NOAA: September Temperature Above-Average for the U.S.

The September 2009 average temperature for the contiguous United States was above the long-term average, according to NOAA’s monthly State of the Climate report issued today. Based on records going back to 1895, the monthly National Climatic Data Center analysis is part of the suite of climate services NOAA provides.

The average September temperature of 66.4 degrees F was 1.0 degree F above the 20th Century average.  Precipitation across the contiguous United States in September averaged 2.48 inches, exactly the 1901-2000 average.

August 2009 statewide temperature ranks.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

U.S. Temperature Highlights

  • Below-normal temperatures across parts of the south and Northeast were offset by record high values in the West and above normal temperatures in the Northwest and northern tier states resulting in a higher average temperature for the contiguous United States.
  • Both California and Nevada experienced their warmest September of the 115-year record. Additionally Montana and North Dakota posted their third warmest, Idaho its fourth warmest, Utah fifth warmest, Minnesota sixth warmest, and Oregon registered its eighth warmest.
  • On a regional level, the West experienced its warmest September on record. The Northwest and West North Central experienced their sixth and eleventh warmest such periods. Below-normal temperatures were recorded in the South and Northeast.

August 2009 statewide precipitation ranks.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

U.S. Precipitation Highlights

  • While precipitation equaled the long-term average for the contiguous U.S., regional amounts varied widely. The South experienced its sixth-wettest September, which was countered by the sixth-driest period around the Great Lakes and upper Midwest region.
  • Arkansas registered its second wettest September, Tennessee its fifth, with Mississippi and Alabama posting their sixth wettest on record. Despite notable and flood-producing rains in northern Georgia, drier conditions near the coast kept the state’s overall average out of the top ten.
  • Maine and Wisconsin each experienced their fourth driest September and both New Hampshire and Michigan had their seventh driest such periods.
  • By the end of September, moderate-to-exceptional drought covered 15 percent of the contiguous United States, based on the U.S. Drought Monitor. Drought intensified in the Upper Midwest and eastern Carolinas, while remaining entrenched in much of the West. Drought conditions remain severe in south Texas, despite some improvement.

Other Highlights

  • During September, 5,535 fires burned approximately 378,523 acres — both were below the 2000-2009 average for the month. The acreage burned by wildfires was roughly half of the 2000-2009 average. For the January-September period, 70,217 fires were reported, which is slightly above the 10-year average, while acreage burned is slightly less than average.

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.

Scientists, researchers, and leaders in government and industry use NCDC’s monthly reports to help track trends and other changes in the world’s climate. The data have a wide range of practical uses, from helping farmers know what to plant, to guiding resource managers with critical decisions about water, energy and other vital assets.

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 13, 2009 8:12 pm

But this is *weather*, not climate!

Douglas DC
October 13, 2009 8:21 pm

Huh? I’d thought we had a nice late summer -NE Ore..Nobody’s getting warm temps as of this last week. we are getting a bit of SW flow and rain-we need it. but,got a question
is the record for areas of population or land area? I think land mass would have
something to do with the areas that were warmer or colder,or is it because there
are more people in Cali per sq.Than say Oklahoma?..

October 13, 2009 8:39 pm

I had the feeling September might have come in a little high but October looks like it will be cold in North America from the looks of things so far.

October 13, 2009 8:42 pm

Can’t wait for the numbers for Oct, where record lows and early snows have been observed everywhere. Of course, the warmists (fearmongers?) will be quick to dismiss that as “weather” not “climate”.
And of course, give me warming instead of cooling, any day.

October 13, 2009 8:44 pm

Looks like October is kind of cool
Lowest Maxes
Total Number of Records for October 2009
(out of 74,517 stations with at least 30 years of data)
New: 2,412 + Tied: 473 = Total: 2,885
Lowest Mins
Total Number of Records for October 2009
(out of 74,457 stations with at least 30 years of data)
New: 1,032 + Tied: 375 = Total: 1,407
There are snow records as well

Dave Wendt
October 13, 2009 8:48 pm

Looks close to accurate for here in Minnesota. After running well below normal since Spring, we had a nice warm stretch in the middle of Sept. However, since the last week in Sept to today we are averaging a solid 10 degrees below normal, with the last five days averaging 17 degrees below normal. AccuWeather’s 15 day forecast for where I live has only one day approaching a normal high temp and if their forecast temps hold up, we’re looking at more than 12degrees below normal for the month. I WANT MY GLOBAL WARMING BACK!!!!

