Is the United States Actually Getting Warmer?

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
Proponents of global warming alarmism place heavy reliance on the temperature record of the United States, probably the world’s best data set. They say that the record shows significant warming in the 20th century. Most global warming realists have accepted this claim, but have questioned whether this particular temperature trend–the Earth has been getting either warmer or cooler, sometimes on a far greater scale, for millions of years–has much to do with human activity.


What is less well known is that the alarmists do not rely on raw temperature data collected by American weather stations. Rather, the alarmists adjust the data before they publish it. This chart from NASA GISS, which you likely have seen before, purports to show the temperature anomaly as measured on land in the U.S. from 1880 to approximately the present:









But that graph, like virtually every discussion of American temperature trends that you have seen, uses “adjusted” temperature data, not what was actually reported from weather stations. This chart reflects raw data from the U. S. Historical Climatology Network, the same data that were the basis–pre-”adjustment”–for the chart above:









Michael Hammer, who created this chart from the raw data, writes:
Clearly the shape of this graph bears no similarity at all to the graph shown in Figure 4 [the first graph above]. The graph does not even remotely correlate to the shape of the CO2 versus time graph. The warming was greatest in the 1930’s before CO2 started to rise rapidly. The rate of rise in 1920, the early 1930’s and the early 1950’s is significantly greater than anything in the last 30 years. Despite the rapid rise in CO2 since 1960, the 1970’s to early 1980’s was the time of the global cooling scare and looking at the graph in Figure 5 one can see why (almost 2F cooling over 50 years).
It would appear that the temperature rise profile claimed by the adjusted data is largely if not entirely an artefact arising from the adjustments applied (as shown in Figure 3), not from the experimental data record. In fact, the raw data does not in any way support the AGW theory.


more




Is the United States Actually Getting Warmer? | Power Line



h/t : NewsWatchCanada.ca ~ Canadian & world breaking news and worthy comment updated 24/7...
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
547
113
Vernon, B.C.
Proponents of global warming alarmism place heavy reliance on the temperature record of the United States, probably the world’s best data set. They say that the record shows significant warming in the 20th century. Most global warming realists have accepted this claim, but have questioned whether this particular temperature trend–the Earth has been getting either warmer or cooler, sometimes on a far greater scale, for millions of years–has much to do with human activity.

I think "Global Warming" may be a misnomer, better defined as "Polar Warming". I certainly don't see any evidence of it where we live. Not to mistake "weather" for "climate", the latter is just an accumulation of the former. I'd say we are about on par to where we were 50 years ago, perhaps summers now are a tad cooler and winters may be a tad milder. :smile:
 

MapleDog

Time Out
Jun 1, 2012
1,791
0
36
St Calixte Quebec Canada
The only thing i noticed is,this winter was not as cold as the previous ones.
just got a little warmer that is all,and any doofus saying its bad for the planet,are not looking at the actual real problem,which is not "global warming" but pollution and what we throw carelessly in the environment,some of the stuff takes years if not centuries to degrade.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
The only thing i noticed is,this winter was not as cold as the previous ones.
just got a little warmer that is all,and any doofus saying its bad for the planet,are not looking at the actual real problem,which is not "global warming" but pollution and what we throw carelessly in the environment,some of the stuff takes years if not centuries to degrade.

Global warming at this stage is mostly a symptom, not the problem, but that could inevitably make it's metamorphosis this century.
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
Anywhere in Canada where there is any size airport will usually find you an environment canada weather station,you can go through the archives on their webpage and see temps and daily weather in these stations all the way back to the 1950's
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
People forget why Greenland was called "Greenland". It was called that because along it's southern coastal area, it was incredibly fertile, and was more than suitable for farming. That's why the Vikings colonized it, because it was superior to much of the available land in Norway and Sweden, and VASTLY superior to Iceland.

They farmed successfully for about 100 years, and then the climate changed, very rapidly. It became much colder, the crops began to fail, and the people began to die off. Those that survivied, did so primarily by marrying Eskimo's, and learning to live as they did.

