No New Continent 'Hottest' Temperature Records Since 1978

Something to consider for the SOTU address tonight where “extremes” of all kinds are likely to be discussed.

If indeed we are seeing hottest ever type scenarios, or if you prefer, greater extremes, where are the continental representations of this? If on the other hand, what we are experiencing is within bounds of natural variations, you would expect to see new continental records set. See the map:

Climate change extreme temperature records by continent hottest and coldest co2 2013World Extreme Temperature Map (click on to enlarge)

For several decades now, consensus climate experts predicted that human CO2 emissions would produce extreme climate change for the world, which would be an existential threat to civilization.

Experts spoke of boiling oceans and Venus-like atmospheres caused by humans use of fossil fuels. At the heart of these soon-to-be catastrophic climate disasters was runaway and tipping point warming  – hotter and hotter temperatures that kept ratcheting up.

It didn’t happen, though. As the above map of extreme temperatures documents, the last 3+ decades did not produce the cascading, record-setting temperature scenario. When one connects the dots, the predictions of CO2 causing extreme climate change are without empirical evidence merit.

Additional regional and global temperature charts.

References used by Wikipedia to compile their list of continent records. Mapquest source of map image.


Story from C3 headlines:

41 thoughts on “No New Continent 'Hottest' Temperature Records Since 1978

  1. Add interestingly, for every continent except Asia, the Coldest continental temperature is more recent than the warmest.

  2. The Club of Rome produced and interesting document in 1993 which is precised here:-
    This could well be the smoking gun behind the general governmental acceptance of Global Warming, and the administrative vehemence with which it is defended.
    Bear in mind the remark made by a Russian general to his US counterpart after the collapse of the USSR: ” We are going to do something wicked to you; we are going to leave you without an enemy.”
    It seems that AGW is an attempt to recreate such an enemy in order to preserve the existing power structures. This also explains the plethora of moral panics that have surfaced since the end of the Cold War and the Damoclean “Four Minute Warning” and “Red Threat” that used to keep everybody so happily worried.

  3. “But the Arctic is an Ocean not a Continent.
    Have faith.”
    Arctic is so small so calling it the Arctic sea is more correct?

  4. So this rests upon the selection of a single statistic – The maximum temperature recorded anywhere on the continent and with no justification as to why that is a valid statistic.

  5. Strange, the media down here in Australia have been saying that according to the Australian Bureau of Meterology, for Australia 2013 was the hottest year since records began. Is there something not adding up?

  6. I was much surprised by a news item on AS Channel 10 talking up the severe cold in the US. It ran for several days but has since been usurped by the heatwave in Adelaide to come this week. If it does arrive it will be the hottest ever (well since 1908).

  7. BoM says 2013 was the hottest year in Australia because the average temperature for the whole continent over the whole year was the highest recorded.
    The article author notes that a single temperature on a single day at one place in 1960 was the highest recorded.
    Which of these two measures best represents weather, and which (if either) is climate?

  8. Hence the new recording station in Death Valley, facing a southern-exposed rock face.
    And the systematic removal of former record highs all around the world, from Libya’s 1926 world record high (invalidated by the WMO) to my home state of Oregon & birthplace, Pendleton, which recorded 119 F in 1898, but this state record high has recently been expunged, too.

  9. michael hammer says: @ January 28, 2014 at 2:49 am
    Strange, the media down here in Australia have been saying that according to the Australian Bureau of Meterology, for Australia 2013 was the hottest year since records began. Is there something not adding up?
    What is adding up are all the 'Adjustments' to the temperature record.
    Jo Nova has a series of threads on Australian temperature records and the manipulation HERE.

  10. Hot in Australia and cold in North America. Nothing to see here unless you have another agenda in mind. Tonight an empty suit will tell us it plans to take decisive action on naturally occurring climate change to save the world.
    This from a bumbler who can’t get website right. Here in the US less people will be listening than before. Thank goodness.

  11. Africa seems to be the place to be if you hate cold!
    But a random distribution of record high and low temperatures would support the idea that there should have been one or 2 set in the last 30 years, especially if, as alleged, the atmosphere is becoming unglued.