Christian Bultmann
October 13, 2009 8:50 pm

When NOAA understands changes in the Earth’s environment why do they only predict future weather events instead of just reporting them?

October 13, 2009 8:52 pm

The way they “correct” the numbers, which we don’t actually have a clue how they do it, makes their numbers meaningless… and how much this costs the tax payers again? Like someone said… GARBAGE!

Mike Bryant
October 13, 2009 9:04 pm

“Additional quality control is applied to the data… as increased scientific methods improve NCDC’s processing algorithms”
I wonder how often they improve/change the algorithms…

Geoff C
October 13, 2009 9:14 pm

The southern end of Australia has been colder than the last few years for September into October.

Pamela Gray
October 13, 2009 9:20 pm

The best way to do this, because the Earth does not give a tinker’s damn about what month it is, is to report 3-month running averages along with monthly averages, just like they do with El Nino data. Why isn’t this done? And wouldn’t it make sense, since the conditions of the oceans determines our weather, that both sets of temp data should be reported in such a way as to compare them?

October 13, 2009 9:21 pm

I wonder if above average temperatures would hold up above say 2000ft elevation. Here in the high Ozarks last month was like October with near record precipitation.

October 13, 2009 9:30 pm

NOAA analysis is based on GISS, right?
What is the Sat. bases anomally for the USA based on UHA and RSS?

October 13, 2009 9:34 pm

Let’s see how they measure October’s temperature. This month is starting off as colder than average in California.
Here’s a color map of California’s temperature anomalies for October (thus far).

Ed From Las Vegas
October 13, 2009 9:43 pm

“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”
Does this seem a little arrogant to anyone else?
Here in Las Vegas, September daily averages were shown as high in the newspaper, mostly, I think, because overnight temperatures were warmer than “normal”.

October 13, 2009 9:45 pm

The average high for this time of year is in the 60s, but now our high is equivalent to the average low (mid 40s). Maybe NOAA can apply the magical algorithm to my skin to warm it up?

October 13, 2009 9:49 pm

I’m sorry, but I’m calling “BS” on this. It has been much hotter in the south bay in Septembers past and it was hotter in the central valley in Septembers past. My son in the LA area said it was hot, but not all that hot.
What thermometers were used for this conclusion and with what processing?
You can’t have a “no tomatoes” summer and call it a hot summer too. It just doesn’t work that way. Heck, a couple of years ago I even managed to get a Brandywine to ripen some fruit. This year I barely got the “4th of July” and “Siberian” to give me anything. AND my runner beans have produced all summer long with maybe a couple of week ‘flowers only’ period (that the hummingbirds love) while in prior years I’ve had “all flowers all the time” for 2+ summer months (they don’t set seed in the mid-90F+ range).
And we had rain in September (fairly rare).
SO, as far as I can tell, the California temperature claim is dead flat bogus and must be a mathematical artifact of manipulation or is based on a really broken set of thermometers.
Sidebar: A family member gets headaches if we run the AC. As a coping behaviour, I “water the roof” on really hot days and if it gets really really hot, I hang tarps from the eaves to shade the house. This year I did NO tarps and maybe watered the roof 2 days (and even then it wasn’t too bad). In 1998 or so it was full tarps on 2 sides (W and S) and mister hoses under the eaves too along with roof sprinklers and it was still hot. Oh, and I had sunflowers planted to shade the parts of the W side that the tarps did not shade.
Bottom line is that this summer in general, including September, were the coolest in several years. No Way was this a record hot month. Something is egregiously cooked in the books.
Also, for California to have had the “warmest September of the 115-year record” would there not have had to be a few “record hot days”? I don’t remember seeing a litany of “Record Hot Day in California” news reports.
This just doesn’t come close to passing the “smell test”. I suspect someone tried to use the “big empty” of Nevada and rural California to make up for the fact that it was cold “back east” (that is, east of Tahoe 🙂 and is hoping nobody notices.

