies over the United States, for example, you’d just need a handful of stations, but there are actually some 1,100 of them. You could throw out 50 percent of the station data or more, and you’d get basically the same answers.

NASA Climatologist Gavin Schmidt Discusses the Surface Temperature Record

Unfortunately Gavin doesn’t follow this procedure, and neither does Zeke. Their approach is to use a set of stations which they claim is flawed, and then massively tamper with the data to produce a non-existent warming trend which suits their funding needs.

The Blackboard » How not to calculate temperatures, part 3

Gavin and Zeke have failed to take Gavin’s advice, so I did it for them. I used the entire subset of USHCN stations which were active from at least 1900 to 2016. Both the absolute temperature and the anomaly show nearly identical trends, with the 1930’s much warmer than the present.

The average latitude of this group stations has hardly changed over time. The small variations are caused by some stations having missing years.

The number of daily temperature readings (highs and lows) has also scarcely changed over time, and is very close to the maximum possible.

This top notch set of stations shows that the US has cooled since 1920, and the frequency of hot days has plummeted.

The US now has about half as many hot days per year as it did during the 1930’s.

 Gavin and Zeke do their analysis the wrong way, and come up with the wrong answer. They are trying to control policy using worthless data.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The US Has Cooled Since 1920, And The Frequency Of Hot Days Has Plummeted

  1. Mark Luhman says:

    What I always suspected, when we knew 1/3 of the station were showing cooling the first step would have been to have been to look into why one-third was cooling and two-thirds were showing warming. When you looked at the data that the truely rural stations were showing cooling the rest in all probability were on showing UHI, and intelligent person would have concluded that global warming was a more than likely to land use changes, not C02, of course, such research would not allow the so called scientist to fraudulently take the take payers to the cleaners and collect billion dollars on worthless research and research papers, as with Hillary Clinton and why are these people not in jail, and why are we still living in the world’s largest banana republic.

  2. AndyG55 says:

    I love that both Zeke and Gavin WILL NOT DEBATE.

    That means that Tony can just keep throwing these FACTS in their faces..

    … and they will be in absolutely no position to counter his arguments.

    It really is the UTMOST of anti-science on their behalf.

  3. The thing is this: if I were calculating my best estimate of the global temperature, I’d take Goddard’s raw data and reduce the later years which are subject to more urban (or non-wilderness) heating**.

    The kind of change I’d be looking at would be a fraction of 1C – or perhaps 0.2-0.3C. Which is the difference between the “Correct” and “Goddard’s” raw.

    But what would be the point when the satellites give us an averaged global temperature which avoids the problems of averaging.

    **Non-Wilderness heating is the effect of humans on the amount of plant evaporation in an area. Because as we reduce the number of plants for farming or housing, the amount of evaporation decreases. And as evaporation decreases, the local climate warms slightly. This effect is highest in cities where there is little evaporative cooling.

  4. Bulaman says:

    The critical and un reported impact is irrigation. 70 to 95 percent of the greenhouse effect (Trenbeth) is due to H2O so spraying water into the air is having an (probably major) unreported effect.
    Defund the lot!

  5. TimboA says:

    They’ll be saying any day now that the satellite data isn’t applicable….wait for it….

  6. John Silver says:

    And then there’s rural MMTS, no airports.

    Look at the three rightmost columns, blue is the measured data from the only stations in the US worth bothering with, class 1 and 2. Red the faked “data”.
    An unprecedented order of magnitude.

  7. Don B says:

    Of the 50 USA state maximum temperature records, 36 were set prior to 1940.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.