FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOAA: April Temperatures Slightly Cooler Than Average for U.S.
May 8, 2009
The April 2009 temperature for the contiguous United States was below the long-term average, based on records going back to 1895, according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, NC.
The average April temperature of 51.2 degrees F was 0.8 degree F below the 20th Century average. Precipitation across the contiguous United States in April averaged 2.62 inches, which is 0.19 inch above the 1901-2000 average.
U.S. Temperature Highlights
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
- April temperatures were near normal across much of the United States. On a regional scale, only the Northeast (above-normal) and the West North Central (below-normal) deviated significantly from normal.
- New Hampshire observed its eighth warmest April, based on data going back to 1895. Unlike much of the Northeast, the Midwest experienced a cooler-than-normal month. From North Dakota southward to Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, Alabama and Georgia, temperature averages were below normal.
- For the year-to-date period, only North Dakota and Washington have experienced notably cooler-than-normal average temperatures. In contrast, much of the South and Southwest regions were above normal. New Mexico had its ninth warmest such period on record.
- Based on NOAA’s Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index, the contiguous U.S. temperature-related energy demand was 2.3 percent below average in April.
U.S. Precipitation Highlights
High resolution (Credit: NOAA)
- Above-normal precipitation fell across parts of the Central and South regions, while the West and Northwest regions experienced below-normal precipitation.
- Precipitation was above normal for the contiguous United States. Georgia had its fifth wettest April on record, Kansas and Michigan had their ninth wettest, and Illinois, its tenth. Only seven states were notably drier than normal for April.
- Year to date, the Northeast experienced its fourth driest January-through-April period on record and it was the twelfth driest period for the contiguous U.S.
- By the end of April, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 18 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Severe, or extreme, drought conditions continued in parts of California, Florida, Hawai’i, Nevada, Wisconsin, the southern Appalachians, and the southern Plains, with exceptional drought in southern Texas.
About 21 percent of the contiguous United States had moderately-to-extremely wet conditions at the end of April, according to the Palmer Index (a well-known index that measures both drought intensity and wet spell intensity).
Other Highlights
- International Falls, Minn., recorded 125 inches of snow so far this winter season, breaking the previous record of 116 inches set in the 1995-1996 winter season. Another seasonal snowfall record was broken in Spokane, Wash., where 97.7 inches of snowfall broke the old record of 93.5 inches set in 1915-1916.
- About eight percent of the contiguous U.S. was covered by snow at end of April, according to an analysis by the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center. Snow coverage during the month peaked at 30.2 percent on April 6, after a late-season winter storm hit the Midwest and Plains.
- The 263 preliminary tornadoes reported in April was above the three-year average of 200 confirmed tornadoes.
NCDC’s preliminary reports, which assess the current state of the climate, are released soon after the end of each month. These analyses are based on preliminary data, which are subject to revision. Additional quality control is applied to the data when late reports are received several weeks after the end of the month and as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms.
NOAA understands and predicts changes in the Earth’s environment, from the depths of the ocean to the surface of the sun, and conserves and manages our coastal and marine resources.
Rick (21:36:34) :
“. . . [Is there] ANYTHING . . . published . . . [that] clearly refutes that very high levels of CO2 does not equal warmer atmosphere????”
Perhaps many responses missed the mark in considering Rick’s question. Although several relevant articles were offered and I hope that he reads them, I suspect that Rick does not understand the 6 step process of Global Warming Pessimism and that most of the bloggers here reject some step in this process.
Step 1: In laboratory conditions, increase CO2 levels increase temperatures.
(Everybody is onboard with this step.)
Step 2: This relationship between CO2 and temperature holds in the chaotic atmosphere with a multitude of other variables changing.
(Almost everybody stays on board here – if Greenhouse Gases didn’t hold in heat, the earth would be a very cold place.)
Step 3: Human activity is increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
(Very few analysts get off the train at this step; majority remains on board.)
Step 4: CO2 increases induce a positive feedback loop that multiplies the laboratory results.
(Substantial departure of analysts on this point – not settled science!)
Step 5: The effect of increases in CO2 increases with feedback loop swamp natural variations.
(Even more departure of analysts.)
Step 6: The effect of CO2 increases is negative and catastrophic.
(Perhaps a minority of analysts are onboard now, but they get the funding!)
One problem with media is that they jump from Step 3 to the conclusion of Step 6 without understanding or inquiring about the weak points of Steps 4, 5 and 6. Moreover, there can be negative impact of humans on local and regional climates outside of GHG – such as deforestation and other land uses. Some of these negative impacts are exasperated by attempts to reduce GHG.