October 13, 2009 10:09 pm

Below NORMAL temps in the Northeast? Sheesh. June, July and most of August were miserable. September was GREAT while October has a decision to make. Leaves turning earlier than usual, fewer than NORMAL Canada Geese-rats …. so what am I to conclude? We’re all gonna drown and die!

October 13, 2009 10:18 pm

RE: I call BS and will await the revised numbers. I was in California and Nevada for most of September, the temperatures were not above normal.
I agree. It was not abnormally warm.

CPT. Charles
October 13, 2009 10:22 pm

In my neck of the woods, the middle of September seemed warmer [although August wasn’t nearly as warm as usual] but that went bye-bye in the last week. Heck, the final day of the month, I saw the starlings beginning to gather [easily 3 weeks earlier than usual].
Given the current temps, I can see why. The high tomorrow: 48F, about 20 below the seasonal norm.
If we have snow by Halloween, I won’t be the least bit surprised.

October 13, 2009 10:26 pm

“Both California and Nevada experienced their warmest September of the 115-year record.”
Say what? Not in my neck of the woods. I have been in hot Septembers in California. Seen plenty of them. Bay Area, Sac, So Mother Lode, No. Mother Lode, No. Sierra, Klamath-Trinity. No, this was a very warm and rather nice September, with a truly hot couple of days in the No. Valley, but it was no barn burner.
Ridiculous, I say. I saw a smatter of records broken, but some of them were because the records have been foreshortened, dropping of the really hot years. What was remarkable wasn’ the heat, it was the dryness. RH dropping to 3 one day. Which meant it cooled off quickly at night for anyone at elevation.
Hottest Sept. in 115 yrs? I don’t think so.

October 13, 2009 10:39 pm

Sorry, not believing their temperature map. I know for FACT that North Dakota was below normal. I know for FACT that Tennessee was below normal. And I know for FACT that Washington was above normal.
How do I know? Because I tracked temperatures every day for the entire month, and only but a handful of temperatures ever reached normal for the areas below normal, and were significantly above normal in Washington.
Sorry, just not believing what they are telling me here. I will believe my own eyes first.

October 13, 2009 10:41 pm

The September temperature was what it was, although we might not know what it was. It might have been “1.0 degree F above the 20th century average” and then again it might not have been. We are, after all, coming up from the end of the LIA in the mid 19th century. For the purpose of this discussion what is important is that it is uncorrelated with (gasp) CO2. I do, however, think it is time to locate my favorite sweater.

Al Gore's Holy Hologram
October 13, 2009 10:43 pm

In California they keep their thermometers next to bush fires and the exhausts of Arnold’s SUV. The governator needs those billions in bail out funds to beat “climate change”.

anna v
October 13, 2009 10:58 pm

I will try to formulate simply why any linear averaging of temperatures and looking at anomalies carries little information and is biased towards high numbers.
It is not temperature that determines temperature for the future or the past. It is the square of the measured temperature, because radiation goes as T^4. Particularly if there were no other way to change the temperature of a region taking linear averages is practically meaningless.
This I copy from the Spencer thread down stream the discussion started from a discussion of the paper :
Christopher Essex, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario
Bjarne Andresen, Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen
Ross McKitrick, Department of Economics, University of Guelph
Physical, mathematical and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.

Take a desert. It is 50C in the day and 0C at night, that is 273K at night and 333 in the day. The linear average between maximum and minimum will be 25C.
The weighted by T^4 average will be:34.4C, because the hotter the more radiation.
So 9 degrees errors/differences in calculating an average is not trivial.
Consider winter hemisphere and summer hemisphere, poles/tropics there will be equally large differences.
This means that systematic errors in temperature will be amplified by a power of 4 making the plots meaningless.
There is a meaning for a local temperature, because that is what people, and thermometers feel. It is the average that is meaningless, even for people’s life decisions, because it has lost its connection with radiation which is what it is all about.
Take the desert example above: 25 C sounds good as average day/night, we get that often in the temperate regions in the summer, but would you choose to live in that desert?
And I have not touched on convection, evaporation etc. that create great changes in temperature biasing towards high; example: large masses of south air go to Siberia and raise the temperature there. The global average goes up, the radiation budget does not.
All these should be in the models if they are made correctly, BUT the models suffer from the linearity condition too, wherever they substitute an average value for some highly non linear turbulent effect. ( but that is another story).

anna v
October 13, 2009 10:59 pm

Please correct that “square” into the “fourth power”, as the T^4 shows.

