One of the big lies of 2012 is that March and July were the hottest ever in the US. According to GHCN HCN daily temperatures, those records were actually set more than 100 years ago, in 1910 and 1901.
The decade with the most record monthly maximum temperatures, was the 1930s. Ten months set their all time record below 350 ppm CO2.
Jan 2006 3.9C Feb 1954 5.7C Mar 1910 10.7C Apr 1915 13.6C May 1934 18.8C Jun 1933 22.8C Jul 1901 25.8C Aug 1936 24.5C Sep 1931 21.0C Oct 1963 12.9C Nov 1999 9.2C Dec 1939 3.7C
The 1930s also had the most daily record maximum temperatures.
Comparing temperatures should not be rocket science. There is no indication that thermometers were less accurate in 1936. There is no case for adjusting temps upward with time, especially with the increased UHI effect over time. Plus addtional heat from AC exhaust, vehicles, etc.
But, but, but,
we all know the Einstein’s generation
while good rocket scientists and nuclear folk
couldn’t read a thermometer worth a d****
2012 isn’t even in the top 10, which would be expected every 11.7 years, if totally stable. It hasn’t happened since 1953. That’s a pretty good indication that US temperatures have been falling on average (just as the rest of the data shows).
Hansen would have agreed 10 years ago.
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2012/11/27/how-giss-corrupt-us-temperatures/
Day 1 in year 1 of temperature records will set a maximum temperature record regardless of what that temperature may be.
As time goes on, it becomes less and less likely to set temperature records, so it is just common sense that more temperature records were set in the past. What is more important to know is what the actual temperatures were. Compare those temperatures of the 30s to those of this past year and by using that measure, March and July 2012 were the hottest in recorded American history.
Stop being a moron and read the text “all time record maximums set or tied” There is no time bias in the graph. Does it look to you like every station set a record in year 1?
According to the NCDC posted on Sept 10, 2012:
“The summer of 2012 was the 3rd hottest summer in U.S. history, said NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in today’s State of the Climate report. June 2012 ranked as the 14th warmest June on record, August was the 16th warmest August on record, and JULY WAS THE WARMEST MONTH IN U.S HISTORY, bringing the average summer temperature of the contiguous U.S. just 0.2°F shy of the hottest summer on record–the great Dust Bowl summer of 1936. Second place is held by 2011, which was just 0.1°F cooler than the summer of 1936. So far in 2012, WE’VE HAD THE WARMEST MARCH ON RECORD, 3rd warmest April, 2nd warmest May, and warmest July. These remarkably warm months have helped push temperatures in the contiguous U.S. to the warmest on record for the year-to-date period of January – August. Temperatures this year in the U.S. have been so far above the previous record–a remarkable 1°F for the year-to-date period–that even if the remainder of 2012 ranks historically in the coldest one-third of September – Decembers on record, 2012 WILL BEAT OUT 1998 FOR THE WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD. Reliable weather records for the U.S. go back to 1895.”
And so I repeat: “What is more important to know is what the actual temperatures were. Compare those temperatures of the 30s to those of this past year and by using that measure, March and July 2012 were the hottest in recorded American history.”
Brewsky, the point Steve is making is that the raw temperature data doesn’t support the claim that there was any sort of record set recently. The other point he made is that the adjusted data now has very little relationship (correlation) with the original thermometer data, suggesting the adjusted temperature data has actually corrupted the temperature record, not corrected it.
I have written dozens of posts detailing that NCDC has massively manipulated the data (three degrees) to generate those claims, and that there were many summers warmer than 2012.
I am well aware that NCDC can do whatever they want and that useful idiots will parrot it back.
“so it is just common sense that more temperature records were set in the past…”
If the planet is warming there should be more temperature records set in the present, not the past. That’s the common sense bit.
“Me fail English? Unpossible!”
Each year, scientists from several major institutions—NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the Japanese Meteorological Agency, and the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom—tally the temperature data collected at stations around the world and make INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENTS about whether the year was warm or cool compared to previous years.
All four records above show peaks and valleys in sync with each other. All show particularly rapid warming in the past few decades. And all show the last decade as the warmest.
“The official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data,” said Reto Ruedyof GISS. “But they also AGREE EXTRAORDINARILY WELL.”
Now throw in the Watt’s own Surface Station Study, satellite records and the BEST study, which analyzed literally billions of data points, and you have 3 more data sets which closely agree with records from NOAA, NASA, HadCRU and JMA. The odds of one institution, the NCDC, manipulating data and still remaining in agreement with 6 other studies are greater than winning lotto 5 times in a row.