Gary says:
No doubt. But Rick is not arguing against the idea that, say, there are a few scientists associated in some way with environmental groups who are promulgating bad science. Rather, he is arguing against the idea that the entire scientific enterprise in a field has been hijacked…and not only that but the IPCC, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the analogous bodies in all twelve of the other G8+5 nations have been hijacked, as has the AAAS, and the AGU, and the AMS, and the APS.
Basically, the “skeptics” are in the position of arguing that a whole field of science and a bunch of non-partisan scientific organizations are all hopelessly biased and a few scientists most with close associations with right-wing organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, and the George C. Marshal institute are the only ones who are speaking the truth. Just on the face of it, such an argument seems rather unlikely.
The point is that a “conspiracy theory” is only reasonable if it seems logical that those supposedly involved in the conspiracy represent a group that is small enough, uniform enough in beliefs, and otherwise structured in a way where it seems likely that the conspiracy can be maintained. I submit that this is not even close to being true in the present case.
An Inquirer (09:57:55) : Step 1: WRONG
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
Excerpt:
At the time of Wood’s experiment, it was believed that CO2 and other gas molecules became hotter after absorbing IR. Four years later Niels Bohr reported his discovery that the absorption of specific wavelengths of light didn’t cause gas atoms/molecules to become hotter. Instead, the absorption of specific wavelengths of light caused the electrons in an atom/molecule to move to a higher energy state. After absorption of light of a specific wavelength an atom couldn’t absorb additional radiation of that wavelength without first emitting light of that wavelength. (Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Volume 26 July 1913, p. 1-25) Unlike the glass which reflects IR back where it comes from, CO2 molecules emit IR up and sideways as well as down. In the time interval between absorbing and reemitting radiation, CO2 molecules allow IR to pass them by. Glass continuously reflects IR.
http://www.giurfa.com/gh_experiments.pdf
An Inquirer
I step off in step 2 as there are few observations as to the percentage effect of CO2 with respect to the other GHGs. Most numbers assume well mixed gases. Most models have never heard of Newton or the sun although they like to sometimes talk about PV = nrt but rarely want to talk about the problem in real time. Many assumptions with very few confirmation real world experiments. Lots of money for computer things and papers.
Joel Shore (10:23:43) :
The point is that a “conspiracy theory” is only reasonable if it seems logical that those supposedly involved in the conspiracy represent a group that is small enough, uniform enough in beliefs, and otherwise structured in a way where it seems likely that the conspiracy can be maintained. I submit that this is not even close to being true in the present case
What is such an institution it is a widespread one, based on a supposed “initiatic knowledge”, which choses candidates among middle class and not so clever people and teach them that they are the chosen ones and with time and “progress” along that “initiatic process” they become more “evolved” as to achieve a certain “degree”; and, among other things they are supposed to help their “brothers” so as to all attain more important places in society, in order to make possible for the “order” to apply their most “noble” purposes to humanity.?
It would simply proceed automatically, based on human psyche self indulgement and self conceit and self deception.
Was this “secret society” the one behind French Revolution?
Is is this same society behind the ecological/green movement?
@ur momisugly Flanagan (07:41:28) :
That’s just a conspiracy…I read about it on the internet. Seriously though, AAPS is laughable, as is energy and environment.
The editor of Energy and Environment has admitted herself that she has an agenda.
Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, says:
“I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway, but isn’t that the right of the editor?”
Hello Pot, meet Kettle.
An Inquirer:
I have a problem with “Step 3”. Our contribution to CO2 increase is not a given by any means. Even assuming that Mauna Loa represents an accurate “global CO2” reading (which it most likely does not), our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule, and it’s ridiculous to assume that the planetary ability to absorb CO2 is static.
In fact, steps 3-6 (accurate as you’ve placed them!) veer directly off into Science Fiction. It’s not much different than thinking that sea levels will rise because my toilet is running all the time.
Also, in regards to “Peer Review”, why is it so difficult for some people to understand just who these “Peers” are that are doing the “Reviewing”???
“Conspiracy” is probably the wrong word, because it is easy to write off conspiracy theories. And it’s also very probable that most people propagating the cAGW line are well intentioned and believe wholly in what they are saying, but that doesn’t make them correct.
Next, those who post here and elsewhere and write off everything done by what they call “RIGHT-WING” anything… you then won’t be offended when I completely write off everything “LEFT-WING” as nutty, worthless, and agenda-driven.