Andrew Parker
October 13, 2009 11:06 pm

Eddie Murphy (21:21:53) :
I live at 4,200 ft. in Utah, (most of the State is at or above this elevation) and it was a mixed bag for September. Because we are a high altitude continental climate, weather here is never really ‘normal’. I have enjoyed the milder winters the past few years. I am kind of hoping they stay that way for quite awhile.
I think that this is a good example of what Global Warming really means. Its all about climate — not weather. If the Climate warms up a degree or two, or ten, it doesn’t mean that we are all going to be sweltering in a yellow tinted world rioting over a piece of Soylent Green.
Local weather will change. Some will win and some will lose. It happens all the time, even when Climate remains relatively static. Why must we waste our resources and cripple our economies when we ought to be looking at ways to deal with any negative impacts of Climate change, natural or otherwise?
OT- I thought being Green was about living with nature? It is natural for Climate to change, and it is the nature of man to adjust to it. We have as much right to alter our environment to suit our needs as any other organism. Who have had a greater impact on the earth, Humans or Algae? Humans or Ants?

late july
October 13, 2009 11:19 pm

Are you people living in the same California I am? This was the hottest September I can remember in my 35 years. Our closest “big” city, Fresno, had the 4th warmest September ever and I believe every bit of it.

October 14, 2009 12:12 am

It was nice to see the NCDC report that wildfires in USA have been below average.
Meanwhile in Oz our ABC’s ‘Foreign Correspondent’ last night featured “California Burning”, naturally linking “megafires” with global warming, with the delightful statement “These same issues are hot topics around the world as countries from Spain to Greece and most recently America face similar mega fires. Everyone wants to know why these fires are becoming more ferocious and more frequent – and what we can do to stop them.”
Same old, same old.

October 14, 2009 12:46 am

anna v
“I will try to formulate simply why any linear averaging of temperatures and looking at anomalies carries little information and is biased towards high numbers.”
Thank you. Lot’s of dot connecting. Excellent.

October 14, 2009 1:13 am

Amir: You asked, “NOAA analysis is based on GISS, right?”
Wrong. Two different entities, two different methods.

October 14, 2009 3:27 am

“Take a desert. It is 50C in the day and 0C at night, that is 273K at night and 333 in the day. The linear average between maximum and minimum will be 25C.”
It is 50C in the day in summer and 0C at night in winter , at least around here.
This is a typical Australian desert station

October 14, 2009 4:27 am

anna v,
I certainly agree that the concept of average global temperatures doesn’t make much sense and is of little use in monitoring climate change. Yet, something interesting happen when you take all these temperatures, which as you say, are all over the place. When you average them out you get the same, or nearly the same results, year after year, to within half a degree or so. This is quite remarkable is it not? Common sense would lead me to expect a random walk of temperatures, yet this doesn’t happen. Maybe there’s something to it after all.

October 14, 2009 4:36 am

I thought GISS uses NOAA’s raw data -at least in the CONUS. However, you are correct in that GISS and NOAA use 2 different methods in coming up with thier temp analysis.

Tom in Florida
October 14, 2009 4:38 am

I really like how the state of Florida warmed up exactly along it’s borders. Nice job Mother Nature, it makes averaging state wide temperatures real easy.
FWIW, Florida experienced above normal temps most of month due to high pressure systems locked in off both the east and west coasts. A stationary front in the north part of the state prevented cooler northernly winds from coming out of the plains to clear them out. The high pressure systems also suppressed the formation of clouds resulting in very little cooling afternoon storms. But humidity was down so it was very nice for us lovers of warmth.