To parphrase: “I am well aware that there are useful idiots willing to believe the narrative that Steven Goddard wishes to peddle”
The data is all available online and there is no question that the NCDC and GISS US data is being massively manipulated and in no way resembles what they were reporting in 1999
If you think that coming over here and spewing bullshit is going to impress anyone, you are sorely mistaken.
Bullshit? Publish some of your papers — in a reputable journal — get them peer-reviewed and then we can talk about what is BS and what is not.
Do you have some sort of mental block which keeps you from looking at the data for yourself? You could reproduce this graph in five minutes.
All the links you need are right here
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/18/nasa-rewriting-us-history/
Publish then peer-review Steven — then everyone will see how right you are. What is stopping you?
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/29/the-paper-vs-data-scam/
Drewski isn’t smart enough to look at the data himself. He jumps right to the conclusions in the journal articles so he knows what to say when he needs to impress his boyfriends.
“Publish then peer-review Steven — then everyone will see how right you are. What is stopping you?”
Frankly, I’d be happy if GHCN HCN was published in a peer reviewed journal with all their calculations laid up and their results relocatable. But they would never let sceptics at their calculations…
“replicable” 😉
Wow. Steven Goddard references another of his own papers to prove how right is is. Why am I not surprised?
Eric, I personally believe that raw data needs correction to account for such things as evolving measurement instruments and to homogenize time of observation. And the vast majority of scientists agree with me. Therefore, I don’t trust Goddard when he makes broad pronouncements about the integrity of raw data and the honesty of everyone else but himself.
If he has such strong data and solid scientific arguments, then do what every other person who wants to be taken seriously do — publish and peer-review. Two simple things that have done more to increase knowledge than anything else in human history.
Steven owes it to humanity. Again, what is stopping him?
I gave you links to the raw data. In the time you spent writing your moronic response, you could have checked the data for yourself.
Are you mentally deficient?
You owe it to humanity to prove me wrong. What are you waiting for?
Sounds like a cop out to me. Why don’t you publish? You have written thousands of articles and you purport to understand data — it should be simple. Watts did it (of course, he didn’t get the results he expected) so why don’t you?
BTW, I always look at your data, but sometimes I don’t agree with your conclusions. Like in this particular case. Its just that I tend to accept papers that are published by real scientists in real scientific journals and then vetted by experts rather than self-serving diatribes published on blog sites. Call me strange, but it just the way I am.
If I am incorrect, you can prove me wrong in five minutes. The exercise is trivial.
You owe it to the world to prove that Steve Goddard is full of shit. The climate depends on you.
Go for it. Graph the data for yourself.
Steve, the 30’s could have set 1 million records and the last decade only 1 hundred and yet it is still possible for the last decade to be warmer so, by that measure, it is effectively meaningless. therefore, i will not argue that point. What is meaningful, to establish a trend, is the absolute temperatures and for which the NCDC says that March and July 2012 were the warmest MONTHS in the data record.
But you don’t trust the “adjusted” data record even though the adjusted data record is in close agreement 6 other data sets including Watts, BEST and even the satellite record which does not have the same biases. So it would appear, to a sane and rational person, that the NCDC adjustments were, indeed, necessary and, apparently, done properly.
But, if you strongly believe that you are right and that the NCDC is manipulating the data (to some bizarre end) then you should get out from your little echo chamber and scientifically, by publishing and peer-review) prove your point.
Isn’t it time to step up and be taken seriously?
Why would I believe you? Where are your citations? Aren’t you just making crap up?
What citations would you like? I have already provided a citation from GISS on the agreement of JMA, NCDC, NASA and HadCRU. I regards to maximum records, its simple logic. If the maximum records in the 30’s were 100 degrees with the average of 80 degrees and the much-fewer records in the 2000’s were 101 degrees but the average was in the 90s then you just need to use your brain.
Or you could simply use data records and trust that the adjustments that were made were necessary. If you don’t trust the adjusted data records, then you will also have to distrust Watts’ Surface Station Study, the extremely robust Koch-funded BEST study and the satellite records which are all in agreement with the adjusted NCDC data.
Or, I suppose, you could believe in a decades-long super conspiracy involving communist, Buddhist, atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Democrat, and Republican scientists from more than 100 different countries, speaking dozens of different languages and representing a score of different scientific disciplines who all wanted to take your tax dollars away from you. Now that would be the very definition of moronic.
And the Coolwhip Cowboy is back! 😆