April E. Coggins (20:08:41) :
“Here in eastern Washington state, we are under a late freeze warning. Even our local global warming zealots have stopped writing letters to newspapers claiming that we in danger from warming. They have shifted to claiming that cap and trade will lead to less energy use which will somehow save the planet. They are very vague about the specifics”.
April,
Cap & Trade wil INCREASE the use of fossil fuels.
Why?
It will force the energy producers to take measures aimed at carbon capture and storage.
For a coal power plant the consequence will be that they will use twice the amounts of coal to generate the same energy output.
Besides that, large amounts of fossil fuels will be needed to move the captured CO2 ftom the poqwe plant to the storage facility.
The production and use of bio fuels, how unbelievable it may sound, will also increase the use of fossil fuels and the use of sweet water.
Due to being of a certain age, I’m able to verfiy the NOAA data for Central MN, just a wee scosh below normal temp, and a tad below normal precip.
Ice out came virtually on expected day, planting has proceeded without impediment.
If this is Erl’s departure from La Nina we’re having, then woe to warmening.
It seems that covert weather modifications have been going on since the 50’s. It is nicely documented in the article at http://www.prisonplanet.com/precipitation-enhancement-active-weather-modification-campaigns.html
“Local, non-permanent changes, such as precipitation enhancement, hail suppression, fog and cloud dispersal, are permitted under the U.N. treaty banning weather modification”
They might be non-permanent but if you do it regularly I suppose the effect will add up.
It would be great to match the “non-permanent” weather modification experiments with the weather data where experiments took place.
Bill Illis (14:20:10) :
The Central England Temperature series, linear trend for the month of June for 350yrs shows no rise at all, no warming signal here either.
N.H. winter temperatures dominate the global picture.
Joel Shore wrote:
> Basically, the “skeptics” are in the position of arguing that a whole field
> of science and a bunch of non-partisan scientific organizations are
> all hopelessly biased and a few scientists most with close associations
> with right- wing organizations like the Heartland Institute, the Cato
> Institute, and the George C. Marshal institute are the only ones who
> speaking the truth. Just on the face of it, such an argument seems rather
> unlikely
Hey Joel – how about the Polish Academy of Science, who recently denounced Global Warming as a scientific fraud? Are they a right-wing organization? There is a world outside of America, you know!
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html
How about Dr. Kiminori Itoh, PhD, a Japanese PhD environmental scientist. Is he a member of the Heartland Institute? How about Professor Ian Plimer, the foremost environmental scientist in Australia, who has repeatedly expressed profound skepticism regarding Global Warming? Is he a member of the AMERICAN right-wing conspiracy? I happen to know Professor Plimer, and I’d love to see you try to tell him to his face that you think he is a liar and a fraud!
Also, when you talk about “a whole field of science” you are talking about “Climate Science”, right? Do you know that the Oxford Dictionary doesn’t even have a definition for “Climate Science” yet? You talk about a “field of science” that is so new that it doesn’t even a dictionary definition!
Flanagan (07:41:28) :
Smokey “peer-”reviewed”? I didn’t know surgeons were peers of climate researchers?
You gotta keep coming back to this inane drivel, insulting every scientist in the world, rather than think for yourself. Intelligent, well-educated professionals, regardless of their major, are critically thinking peers of climate research computer jockies (as opposed to real climate researchers and real computer programmers).
To quote a blog elsewhere http://volokh.com/posts/1126493013.shtml :
I’ve worked with a lot of researchers, freshly-minted Ph.D.s, older Ph.D.s, and others. On that basis I’d like to make several observations:
(1) With a proper grounding in the basics, access to appropriate resources, and a lively mind, it is easy for any intelligent and intellectually-inclined person to master “cutting edge” knowledge/research.
(2) Many Ph.D.s — new and old — that I’ve met and worked with have been morons. Their analyses are cant, their research the misuse of techniques they understand poorly, if at all. One tenured professor at Harvard for whom I worked had an international reputation as a methodologist in political science. His ignorance was such that he could not write out the specifications for the statistical models he used — an exercise requiring nothing much more than a knowledge of high school algebra.
(3) I’ve known many non-Ph.D.s whose research and thought are at the cutting edge of the disciplines they work in and far exceed in quality that of Ph.D.s and tenured faculty in the field.