October 14, 2009 5:33 am

What do you people expect .With SO many error’s on reporting temp’s from closed stations ,especially in rural areas,to temp sensors placed on roof tops on asphaltparking lots and next to A/C units I feel sure we will get the readings to support the global warming crap.I can see it now 2 feet of snow and temps showing in the 50’s.

Tim Clark
October 14, 2009 5:42 am

I see they have Kansas much below normal. Using another source, Accuweather and their historical temps, the average was -1.100003 degrees for September. May be a few degrees of freedom problem there [/sarc] but if
-1.1 is much below normal it doesn’t seem all that scary to me. Anecdotally, we had 12 days in September that were cloudy which is much above normal. [sarc on] Maybe clouds are a negative feedback.

October 14, 2009 5:46 am

Here in the foothills of N C we had a sept which was autumn like with nice during day but cool at night and right much rain.My youngest son,who is 10, and I go to high school football games,MT.Airy Bears 2008 State Football champs,on friday night and we had to wear coats which is A little early for this area.

October 14, 2009 5:47 am

Every year is the “warmest”, every month is the “hottest”, all the seas are “boiling up”, everywhere orange, red, crimson. All from stations with just a little standard deviation of up to 5 (five) degrees centigrade. How nice!

October 14, 2009 5:51 am

They mention Montana as having a very warm Sept. and we did, however we just had a week of very cold temps and 3 days of record shattering cold. It wasn’t just a few degrees below he record, most places beat the record cold temps by 10-20 degrees. I think so far October has been the coldest month on record.

D Matteson
October 14, 2009 6:17 am

As some of you may know NOAA’s first release of the monthly data is perliminary, but what happens after that? Well after about the fourth month the final numbers are posted.
Here is what has happened since Feb 2008 to the New Hampshire preliminary (Pre) and Final data, the last column (Adj) is the difference
Pre Final Adj
2008 Feb 22.2 22.8 +0.6
2008 Mar 27.8 27.5 -0.3
2008 Apr 44.7 44.3 -0.4
2008 May 52.3 51.1 -1.2
2008 Jun 64.4 64.1 -0.3
2008 Jul 69.0 65.0 -4.0
2008 Aug 64.3 63.9 -0.4
2008 Sep 59.2 58.3 -0.9
2008 Oct 45.6 44.7 -0.9
2008 Nov 35.9 35.8 -0.1
2008 Dec 24.0 24.7 +0.7
2009 Jan 13.0 12.7 -0.3
2009 Feb 22.5 22.2 -0.3
2009 Mar 31.3 30.2 -1.1
2009 Apr 45.5 44.4 -1.1
2009 May 54.1 53.3 -0.8
On 14 of the 16 months the preliminary monthly temperatures were adjusted downward.

October 14, 2009 6:34 am

So, when we get done with OCTOBER (In a little over two weeks..) and and we BOGUSLY “average” the temperature. (Can’t ANYONE make it clear that temperature averaging is BOGUS?) Will we get as much breathless handwringing when “October Temperature 2 degrees F lower than normal, the lowest in 70 years!!!!” or the like? Unlikely I realize, but “equal treatment under the law”…(Whoops, no such thing for jurinalizem…)

Pamela Gray
October 14, 2009 6:35 am

PDO conditions affect broadly regional segments of the US, and I assume other American countries as well. The regions pretty much stay consistently situated geographically and the local temperatures within each region follow each other in moving up or down depending on PDO conditions, thus are good places to develop a three month moving average profile for each regional area. This would provide a much better sense of how temps are affected by oceanic influences, regardless of what is causing oceanic influences to change (anthropogenic, trade winds, cloud cover, etc). This would be a fabulous dissertation if compared to the already in place 3 month moving PDO average.

October 14, 2009 6:52 am

The northeast was slightly cooler than average for September. As everyone knows summer began late very late in most of the country. Northeast did not get temperatures in the 90s until the 2nd week of August. However after mid-September fall took over quick and now we are diving well below again.
In 1999, my state CT hit 90s degree record in March. This year such temperatures were not experienced until the very end of summer. NOAA is clearly cooking the books.

