U.S. surface temperatures drop to the lowest in over 30 years during February

If you thought he cold last month was “unprecedented” and ” worse than we thought” you’d be right. Last month’s polar outbreaks in the United States caused record subzero temperatures, power outages for millions of homeowners in Texas when wind energy failed,  and more than two dozen deaths.

It was also the coldest February in over three decades. Two different metrics of temperature measurement from NOAA agree in demonstrating that we really could have used some “global warming” but there was none to be had.

The event was mainly due to the “Polar vortex”, which  blasted the coldest air across central U.S. from the polar region in more than 30 years. At the same time, Alaska experienced its coldest February since 1999. The main driver for the weather across the contiguous U.S. during February was a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation (AO) during the first half of the month. This may have been the result of a sudden stratospheric warming event that occurred in January. The negative AO pattern favors a cold air outbreak over the central U.S., often referred to as the “polar vortex”.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officially reported that during February, the average contiguous U.S. temperature was 30.6°F, 3.2°F below the 20th-century average. This ranked as the 19th-coldest February in the 127-year period of record and was the coldest February since 1989.

Based on preliminary data, 62 all-time daily cold minimum temperature records were broken from February 11-16 and 69 all-time daily cold maximum temperature records on February 15-16.

All time daily minimum temperature records

Several locations across central Texas, including Austin and Waco, broke records for the longest freezing streak with temperatures below freezing between six and nine consecutive days from February 10-19.

At the same time, another metric, the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) reported even colder results than the data from the highly compromised weather station network operated by NOAA. While the USCRN uses state of the art measurement systems and is far removed from Urban Heat Island (UHI) it is seldom used in press releases by NOAA. 

The USCRN shows a -4.32°F negative deviation in the average US temp anomaly for Feb, 2021 which is -1.12°F colder than NOAA’s problematic and biased surface temperature network. A quick scan of the data shows this to be the highest magnitude monthly temperature drop since the start of the USCRN network in 2005.

Source: NOAA USCRN time series plotter  h/t Joel G Duncan

While this coldest February on record for over 30 years does not disprove the claim of “man-made global warming,” it does show that the warming is so minor that an area the size of the ENTIRE United States can still set a “coldest ever” record for a time period for as long as a full month. 

This event is a strong indicator that nature, not man-made emissions, is still the deciding factor in temperature.

4.9 55 votes
Article Rating
165 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
March 13, 2021 7:13 am

U.S. surface temperatures drop to the lowest in over 30 years during February

Proof positive of global warming (or is that global heating? h/t The Groaniad)

Obama Science Adviser John Holdren: Global warming now means ‘more frequent cold snaps’

https://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/08/obama-science-adviser-john-holdren-global-warming-means-more-frequent-cold-snaps/

To quote Rory Gallagher – an old hero of mine – I could of had religion…

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Scissor
Reply to  fretslider
March 13, 2021 7:16 am

At least he didn’t blame the right-wing climate scientists.

Reply to  fretslider
March 13, 2021 7:19 am

Agree, John Holdren was a climate genius (or better yet, climate clown). Similar to Al Gore, he should get the Nobel Peace Prize for predicting more cold from more heat … https://newtube.app/user/RAOB/3fEZDK4

Tom Halla
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 13, 2021 7:29 am

John Holdren learned how to be shameless in error from his former co-author, Paul Ehrlich.

fretslider
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 13, 2021 7:58 am

Ah yes, the doomster in chief…

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people…If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”     — Dr. Paul Ehrlich, speech at the British Institute for Biology, Sep. 1971

And yet, here we are.

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  fretslider
March 13, 2021 8:07 am

But that fearful prophecy might happen AFTER the UK goes “clean and green” and because of that.

Elle Webber
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 13, 2021 4:30 pm

Indeed. Perhaps for the “green” movement this is the goal.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 13, 2021 8:39 am

How many Stanford students, supposedly among our best and brightest, have been hornswoggled by this doomsday cult leader over the years? Has he ever made a prediction that has come true?
Only if he ever said he would get rich and famous for lying and no one would ever hold him accountable!

Pat Frank
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 13, 2021 9:14 am

Stanford University has gone full woke. It’s a tragedy of the first water. A descent into smug mediocrity is a serious contender for its future.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 13, 2021 2:42 pm

A young lady from locally was a thoughtful, and good student from high school. Got a Stanford scholarship, graduated, and is now so conceited that as the old joke goes, “you can’t tell her much.” Will likely never live in this area again.

She may grow out of it.

saveenergy
Reply to  John Shewchuk
March 13, 2021 9:09 am

predicting more cold from more heat …”
Wot, like a fridge ??

Last edited 1 month ago by saveenergy
Anon
Reply to  saveenergy
March 13, 2021 2:28 pm

Don’t be so sure about that. These are the “raw numbers”. So, keep your eye on the “adjustments” over the next ten years, as this easily could be reclassified as a “warm snap”.

David Baird
Reply to  fretslider
March 13, 2021 7:58 am

You might think he’s wrong by a “country mile”.

fretslider
Reply to  David Baird
March 13, 2021 9:52 am

You might think he’s wrong by a “country mile”.

And I’d be right

We’re still here

Last edited 1 month ago by fretslider
Bruce Ranta
Reply to  fretslider
March 13, 2021 1:28 pm

I miss Rory. Saw him perform in Vancouver in 1973 as a warm up for Led Zepplin. He was the best.

KT66
Reply to  fretslider
March 13, 2021 7:22 pm

Just the mention of Rory deserves a bonus point or two….It’s a shin kicker morning!

Gerry, England
Reply to  KT66
March 14, 2021 5:00 am

I had the pleasure of seeing him three times – all at a different venue for some reason.