The point of this is simply that the climate has had extreme variability over the past eons. It is not at all unusual for a warming trend (sometimes a very sudden one) to occur, and it is also not at all uncommon for a sudden cooling trend to happen.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
The first comment is "who is Michael Hammer?" He is not a climate scientist but another engineer who has grown in hat size. He does make Eli Rabbett's "Nutter" List.

Actually, his claims are absurd. All trends are of adjusted data. They smooth out internal variations.
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
People forget why Greenland was called "Greenland". It was called that because along it's southern coastal area, it was incredibly fertile, and was more than suitable for farming. That's why the Vikings colonized it, because it was superior to much of the available land in Norway and Sweden, and VASTLY superior to Iceland.

They farmed successfully for about 100 years, and then the climate changed, very rapidly. It became much colder, the crops began to fail, and the people began to die off. Those that survivied, did so primarily by marrying Eskimo's, and learning to live as they did.

The point of this is simply that the climate has had extreme variability over the past eons. It is not at all unusual for a warming trend (sometimes a very sudden one) to occur, and it is also not at all uncommon for a sudden cooling trend to happen.

It is entirely unusual for trends of that nature. All warmings and coolings prior to the present took place over very long periods of time and they have rarely been so extreme as this which is happening rapidly.

But, to your main point. Greenland was never fertile and never supported farming in the time man has been in existence. The Viking settlements were on the shores of two fjords on the SouthWest coast. There they practised subsistence farming and eked out a tenuous existence. They could not grow crops and they had no wood for building.

They did not intermarry with the native population and their eventual total collapse came because they did not learn from the native population, preferring to fight it.

The climate of Greenland was too severe at that time for any settlement other than the native one that existed and lived off the sea, chiefly.
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
I'm not ready to believe anything EC says,they are a government agency,and for all we know they may be bullsh*tting us.
You can see there is no pattern in all that archived data.