Don Shaw
October 14, 2009 6:57 am

Maybe this is their long term standard, but I wonder why they compare the temperatures with the 20th century average other than to fool people into thinking that global warming is continuing. Why not compare with a more recent period (say 25 years) rather than including the very cold periods over 100 years ago?

Douglas DC
October 14, 2009 7:16 am

Speaking of PDO, is it me or do I see the cold fingers of La Nina about to wrap around the neck of El Nino?: FIrst,NOAA:
Next the not so scary colored UNISIS:
Bob T? anyone?

Tim Clark
October 14, 2009 7:43 am

Tim Clark (05:42:59) :
I see they have Kansas much below normal. Using another source, Accuweather and their historical temps, the average was -1.100003 degrees for September. May be a few degrees of freedom problem there [/sarc] but if
-1.1 is much below normal it doesn’t seem all that scary to me. Anecdotally, we had 12 days in September that were cloudy which is much above normal. [sarc on] Maybe clouds are a negative feedback.

I just computed the first 12 days of Oct. using the same source. Right now Kansas is -9.61538. The coldest (and most accurate) start to Oct. since the LIA (whatever).

October 14, 2009 7:47 am

This September doesn’t hold a candle to 1998 or 1931. Indeed 1897 was a warmer September.
The Septembers from warmest to coldest are:

Jason S
October 14, 2009 7:51 am

In the SF Bay Area, we definately had a warm September. It did not make up for the coldest June, July & August I can remember for the 20 years I have lived here. We bought an above ground pool, and we didn’t get to use it until late late summer.

October 14, 2009 7:52 am

Douglas DC (07:16:34) : Good your observations. This we must not see it as an usual PDO or Nino/Nina. Look in UNISIS graph the sea temperature in front of Ecuador, at the equatorial line, colder than the rest. Then watch that both sides (east and west coasts) of the south pacific are cold. Save charts, these will be remembered the typical ones of a LIA beginning. I think we will miss NOAA´s oranges and reds in the years to come.

October 14, 2009 7:54 am

If you bring up the temp map in a separate window/tab and then replace the 0909 in the address with 0809, you can go back and forth between the two to see the changes between August and September.
I don’t know why the June and July one can’t be brought up in the same manner. It would be nice to see an animated version through the months.

John in L du B
October 14, 2009 8:06 am

Yep. September in Manitoba was pretty much as they describe. However, June, July and August were very wet and very chilly. Many crops did not get planted and many that did failed to germinate. There would have been virtually no crops if September hadn’t been so warm. Also, it was the first time on record that September was warmer for the year than June, July or August.
Finally we had 15 cm of snow this past weekend for Canadian Thanksgiving.
So depite talk of AGW, the Canadian West is still next year country, not becuase of drought or heat, but because of frost and cold.

October 14, 2009 8:25 am

Calendar months are a human invention with issues for evaluating data, whether sales or temperature. There is a reason accounting months are even periods (454,445, etc.) — so the data for a quarter can be more accurately understood. Although it makes great news releases (“Hottest July ever!”), the use of calendar months to extract meaningful information is shaky.

October 14, 2009 8:27 am

I don’t think that the map tells the whole story.
In Northern Wisconsin it was warmer than normal for about HALF of September. The beginning of the month was still cold, and it brought frost (actually a hard freeze at 26-27ºF) two weeks earlier than normal. Then we had a couple of warm weeks, then the bottom fell out. I don’t think it is worth a lot of drama that the jet stream finally swung north for a couple of weeks after our abnormally cold summer spent mostly north of it.
We are paying the price now, we had an inch of snow yesterday, the first time since the early 1900s. Monday our normal high was 57, we barely hit 33. We probably won’t get within 8-10 degrees of our normal high for another week.
The 22 days without rainfall in Sept isn’t abnormal either in the context of a summer that was down 35% from averages and frequently included periods of several weeks without rain. It is also the third summer in a row like that. Believe me, I know. Part of my income comes from the whitewater river a mile down the road. The past few summers it was more suitable for a geology class than rafting or kayaking.
The point? I don’t think that the map gives an accurate portrayal or the real story. The real story is that we spent the last 10 months at the lower end of our climate norms for both temperature and precip, with or without the two warm weeks in September.

