2017 Vs. 1954

During the summer of 1954, Conway, Arkansas had 72 days over 100 degrees, including 115 degrees on July 13.

Conway rarely has 100 degree days any more.  They had only one day last summer (Hottest-Year-Ever™) which just barely topped 100 degrees.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to 2017 Vs. 1954

  1. Robertv says:

    aha! There you have it, climate change . CO2 made 1954 much warmer before all that heat went to the bottom of the oceans.

    • arn says:

      Well-after 1954 the ice age scare started and it got significantly cooler in the next decades+ co2 did not have those magnificent superpowers that manifested about 1988 and turned it into a Hitler molecule by decree of MANN,HANSEN,SCHMIDT and SCHNEIDER.
      (all of them have original German names btw must be some sort of fifth column conspiracy :)
      therefore i am not surprised
      about their fascist tendencies.

      My real issue about this kind of ‘science’ is still the very basic fundament it is built on.I don’t see it.
      How it is defined?
      During the ice age scare the cooling was the absolut threat and 1979 was not just proove but Satan himself.But those people somehow forgot
      to adress what the perfect climate is,why and by how much it was to cold.
      But just a few years later,when AGW started and a new superstar of evil was born to scare us((nowadays we have so many of them:Putin,Assad,Trump-i wonder how we are still alive))
      evil 1979 became the ultimate gold standard somehow-the referrence and starting point(the entire basis of climate science which defined the perfect climate was turned upside down).Whenever you see an AGW warrior leaving his hut
      armed with a hockey stick and ten gallons of red ink they they start their traditionell hunt around 1979.

      btw- i hope you enjoy your shitty english weather in barcelona
      as i’m pretty sure in the it will be the hottest april and june ever
      -no matter how much more gas bottles the people have to buy there for heating than they usually do.

  2. David M. says:

    “Cherry picking! Cherry picking!”, according to Scott & Griff:-} Never mind that most temperature reading sites NOT distorted by the urban heat island effect resemble Conway, Arkansas.

    Tony, I respectfully suggest broadening the offensive against green zealots. You, and your fans, have the knowledge & skills to do the following: Explain how wind turbines, solar panels and other “green measures” damage the environment and society.

  3. Alley says:

    I think you picked the wrong location and the wrong years.

    • Anon says:

      Yes, you should show Monhonk, New York! (lol)

      • Alley says:

        Yes, and LA (lol)
        And Phoenix (lol)
        And Moscow (lol)
        And…

        Why not just show the globe, and not cherry pick one year? I think we should call my idea “global temperature trend” and not this version of “here’s one location with one year.” (lol)

        • paul courtney says:

          Alley, great idea. Think I’ll do that, and call it “GISS”. Let’s include Conway, AR, because, you know, it is included in “globe”. We’ll include the other towns listed recently in this site. Other stations showing erroneous “warming” will have to be adjusted, and we have a bit of infilling to do…. And voila, my global “GISS” chart looks alot like Conway, AR! Cooling!
          That’s how your “global temperature” folks do it, right?

          • Alley says:

            ISS”. Let’s include Conway, AR, because, you know, it is included in “globe”.

            Of course! Conway has ALWAYS been included, and there lies the conservative lie: that 1,000s of stations like Conways are not included. It’s absurd, but that is the premise of a Heller complaint.

            I think some skeptic scientists should get together (maybe funded by skeptics) and perform the math on ALL stations. Then perform their work on only the best stations. See what happens, call it a day.

            http://berkeleyearth.org

          • Rah says:

            Anyone that references Berzerekley as a viable source on such a politically charged issue as “climate change”.

          • Alley says:

            What is “Berzerekley”? Is that a child’s way of referencing the BEST program, that is unaffiliated with the university?

            I think you should look up the things you don;t understand before you dismiss them them. Would make you look less silly.

