Hot Weather Is A Thing Of The Past In The Midwest

Summers used to be extremely hot in the Midwest, but temperatures have plummeted there and hot days have become rare.

Days over 90 F are rare now, but in 1936 they had many days over 110F. Temperatures like that are now only seen in the desert southwest.

Instead of trying to understand why summers are cooling, government scientists simply try to hide it – by cooling the past.

If they were actual scientists they wouldn’t do this. But they are crooks – not scientists.

Temperatures rose in the Midwest before 1930 when CO2 was low, and have fallen since then as CO2 has risen.

DESPITE THE MUCH heralded “greenhouse effect” that Is said to be warming the Earth’s climate, average temperatures in Illinois have fallen significantly in the last five decades analysis by state scientists shows. From 1930 to 1983, the average temperature in the state fell 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit. That contrasts with an increase of 5.5 degrees between 1850 and 1930.

Chicago Tribune Archive | April 23, 1984

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to Hot Weather Is A Thing Of The Past In The Midwest

  1. jack b :-) says:

    Nice fall weather here in west Texas. 55-60° @ night, 80s during the day. And it’s AUGUST people! Damned sure wasn’t like this when we were growing up out here in the 1960s. We’re also (already) at 150% of normal rainfall, and we’re nowhere near the hurricane coast. If this is global warming / climate change, SIGN ME UP!

    • RAH says:

      Yep! You folks have had a pretty mild and wet summer compared to usual. I couldn’t believe how green it was in eastern and southern Texas when I made a couple runs down to Laredo three weeks ago. Even in Laredo we didn’t have to run the AC in the truck at night.

      Astronomical fall doesn’t come until the equinox on Sept 22nd and Meteorological fall begins Sept. 1st.

  2. Andy DC says:

    111 degree weather in Indiana from top to bottom. When was the last time they were 100 from top to bottom? The 1930’s heat was an order of magnitude worse than anything in recent years.

    If people were frightened about dangerous warming in 1936, I can’t blame them, but apparently the people back then were not the idiotic snowflakes they have now become.

    • RAH says:

      People back then were fighting to survive. Day to day living was much tougher for most of them. They didn’t have the time nor the need to make up fantasy boogeymen to give them some reason to worry.

      And to think the only place for a common person to find AC was in the movie theater and then only if they lived in medium or large cities and towns for the most part. AC started being installed in movie theater in 1925 long before even hospitals started installing it. It turned summer from the least profitable season for them into the most profitable season.

      AC wasn’t installed in the WH until 1933 when FDR had it installed to cool the 2nd floor.

      • Andy DC says:

        There is a popular misconception that the 1930’s Dust Bowl was an Oklahoma/Texas event. What most people don’t realize is that the 110+ degree heat and extreme drought spread throughout the entire Midwest and beyond.

        It must have been terrifying and hearbreaking for Corn Belt farmers to see the 105-115 degree heat turn their crops into ashes. Not just one year, but several years. They did not have the Government subsidies that the farmers of today enjoy. As you say, people of those times were struggling just to survive.

    • JonA says:

      According to NOAA all those thermometers were wrong. It wasn’t really that
      hot – it was 1-3 degrees cooler than that. They read it in the tea leaves and
      used the time machine from Napoleon Dynamite to verify.

  3. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    I still don’t understand how anyone who has a science background can justify manipulating data like this. How can they sleep at night and go to work with a clear conscious? Keep up the good work Tony which is uncovering this fraud.

  4. Don B says:

    Tony –

    When writing your paper on misrepresentations of the temperature record, are you going to review how the number of rural stations has been reduced, and urban and airport stations increased as a proportion of the stations used by the climate campaigners, thereby increasing the rate of warming simply by UHI?

  5. Steve Case says:

    Cold snaps are getting on the rare side too. All and all you could say that the new normal for the Midwest climate is milder weather.

  6. Ben Whitmore says:

    I’ve just been viewing the raw data myself, using http://mrcc.isws.illinois.edu/mw_climate/climateTrends.jsp
    Every state in the midwest has been gradually getting hotter (though Kentucky only marginally so). I looked at mean annual temperature.
    See also http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/midwest, for those who don’t want to fiddle around with the raw data.