Cold in BC
October 14, 2009 8:44 am

In case it hasn’t been mentined elsewhere, Winniped, Manitoba, Canada had the largest snowfall since 1872 on Sat/Sun. The majority of southern BC had record lows of between -5deg C and -10 deg C…quite unheard of this early in the fall.

October 14, 2009 9:09 am

We had a wet spring and summer – in our semi-arid area, we had mushrooms in our yard! It was cool all summer – with “anemic” tomatoes. Local weather person called it “the summer that wasn’t”. Along comes October and it is absolutely frigid. We were scheduled to have our irrigation system winterized on 15-Oct our normal date for doing this – but last weekend we had temps in the teens and highs only in the 20s! Now, instead of winterizing the irrigation system we are also having it repaired since we came home to a busted exterior pipe that was spewing water.

David Segesta
October 14, 2009 9:14 am

In southeast Michigan the temperature so far for October has been 5-10 degrees F colder than average. There has also been more rain than usual. The grass loves it.
Two years ago my wife and I took a fall color trip to Traverse City at this time in October. Well there was no color because the trees hadn’t changed yet. But it was warm enough to spend a few days at the beach. We actually went swimming in the Grand Traverse bay on Oct 10. This year the high temperature on the 10th was 50F. So I don’t think I’d try swimming there now.

Steve M.
October 14, 2009 9:18 am

Funny, I live in Tennessee…and they listed us as a ‘normal’ month. I know we had several days of +5 deg. F I was expecting an above normal rating for the month. Of course, Tennessee is 400+ miles long and I live in one little area, so I can’t speak for the rest of the state

David Segesta
October 14, 2009 9:22 am

BTW It seems many of today’s posters are reporting colder temps in North America. But I notice the DMI Arctic temp is warmer than average. Could it be that winds are blowing cold air from the Arctic down toward us and replacing the Arctic air with warmer air from the south?

October 14, 2009 10:12 am

Dammit! Stupid California. Not only can’t we balance our state budget, but now we get the blame for causing Global Warming in the US in Sept of 2009.
God I hate this state!

P Walker
October 14, 2009 10:48 am

Idaho may have had its fourth warmest Sept. ( don’t know for sure , as I didn’t get out here until the last week ) , but we’re making up for it now . Two weeks ago it was almost 80 on a Monday and snowing on Wed . BTW , after being away for five months , I checked my thermometer for the high and low temps : 91 high , 28 low . Seems pretty average to me .

P Walker
October 14, 2009 10:53 am

I forgot to ask in the above post – How can they claim that the temp was above average for the whole US when thirty four of the lower forty eight states had average or below average temps ?

October 14, 2009 10:57 am

I call lies.
From my electricity bill:
Average Temperature 64F 67F
the first # is this year… the second is last year.
I think everyone should check

October 14, 2009 12:54 pm

There is definitely some creative data processing going on in there. Is the source data and methods published somewhere to be verified?
How about analysis of the summer as a period? This must have been one of the coldest summers on record. In Pennsylvania we were 5 to 10 degrees below normal routinely. We hit 90 only a few days. Normally we have 30 or more 90 degree days in summer. We went from the last frost warning on May 14 to first frost warning on October 13. A whole 5 months of spring, summer and fall! That leaves us with 7 months of winter and associated heating expenses, not to mention slowing economic activity. My friend is a concrete contractor and he doesn’t know how he will make it through the winter.

October 14, 2009 1:50 pm

RE: n the SF Bay Area, we definately had a warm September.
Which is normal. We always have our warmest days in September. But compared with the previous 44 Septembers, it was nothing to write home about.

George E. Smith
October 14, 2009 2:12 pm

Well that happens sometimes; sometimes it’s above average, and sometimes it’s below average; but on average it’s about average; and generally on average, absolutely nothing untoward is happening.
And my tax dollars go into reporting that on average things are about average.
Whoopee !

Mike G
October 15, 2009 11:33 am

Confirms what I thought all along: This year has been significantly cooler than last year. There is, after all, at least a full degree of upward bias in the surface temperature number, from what I’ve been able to gather on here and by looking at my local weather high/lows.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights