
I’ll have a lot more on this study later, but for now just a short rebuttal.
I believe this study is hopelessly flawed due to the fact that the authors take the data from the weather stations at face value without considering bias due to measurement error or siting error, both of which are rampant in the US surface station network.
Read my report at left.
While not all situations with poorly sited weather stations affect trends, a weather station like this one at the University of Arizona’s parking lot in front of the atmospheric science department is represenative of the kinds of problems that would lead to an increased number of new high temperature records set.

Plus then there’s the error problem. For example we saw this summer that Honolulu set new record highs, but they turned out to be in error. The kicker is that NOAA let the records stand anyway! The problem is that a number of climate stations are at airports. Watch this NWS employee say on record that these airport weather stations are “placed for aviation purposes…not necessarily for climate purposes.”
So take this NCAR study with a grain of salt, since the authors did not address any of these issues.
From NCAR: Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.
BOULDER—Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.
“Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States,” says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). “The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting.”
This graphic shows the ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009.
Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole. [ENLARGE] (©UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao.) News media terms of use*
The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR’s sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.
If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.
A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station’s history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.
This decade’s warming was more pronounced in the western United States, where the ratio was more than two to one, than in the eastern United States, where the ratio was about one-and-a-half to one.
The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation’s warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change.
In addition to surveying actual temperatures in recent decades, Meehl and his co-authors turned to a sophisticated computer model of global climate to determine how record high and low temperatures are likely to change during the course of this century.
The modeling results indicate that if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a “business as usual” scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20-to-1 by mid-century and 50-to-1 by 2100. The mid-century ratio could be much higher if emissions rose at an even greater pace, or it could be about 8-to-1 if emissions were reduced significantly, the model showed.
The authors caution that such predictions are, by their nature, inexact. Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions. The model used for the study, the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model, correctly captured the trend toward warmer average temperatures and the greater warming in the West, but overstated the ratio of record highs to record lows in recent years.
However, the model results are important because they show that, in all likely scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, record daily highs should increasingly outpace record lows over time.
“If the climate weren’t changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time,” says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper’s co-authors. “As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs.”
An expanding ratio
The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s.
Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two.
Despite the increasing number of record highs, there will still be occasional periods of record cold, Meehl notes.
“One of the messages of this study is that you still get cold days,” Meehl says. “Winter still comes. Even in a much warmer climate, we’re setting record low minimum temperatures on a few days each year. But the odds are shifting so there’s a much better chance of daily record highs instead of lows.”
Millions of readings from weather stations across the country
The study team analyzed several million daily high and low temperature readings taken over the span of six decades at about 1,800 weather stations across the country, thereby ensuring ample data for statistically significant results. The readings, collected at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center, undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations, or other factors.
Meehl and his colleagues then used temperature simulations from the Community Climate System Model to compute daily record highs and lows under current and future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
About the article
Title: “The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.”
Authors: Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry McDaniel
Publication: Geophysical Research Letters (in press)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

After reading more comments let me say this. Most of the people here are great scientists, but naieve in the ways of conmen. Thus you are sent scrambling by claptrap from Kampen:
Here is the only response he ever needed:
The concept of a “Record” high, has absolutely no scientific, physical or thermodynamic relevance. It is a manmade designation, meaningless in the context of the earth’s climactic history. Thus any conversation applying relevance to climactic claims based on ‘record temperatures’ is inane. Period. And if you don’t understand why, you should never attempt to make a ‘scientific’ point again.
Conversation over. Was there really any reason to digress into arguing point for point with him on each progressively-more-ridiculous follow up comment? I mean he was talking about “gnomes” by the second paragraph. Did you really become scientists to discuss the implications of gnome activity on climate with [snip]?
My only criticism of this blog has always been the extent to which people get sucked into debating the fine details of an issue, even when that issue’s central premise is fundamentally koo-koo. Don’t fall into the trap of trying to beat blatant and purposeful contrarianism. They are trying to distract you from doing the meaningful work that will put them out of business…
Charles S, spare yourself the drama and read my post above.