CodeTech (or others who don’t agree with C02-related warming),
I don’t get the analogy of your toilet running and raising sea level. As a source of C02, it’s true that the human contribution is much less than “natural” contributions – but it’s meaningful because it adds to the natural cycle. Suppose your plumbing can handle only 5 litres per toilet flush and no more. If you keep adding 100ml after each flush, you can see that your toilet will eventually overflow…
Related: I’m not sure if you’re arguing that C02 doesn’t have _any_ warming influence in the atmosphere. If you are, what is this based on? Without any C02, water vapor level in the atmospheric would plummet, atmospheric temp would dive, and the oceans would likely freeze over.
As for Pilmer, have you seen Michael Ashby’s review in The Australian? ( http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html )
Flanagan (07:41:28) :
Smokey “peer-”reviewed”? I didn’t know surgeons were peers of climate researchers? Isnt’ it the same journal where papers can be found on
-the “myth of AIDS being due to VIH”
-the idea that “smoking doesn’t do any arm”
-the hypothesis that “abortion causes breast cancer”
-Quackwatch lists JPandS as an untrustworthy, non-recommended periodical
-An editorial in Chemical & Engineering News described JPandS as a “purveyor of utter nonsense.”
-Investigative journalist Brian Deer wrote that the journal is the “house magazine of a right-wing American fringe group [AAPS]” and “is barely credible as an independent forum.”
Bravo! Bravissimo! Another Tour de Force of sarcasm, innuendo and appeals to authority by one of the great intellects in our midst. The authorities in question? “Investigative journalist” Brian Deer, a man with his own Wikipedia entry:
“Brian Deer is an award-winning British investigative reporter, best known for inquiries into the drug industry, medicine and social issues for the Sunday Times of London. After graduating in philosophy from the University of Warwick, he became editor and press officer for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and was a member of the The Leveller magazine collective”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Deer
Wikipedia has this to say of The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament:
“The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) is an organisation that advocates unilateral nuclear disarmament by Britain. It also campaigns for international nuclear disarmament and tighter international arms regulation through agreements such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It opposes military action that may result in the use of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and the building of nuclear power stations in the UK.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Nuclear_Disarmament
And this about The Leveller:
“The Leveller was a British political magazine, c.1976 to 1982, collectively produced by a shifting coalition of radicals, socialists, marxists, feminists, and others of the British left and progressive movements”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Leveller_(magazine)
Quackwatch? To be perfectly fair, there are thousands of entries, both laudatory and not. However, at least one “Consumer Advocate” had this to say:
Opinion by Consumer Advocate Tim Bolen
Delicensed MD Stephen Barrett, of quackwatch.com infamy, announced to his followers (Barrett’s Parrots) last week that: “During the next few days, my sites will be changing servers. It’s possible that the healthfraud list will be disrupted during the switch.”
Barrett critics are concerned about this situation – for several reasons. The questions are: (1) Is Barrett moving his quackwatch.com, etc., servers out of reach of the US Court System after recent Courtroom losses? (2) Is Barrett moving his quackwatch.com, etc., servers out of reach of the US Court System after the barrage of newly files legal actions naming him, and his, as the Defendants? (3) Is Barrett moving his servers out of US Court Jurisdiction to avoid answering legal demands for “discovery” of information on his websites
https://www.healthy.net/scr/news.asp?Id=8929
As far as the editorial by Chemical and Engineering News, I guess I’ll just have to swoop to Flanagan’s level and observe that I didn’t realize that physicians and chemical engineers were “peers”. I couldn’t locate the editorial and have no idea if it even exists, let alone that it says what Flanagan claims…. and it might not. Flanagan was, after all, the one who posted this on the Mad Dogs and Englishmen thread:
Flanagan (14:08:29) :
By the way, another intersting study
http://politics.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/4819/egan_mullin.pdf
people tend to belief in global warming as a function of their local temperature. In cold and temperate places, those supporting global waming are the ones with the highest level of education, whose opinion is relatively constant whatever the local temperatures.
To which I had this reply:
rephelan (09:14:52) :
Tom P (02:40:34) :
rephelan,
I don’t know why you are questioning Flanagan’s integrity. The lower plot of figure 6 in the Egan and Mullin paper shows precisely what he states:
“…people tend to belief in global warming as a function of their local temperature. In cold and temperate places, those supporting global waming are the ones with the highest level of education, whose opinion is relatively constant whatever the local temperatures.”
