“Jeez, please edit your “personal attack” comment. I take exception to your selective preciosity. ‘Ethnic slur’ would be preferable.”

At the top of the page is a mission statement: Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, technology, and recent news.

That includes anecdotal evidence, it doesn’t include “personal attack” or ‘ethnic slur’, though perhaps it’s an anthropological question why someone would prefer being censored for one over the other.

We all agree you have an important, and unpaid job, in service to all of us. You aren’t expected to know I’ve supported Pierre more often than not, or have time to sort out everything you read.

The issue related to your use of boilerplate. You did not have to post anything, a plain [snip] would have told me what I needed to know.

Why do good cops always detest the bad cop?

Reply: Point taken and I apologize. My reasoning is thus, by sometimes explaining certain editorial decisions I give feedback to posters so that they understand the why. Sometimes it’s so obvious that I don’t explain, sometimes when they are borderline I do. It’s all part of trying to get posters to comply to standards without appearing capricious.~charles the moderator.

Reply: Please do not accuse me of being selective. It’s my job to maintain standards and I try very hard to to it in an even-handed manner~charles the moderator aka jeez

“Of course it’s Anthony’s site, and he’ll do as he darn well pleases. But hopefully he’ll simply consider my comments as “suggestions for improvement”.

Come on Pierre! Look around at your fellow commenters. Take a sample, estimate the population.

If Anthony’s intent were plebian don’t you think all these publicans would be rather scarce.

Now what does that tell you, Pierre? I’d say you’re fears imply you think that you just might be a standard deviation or two above the bulge.

[snip, personal attack~charles the moderator]

Got it – thanks very much.

The file came from here.
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/climaps/climaps.pl?directive=order_details&subrnum=&region=Lower%2048%20States&filename=temp06b

You can try the their instructions for the ArcExplorer and see if those files satisfy your need, but other than that, that is it.

I’ve looked around for different sources, but no luck. Sorry.

http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-1/Record-Setting-Weather.html

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Continent.jpg

I wonder if anyone has a similar list of lows…

URGENT – WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
328 AM PDT WED AUG 27 2008

…NEAR RECORD HEAT EXPECTED THURSDAY ACROSS THE EAST AND SOUTH BAY..

STRONG HIGH PRESSURE AND LIGHT OFFSHORE WINDS WILL BRING
SIGNIFICANT WARMING TO THE GREATER SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION TODAY
INTO THURSDAY. TEMPERATURES WILL WARM TO SEVERAL DEGREES ABOVE NORMAL
TODAY WITH 80S NEAR THE COAST AND READINGS WELL INTO THE 90S
INLAND. BY THURSDAY RECORD OR NEAR RECORD HEAT WILL BE POSSIBLE
ACROSS MOST OF THE REGION. IN PARTICULAR THE POPULATED AREAS OF
THE EAST AND SOUTH BAY WILL EXPERIENCE SOME OF THE HOTTEST
TEMPERATURES ON THURSDAY AFTERNOON.

The ability to see data gathered from far flung areas in real time is pretty recent. So gabbing about it is interesting and fun. Here in Colorado, we have “microclimes” (I think I spelled that right…) that is my “weather” and the “weather” just a mile or so away might be quite different. Think of a thunderstorm passing overhead. That can reduce the temperature 10-20 degrees in a very short time. So my reality in a storm will be quite different from a neighbor who sees the storm pass by with no more than cool wind gusts for a time.

To speak of someone as “psudointellectual” is a real put down. Most folks understand the difference between local, regional and world data, and also long term and short term. Stated another way, I think I’ve learned more from farmers, mechanics and cleaning people than folks with letters after their name.

nuff said.

You might want to look at McFarland Signature events as well. These greatly determine the viability of certain types of crops grown in the US East of the Rocky Mountains. McFarland events drive very cold air from Siberia over the poles and down into North America for a prolonged period, sometimes as far as Costa Rica and into the Tropical Pacific ( via the Darien Gap ) and as far East as the Bahamas.

This cold air is so cold that it kills succulent plants such as citrus and others that cannot tolerate sub-freezing temps. These events should be very apparent in the fossil pollen record. They also do a number on winter wheat, alfalfa, and other crops that cannot stand prolonged cold temps – they effectively push the crop zones 500+ miles further south. They are also very hard on livestock.

McFarland events used to be common < 1900, mostly ceased from 1900-1950, then appear to have started up in the early 1980s again. The McFarland event of 1899 was so cold that Galveston Bay froze over.

They should be ( and are ) relatively apparent in pollen studies from plant community changes.

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/ssd/techmemo/tm88.htm

http://www.raingardens.com/psst/articles/artic03.htm
http://www.raingardens.com/psst/articles/artic02.htm

Anecdotes have their place in folk tales and bar talk. Sensationalists love them and also, so it seems, those more interested in conspiracy theories than intelligent discussion. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for alien abduction, bigfoot and even the tooth fairy, hey, Elvis was seen in a chipshop last month!

However when the public loses faith in the data put out; when the public starts to feel like it is being played for a sucker and a chump, it is only natural for people to begin to compare notes.

Discrepancies between the red dots on the GISS map and back-yard observations start to be noticed. California has a big red dot for July, but a fellow in San Diego notes his temperatures were two degrees below normal.

If these discrepancies were isolated, they could be dismissed as being merely local phenomenon, however when they become too numerous the public’s distrust of government data becomes a ground swell. Eventually government data is scorned as propaganda, and the people seek the truth in their own way.

I’m afraid this is exactly what we are seeing occur. When Abraham Lincoln stated “You can’t fool all the people all the time,” he was recognizing that the public is not something to be trifled with, especially in a democracy.

In a better world data could be trusted. It would serve its purpose, and not the purpose of a particular party.

As it is, the public seems to increasingly rely on anecdotes. Each bit of data is measured by the listener, who tries to figure out whether the reporter is an Alarmist or a Skeptic, and makes their own private “adjustment” accordingly, and then they scrawl a map in their minds, with their own red dots and blue dots. It’s a lot of mental work, and likely leads to a wide variety of mental maps.

How much easier it would be if the public could trust the people entrusted to do this work; the people in fact paid by the public with tax-dollars to do the job professionally and without bias. Unfortunately, the public currently can’t trust.

Therefore anecdotes have become important, for where there is propaganda there will also be an underground.

When I wrote this it was -116°F at Vostok!
Now how’s that for global cooling!