And the cooling continues. Sorry – I mean that Global Warming is an imminent threat to humankind.
And remember, these are the official figures. With the poor placement of stations (91 % of the stations are CRN 3 to 5 = bad to very poor); where they have purposely taken away the urban heat island effect;, tweak, processes and “adjusted the data; GISS for example uses 1200 km smoothing (which assumes that the weather in London somehow directly affects the weather in Monaco) etc.
For the April figures see my post:
US Temperature during the recent 12 Month period – the same as in 1898
For the March figures see my post:
Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 357
For the February figures see my post:
Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 347
For the January figures see my post:
Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 287
For the December figures see my post:
Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 207
May temperature 1895-2010
“The average temperature in May 2010 was 60.8 F. This was -0.2 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 50th coolest May in 116 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.”
This year, the May temperature is -4.6 F cooler than 1934, the warmest May. And if we compare this year’s May with 1936, the second warmest May, it is -3.38 F cooler.
If we compare with 1896 this year’s May is -2.39 F cooler.
This year, the May temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1895! AND 1904. In fact it is 0.19 F COOLER. One fifth of a degree cooler in 115 years.
That’s what I call WARMING!
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Click on the graphs for a larger image
And the recent 3 Month period (Mar-May) 1895-2010.
This year, the Mar-May temperature is -1.9 F cooler than for example 1910. And if we compare this years Mar-May temperature with 2004 it is -1.78 F cooler.
This year, 2010 (Mar-May), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1936! In fact it is 0.08 F COOLER. One tenth of a degree cooler in 74 years.
Another glorious example of the catastrophic warming in the last 116 years!
And the recent 12 Month period (Jun-May) 1895-2010
This year, 2009/2010 (Jun-May), was the 53th coolest in 116 years
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.49 F cooler than for example 2000. And if we compare with 1934 it is -2.2 F cooler.
This year, 2009 /2010 (Jun-May), the temperature is EXACTLY THE SAME AS IN 1908! AND 1910. AND 1963. In fact it is 0.02 F Warmer. One fiftieth of a degree warmer in 102 years.
Puh, that what I call an imminent treat to humankind!
1/50 of a degree WARMER in 102 years
And the recent 12 Month period (May-Apr) 1895-2010 for states.
I thought it would be interesting to compare states with the national figures for the recent 12 months.
Arkansas
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.3 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1955 it is -3.7 F cooler.
California
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.4 F cooler than for example 1997. And if we compare with 1934 it is -1.9 F cooler.
Georgia
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.5 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1922 it is -3.6 F cooler.
Indiana
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.7 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1922 it is -2.5 F cooler.
Kentucky
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -4.2 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1935 it is -3.6 F cooler.
Massachusetts
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -1.7 F cooler than for example 2002. And if we compare with 1898 it is -2.2 F cooler.
New Mexico
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -2.8 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1902 it is -2.3 F cooler.
Washington
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -1,4 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1992 it is -1,3 F cooler.
West Virginia
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -3.5 F cooler than for example 1932. And if we compare with 1974 it is -2.5 F cooler.
Wyoming
This year, the recent 12 Month period temperature is -5.5 F cooler than for example 1934. And if we compare with 1981 it is -3.8 F cooler.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by . said: [...]
Ok. Now that I have some time to address your comment….
“Cherry-Picking” is the selective dishonest use of data to support a position.
Let’s look at your charts. You led off with a *single annual data point* (1 year average temp) for the US (not the world) and tried to imply it somehow put AGW in doubt. It was your freaking HEADLINE: US Temperature during the recent 12 Month period – the same as in 1908.
But what is the reality behind assertion? Lets start with your use of temperature for climate analysis.
What is the appropriate time interval for climate analysis? 30 years. What was your interval? 1 year. That is only 3% of the appropriate time span.
What was the area you used? The US. Which covers less than 2%</i< of the Earth's surface.
Why only one year? Why only the US? Because it allowed you to make climate claims/implications completely unsupported by the data!. And it only got worse from there as you picked out individual US states, and even went all the way down to individual months to find “evidence”.
Let’s see what happens when you change the window to the correct window of 30 years and use global temperatures (remember it is Global Warming we are talking about). The annual global anomaly data is available right from ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat for those who want to play at home.
Starting with the global annual data we get this: Global Annual Temperature Anomaly 1880-2009. And then moving on to the 30 Year Trailing Average Global Annual Temperature Anomaly 1910-2009.
Hmmm…Isn’t that wierd. It doesn’t show the SLIGHTEST indication of cooling.
What you did was dig down into local (and yes, even “The US” is local in this context) annual and even monthly weather noise to find “evidence” that supported your position on climate. That is egregious cherry-picking. It is as if you looked at a lawn and used a few selected individual blades of grass to say what height the entire lawn had been cut to. It is utterly meaningless.
Strike one for you.
Moving on to the assertion that ‘Global Warming Hysterics where (sic) the ones that mentioned EVERYTHING that happened to the weather as a “proof” of their hysteria.’ Provide a references for even ONE actual climatologist who said ” was caused by global warming.”
Statements of “is consistent with” don’t count because they are what you get when the the press tries to get a headline and the scientists say something like “Individual weather events cannot be linked to AGW. But an increase in type events is consistent with expectations for AGW”. Which the press trims down to a headline minus all the qualifications. It is interesting how you did the same by implication with your links.
“Camels” : The scientists repeatedly say they do not know why the camels died. They list several possibilities that they are investigating.
“Brothels” : Not a single reference to a scientist. It is a three sentence fluff piece. What “proof” is being offered?
