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.
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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 : http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/globaltemp/globaltemp.html
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
ABSTRACT:
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).
Please correct that “square” into the “fourth power”, as the T^4 shows.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Amir: You asked, “NOAA analysis is based on GISS, right?”
Wrong. Two different entities, two different methods.
“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
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/tables/cw_013017_All.shtml
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.
Bob,
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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…)
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.
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.
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?
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:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2009/anomnight.10.12.2009.gif
Next the not so scary colored UNISIS:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html
Bob T? anyone?
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).
This September doesn’t hold a candle to 1998 or 1931. Indeed 1897 was a warmer September.
From:
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
The Septembers from warmest to coldest are:
1998
1931
1933
2005
1990
1939
1922
2002
2007
1997
1938
1921
1925
1947
1954
1897
1960
1963
1906
1980
1936
1979
1953
1948
1911
1978
1977
1905
2004
1952
1955
2009
1895
2001
1930
2000
1983
1937
1910
1919
1994
1969
1958
1908
1898
1940
1920
1987
1944
2008
1956
1904
2003
1923
1900
1991
1981
1927
1945
1995
1959
1992
1935
1899
1988
1932
1970
1966
1941
1914
1972
1946
1973
1971
1915
1999
1909
1976
1943
1907
1957
1962
1989
1967
1917
1982
1951
1968
1926
1986
1934
1949
1964
1942
1913
1996
1950
1961
1916
2006
1929
1993
1984
1901
1928
1896
1975
1985
1903
1902
1924
1912
1974
1918
1965
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.