We are pleased to introduce the new WUWT US Climatic History Reference Page
The graphs within offer a reasonable overview of climatic conditions in the United States during our brief historical record. I don’t see any indications of catastrophically rapid and dangerously accelerating climatic indicators. Does any one else?
For those who may argue that the United States is small portion of the world’s total landmass and thus not necessarily representative of world-wide trends, you are correct. Please be assured that the WUWT Global Climatic History Page is under development and will go live in the next couple weeks.
The US and Global Climatic History Reference Pages, will join the recently introduced WUWT US Weather History Reference Page;
and a growing number of valuable WUWT Reference Pages;
including the Sea Ice, Solar, Ocean, ENSO, Geomagnetism and Atmosphere pages.
If you have have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the Reference Pages, or recommendations for new reference pages, please let us know in comments below.
You can use these charts if you like going back to 1895 and out to March 2011.
The monthly anomaly from the NCDC in degrees F (using an 11 month moving average).
http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/1314/usmonthlyanomfmar11.png
The monthly anomaly in degrees C.
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/8144/usmonthlyanomcmar11.png
One has to use an 11 month moving average because the actual month-by-month anomaly looks like this (in degrees F). [As one moves down to selected regional climate zones, the anomalies always look like this – random noise/spaghetti ].
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/348/usmonthlyanomnomvavgmar.png
Don’t forget that the NCDC has adjusted the trend upward by +0.425C so it looks more like this in the Raw temperature versus the NCDC-Adjusted.
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/241/usmonthlyanomrawandadju.png
Like others, I take issue with linear trend lines. They not only uninformative, they’re positively misleading. The R2 must be lousy and the regression line is swamped by noise. A polynomial curve would be better. Completely fails the eyeball test. Ok, it’s 1.0 and thanks for the effort.
1980 was the start of the current warming. Why not start back at 1934?
“Don’t forget that the NCDC has adjusted the trend upward by +0.425C so it looks more like this in the Raw temperature versus the NCDC-Adjusted.”
http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/241/usmonthlyanomrawandadju.png
Why is it that the older US temperatures are adjusted downwards? That makes no sense. If anything the modern records should be adjusted downwards due to UHI.
Robert Austin says:
April 16, 2011 at 5:58 pm
“For those who assert that US record covers too small a portion of the earth’s surface to make any conclusions about global temperatures, what portion of the earth’s surface is sufficient to make conclusions about the earth’s climate?”
The AGW crowd refuses to address this question. The reason is that they worship the idea that manmade CO2 is what drives warming and the idea that manmade CO2 is found fully mixed throughout the atmosphere. So, on their assumptions, the only real warming has to be global warming. They bully us with these untested assumptions. One person who has led the charge against this view of warming is Roger Pielke, Sr., who identifies several factors that are regional or local, such as changes in land use. My intuitions tell me that all warming is local but our government and the UN are in the thrall of the Hansens, so we will never get government investment in studies of regional or local warming. And all the government and UN propaganda support the AGW assumptions.
Bill Illis says:
April 16, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Well, sure, but without that early fudging, the NCDC wouldn’t have much of a trend to worry about right? Oh, wait, did I just say that? (Do you suppose they simply got the UHI adjustment backwards?)
AlanG says: April 16, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Like others, I take issue with linear trend lines. They not only uninformative, they’re positively misleading. The R2 must be lousy and the regression line is swamped by noise. A polynomial curve would be better. Completely fails the eyeball test. Ok, it’s 1.0 and thanks for the effort.
You need to direct your critique to the source of the graph, i.e. Remote Sensing Systems
According to their website:
“Data and images on this website are produced by Remote Sensing Systems under the sponsorship of:
NASA Earth Science REASoN DISCOVER Project
(SSM/I, TMI, AMSR-E, QuikScat, SeaWinds, NSCAT, SST)
NASA AMSR-E Science Team (AMSR-E)
NASA Ocean Vector Winds Science Team
(QuikScat, SeaWinds, NSCAT)
NASA Earth Science Physical Oceanography Program (SST)
NOAA Climate and Global Change Program (MSU)”
WUWT Reference Pages are just compilations of information from various sources, we do not create or alter it in any way. As such we are not responsible for trendlines. If you have a reputable source of the data graphed without a trendline and with a url that’s automatically updated on a monthly basis, please post links and we’ll consider them for inclusion.
Bob Tisdale says: April 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Phil’s Dad says: April 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Can you see this version?:
No, I cannot see the graph, unless I click on it.
(the link works)
what is also missing on the graph is a good title
I am assuming this is the daily mean temperature?
The mean temperature is the average temperature of all measurements of temperature taken during the 24 hour day at a specific place.
Do we have any standard as to how many measurements make up for the daily mean?
(I am assuming it is measured continuously, but is that once per minute or once per second or more times?)
What would also be interesting to see for me is the maxima and minima.
So far I checked the data from 4 different weather stations on earth and an interesting aspect of the results reported would be to think about what we see is actually happening: the mean temps at all 4 stations (that I personally checked) have stayed unchanged over the past 35 years. Assuming we can take this globally, it means that heat content on earth has stayed the same.
Maxima were found rising and minima declining, but not always rising and declining at exactly the same (opposite) rate.
Somehow, you get the feeling that more heat is getting into the system, unequally divided, from the sun. This extra heat came in naturally, due to sun cycle activity, or, due to cosmic reasons, perhaps earth simply coming in a position slightly nearer to the sun. Whatever the reason, what I find is that this extra heat is simply being absorbed or consumed by earth leading to lower minima.
This is consistent with the general observation that earth has got greener in the past 4 decades and obviously this extra life is simply consuming the extra heat that came in.
I mean, for forests to grow more it just needs more warmth (and more carbon dioxide, perhaps).
“steven mosher says:
April 16, 2011 at 5:41 pm
actually its the entire data record, so selecting a sub sample of that as you do would be the cherry pick.”
“RockyRoad says:
April 16, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I seriously doubt mother nature appreciates forcing her climate trend into a straight line. …my eyeball does a fair job of applying a best fit curve,”
Perhaps the above two thoughts need to be combined. We should NOT cherry pick and we should NOT force a curve into a straight line. What should have been done by the RSS folks is to make a curve over the whole satellite time period and then it would have been obvious that the CURVE trends downward at the end.
I would be interested in graphs of climate proxies, especially stalagmite samples. I would also like to see historical graphs of the various oceanic multi-decadal oscillations.
Anthony, how about a reference page for AGW papers that are grossly in error and the papers showing the errors.
I have a possible one but it needs someone to check it out I the K&T 1997 paper on Global Budget & also in their T-F%K paper they have an atmospheric window of 40W/m2 but in Van Andel’s Sept 2010 presentation here http://climategate.nl/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/KNMI_voordracht_VanAndel.pdf in slide 26 he states that Trenberth knows it is 66 W/m2. Does that not discredit Trenberth who is a leading member of the team. There are of course the discredit of one of Phil Jones papers about UHI, Mann’s hockey stick, Steig wrong paper about warming in the Antarctic etc.
Robert Austin,
“what portion of the earth’s surface is sufficient to make conclusions about the earth’s climate?”
Simple, from an correct statistical point of view:
The complete surface of the earth! Nothing else …
A (deliberate) fault like this, would have generated a negative response from any of my teachers, during my school period in the 1980s.
I think the charts do not show up immediately (without clicking on them and getting them into each individual’s browser cache) is because they are coming from an “ftp://” site.
To have them show up each month when a new version comes out, they will need to be hosted on WUWT or moved to an “http://” link.
“If you have have any suggested additions or improvements to any of the Reference Pages, or recommendations for new reference pages, please let us know in comments below.”
Anthony – I was recently asked asked by a friend if I could recommend some reading matter from the skeptic’s viewpoint. I have read some and know of others (eg, Svensmark, Plimer, etc.).
However, what would be useful would be a general bibliography of books and other literature with summaries and comments so that lists can be printed and we can remain informed.
Thanks.
What IS the first graph on the US Climate History page “Surface Temperature – 1895 to Present”? What regions does it cover and what is the original data set? It differs significantly from the NASA GISS and USHCN graphs for the continental United States, especially for 1920 – 1960.
Looking at graphs is fine, but for those of us who actually analyze data providing a link to the underlying time-series would be very helpful.
I find the NOAA graph of USA Tempertaures totally incredible. For starters, it shows an average temperature below freezing. And the trend is as much a product of adjustments and UHI influences. There is no way that 1934 shows temperatures below those of 1998 and even 1953 in vetted small-town records that haven’t been “homogenized” to suit the AGW mantra.
sky says: April 17, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Jack Linard says: April 17, 2011 at 10:12 am (Edit)
This is the source data for the NOAA NCDC graph;
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cirs/drd964x.tmpst.txt
it’s the USHCN Version 2 Serial Monthly Dataset, background available here:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
The graph in question can be generated by going to this page;
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
and hitting Submit at the bottom. Note that we can change the base period, remove the trend line, etc. on the NOAA NCDC graph.
Discussing AGW with a politician recently, I was asked to provide a one-page summary of the sceptic position. Such a brief would be very useful for anyone wanting to communicate the sceptical position to someone who has time for only a one-pager. Has anyone got such a document? I tried to produce it myself, but it was going on to three pages when I gave up (the references, web links and quotes took up about two-thirds of it!!). If no-one has such a thing, I guess I’ll have to try again….sometime….
If you place a trend line from 1980 to today it would likely look flat
“John Campbell says:
April 17, 2011 at 6:12 pm
..a one-page summary of the sceptic position…Has anyone got such a document?”
See just page 3 of the 16 pages of the following:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/the_skeptics_handbook_2-3_lq.pdf
The trend line in the graph is incorrect. A straight horizontal line at the zero point is well within all the graph and is the only true “trend line”.
justthefactswuwt says:
April 16, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Bob Tisdale says: April 16, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Phil’s Dad says: April 16, 2011 at 6:06 pm
Can you see this version?:
I’m probably too late to respond now but – Nope – sorry.
My statement seems factual and non-controversial, why the strenuousness?
Because precisely it is not factual or non-controversial. It is the one of the many false assertions that undergirds the AGW hoax. It is a false assertion to claim that just because there is no discernable AGW signal in the US that it is not as Popper showed us a sign of falsification. By ignoring or dismissing the signs of falsification you fail to force the defenders of the AGW hypothesis to explain themselves adequately much less get them to clearly articulate the mechanism of this supposed exception. They have not. In denying the opportunity to object by via the paper thin dismissal you at the same time oh so conveniently smother the contraversy. The denial to examine the falsification of AGW in the US land mass then is the spring board to deny the examination of the Southern Hemisphere with equally lazy anaylsis. Hand waving is not scientific anaylsis.
The question which has been studiously avoided is by what mechanism does AGW not present itself in the US IF CO2 being a planetary phenomina is supposed to behave in the same manner uniformly over the whole of the earth. Yes, we expect a different DEGREE of EFFECT at various latitudes but NOT geographic areas OF THE SAME LATITUDE. CO2 can not defy the laws of physics in the US and then behave according to the laws of physics in Europe and Asia. Thus I STRENOUSLY OBJECT to such a controversial assertion.
justthefactswuwt says:
April 17, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Thank you for the links. The graph in question turns out to be the January average temperatures. WUWT’s Climatic History Reference Page would be much clearer if that were indicated in the caption.