Click for source image
No red dots on this map. The map above appears to be representing Weather Service Forecast Office forecast zones, though I’m not absolutely sure since no reference is included with the map. If so, then each of these divisions is an area where a Zone Forecast is issued for. These are what we see as our regular daily forecasts on TV, Newspapers, and Radio. The map above is from NCDC’s research section and was brought to my attention by WUWT commenter “pearlandaggie”.
Update: It turns out they are “climate divisions” see here with thanks to Basil.
The public hasn’t been widely exposed to the map above. The map below is what was in the latest press release.
If we just look at the month of December, the USA still looks cooler than normal or near normal for the most part, with the southeast USA being the exception:
Click for source image
NOAA says in the press release:
South Carolina and Georgia had their sixth and eighth, respectively, warmest December on record.
The first map was not part of the press release, the second one was. I wonder why NOAA chose not to include a yearly map presentation like the first one above from their research section, but only chose to show one for December 2008 even though the title of the press release was:
NOAA: 2008 Temperature for U.S. Near Average, was Coldest Since 1997; Below Average for December
It would seem to me that if you run a press release about the entire year of 2008, you’d put in a map for 2008 also. It’s not like they didn’t have one available.
To their credit, they did include the time series, but as my years of television experience have told me, that isn’t often as easily interpreted by the general public.
Here is what the CONUS temperature time series looks like with 2008 added, as included in the press release:
NOAA says in their press release:
For 2008, the average temperature of 53.0 degrees F was 0.2 degree above the 20th Century average.
In other words; near normal.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Antedoctal, but here in South Carolina, we are expected to have cold we have not seen since the early 1970’s. Scrambling to make sure we don’t freeze important utilities. Predicted to be about 9F, most systems are put in with the assumption of greater than 20F sustained temperatures for x hours, and y windspeed. Windchill factor, time weighted can be quite local phenomena. Hope we don’t lose essential services. Category 6 natural gas users are being curtailed in SC.
Normal body temperature is 97F to 100F
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/LenaWong.shtml
Normal room temperature is 68F to 77F
http://www.answers.com/topic/room-temperature
However according to the map from NCDC at the top of the page there is no normal temperature of these United States. We have record hot or record cold, much above normal or much below normal, above normal or below normal, or finally “near” normal.
No matter what happens, temperatures will never be normal again.
“some volcano dust in the air, and all we have is a normal temperature? I wish there won’t be an el nino during the next solar maximum…”
Hold the volcano dust for now, nothing noteworthy happening yet within 70 degrees of the equator.
What sort of Rmax do you need for crisping your wallabies?
Anthony,
What do you think the deal is with Long Island being “Much Above Normal”. It looks like one of those weird anomalies. How much is “Much” anyway?
Kip
On another website, catholicfundamentalism.com it was suggested that since so many surface stations were poorly sited, that there may be volunteers who’d picture their own thermometers, and set up a central data base that would record actual temperatures.
That way, we would have a good, solid check on what the gov’t weather stations were telling us.
I couldn’t tell if this was a good idea, but it seemed to be.
George E. Smith (14:06:02) :
So Basil, who needs base periods; and for what purpose.
Base periods are useful for purposes of comparisons. I think it is fair to ask, though, why there are so many variations. There’s a kind of convention for using 1971-2000 as the current climatological normal, so why cannot GISS get with the program and use that, instead of being two decades behind with 1951-1980?
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the graph where Anthony states:
Here is what the CONUS temperature time series looks like with 2008 added, as included in the press release:
I interpret the slope of the line labeled Long-Term Mean to indicate the mean temperature in the lower-48 has increased about 0.2 deg F since 1895.
What am I missing?
Interesting points here. I like it. Reality is all but behind the veil.
And in cased you missed it…
The science ‘against’ carbon, is science that was ‘achieved’ through carbon.
OT, but “fish poop” is now known to offset global warming…
“The ocean’s delicate acid balance may be getting help from an unexpected source, fish poop. The increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not only drives global warming, but also raises the amount of CO2 dissolved in ocean water, tending to make it more acid, potentially a threat to sea life.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_sc/sci_fish_poop
Can we now expect to see a market for poop-credits?
JimB
Great website! I have bean reading this now for about 6 months. mainly watching the diatribes about global warming from all of you folks who are much smarter than I. I have a question though. Can someone plase tell me what the optimum temperature is! If no one knows then what is the problem anayway?