          • RAH says:

            My dear the whole city of Berkeley is Bizerk! If you knew what your talking about you would know that. They threw rocks at their cities fire engines because they dared to fly the National flag. It is the fruitiest and nuttiest socialist haven in the USA! No circus has anything on Berkeley when it comes to silly and crazed people wearing costumes on an average day!

            As for Berkeley Earth? Funded through the Berkeley Lab with government money intially. Berkeley Earth was established by liberal democrats through the department of Energy. Currently also funded by private and institutional donations. The largest single private contributors listed as “Anonymous Foundation”
            http://berkeleyearth.org/funders/

            Of course fools are never interested where the money comes from.

          • AndyG55 says:

            “that is unaffiliated with the university?”

            No university worth its salt would stomach an affiliation with that load of fraudsters.

            Anti-science propaganda at its most slimy !!

      • AndyG55 says:

        Or you could pick say 1400 or so stations

  4. Myrone says:

    Graph was generated through your software, Pulling Back the Curtain.

  5. Myrone says:

    My graph was generated through your software, Pulling Back the Curtain.

  6. richard verney says:

    Tony

    I do not consider your new style plots are as easy to read as your old version. In my opinion, this is not an improvement in the way in which data is presented.

    This is just my opinion, and I have no idea what others think.

  7. Jeff says:

    According to the National Weather Service, for Little Rock, AR, Little Rock Are a:
    1896-1915: 1,038 90+ degree days 53 100+ degree days
    1998-2017: 1,555 90+ degree days 193 100+ degree days

    • Former95B says:

      Try factoring in UHI before you cherry pick your years.

      The come back when you’ve gained some integrity…and lost the fudged data.

    • MrZ says:

      Jeff, I could not resist checking GHCN-D.
      Those stats are actually true but I would not panic. See below

      • AndyG55 says:

        Last chart seems to indicate basically zero change since 1930, with any slight warming happening before then.

        Warmest year around 1954

    • AndyG55 says:

      Jeff, before I even bother looking at the temperature data, I like to see images of the actual weather station and surrounds at several points during the period under consideration.

      Can you provide such images, please.

      UHI !!

    • AndyG55 says:

      Why did you choose the first period , Jeff ?

      Did you already know the pattern ?

  8. Jeff says:

    If you pick the first 20 years and most recent 20 year period most of the places around the US show an increase in hot days. How much of that is due to the UHI effect I’m not sure. I realize there’s a lot more concrete and asphalt and buildings now as compared to the late 1800s. I would hope that whomever is placing the thermometer would have enough sense to realize that.

    • MrZ says:

      Yes, the decades around 1900 were not very hot. However last decades were not either…

    • Gator says:

      Jeff, how much is the UHI adjustment? If you don’t know, why do you keep spamming here?

    • paul courtney says:

      Jeff: You would hope, but you have evidence that some stations don’t “have enough sense to do that.” But why factor such evidence into your conclusion, when ignoring that evidence keeps the meme going.

    • Griff says:

      The Berkley Earth project looked at thousands of temp stations to see if UHI unduly influenced the record… and found it did NOT.

      • Disillusioned says:

        I guess that depends on what you consider “unduly.” UHI absolultely influences temperatures locally. When an urban heat island grows around a previously rural station, the record is influenced by that heat island effect; it stays warmer longer into the night, etc.

        So, stations in urban areas indeed affect the record. Problem is, ten miles from an urban area, temps drop, and further out there is no UHI effect. If there are more stations in urban areas (which pale in area comparison to rural land area), it must skew the averages.

        Unduly – I would think that what unduly influences the record beyond the known UHI effect is the phenomenon of stations next to driveways, over asphalt, next to brick/concrete buildings, on top of roofs, on airport tarmacs, etc.

        It would be willful ignorance to brush off what these phenomena do to the record.

      • AndyG55 says:

        “and found it did NOT”

        That is because they DIDN’T WANT TO FIND IT.

        And their methodology was puerile at best !!

Leave a Reply

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