“written and Complained” : Al Gore. Really. Not a scientist, doesn’t claim to be one, certainly doesn’t have any data to be released. He has nothing to do with this question. As for Mann and Hansen, not a shred of evidence on display that they have ‘cherry-picked’ anything. It doesn’t matter if you wrote a million letters. Anyone can write letters about anything. It is utterly irrelevant to the question “Did you cherry-pick the data for your post?” The answer to which is clearly “YES“. If the best defense you can give are allegations of ‘tu quoque’, you aren’t going to get very far. Mann and Hansen didn’t post your article: You did.
Strike two.
Wow. Can you you abuse numbers any harder? You don’t have “325 years of data” You have, at best, 110 years (and in some places only that many months) of selected data carefully picked over for anything where a single year/month/state might have a single data point higher in the past than today. If you can’t find what you want in the global data, you got to national data. If you can’t find what you want in annual data, you go to monthly. And not even once did you use the data appropriately.
Your ‘methodology’ is try as many different ways of extracting data as you can until you get something where 2009 is lower than something in the past.
It is dishonest. It is the definition of “cherry-picking”.
“Trend lines”: You carefully disabled them from plotting on the graphs, where they would make it OBVIOUS you were cherry-picking the final data point. The NOAA tool plots the trend lines by default - you have to deliberately turn them off. But you can’t turn off the text version. There isn’t an option for it. You carefully picked data sets where the last data point was lower than some previous data - but you couldn’t fix the fact that the *trend* was still up. But you could do your best to hide it. And you did.
As for the “Hockey Stick” crack, are you trying to imply that the trend lines *which are derived from the very chart data you are using* can’t be trusted?. If so, why are you even using the data since you don’t trust it? And if not, why did you bring it up? What possible relevance does it have? Or are you just trying another “Look! Isn’t that Michael Jackson over there?!” move?
Strike three.
The reason AGW denialists go unchallenged so often is because they engage in the Gish Gallop and it is extremely frustrating. Sophiaalbertina engaged in a classic example of it here. Stripped of her attempts to drag the conversation off in every direction with random half-truths, irrelevancies, and the like, the core question remains:
Did she dis-honestly cherry-pick her data to present a false picture?
And, without a doubt, the answer to that is “Yes.”
Usually I don’t comment when these Global warming hysterics come along and leave such “intelligent” comments. But there are limits.
“Cherry picking” I don think you even vaguely understand the true meaning of this word. And it’s very interesting coming from a global warming hysteric who systematically has “Cherry picked” even the most extreme and bizarre event as a proof of “manmade” global warming.
(See my posts: Orsaken till ALLT elände i världen!, Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 328, Climate Gate – All the manipulations and lies revealed 201
“And remember that the Global Warming Hysterics where the ones that mentioned EVERYTHING that happened to the weather as a “proof” of their hysteria.
In fact they blamed EVERYTHING on Global Warming, from camel deaths to staff shortages in brothels struggle.
And NOW they are ”suddenly” saying “the weather should not be used as evidence against climate change”.
Yea sure! The blatant hypocrisy from these so called “scientists” is staggering.”
(See also this picture http://uddebatt.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/cartoon-gw-causes-stuff.jpg)
So when you have written and complained to Al Gore, M Mann, J Hansen (the TRUE Masters on this subject) etc about their systematically “cherry picking” and “tweaking” of data for ALL THESE YEARS, and you show me the copy of these letters here; then, and only then, do you have an inkling of trustworthiness when you speak of “Cherry picking”.
As for my post you have 345 years of combined data. Combined with my other posts its 1725 years of data. The data for the states from my last two posts alone represents 2185 years of data. And each dot represents 12 months. If THAT is “Cherry picking” ….
“Turning off the default trend line” Sigh!
These are the same “trend lines” as a la the hockey stick. Very trustworthy wouldn’t you say. There in PLAIN SIGHT for every one to see and read in EVERY ONE of the graphs is the line “Trend=0.02 degF / Decade”
But that of course presumes that you can interpret and read graphs.
And finally “Not that I expect you will actually let my comment stand” Sigh again! This is sooo typical from a true believer. They judge others by their own preferences.
No, this is not realclimate where they systematically erase comments that don’t fit their agenda. Here we allow even “very intelligent” comments like these below.
Thanks Ben
It appears that Bayonet not only selects their data carefully but can`t read properly to begin with. Makes you wonder why Currie would chose them as a source to begin with.
However, Jay Currie, who was the person harebell was referring to in their post (if you check the post that is where ‘Canadian right’ is linked to), is Canadian.
So, yes. *Do* pay attention to those pesky details.
Just a minor correction, Sofiaalbertina hails from Europe.
It’s just a detail, I see you’re not so good with those.
[...] utterance from a true representative of the intellectual honesty of these idiots can be found here. Those on the deluded Canadian right hold them up as experts so let’s check it [...]
ha ha
January looks a lot warmer though if we’re going to cherry pick.
So intellectual honesty has finally shuffled of this mortal coil for wingnuts hey?
Not that I expect you will actually let my comment stand, but:
1) Cherry-picking US data looking for single data points to ‘challenge’ AGW is dishonest. Climate is a long term (20 to 30 year time scales, and longer) thing - not a short term one: The temps for *one specific month in one specific year* has about the same relation to climate on time scales where climate is applicable as the temps for 5 minutes of the day has to the weather for an entire day. What matters is the *trend*, not the instant to instant numbers. Which brings us to my second point.
2) Turning off the default trend line from the NOAA tool to prevent it from inconveniently clearly showing that the chart you are using has solid upward trend is definitely in the dishonest category.
Given all that, enjoy a chuckle with this…
http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2010/06/13/agw-comedy-gold-temperature-accuracy-doesnt-matter/