US Climate Getting Milder

The percent of very cold nights and very hot days have both declined in the US. In other words, the US climate is getting less extreme.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to US Climate Getting Milder

  1. Aussie says:

    In another forum a warmist was showing the below as evidence that the climate was really heating up globally.

    This is quite unbelieveable (literally) as the 1930s hot period is greatly reduced and the cooling into the 1970s is now a pause.

    How do they construct such things! Like your recent post on sea level rises, if we look at individual readings across the world (excluding heat island effects) then I am betting that no readings are like this…yet the compliation miraculously shows warming to a massive extent…

  2. etudiant says:

    This chart is global, so the US record heat can be submerged.
    Whether the global data is actually comparable is another question.
    On the whole, there appears to be a lot more hype about the very modest observed changes than appears warranted, with the justification that this is the beginning of an exponential curve. Whether that is in fact true is much less clear.

    • David A says:

      There is no exponential upward curve.
      The US record is not the only T record that has been heavily manipulated-falsified.

      Indeed, whatever warming affects CO2 may have, they exponentially decrease, as CO2 must double each time to have the same claimed warming affect.

    • -B- says:

      The USA is large enough and located such that any global theory should be present in any analysis that uses the entire area of the country. If the USA shows the opposite of the rest of the globe then something is likely wrong with the theory, the data handling, the analysis, or all three. If the underlying work is correct then the theory would need to be modified at the very least.

  3. Vincent Cuneo says:

    Dear Tony,

    Could you please make a video on the CO2 greenhouse effect theory? It’s a cool history. It’s one of these that can’t be proved or disproved because of the complexity and the scale of the Earth climate system, except for agreeing on what would constitute a valid, yet insufficient proof. I say that proof should be close tracking of CO2 and Temperatures.

    The theory is almost 200 years old now and I think it should be clear how fast the warming effect is supposed to track the concentration. The Sun hits the Earth 24/24h. If CO2’s greenhouse effect was in motion, it would be almost immediate.

    If the present is indeed only a moderately warm period, significantly milder than the 1930s, then the CO2 theory can’t match, not even a little bit. Therefore exposing the fraud of very recent and current records using the satellite (bloody red Arctic…) and computer generated adjusted data (massive influence of oceans temps on the mean…) is enough of a proof to collapse the whole theory.

    NASA’s CO2 curve is entirely misleading because the scale is ridiculous: we should be looking at the past 3000 yrs and the past 300 years in particular.

    The question remains: Will GISS measure enough scorching days in the Arctic to validate Mann’s hockey stick?

    Of course, if the greenhouse effect is a delayed phenomenon, we can always print more global warming predictions in the news.

    But seriously, are the theorists of the greenhouse effect held to account about the tightness of the correlation? I think so.

    Would love your take.
    Best regards.
    From a fan.

  4. D. Boss says:

    ” There are 3 kinds of lies: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics!” Popularized by Mark Twain.

    Data by itself, unmolested cannot lie. This is what Tony so carefully gathers and displays. Unaltered data.

    However if you tweak the data with all kinds of spurious reasoning, you can make the display of that falsified data and thereby the statistics look any way you want it too.

    I think the tide is turning though – more folks like Tony, with practical Engineering training or approach are speaking out or publishing papers. It is still an uphill battle though because of the ignorance, propaganda, brainwashing and huge funding imbalance against the Truth.

    “More than 1200 publications show the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global – an embarrassment to global warming alarmists who claimed it was regional”

    “NASA has conceded that climate models lack the precision required to make climate projections due to the inability to accurately model clouds.”

    Above are two examples of things getting straightened out.

  5. dearieme says:

    Would “getting milder” be expected to lead to longer growing seasons?

    P.S. I’m so old that I read some of the early GW papers (which unlike modern ones were more remarkable for their clumsiness, and perhaps incompetence, than their dishonesty).

    Anyway, they were unanimous in their prediction. Warming would occur but it would be essentially limited to nights, in winter, at high latitude. You can appreciate how politically necessary it became to replace this prediction with “you’ll all roast in hell”.

  6. rah says:

    Water Vapor? I suspect it is a considerable factor in lowering the highs and raising the lows.

  7. Advocatus Diaboli says:

    Great historical charts as usual, Tony. Just one suggestion: how about regularly including the reference/source–preferably at the bottom of each chart, but at least once somewhere in the post where the charts are shown. That way, those of us who live with alarmists can use the charts more easily.


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.