This fascination with the weather average across the US is interesting (given the fact that there are several climate zones in this great country of ours that have been and still are stable since way before 1895). It is almost beginning to sound like the cackles of a woman trying to diet. I weighed myself today on one of those counterbalanced tall scales at school. 123.75 lbs. I went straight home afterwards (IE got home 10 minutes later) and stepped on my bathroom scales. 123.2 lbs. Lost 0.55 lbs! Now that is something to celebrate! I am winning! The scales are going down!
Silly isn’t it. Up or down, we are talking just a bit heavier here, and a bit lighter there. Close enough. Looks average to me. No change. And not much information that helps me make decisions about whether or not my diet has been successful.
Using a US average, or an Australian average, or a Siberian average graph isn’t very useful either. I sure as hell am not going to worry about .2 degrees change in US temperature since 1895, up OR down. That could well be within the margin of error. Just like my scales and the one at the school. Plus my spring wheat could not give a rats ass over an average temperature change so small.
What does matter is how weather may change (and drastically) within for example, a temperate climate zone from warmer to colder (mind you, it will still be a temperate climate, just colder weather wise), thus potentially destroy crops not meant for a change from lows of below freezing to lows of below 0.
The data that is useful, and vital, to people, animals, and agriculture, is the messy data. The actual high’s and low’s on a daily basis. You know. The noisy graph all the “climate” folks want to get rid of so the line will move the way they want it to move. If you grow wine grapes, the daily noisy data is the only data that provides the numbers you need to calculate Sun days. If you grow spring wheat, the number of days and dates below zero are vital. Without this daily actual temperature information, you all don’t eat, drink, and be merry.
I wish NOAA would get back to being what it once was. A source for agriculture to manage growing seasons and maybe make payments on the bank loan. This overindulging global climate change fanatics is as useful to me as a stuffed shirt dandy knocking on my door wanting a date.
Okay. Rant off.
John,
One of the posters here, George M., made this point some time ago. I referred to it as the “next questions” which seem to stymie many of the folks who support the theory of AGW. “Even if you COULD impact the temperature of the planet, what temp should the thermometer be set to?…and WHO get’s to choose that temp?”
JimB
John M. Towers (17:20:38) :
I used to wonder about that myself, then I began to wonder who gets to decide what the optimum temperature should be. Answer that, and then you’ll have an idea what the optimum temperature will be.
The optimum temperature is whatever puts clothes on your back and food on the most tables for the lowest price.
Harold K McCard (16:11:50) :
Perhaps I am misinterpreting the graph where Anthony states:
…
I interpret the slope of the line labeled Long-Term Mean to indicate the mean temperature in the lower-48 has increased about 0.2 deg F since 1895.
What am I missing?
There is no slope to that line, not if it is labeled correctly. I know that it looks ever so much like it is a little further below the tick mark on the left side than the right, but either that is an optical illusion, or we have a poor drawing.
It’s a flat line, or is supposed to be. That’s how it is labeled.
I think I know what he meant. He is saying that out of that noisy line, he has cherry picked December 2008 and says that we are .2 degrees warmer than the mean for the period. Without coming right out and saying it, he has pulled some new kind of statistic out of his hat and has told us that December 2008 is an indicator that we are warmer that we should be, therefore we have global warming, and the graph is a demonstration of that premise. Please provide formula for said new statistical method comparing December 2008 to an arbitrary mean as an indication of global warming.
However, I could have jumped to a conclusion here and have read into and between the lines what Harold intended to say without saying it.
In that case, I delare the optimum temperature to be 21degC by night and 35degC by day. With a mild shower once a week and heavy rainfall once a month. Now can we all go back to sleep.
PS: thanks Anthony for a great web site.
Flanagan (14:12:01) :
The fact that a nearly normal US temperature is seen as big news depicts clearly enough the warming trend we had.
Warming trend we had – note the past tense.
Also – for much of the US – “nearly normal” is well below “normal” temperatures.
A big fat la nina, a solar minimum, a negative PDO and some volcano dust in the air, and all we have is a normal temperature? I wish there won’t be an el nino during the next solar maximum…
La nina? Yes, “big fat la nina”? is that really the case, I thought it was rather moderate, certainly not on the scale of the 98 El Nino.
Negative PDO only started around the beginning of 2007 and is expected to run for approx 30 years, – we are not more than 10% into the -ve PDO cycle, allow it some time to get going, and we will see what the real impact is.
The key point is your implicit admission of all these factors – overwhelming the CO2 warming…. which begs the question of the strength of the CO2 forcing.