    • tonyheller says:

      Total BS. Looking at raw data is not “fiddling around” – it is called science. The graphs I provided are the actual data. Who are you and why are you spreading this propaganda here?

      • Ben Whitmore says:

        Private person who knows how to exercise critical thinking. Posting because I’m intrigued.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Be aware that as far as I know, Tony is one of the few people using the ACTUAL RCORDED DATA

          Any data from anywhere else has had the AGW-agenda torture.

          Be very wary of it. It mostly bares zero resemblance to REALITY.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Well, Ben, since you know how to exercise critical thinking, I am really intrigued how this discussion is going to unfold.

    • RAH says:

      You can’t even get something as simple as the US hurricane record correct and you expect rational people to take your “research” on temperatures seriously?

      The sources your using are parroting adjusted temperatures. They are not the temperatures that were actually taken and recorded at the time they occurred. Tony uses the unadjusted raw data that was recorded when the temperature was actually taken to demonstrate the blatant bias and malfeasance of those doing the adjusting.

      • Ben Whitmore says:

        Great! Thanks for that explanation. I googled “unadjusted temperature data shows cooling” and found an explanation that makes sense: the methodology for most raw data measurements has changed many times: “Stations have moved to different locations over the past 150 years, most more than once. They have changed instruments from mercury thermometers to electronic sensors, and have changed the time they take temperature measurements from afternoon to morning. Cities have grown up around stations, and some weather stations are not ideally located. All of these issues introduce inconsistencies into the temperature record.” The NOAA adjustments calibrate against a reference network of pristinely-located temperature stations.
        So, can anyone tell me if the data displayed here has been adjusted to account for the fact that early data points show afternoon temperatures and later ones show morning temperatures? I’d imagine that would account for a huge amount of apparent “cooling”.

        • gator69 says:

          First thing you need to do Ben, is find out exactly which adjustments have been made, in which direction, and by how much. Come back with that info and I would be more than happy to discuss the validity of any adjustments, but general discussions about adjustments are meaningless without this info.

          • Ben Whitmore says:

            The question remains: did whoever plotted the graphs on this site take into account that the older data is afternoon temperatures, and the newer data is morning temperatures?
            I haven’t hunted down all these details, but the NOAA has, and can presumably provide them if you ask.

          • gator69 says:

            Ben, you are only scratching the surface of the surface with your question. Answering your leading and meaningless question would only serve to confuse. Go get the info I requested and we can talk.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Ben, If you go back a few threads you will find a thread that deals specifically with this question.

            Here you go

            https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/the-completely-fake-time-of-observation-bias-adjustment/

          • Ben Whitmore says:

            Thanks AndyG55. Quoting that earlier post: “I reset the max in the morning, and reset the min in the afternoon – problem solved. I assume that anyone operating a min/max thermometer would come up with a similar solution.”
            Is this a safe assumption? From what I’ve read so far it sounds as though these are volunteer-run stations visited only once a day.

            The explanation of the adjustments I’ve read at https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-tobs-bias.html sounds entirely sensible. Is there some detail you believe is wrong or missing?

            I’m starting to appreciate why continuous measurements as provided by USCRN are so important. Daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures can be significantly impacted by time of reading, but far more problematic is average temperature. How do you calculate that, based on only one minimum and one maximum per day? It’s somewhere between the two, but where? I can see having some continuous readings from regional CRN stations would help to derive better approximations for the less sophisticated stations.

          • AndyG55 says:

            We are talking about past reading and their corruption by the TOBs and other fanciful data manipulation procedures, Ben.

            Why the intentional distraction?

            The fact that you are reading ANYTHING from SkS marks you as what you are now showing yourself to be.

            Good try, little troll. !

            All too easy to pick !!

          • AndyG55 says:

            “Is there some detail you believe is wrong or missing?”

            You obviously didn’t bother reading the analysis on the link given.

            TOBs is a FABRICATION, unjustified by any real data.