Perhaps I was too hasty in criticizing Flanagan’s integrity. There is an equal probability that neither you nor Flanagan can interpret a graph. The paper itself was concerned with the influence of non-ideological information on perceptions of global warming. The non-ideological information in question was the local weather. The chart referenced showed that the weather, either hotter or colder, had almost no effect on changing the perceptions of the more educated and had the greatest effect on changing the perceptions of the least educated. The chart does NOT show that more educated people believe in global warming and less educated do not. The authors own legend for that graph should have given you a clue:
“Figures show predicted probabilities of agreeing there is evidence for global warming when local temperature is much hotter than normal (at the 95th percentile, or 14.7°F above normal) and much cooler than normal (at the 5th percentile, 4.3°F below normal).”
The conclusion of the paper, as presented in the abstract, was:
“Our results suggest that when politically relevant information is conveyed without ideological cues, political sophistication may prohibit the integration of this information into political beliefs regardless of the direction of one’s predispositions. “
The bottom line is that whether you are an alarmist or denialist, political sophistication (defined by the authors as either high education or ideological commitment to a party) tends to leave your position on AGW unmoved in the face of your perception of the weather.
Whether Flanagan has an integrity issue or literacy issue, neither choice looks particularly good for Flanagan….
Once again, Flanagan, get some integrity. Try criticizing the papers on their merits.
I’ve really got to learn to use the formatting tools on this site.
Joel,
Do you also believe that the global warming hypothesis could stand without feeding at the public trough?
Just wondering,
Taxpayer Mike
Inquirer: “exasperated by” should be “exacerbated by”
Can we have a round of applause for Smokey’s “little” list produced for the benefit of Rick. It seems to have given him something to think about but sadly it has woken up Flanagan.
Ian (13:43:54) :
“…As for Pilmer, have you seen Michael Ashby’s review in The Australian? ( http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25433059-5003900,00.html )
Ian, are you suggesting that we should not read Pilmer’s book on the basis of a single negative review in a newspaper?
Ian, scroll up until you see the post:
An Inquirer (09:57:55) :
I was responding to that. Apparently it’s not easy for you to connect them, so I’m just helping out.
As for that ignorant hack that insulted Pilmer’s book in the Australian, did you see the sound thrashing he got in the comments section?
CodeTech (11:42:16) :
An Inquirer:
I have a problem with “Step 3″. Our contribution to CO2 increase is not a given by any means. Even assuming that Mauna Loa represents an accurate “global CO2″ reading (which it most likely does not), our contribution to atmospheric CO2 is miniscule, and it’s ridiculous to assume that the planetary ability to absorb CO2 is static.
In fact, steps 3-6 (accurate as you’ve placed them!) veer directly off into Science Fiction. It’s not much different than thinking that sea levels will rise because my toilet is running all the time.
Also, in regards to “Peer Review”, why is it so difficult for some people to understand just who these “Peers” are that are doing the “Reviewing”???
“Conspiracy” is probably the wrong word, because it is easy to write off conspiracy theories. And it’s also very probable that most people propagating the cAGW line are well intentioned and believe wholly in what they are saying, but that doesn’t make them correct.
Next, those who post here and elsewhere and write off everything done by what they call “RIGHT-WING” anything… you then won’t be offended when I completely write off everything “LEFT-WING” as nutty, worthless, and agenda-driven.
Try a “Collusion of Means”. The Agenda goals can be completely contrary to each other – but the means are identical. Therefore disparate groups without organisation and cohesion can drive the same effect.
REF EXAMPLE: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/blackstock5.html
The means is “Control of CO2 Emissions”, the players are various, Governments looking for tax, Companies looking for markets and profits, True believers looking for validation, Media companies looking to sell advertising space from scare stories.
BTW: The politicisation of science funding is a very effective way to shut people up – Scientists have mortgages to pay and families to support too.
No “Conspiracy” is required, but “Collusion of Means” allows for specific players to be very organised.
If the AGW Myth (with CAP and Trade) plays out to it’s logical conclusions, Coal Power will still be in place 50 years from now. The Banks, the Government will be too addicted to the trading profits, and tax revenues to allow the goose that lays the golden egg to die. The true believers will be disappointed.
REF: Baptists and Bootleggers in the Prohibition era, did people stop drinking, no. Did the bootleggers make a lot of money, yes. Who were the winners and who were the losers – and reapply the model to the AGW with CAP and Trade.
Interestingly, the “earrrrrrrrrliest everrrrrrr grrrrrrreat heat” in California had near zero effect. Of course the MSM neglected to mention that other than those odd three or four days, California had a normal to cold April.
WRT who is qualified to critique Climate Science (AGW) – to my mind there are only the following requirements.
1. Be Honest.
2. Do the work
The above requirements are sufficient to allow an inquiring mind to discover the missing foundations of empirical observation underneath the AGW Myth.