Eureka


Temperature: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Daily (°C) -36.6 -38.4 -37.4 -28 -10.9 1.9 5.4 3 -8.4 -22.3 -32 -34.5 -19.9
Daily Maximum (°C) -33.1 -35 -34.1 -23.9 -7.6 4.4 8.4 5.4 -5.5 -18.6 -28.6 -31 -16.6
Daily Minimum (°C) -40.3 -42 -40.9 -32.2 -14.5 -0.7 2.4 0.6 -11.4 -26.1 -35.6 -38.1 -23.2
Extreme Maximum (°C) -1.1 -1.1 -12.2 -2.8 6 17.8 19.4 16.7 6.1 1.7 -1.7 -2.1
Date(yyyy/dd) 1958/23 1963/05+ 1988/12 1971/26 1988/17 1957/30 1950/16 1965/03 1966/01 1955/09 1947/11 1978/23
Extreme Minimum (°C) -53.3 -55.3 -52.8 -48.9 -31.1 -13.9 -2.2 -10.5 -31.7 -41.7 -48.2 -51.7
Date(yyyy/dd) 1966/08+ 1987/18+ 1948/04 1964/08 1970/01+ 1974/05 1961/30+ 1985/16 1961/25 1953/29 1989/28 1972/19
Precipitation:
Rainfall (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 10 7.9 0.9 0 0 0 22.4
Snowfall (cm) 3.5 3.4 2.7 4.1 3.4 3.1 1 4 10.9 9.3 4.2 3.6 53.3
Precipitation (mm) 3 3 2.4 3.5 2.9 6.6 11 11.6 10.2 7.7 3.3 2.9 68
Snow Depth at Month-end (cm) 17 19 20 20 14 0 0 0 6 11 13 14
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 0 0 0 0 0.3 14.5 19.1 41.7 6.2 0 0 0
Date(yyyy/dd) 1990/31+ 1990/28+ 1990/31+ 1990/30+ 1966/30 1951/15 1961/13 1953/17 1985/18 1990/31+ 1990/30+ 1990/31+
Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm) 4.3 4.6 5.7 7.8 9.7 9.4 5.8 6.4 14.5 13.5 7 15.2
Date(yyyy/dd) 1977/10 1963/10 1980/20 1990/10 1966/10 1967/21 1976/13 1981/08 1966/19 1955/15 1979/29 1983/23
Extreme Daily Precipitation (mm) 4.3 4.6 5.1 6.6 7.4 14.5 19.1 41.7 13.7 13.5 6.7 6.2
Date(yyyy/dd) 1977/10 1963/10 1952/05 1990/10 1966/10 1951/15 1961/13 1953/17 1957/02 1955/15 1979/29 1983/23
Degree Days:
Above 18 °C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Above 5 °C 0 0 0 0 0 8.6 32.9 12.7 0 0 0 0 54
Below 0 °C 1138.8 1086.8 1166.2 842.9 342.6 23.3 0 7.6 255.6 694.4 964.3 1071.3 7594
Below 18 °C 1696.8 1595 1724.2 1382.9 899.9 484.4 390 465.6 794.3 1252.4 1504.3 1629.3 13819
Days With:
Maximum Temperature >0°C 0 0 0 0 3 25 31 29 5 * 0 0 93
Measurable Rainfall 0 0 0 0 * 3 6 5 * 0 0 0 14
Measurable Snowfall 5 4 3 5 4 2 * 3 8 8 4 4 52
Measurable Precipitation 5 4 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 4 4 61
Wind:
Speed (km/h) 9 9 8 9 12 17 17 15 12 8 7 9 11
Most Frequent Direction E E C SE SE W W W SE C C E SE
Hourly Speed (km/h) 113 95 113 85 64 70 77 74 89 100 89 103
Direction S S SE S NW S S S S NW S NW
Gust Speed (km/h) 126 115 113 102 81 93 108 101 109 83 119 107
Direction E NE S NW S E S S S N E N
Pressure:
Station Pressure (kPa) 101.48 101.70 101.89 102.00 101.75 101.14 100.91 100.91 101.17 101.30 101.61 101.44 101.44
Sunshine:
Bright Sunshine (hours) M M 113.5 358.6 511.9 409.2 357.9 242.6 97 M M M N
Humidity:
Vapour Pressure (kPa) M M M N 0.23 0.54 0.66 0.61 0.31 N N M N


Legend
+ = most recent occurrence of the extreme value
M = no data for the period
* = quantity is less than one
N or X = data exists, but not enough to derive a value
 

Cabbagesandking

Council Member
Apr 24, 2012
1,041
0
36
Ontario
You can see there is no pattern in all that archived data.