          • Ben Whitmore says:

            @AndyG55 The first thing I do when confronted with surprising information is go searching for opposing views. That’s the quickest way to make sure I’m not hearing half the story. That’s a fundamental strategy of critical research.
            Some people, might say the fact that I’m reading ANYTHING from this website demonstrates how gullible I am (it certainly demonstrates my tolerance for insults). But I believe that limiting one’s reading is the quickest way to confirmation bias.

            You say time-of-day observation bias is a fabrication, unjustified by “any real data”. Well, it makes logical sense to me, and the page I just linked to cites data, and even tonyheller, in the post you sent me to read about TOB, agrees that it’s a real issue: “I had a min/max thermometer when I was eight years old, and I recognized the problem after about two days.”

            I’ve had my questions answered to a point, which is great, thanks, I’m starting to see the thrust of your argument. I’m hoping you’ll answer my other questions and take that argument to its conclusion. So far, it still seems to rest on the assumption that thermometers _ought_ to be reset on a different schedule and the data _ought_ to be more accurate, therefore you’ll treat it as though it is. I may be completely wrong on that: show me how wrong I am.

            By the way, I looked up that thing about the German data — interesting. I found very little broader discussion around it though. I contacted the people at skepticalscience.com to see if they have a take on it.

          • AndyG55 says:

            You cite SkS.. you are immediately flagged as a troll.

            SkS is the most lying, deceitful and dishonest climate site on the web.

            It is owned by the 97% con-artist , John Cook.

          • AndyG55 says:

            Tony’s analysis shows that TOBs is a total NON-ISSUE, and does NOT require any sort of mal-adjustment.

          • AndyG55 says:

            We have seen your slimy style of troll posts before, Ben.

            Is this you, Ben?

            http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Whitmore%20Ben%2009267.pdf

          • AndyG55 says:

            It seems that Ben is a PRETENDER..

            ie a LYING low-level troll !!

            His name is found on sites with people like Greg Laden, Andy Skuse, Paul Beckwith .. and others of AGW priesthood..

            in his own words, shilling for the AGW-scam

            “and it would seem intellectual high treason to deny the overwhelmingly strong case the evidence paints.”

            He also runs the consensus line and make moronic comments like this..

            “Surely the fact that the majority of these scientists are NOT supported by corporations, while the deniers mostly have clear affiliations with oil companies, ”

            What a LOAD OF BULLSHIT !!!

          • Ben Whitmore says:

            @AndyG55 That’s my submission you’ve found, yes. Your point?
            Look, you gave me some answers initially; thank-you. Now you’ve descended into name-calling and paranoia, and the answers have dried up. Fine. Have fun.

        • AndyG55 says:

          Ben , a german study showed that the “new” instruments are giving spurious “high” reading compared to mercury based thermometers.

          I’m not at my main computer at the moment and can’t remember the exact amount , but around +0.8ºC iirc.

          That is a whopping error when we are talking in global changes of the same magnitude over 100+ year

    • MrZ says:

      Hi Ben!
      You do understand you are viewing the adjusted data not the raw?
      As you see above the adjustments are larger than the stipulated temperature increase. Note that the graph is average for the whole USHCN station set if you zoom in per state its much more drastic.

      Some adjustments are probably required, but what got me sceptic is the fact that the adjustments are so biased (cooling history) and very large.

      How can so many climate centers come to the same conclusion then? Because they are using the same adjusted data.

      • RAH says:

        Thing is those “temperatures” have for the most part been adjusted multiple times before Ben looked at them. The temperature history of the US as presented by NASA and NOAA and many universities, is fraudulent, having no relationship to the reality of the temperatures actually recorded at the time.

  7. Gary_STC says:

    Yesterday the temp in St Cloud MN reached 80F. This was only the 5th time in the month of August that the high temp reached 80 or above. Of course no 90’s.

  8. mkelly says:

    For information purposes in regard dot chart of July 1936, the yellow dot title Newberry Correction is incorrect. Newberry Corection did not exist in 1936. There was a state mental institution located in Newberry.

  9. Kevin says:

    Here in Lincoln, Ne we did not hit 90 degrees during the month of August. I’m not sure but I doubt that this has ever happened before.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.