Also NOAAs data has a question mark with regard to the impact of urbanisation, and may actually understate the amount of cold weather that has occurred.
James: (10:00:59)
Tamino may be more acerbic than needed at times (OK, maybe more than a little), but in this instance, he’s right on. The 2008 globally-averaged temperature is still within the amplitude envelope of higher frequency climate change (e.g., ENSO variations) that is superimposed on the observed warming exactly predicted by Hansen and others starting in 1988 (e.g., see Rahmstorf et al., 2007, Science, v. 316, p. 709). It’s unfortunate that Anthony deleted the Tamino link, because the first plot of that link demonstrated perfectly the nature of the data scatter vs the AGW trend and the fact that the 2008 temp is within the scatter envelope. To trumpet the 2008 temp as meaning anything otherwise is misleading. Find the link yourself (it’s not too hard: It’s dated Dec. 31), ignore the over-the-top rhetoric and look at the first draft. It’s pretty revealing.
Oops. I mistakenly wrote “draft” not “plot” in the 2nd to last sentence.
I think the optimal temperature should be set according to Weather Service Forecast Office forecast zones. Or better yet house by house… Wait a minute, we already do that….
Basil (10:23:43) :
Hope you get well soon, Anthony. My wife’s suffering through a tooth ache, trying to get the infection down prior to a root canal. Tooth aches; ear aches. Usually nothing “seriously” wrong, but boy do they hurt!
FWIW: I prefer the commercial antibiotics, but I’ve also had decent success using dandelion. The name, taraxacum officinalis, roughly translates to treatment for what ails you. It seems to be generally supportive of function, including immune function. Add a few leaves a day to salads and you feel better (and I had some minor infection issues end). Anecdotal, yes… but there are a few thousand years of such anecdotes… And I always have a supply in my “lawn” even on weekends. Dandelion tea is easier to swallow if you have teeth problems.
Cloves make a decent numbing agent for oral pains. I’ve used ground cloves on some spots. Oil of cloves is more effective, but a bit strong for my tastes and it isn’t usually in the spice cabinet at 2am … It doesn’t last as long as I would like, but sometimes it’s enough. It is likely to be antibiotic to some extent. Many of the aromatic oils are.
When I was a kid, the standard treatment for earache was warm (NOT HOT! test on your arm first!) olive oil dripped into the ear. It is very easy to kill the eardrum if the oil is too hot, so this process is now discouraged, but if you are desperate and careful it can help. I don’t know if it pasteurizes the bugs or if olives have an antimicrobial in them. I do remember that at about 110 – 120 F if felt nice. There was relief for a while.
(No, I’m not an alternative medicine nut. I’m a
survivalistpreparedness nut 😉 Doctor if available, alternative if not (or if they just are not making any progress.)May both of you be well soon!
Ed Scott (10:31:20)
The US could replace all its cars and trucks with electric cars powered by wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres […]
REPLY: “wind turbines taking up less than 3 square kilometres”? Doubtful…we have that much area of wind turbines in California alone already.- Anthony
I think they mean 3 sq.km per car 😉
Ken G (14:06:37) :
” I can’t help but notice the apparent correlation of ‘above normal’ areas with high population density areas across the country, except for the midwest.”
Brilliant! If we could take out urban sites suffering the “heat island effect”, maybe the 2008 NOAA map wouldn’t have any “above average” areas? Thanks for pointing this out!
Strange to see some factual things, aside from all the data manipulation or massaging…if the globe is warming.
Has anyone looked lately at the Arctic ice extent — Anthony has a link at the top right. Then, notice how the slope of the 2009 line is higher than virtually any other line on the graph (the first derivative)? Does that indicate getting colder, not warmer?
Has anyone noticed the sea level rise has stopped, according to the Boulder SSH data? And, that in many areas of the world, it is actually dropping? One such are of SSH decrease is off the U.S. west coast, where California enacted the draconian AB 32 to prevent sea level rise? Is the ocean evaporating, and dropping the water as snow somewhere?
Has anyone noticed that heating degree days for 2008 were much greater than for 2007 in the U.S., approximately 9 percent more? And, cooling-degree days were approximately 11 percent fewer in 2008 compared to 2007?
I suspect everyone has noticed that the CO2 is still rising from the Mauna Loa data.
Does all this not make a persuasive case that the CO2 – link, or causation, is false? Perhaps even that GW is not happening, and AGW is therefore nonsensical?
Admittedly, I am a bit new at all this, so if this is off-base, can someone guide me?
Roger E. Sowell
Marina del Rey, California