“Record” is a manmade designation with no implication on the scientific facts. It is valueless designation.
What is the “record” speed of light? What is the “record” mass of an atom? What is the “record” spin of an electron?
Sounds really stupid without the fancy presentation and script doesn’t it.
This is snake oil. I don’t need Steve McIntyre to tell me that…
RR Kampen (07:36:50) :
“…this is my last post here….. Goodbye.”
You promise?
Midwest Mark (05:20:11) :
This morning the local television news reported the current temperature at the station was 31 degrees, but they also noted that the airport–perhaps 15 miles away–was reporting 42 degrees. All surrounding counties were reporting temperatures in the low 30s.
Now there’s something that really is global warming.
“This indicates that much of the nation’s warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows” isnt that when the urban heat island effect is most noticable!
Of course, close down lots of rural stations and this will also happen regardless of warming / changing climate etc….
If most of the increasing number of record high temperatures compared to the decreasing number of record low temperatures are attributable to the documented problems with surface station siting, how is it that most other trends related to temperature but not related to the surface stations are also in the direction that would be expected with warming? As an example, Stewart, Cayan, and Dettinger, Journal of Climate, 18, 1136-1155 (2005) described an earlier spring snowmelt pulse based on data from U.S. Geological Survey stream gauging stations in western North America from 1948 to 2002. It seems to me that if the temperature trends are due to inaccurate surface station data, then other climate trends should be a mixed bag (some negative, some positive), but I haven’t seen much discussion of cooling-related trends. That would be an interesting subject.
Oddly, all the highest temperature extremes by continents (except Antarctica)…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalextremes.html
… were recorded before the atmospheric CO2 concentration had reached 310 ppm.
About the 1988 step in european temperature records: Check Bob Tisdale’s postings on El Niño-induced step changes. A step change in 1988 in Europe may have been caused by the 1986-88 El Niño, check Bob’s figure 8, which shows the step change in mid-to-high TLT temperatures, and also note the El Chichon cooling preceding the 1988 temperature rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/countdown-to-an-unprecedented-warm-decade-2-months-to-go/
Casting doubt on the quality of the weather stations with a few examples is easy, but nobody has done the same high/low records calculations for the wheater stations that are known to be of perfect quality. If that has different results, it is a good argument, otherwise it is just tendentious.
Derek D has a good point. This is a tactic used by AGW proponents to distract from the main issues of a debate. The beauty of this blog is that we are allowed to voice our own opinion on climate subjects, either pro or con. This freedom allows the trolls or “debate de-railers” to throw a wrench into the workings of the discussion. A good analogy might be the freedom we enjoy in democratic societies also makes us vulnerable to terrorist activities. We cannot censor our freedom but have to be ever mindful of those who wish ill upon others.
Mr. Ace (10:58:06) Have you looked at the surfacestations site? I’m afraid that “casting doubt” has been left in the dust. If the claim of warming is ~0.7 C, there no more doubt to be cast. There are so few “perfect” weather stations that one could not make any global conclusions either way. I believe it was E.M.Smith who posted a video on WUWT? showing the number of weather stations that once existed but have since been “decommisioned”(any chance the moderators could help find that one?). It is frightening that some scientist still claim that surface records are a “good” indicator we can base policy on. Take a look at the siting issues on surfacestations.org. It is truly revealing. Cheers.
It should be no surprise that the corrupt meteorological database is still fatally flawed and continuing to produce artifacts of urbanization, not measurements of a useful nature. But I must say, warmer urban areas probably save lives in winter among the homeless comunity and save on everyone elses heating bills. The Science News editors apparently have no understanding of the width and depth of the propaganda being generated from the “publish or perish” monolith.
Re: TERRY46 (08:52:34) :
RR Kampen you must be new to this site. Anyone with half a brain if they have followed this site will see for themselves that most of the temps monitors, and not just in the U S, are put in warm biased areas, besides that the fact they closed the rural sites or they just close the monitor down altogether. Look at the pictures this site has shown. These pictures arn’t doctored either. On roof tops, next to air condition units, and as the report shows, over asphalt parking lots.
