NOAA claims that 2012 had the largest area of hot temperatures on record in the US, by a wide margin.
2012 wasn’t even close. 1936 and 1934 both had much more extensive 100 degree coverage than 2012, and 1901 did too.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Richard E Fritz on HUD Climate Advisor
- Richard E Fritz on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Robertvd on Ellen Flees To The UK
Here’s the answer:
“Stations chosen for use in the CEI must have a low percentage of missing data within each year as well as for the entire period of record. Data used were adjusted for inhomogeneities: a priori adjustments included observing time biases (Karl et al. 1986), urban heat island effects (Karl et al. 1988), and the bias introduced by the introduction of the maximum-minimum thermistor and its instrument shelter (Quayle et al. 1991); a posteriori adjustments included station and instrumentation changes (Karl and Williams 1987). In April 2008, maximum and minimum temperature data from the USHCN were replaced by the revised USHCN version 2 dataset. In October 2012, a refined USHCN version 2.5 was released and replaced version 2 data for maximum and minimum temperature indicators.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/data_used
I wonder what the criteria for “missing data” is? i.e. do they include the “E” figures, or not?
Those are monthly data, and wouldn’t be much use for this exercise. Also, there wasn’t much missing data prior to 1990.
I wonder what their criteria for “Unusually Hot Summer Temperatures” is. Maybe the definition is the temps only exist in models or the wishes of secret societies..
that was my immediate reaction, I’d like to see the ruler they used at each time period for “unusually”. I bet a good steak dinner that the ruler was mutable over time.
Climategate emails that surfaced in late November 2009 were but the tip of a gigantic iceberg of government deceit – disguised as consensus science by federal research agencies and leading American universities and research institutions after WWI in order to:
a.) Take totalitarian control of society worldwide;
b.) Save the world from possible nuclear annihilation; and
c.) Hide public knowledge of the FORCE that powers the cosmos:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/The_FORCE.pdf
World leaders foolishly assumed for themselves the power of total control:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt-nyuMfi1Y&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop
Reblogged this on wwlee4411 and commented:
The truth comes out. How can we believe what we’re told now.
According to the UKMET Off extreme events are much more common and their climate model foresee this getting worse. Stupid cow interviewed on BBC. Of course;
So they finally admitted that CAGW causes an increase in extremism…
absolutely! more extreme stupidity and it’ll get worse
Just reported today, Britain is going to see FROST this week!
You are taking the scientific approach of using an exact measurement (100 degree), whereas the NOAA is taking a very vague approach of “unusually hot” which could mean many different things. I imagine that there isn’t anyplace where NOAA defines the criteria to be considered “unusually hot,” right?
For example, a site that hits 100 degrees fairly often would not be counted as “unusually hot” if it hits 102 but a site that is usually 70 degrees could be considered “unusually hot” if it hit 80 degrees. The NOAA data is just plain useless.
Unfortunately, the scientific approach is totally alien to the current scientific estaishment.
Our research institutions became rich by finding 99%-consensus “scientific evidence” for anything government leaders wanted them to find.
————————-
“Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” – Michael Crichton
————————-
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” – Michael Crichton
Yes, Michael Crichton figured out what was happening long before I recognized the hand of Stalin in post-1945 “science.”
Sixty-nine years of quiet deceit now seems to be spirling into an ancient crash conclusion:
“Truth is victorious, never untruth.”
Secure your spiritual seat belts!
awww come on Shanna, you got something against the application of the Universal Variable Constant in weather reporting?? Tsk, tsk. [*smirks behind hand*]
Its from the diurnal minimums being higher due to UHI and being smeared into surrounding areas by the homogenization processes into average the temps; ergo, hotter…NOT@!@!