I think that if you tier periods…

Early 1900′s = A
Mid 1900′s = B
Late 1900′s = C

A high record set in A being broken in C by 0.1 to me has little meaning.
A high record set in C and broken in C by 1.2 degrees would be more important, but, then I would have to consider ‘why’ (ie; ElNino, etc)

A cold record set in A broken in C by any amount having significance and if broken with a fairly large differential then even more so.

The probability of a record high set in A being broken in C is high.
The probability of a record low set in A being broken in C is low.

What about all time record highs by continent? Where do they stand?

Highest temperatures recorded by continent:

Africa – 136 – 1922
North America – 134 – 1913
Asia – 129 – 1942
Australia – 128 – 1889
Europe – 122 – 1881
South America – 120 – 1905
Oceania – 108 – 1912
Antarctica – 59 – 1974

It seems that each is a statistical anomaly relative to records in general.

Thanks for sharing that.
One of the patterns I noticed in your numbers has given me an insight into a regional TMin x TMax cross-wavelet analysis I ran more than a year ago (& shelved). [Btw: This raises very serious questions about homogenization-procedures.]

I continue to find the 1920-1940 period fascinating.
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/PolarMotionPeriodMorlet2piPower.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriodAgassizBC,CanadaPrecipitationTimePlot.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/JN2&Pr.1840.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/MorletPi_Phase(Pr.-r..).png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/TPM_SSD_LNC_3.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Phase_JN_Pr..png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/GA_MapXL_Line.PNG
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/CumuSumAMO.png
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/sqrtaayoy.sq22.png
It is really unfortunate that many of our climate records do not extend back that far.

It gave a different look at what records were set during which periods.

Highs:
A-53.9% S/S, 46.1 A/W
B-66.7% S/S, 33.3 A/W
C-33.3% S/S, 66.7% A/W
D-42.1% S/S, 57.9$ A/W

Low highs:
A-50% S/S, 50% A/W
B-50% S/S, 50% A/W
C-53.4% S/S, 46.6% A/W
D-49.5% S/S, 50.5 A/W

Lows:
A-46.4% S/S, 53.6% A/W
B-56.9% S/S, 43.1% A/W
C-42.4% S/S, 57.6% A/W
D-58.5% S/S, 41.5 A/W

High lows:
A-57.9% S/S, 42.1% A/W
B-52.5% S/S, 47.5% A/W
C-46.2% S/S, 53.8% A/W
D-48.3% S/S, 51.7 A/W

The number of records also shifted:

Highs per year:
A-2.8
B-4
C-2.6
D-3.2

High records are relatively constant except for era B, which included the 30′s.

Low highs per year:
A-3.4
B-2.6
C-3.6
D-3.1

Fairly constant.

Lows per year:
A-4.1
B-3.9
C-2.9
D-1.8

A measurable decline from B through C.

High lows per year:
A-2.8
B-2.7
C-2.2
D-4.8

So I saw the largest anomaly in record lows, which declined measurably and record high lows, which rose measurably. The only variables that stayed fairly constant were highs and low highs. I also noticed that more of the high records in recent years(D) occurred in autumn and winter and more of the low records were set in spring and summer.

So it could be it’s not just the time of day when records are being set but also the time of year. (Again, I recognize this is just my little corner of the world.)

Don’t be too hard on me, I’m just a middle aged guy with some time on my hands. :-)

It is also interesting that from 1960 to 1980 the cold records outnumber the warm records. So that must have been a cooling period (given the questionable assumptions and data).

“Is it? I reckon the next 5 years will be warmer than the last 5 years.”

I hope you are right, John. A warm planet is more productive than a cold one. But this NCAR paper is no evidence of what will happen. It is meant for the AGW faithful, who are crying in their whine coolers over the pre-emptive failure of Copenhagen.
There are many ways to massage numbers, and most of them have been used to keep this AGW balloon inflated. The key is the climate sensitivity to CO2. If it turns out to be low, then the balloon has to pop, no matter how you, or anyone else feels about it.

But I have noticed over the years that the 1/10th of a degree measurement seem to be rounded in the recorded mininums and maximums.

…………………

The other thing to notice Patrick is that when we have a day that looks like setting a cold record the BOM thermometer will all of a sudden ‘jump’ above the record minimum at Observatory Hill though the rest of the stations in Sydney remain FLAT.

John Finn (03:53:13) : At least it could be argued that CO2 is most effective at night and in winter since it might slow down the rate of cooling, i.e. when outgoing energy exceeds incoming energy

Except it doesn’t to any measure. Go to any desert or dry climate where it cools 40-50° every night. UHI is adding degrees and you’re hanging onto something that “might” have a fraction of a degree effect that can’t be observed? In that same dry climate place, lingering humidity after a rainshower, or thin high clouds can keep the night time heat loss to 10°. CO2 has no place on a scale of things that have a real world effect on climate.

UHI is not an issue. Over the last 20 years satellite readings have measured the same warming as the surface records.

The fact that the drier desert cools faster than more hiumid regions is tells us very little about the effectiveness of CO2.

Russ R. (08:19:51) :

So we have had some cyclical warming that is coming to an end.

Is it? I reckon the next 5 years will be warmer than the last 5 years.

Despite the NPR, NOAA, NCAR full court press, here in MN the ‘private’ media are panning AGW as one. Given three nights below -25 F, and three days above 90 F in the last 12 months, confidence in government is in free-fall.