That may be so, which is why I’m talking about places where no urbanization exists. Mountain ranges: glaciers.
Now I’ll put the question to you again: if you believe thermometer readings are artefacting warming, then do you also believe the freezing point of water in glaciers has been reduced?
Or is it just too hard to put one and one together?
REPLY: This is probably the stupidest comment ever published here, which is the only reason I’m allowing it. – Anthony
Now I’ll put the question to you again: if you believe thermometer readings are artefacting warming, then do you also believe the freezing point of water in glaciers has been reduced?
Or is it just too hard to put one and one together?
REPLY: This is probably the stupidest comment ever published here, which is the only reason I’m allowing it. – Anthony
Then why not answer his question? It’s a very simple “Yes” or “No” answer. Naturally, if you answer “No” then you have to look for another explanation (other than warming) for all the shrinking glaciers. What could that be?
REPLY: Kampen and people like him, ignorantly assume that glacier loss has only to do with temperature. In fact, glaciers are precipitation driven, and when precipitation falls below the rate of sublimation and/or calving, loss occurs. There’s weather patterns involved in precip accumulation, it’s not just simple thermometry that Kampen ignorantly implies. – Anthony
Glaciers have receded and advanced throughout history. Kampen also ignores the fact that we are well within natural variability of the planet. This is well known and documentation can be found with very little effort. No one denies that warming has occurred, but it certainly is not “unprecedented”. These type of people act like nothing like this has ever happened before, and that is simply incorrect.
David, if no-one denies that warming has occurred, then why deny the fact that therefore record highs are at present outnumbering record lows, as evidenced by thermometer readings that you apparently do deem correct?
None of my postings here have ever referred to the question whether present warming is or is not ‘unique’ in history. You made that up. You do not know ‘my kind of people’, this is proven hereby. So let’s quit the ad hominems, shall we?
RRKampen , record highs are exactly what I am talking about. These are not “unprecedented” and thereby make your point moot. You are pushing an agenda that is harmful to all , and yet do not seem to understand the harm you are causing. All the posts I have read from you are alarmist in nature, with little or no evidence to substantiate this position. To form policy on something that is supposed to happen is illogical and wasteful. To say that “record highs are outnumbering record lows” is disingenuous and misleading. You are anthropomorphising climate. Stop ignoring the paleo record and try to understand our place in this record. Nice try at evading the substance of my post.
David Ball (15:22:54)
If you compile the records based on the 10% best stations (Class 1 and Class 2) Count the high/low records and see if the result is different. If you have the data that can not be that hard. If you have not done this calculation, there is no way you can tell whether ‘quality’ has a significant impact on this statistic.
David, what harm am I causing? Do you feel harmed by my disagreeing with you? It’s a free world, does that harm you? Would you rather have a world in which I ‘disappear’ if I’m so stupid to disagree with you? Please answer this. You’ve posted enough rubbish about me to make some amends.
Here’s the graph for Holland: http://benlanka.tweakdsl.nl/climate/datumrecords.png .
And you what? This de facto climate change is reflected in observables re nature and agriculture in Holland. These observables are unprecedented in the agricultural written history of this country.
No reason for alarm. It’s just reality. I’m not dying from it, I’m just interested in climate and climate change.
Next time you write I’m ‘alarmist’ with posts like this, I will point you out as liar. Be warned.
If a passive parking lot, or tarmac can radiate heat AND cold, without bias, then surely radiant coolers will be the new rage (much quieter than compressor driven AC units).
Oh and now the laws of physics have been rewritten in committee (COP), Cold air rises, so we can officially use Cold-air ballons for traveling about the globe, eliminating the need to travel with politicians as in the old Hot-air ballon days.
When can I get some of those heat/cool baseboard radiators for my home and office. Do they require special chemistry (a.k.a. Goreanium), or just pain H2O?
Does anyone know if Goreanium is toxic? Is it correct to assume Goreanium is overweight AND full of BS? (a bit like moi…)