  12. @ Goldie “So this rests upon the selection of a single statistic – The maximum temperature recorded anywhere on the continent and with no justification as to why that is a valid statistic.”
    First of all, yes, this particular posting is only looking at one single statistic. Why is that not a valid thing to do? You are making a straw man if you pretend that this single post is a summary of all sceptical presentations and arguments. It was never meant to be.
    Consider this: Remember the explanation about how even a small change in average temperatures can skew the bell curve so that we see a larger increase in extremes? If we have experienced run-away global warming, wouldn’t any rational thinker expect to see a rise not just in average temperatures, but in the most extreme temperatures?
    Most sceptics (based on patterns of data manipulation) believe that the global temperature records have been wrongly adjusted and show an artificially high anomaly. It is much easier to adjust a mass of data by a little than it is to change maximum recorded values. Maximums are too widely known, but who notices if someone changes the average temperatures for 1934? If reported temperature increases are the result of bad adjustments, then sceptics would expect to see few new maximums. If temperature increases are real, then we would expect to see many new maximums.
    What we see is that the patterns of maximum temperatures fit what sceptics expect and do not fit what CAGW supporters expect. This seems very straightforward to me. Do you offer a better explanation?

  13. “Which of these two measures best represents weather, and which (if either) is climate?”
    The best measure is the single day peak, because it’s true. BoM claims are fraud. See for example the “hot angry summer” fraud – debunked by JoNova. This blazing heat somehow didn’t show up on the satellite.

  14. Cults can’t survive without a dialectical process and some ‘convergence’ of disastrous scenarios occurring if the cult’s doctrine and dogma are not followed in-toto. Too many Trillions at stake for the Eco-Fascists to give up on the warming/changing/extreme weather propaganda. The entire point is the totalitarian desire to control, regulate, tax, and march the peasants around like dumb serfs. There is no science, except to market the fraud. See the Nazis, Communists, Maoists etc. who used ‘science’ to ‘prove’ their theology….

  15. R2D2 says: January 28, 2014 at 12:14 am
    Wasn’t there a record cold last year in Antarctica?
    You may be remembering the new all-time low (-100 F) at South Pole; but Vostok, Antarctica is colder than the South Pole.

  16. Gamecock says:
    January 28, 2014 at 5:08 am
    If you don’t have “extreme” on your SOTU Bingo card, you have no chance of winning.
    The only thing that will really be extreme is the hubris from the Big Zero.

  17. I can’t stomach listening to the O’bummer — can’t even look at him. He’ll sound ridiculous to any reasonable person talking about CAGW during a major freeze, but that won’t stop him.

  18. beng says:
    January 28, 2014 at 8:09 am
    I can’t stomach listening to the O’bummer — can’t even look at him. He’ll sound ridiculous to any reasonable person talking about CAGW during a major freeze, but that won’t stop him.
    I’m with you 100%. While the thought of playing SOTU Bingo sounds fun, I can’t stand looking or listening to that idiot.

  19. I’d rather watch “Pawn Stars” than the SOTU speech. Chumlee and the Old Man would have something more intelligent to say than any of those politicians…

  20. ATheoK says:
    January 28, 2014 at 5:05 am
    Phrasing this in context;
    Newspaper astrologers have more accurate predictions than the global warming cult…
    That is because Newspaper astrologers are professionals not spoiled little boys.

  21. beng says: @ January 28, 2014 at 8:09 am
    David L. says: @ January 28, 2014 at 8:19 am
    Oh for a teleprompter glitch at the critical moment…

  22. Frank K. says:
    “I’d rather watch “Pawn Stars” than the SOTU speech.”
    I’ll be going with “Dance Moms” and “Justified”.
    But I would be interested in whether Obama makes the bogus claim again that global temperatures have been increasing faster than predicted ten years ago. Obama’s own EPA administrator couldn’t/wouldn’t justify this claim:

  23. Steve Case says:
    January 28, 2014 at 12:12 am
    “The empirical evidence doesn’t support the claims for sea level either.”
    Or for ice or snow or for “extreme weather events”.

  24. Just heard the speech tonight is no long to be referred to as the State Of The Union address. It’s now termed: State Of Useless Lifeless Lethargic Elitist Sniveling Socialists address …………..
    You heard it hear first!

  25. The same sort of evidence is clearly visible in the state records within the United States — it is less visible in the international records, but those records extend backwards with much less reliability over much of the 20th century.
    Just about exactly 1/2 of the state high temperature records in the US were set in a single decade — the 1930s. Outside of the obviously huge bump in the 30’s there is no visible trend at all in state records. Some were set in the 1890’s, some in the 1910’s and 1920’s — pretty much as many as were set in the 1990’s and 2000’s. Which is a paltry number per decade, given that one is divvying up only half the states over the remaining 110 years of data, for an average of at most a couple per decade.
    It is interesting to note that Africa also experienced its hottest recorded temperature in the 1930s (although this really says little about records across the continent). Many of these past records were set at stations uncorrupted by UHI; one does really have to wonder how many of the more contemporary records that DO exist are really UHI-driven or the results of “adjustments” of temperature sets. There is substantial reason to think that the 1930’s were globally a close match to the present in the pattern of their temperature, right down to the persistent melting of Arctic sea ice. Sadly, there were few people to observe and record the Arctic of that era in detail and all we have are scattered and anecdotal reports.
    These observations actually do call into question the consistency of contemporary estimates of past temperatures. If global warming is indeed consistent and global, it is difficult to understand why the US set most of the high temperature records in the 30’s with more than enough results to be highly statistically significant. It is difficult to escape the probable conclusion that the 1930’s were warmer than the present — and that’s an entire continent right there. The Africa record suggests that it isn’t completely implausible that it was the warmest decade there as well (and that would be two continents right there). The US dust bowl was supposedly correlated with strong ENSO activity IIRC, and ENSO typically produces global effects — see the huge bump in GASTA in all of the temperature records associated with the 1997-1998 Super-ENSO event, where basically all of the warming observed in the satellite era occurred in a single 2-4 year stretch around it.
    Alternatively, one can accept the probable truth that the average temperature is indeed now higher, but higher temperatures decrease temperature variability and weather variability, making it less likely to experience extreme heat waves, droughts, hurricanes and so on. It’s hard to justify the observation that the weather now is more extreme (in the absence of any evidence to support it) and hotter, though, because if global temperatures were increased by half a degree or more and more variable, it is very difficult to understand why all the continental records were not set in the last decade and why most of the US state records were set in the 30’s.

  26. “He’ll sound ridiculous to any reasonable person … but that won’t stop him.” (Beng)
    Nope. Hasn’t yet.
    And, no, I will not listen to him. What good reason is there for doing that?
    Possible correction to the “MapQuest” map: “No new records since 1983 1978.” (??)
    Thanks, Gail Combs, for that great link to Jo Nova’s expose of temperature record corruption.
    Nice post, R. G. Brown; great insights.
    Re: “global” climate —
    1. We have NO positive evidence proving that there is such a thing (not that anyone here asserted that, just pointing that out); and
    2. That NONE of the above extreme temperatures, neither the highs nor the lows, were set in the same year, is evidence (not strong, but, valid evidence) that there is no such thing as a global climate.
    As others have ably pointed out above, the styling of climate as “global” is done solely to make the conjectured “crisis” BIG enough to justify significant control over the world’s economic regions.
    (very good point, Harry at 12:09am today, re: all but one coldest temp. record = more recent than warmest temp. record)
    Conclusion: Humans can do NOTHING to control the climate zones of the earth.

  27. This to anticipate an attempt to refute my final assertion above by true-but-not-significant facts such as clear cutting of forests (which DO grow back) or carbon particulate air pollution or other human activities:
    While, yes, if you make the climate zone small enough (excluding ridiculously small zones such as, “this city”), we can temporarily affect that zone, that human effect is ephemeral compared to the compensating and negating effects of the Earth.
    The oceans, to take just one example, need only shrug and all our tiny flea circus jumping up and down is wiped out.
    The Earth’s climate zones are not insular — they are dynamic and interrelated.
    Humans cannot, for any significant length of time, control the climate of any significantly sized zone of the Earth.
    George Carlin was right.
    (wish there were a “sanitized” version of his great monologue about the power of Earth v. puny humans, but, well, there isn’t)

  28. As the theory goes, more carbon dioxide is supposed to moderate temperatures: warmer lows, cooler highs. No?

Comments are closed.