Eureka


Temperature: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year
Daily (°C) -36.6 -38.4 -37.4 -28 -10.9 1.9 5.4 3 -8.4 -22.3 -32 -34.5 -19.9
Daily Maximum (°C) -33.1 -35 -34.1 -23.9 -7.6 4.4 8.4 5.4 -5.5 -18.6 -28.6 -31 -16.6
Daily Minimum (°C) -40.3 -42 -40.9 -32.2 -14.5 -0.7 2.4 0.6 -11.4 -26.1 -35.6 -38.1 -23.2
Extreme Maximum (°C) -1.1 -1.1 -12.2 -2.8 6 17.8 19.4 16.7 6.1 1.7 -1.7 -2.1
Date(yyyy/dd) 1958/23 1963/05+ 1988/12 1971/26 1988/17 1957/30 1950/16 1965/03 1966/01 1955/09 1947/11 1978/23
Extreme Minimum (°C) -53.3 -55.3 -52.8 -48.9 -31.1 -13.9 -2.2 -10.5 -31.7 -41.7 -48.2 -51.7
Date(yyyy/dd) 1966/08+ 1987/18+ 1948/04 1964/08 1970/01+ 1974/05 1961/30+ 1985/16 1961/25 1953/29 1989/28 1972/19
Precipitation:
Rainfall (mm) 0 0 0 0 0 3.7 10 7.9 0.9 0 0 0 22.4
Snowfall (cm) 3.5 3.4 2.7 4.1 3.4 3.1 1 4 10.9 9.3 4.2 3.6 53.3
Precipitation (mm) 3 3 2.4 3.5 2.9 6.6 11 11.6 10.2 7.7 3.3 2.9 68
Snow Depth at Month-end (cm) 17 19 20 20 14 0 0 0 6 11 13 14
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 0 0 0 0 0.3 14.5 19.1 41.7 6.2 0 0 0
Date(yyyy/dd) 1990/31+ 1990/28+ 1990/31+ 1990/30+ 1966/30 1951/15 1961/13 1953/17 1985/18 1990/31+ 1990/30+ 1990/31+
Extreme Daily Snowfall (cm) 4.3 4.6 5.7 7.8 9.7 9.4 5.8 6.4 14.5 13.5 7 15.2
Date(yyyy/dd) 1977/10 1963/10 1980/20 1990/10 1966/10 1967/21 1976/13 1981/08 1966/19 1955/15 1979/29 1983/23
Extreme Daily Precipitation (mm) 4.3 4.6 5.1 6.6 7.4 14.5 19.1 41.7 13.7 13.5 6.7 6.2
Date(yyyy/dd) 1977/10 1963/10 1952/05 1990/10 1966/10 1951/15 1961/13 1953/17 1957/02 1955/15 1979/29 1983/23
Degree Days:
Above 18 °C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Above 5 °C 0 0 0 0 0 8.6 32.9 12.7 0 0 0 0 54
Below 0 °C 1138.8 1086.8 1166.2 842.9 342.6 23.3 0 7.6 255.6 694.4 964.3 1071.3 7594
Below 18 °C 1696.8 1595 1724.2 1382.9 899.9 484.4 390 465.6 794.3 1252.4 1504.3 1629.3 13819
Days With:
Maximum Temperature >0°C 0 0 0 0 3 25 31 29 5 * 0 0 93
Measurable Rainfall 0 0 0 0 * 3 6 5 * 0 0 0 14
Measurable Snowfall 5 4 3 5 4 2 * 3 8 8 4 4 52
Measurable Precipitation 5 4 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 8 4 4 61
Wind:
Speed (km/h) 9 9 8 9 12 17 17 15 12 8 7 9 11
Most Frequent Direction E E C SE SE W W W SE C C E SE
Hourly Speed (km/h) 113 95 113 85 64 70 77 74 89 100 89 103
Direction S S SE S NW S S S S NW S NW
Gust Speed (km/h) 126 115 113 102 81 93 108 101 109 83 119 107
Direction E NE S NW S E S S S N E N
Pressure:
Station Pressure (kPa) 101.48 101.70 101.89 102.00 101.75 101.14 100.91 100.91 101.17 101.30 101.61 101.44 101.44
Sunshine:
Bright Sunshine (hours) M M 113.5 358.6 511.9 409.2 357.9 242.6 97 M M M N
Humidity:
Vapour Pressure (kPa) M M M N 0.23 0.54 0.66 0.61 0.31 N N M N


Legend
+ = most recent occurrence of the extreme value
M = no data for the period
* = quantity is less than one
N or X = data exists, but not enough to derive a value
I have no idea what you mean. There is a trend in the data. It is adjusted as all data is to filter out anomalies when looking for trends..
 

Kakato

Time Out
Jun 10, 2009
4,929
21
38
Alberta/N.W.T./Sask/B.C
I have no idea what you are geting at or what all that mass of data that you give no explanation for is supposed to convey7.
Go to the link,the data's there from many years ago,notice any trends?
I did right away,for instance it gets cold in the winter and warm in the summer every year.
No change in total rainfall,winds,etc etc year after year....or is this data supposedly corrupted?

I remember some of those years,looks accurate to me.
 
Last edited: