Note the rank highlighted in yellow. The pulldown menu gives you an idea of what was the warmest year in the USA from this data, arrows added: Posted on 01/15/2011 9:53:36 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
While there’s been a lot of attention given to the recent NOAA and NASA press releases stating that 2010 was tied for the warmest year globally, it didn’t meet that criteria in the USA by a significant margin according the the data directly available to the public from the NOAA National Climatic Data Center. (NCDC)
Here’s the graph of USA mean annual temperature from 1895-2010 produced by NCDC’s interactive climate database and graph generator, which you can operate yourself here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
Note the rank highlighted in yellow. The pulldown menu gives you an idea of what was the warmest year in the USA from this data, arrows added:
Here’s the partial table output (you can use their online selector to output your own table) sorted by rank from NCDC web page. 1998 leads, followed by 2006, and then 1934. 2010 is quite a ways down, ranking 94th out of 116.
Climate At A Glance
Year to Date (Jan – Dec) Temperature
Contiguous United States
Year |
Temperature
|
Rank
|
Rank
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 55.08 | 116 | 116 | |
| 2006 | 55.04 |
|
115 | 115 |
| 1934 | 54.83 | 114 | 114 | |
| 1999 |
|
54.67 | 113 | 113 |
| 1921 | 54.53 | 112 | 112 | |
| 2001 | 54.41 | 111 | 111 | |
| 2007 | 54.38 | 110 |
|
110 |
| 2005 | 54.36 | 109 | 109 | |
| 1990 | 54.29 |
|
108 | 108 |
| 1931 | 54.29 | 108 | 108 | |
| 1953 |
|
54.16 | 106 | 106 |
| 1987 | 54.11 | 105 | 105 | |
| 1954 | 54.11 | 105 | 105 | |
| 1986 | 54.09 | 103 |
|
103 |
| 2003 | 54.02 | 102 | 102 | |
| 1939 | 54.01 |
|
101 | 101 |
| 2000 | 54.00 | 100 | 100 | |
| 2002 |
|
53.94 | 99 | 99 |
| 1938 | 53.94 | 99 | 99 | |
| 1991 | 53.90 | 97 | 97 | |
| 1981 | 53.90 | 97 |
|
97 |
| 2004 | 53.84 | 95 | 95 | |
| 2010 | 53.76 |
|
94 | 94 |
| 1933 | 53.74 | 93 | 93 | |
| 1946 |
|
53.72 | 92 | 92 |
| 1994 | 53.64 | 91 | 91 | |
| 1900 | 53.53 | 90 | 90 |
*Highest temperature rank denotes the hottest year for the period.
Lowest temperature rank denotes the coldest year for the period.
Data used to calculate Contiguous United States mean temperatures are from the USHCN version 2 data set.
Of course there is no mention of the USA temperature ranking in the recent press release from NOAA. The only mention of the USA in that PR that comes close is this:
In the contiguous United States, 2010 was the 14th consecutive year with an annual temperature above the long-term average. Since 1895, the temperature across the nation has increased at an average rate of approximately 0.12 F per decade.
There’s no mention of the 2010 ranking for the USA temperature at all, nor any mention of the fact that 2010 was not nearly as warm as 1998, or 1934. I find that more than a little odd for an agency whose mission is to serve the American people with accurate and representative climate data.
They couldn’t find room for a sentence or two to mention the USA historical temperature rank for 2010? Apparently not.
2010 ties for warmest year, emissions to blame
And :
USA is not the globe. There is more to it than our country.
Either all the data from 3rd world countries a commie nations is being purposely faked to try and extort money from the west.
or
The environmental nut-jobs are purposely altering the data to get the results they want to forward their agenda.
Because anywhere and everywhere that the data can be collaborated shows that things have been getting MUCH colder for over a decade now.
**************************************EXCERPT********************************************
Kate says:
This is nothing less than an attempt to re-write history.
It has long been a thorn in the AGW propagandists’ side to be asked the question why was the warmest year of the 20th century 1934 and not (say) 1995? It seems they have now figured out their answer, or rather two possible answers to this inconvenient quesiton:
1.) Ignore and/or remove any and all references to the 1934 data.
or
2.) Use their massive computing power to “massage” the 1934 temperature downwards while “massaging” the 1998 (or some other year) upwards.
- And Voilà! Now the data fits the theory!
The 100+ year trend of "global temperature" is anything but a trend of "global temperature".
The earlier years rely heavily on "proxy data" which includes USA as proxy.
Only within the satellite generation has a true, evenly spaced sampling of global temperature existed. Everything before this was uneven in it's sampling which puts more weight on samples taken in civilized land areas, including the USA and Europe where proxy data was taken despite not knowing if it truly represented those areas without data in the year in question.
In short, the trend means nothing, especially in light of the fact that the temperature change they are all up in a tizzy over is so small.
**********************************EXCERPT*************************************************
An Inquirer says:
I am confident that if their calculations showed the USA temperature to be a record and the global temperature to be 94th out of the 116, then the press release would have been all about the national temperature. They have an agenda to push and will emphasize what supports their agenda.
Speaking of the global temperature, the CAGW movement has frequently referred to the 2010 El Nino as a mild El Nino. This characterization is misleading. Not only was it a significant El Nino, its effect lasted an extraordinary time outside of the NINO 3.4 SST window.
A request to Anthony or posters: when a temperature series is the main point of a post, it would be great to have a little reference on what adjustments are made to that series. For example, GISS has its adjustment for UHI and TOBS. NCDC is adjusted for TOBS, but not for UHI.
*****************************************EXCERPT****************************************
Wondering Aloud says:
jimmi
All of these comparisons are made using wildly adjusted (read fudged or altered or faked) data sets. The entire warmth of 2010 is extremely questionable and largely isolated in the Hudson Bay area. It is not just the USA that is or has been cold.
In addition the constant retroactive adjusting of the historical data makes all of these comparisons completely meaningless propaganda exercises. The last decade is not particularly warm compared to the prefudged data of the 1930s. Your statement that 1934 was only locally warm is unsupportable in light of the known bias and post hoc adjustments in the data sets
****************************************EXCERPT*********************************************
Michael says:
The Man-Made Global Warming Conspiracy.!
We live in the age of conspiracies while at the same time being socially engineered to ignore them through the use of crafty language. Words like “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” are designed to make you feel bad about exploring deeper into the subject presented. You now instinctively turn away from the topic whenever you here these words out of someones mouth, as if you’ve been hypnotized to do so. No words will set your mind at ease and allow you to delve into the issue further. Through constant repetition of the feel bad words, you are very controlled. Not even when the words are corrected to indicate the true nature of the exercise with such words as “Conspiracy Researcher”, will your mind be put at ease. Continue reading at your own risk.
Senator Barbara Boxer adds this hyperbole in a desperate attempt to get her colleagues to push her cap-and-tax(trade) bill forward in the Senate, and the ridiculous claim that CO2 will somehow cause us more war;
“I’m going to put in the record, Madam President, a host of quotes from our national security experts who tell us that carbon pollution leading to climate change will be over the next 20 years the leading cause of conflict, putting our troops in harm’s way.” National security experts? What do they know that we don’t? Ridiculous? Maybe not, if some people don’t get what they want.
The awakening has arrived. Renaissance 2.0 has begun. The covers have been blown off one of the biggest conspiracies in the history of the world. The entire planet had been sucked into the greatest scientific hoax of all time. The man-made global warming conspiracy theory was proven with help from the release of Climategate e-mails from the University of East Anglia in England on November 20th 2009. To todays date, no one knows who the hackers are, but that’s beside the point. The blogosphere and alternative media crowd sourced the information at a rapid pace. It is one of the most researched conspiracies known to man.
Most of the actors in the conspiracy were unwitting participants due to the compartmental nature of their duties, as most conspiracies are designed to work. They are eager participants and accessories to the conspiracy. The man-made global warming theory, also known as CAGW, was devised as a social engineering experiment to create the backbone of the one world government. It was to be a major component of the financing for the new world order.
Accepters of the unproven AGW theory blindly accepted the notion well before many of the facts were in. They call me a denier. I am an accepter of the AGW conspiracy theory now that it has been proven, while I deny the theory of man-made global warming due to the flawed science behind it.
The mainstream media is complicit in covering up the conspiracy for refusing to discuss the Climategate emails on prime time TV and promoting the theory as fact to the masses for their corporate overlords pocketbooks. They are the social engineers mouth pieces and co-conspirators with the upper echelon of players in this case.
(This is a work in progress) Any thoughts?
******************************************EXCERPT*******************************************
Owen says:
While it may be that the US is a small part of the global land mass, it is also the portion with the most consistent and documented instrumentation (and even that documentation has problems). Much of the data for the rest of the world (Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand being exceptions) is simulated by statistically smearing the few sensors that exist over the land mass. So while it may be a small part of the globe, combined with the reliable sensors in western Europe and Australia and New Zealand, it gives a pretty reliable snapshot. If it is getting colder in US and western Europe, that gives a good idea of Northern Hemisphere activity. If it is getting cooler or staying fairly constant in New Zealand and Australia, that gives a good idea of the Southern Hemisphere. Now if we can work on getting the instrumentation more robust in the rest of the world, we will be able to make some good projections – and in about 1,000 years there will be enough reliable data to make some good time series statistics.
Nicely stated.
****************************************EXCERPT********************************************
David L. says:
I used official weather data for Philadelphia PA from the Franklin Institute going back to 1872. I plotted the daily minimum and daily maximum temperature (in deg F) as a function of day from 1872 to present (49052 data points) and fit to a line using linear regression. Slope was 0.000062 +/- 0.000011
Next I averaged all data for a given year and plotted the average as a function of year and fit to a line: slope was -0.00085 +/- 0.0070
Then I fit the entire daily temperature going back to 1872 with a sinusoidal wave. I subtrated this sinusoidal wave from the raw data and obtained the residual daily temperature as a function of day. I fit this data to a line an obtained a slope of -0.0000011+/- 0.0000050
Linear Rgression Slope summary:
Fit raw data: 0.000062 +/- 0.000011 F
Yearly avg: -0.00085 +/- 0.0070 F
Residuals: -0.0000011+/- 0.0000050 F
Can I conclude that Philadelphia PA is showing absolutely no warming or cooling over the past 138 years? So if Philly isn’t warming, other places on the earth must be warming that much more to show an overall global average increase.
By the way, notice that the three different ways I treated the raw data gave three different slopes (all not statistically significant from zero, but different non-the-less) One was positive and two were negative as well. This further proves my point that boiling down the entire globe’s temperature to a single yearly average and then fitting trends to this data is really not mathematically accurate
***************************************EXCERPT*******************************************
Theo Goodwin says:
jimmi says:
January 14, 2011 at 4:28 am
“Also, since 2010 was one of the warmest globally (in the top 3 if not the warmest), even though it was cold in the USA, that means there must have been parts of the world where 2010 was unambiguously the warmest – anyone know which bits?”
You have to ask? That would be all the places in the world where no actual temperature measurements are made. The Warmista have been reducing the number of measurement sites for years. Whenever they show a graph of temperature, such as the one above, they should also show a graph of declining measurement stations. If the Warmista used only the warmer areas where actual measurements are made, they could not arrive at the higher global temperature that they have published.
**************************************EXCERPT*********************************************
latitude says:
Dr. Spencer says global temps have gone down 0.7 F since this time last year.
Does anybody still pay any attention to these frauds?
*******************************************
***************************************************
Source I believe:
Daily Earth Temperatures from Satellites
Lot's of questions from this.....
***********************************EXCERPT*********************************************
Daily averaged temperatures of the Earth are measured by the AMSU flying on the NOAA-15 satellite. The satellite passes over most points on the Earth twice per day. The AMSU measures the average temperature of the atmosphere in different layers from the surface up to about 135,000 feet or 41 kilometers. During global warming, the atmosphere in the lower atmosphere (called the troposphere) is supposed to warm at least as fast as the surface warms, while the statosphere above the troposphere is supposed to cool much faster than the surface warms.
Lots of people do....I encountered a lot of people totally unaware at my Daughter’s Christmas party!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