Strangest fact is why a man from a Cork family was actually born in Ballyshannon. His father was working there on the project that lowered the level of Lough Erne.

Anon
March 13, 2021 7:26 am

They now have a new “starting point” upon which to continue the alarm story. Now all they need to do is wait for the next ENSO event and connect the minimum and maximum temperatures to make the claim of unprecedented warming!

John Robertson
March 13, 2021 7:32 am

Makes me want to start belting out the lines of “Oh Susanna”,in as sarcastic a tone as possible.
One of the key pieces of evidence that Climatology is politics not science, is the USCRN.
If “Global Warming,Climate Change or Water Wet was as important as the Cult of Calamitous Climate insists,the USCRN would have been duplicated world wide as a matter of crucial importance.
Providing us better data from many more locations.

Instead?
Ignored and made as invisible as possible.

A recurring theme in a field where data is not the driving force.
No science,said quickly becomes nonsense.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  John Robertson
March 13, 2021 8:10 am

Climatology is part religion and part astrology. Recently, Saint Thunberg and 2 “climatastrologers” had a zoom event with the Dalai Lama- looking for his blessing.

rbabcock
March 13, 2021 7:36 am

Let’s see how cold it was in the temperature records two years from now. I’m guessing it will be at least one degree warmer than currently recorded.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  rbabcock
March 13, 2021 8:11 am

Well, we are in the adjustocene.

DonM
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 13, 2021 1:05 pm

modeling based on anthropogeniccentric perspective can lead to nothing else but an adjustocene.

Olen
March 13, 2021 7:40 am

What we are seeing from nature is more convincing than what is predicted by some humans more interested in selling wind mills than doing their job.

Editor
March 13, 2021 7:43 am

Depends (somewhat) on where you are. In New England, February was a strong “Meh.” TV mets did recall Feb 2015 up here.

I started https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/08/1934-2015-a-tale-of-two-februaries/ with:

In New England, we could be chanting “We’re almost #1” except we’re exhausted from February.

That month Portland ME tied it’s incredible Feb 1934 monthly average on the cold side and Portland OR tied its incredible Feb 1934 monthly averages on the warm side.

Of course, concentrated cold in one spot on the planet suggests there ought to be warm areas elsewhere, and there were.

comment image

Ah well, it was important for the south central US to be reminded that they need to be prepared for more than just tornadoes and hurricanes.

Editor
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 13, 2021 8:26 am

BTW, the maps I used in that 2015 WUWT post don’t seem to be available. A close substitute is available at the configurable URL like https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/divisional/mapping/110/tavg/202102/1/rank (that shows the ranking per climate division for Feb 2021). South central US was cold, but not the coldest they’ve seen. I guess sub-freezing is cold enough when you’ve spent decades not bothering to prepare for frozen water.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 13, 2021 6:29 pm

Some of my figures from past guest articles do not display automatically after the ‘upgrade.’ However, if one clicks on the blank space, they show up.

DonM
Reply to  Ric Werme
March 13, 2021 1:12 pm

Given that Portland Oregon was on the warm side in February, and over 250,000 people were still without power for a few days because of the cold weather, reasonable logic would point toward a hope for even more warming.

Any reasonable logic out there on the left?

Derg
March 13, 2021 7:44 am

I prefer it warmer along with the rest of humanity.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Derg
March 13, 2021 8:14 am

Darn right on that- my grandparents all came to frigid Massachusetts from warm and sunny Italy. I wish they had stayed there.

S.K.
March 13, 2021 7:51 am

The USCRN shows a -4.32°F negative deviation in the average US temp anomaly for Feb, 2021 which is -1.12°F colder than NOAA’s problematic and biased surface temperature network.

To find out how problematic and biased please view the following.

comment image

https://realclimatescience.com/2021/03/climate-forecasting/

Weekly_rise
Reply to  S.K.
March 13, 2021 10:36 am

How can you possibly average together unadjusted station records using absolute values and expect to get a meaningful result? The composition of the network has changed over time, which will introduce spurious trends into the data if not accounted for.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 11:50 am

The positive data trend is PURELY DOWN TO ADJUSTMENT.

Which just happen, mysteriously, ;-), to be an almost EXACT CORRELATION with CO2 level.

comment image

Its blatant FRAUD !

Don’t be a blind monkey all your life, weakling.

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
March 13, 2021 12:06 pm

Please Google “spurious correlation” and let me know what you find out.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 12:14 pm

Come off it weakling-fail…

Google REALITY and FRAUD, and tell us what you find out !!

R nearly = 1 is not “spurious”

…no matter how your pathetic little cult religion might want to frame it.

Trying to pass off the DELIBERATE CORRUPTION of US temperature data as a “spurious correlation”

That is LOW science, even for a base-level AGW apologist !

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Weekly_rise
Reply to  fred250
March 13, 2021 12:25 pm

Fred, I must beg to differ that correlations with high R-values cannot be spurious:

comment image

Also, as I’ve asked you in the past, please do not keep insulting me in every comment reply, it is unwarranted, unbecoming of you, and lessens the quality of discussion for everyone.

Last edited 1 month ago by Weekly_rise
philincalifornia
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 12:47 pm

It’s not warming nitwit. Explain to us all how no rise in temperature in the surface of the contiguous United States can be explained by “greenhouse gas” theory.

I know, I know, your historical strawman has been, waaah waaaah waah the United States is only 2% of the planet. That’s not my question. You don’t even have to show us your math. Just tell us why this data doesn’t show that climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide has never been shown to be a value above zero.

…. and for the grown-ups on here: or never will be.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 13, 2021 1:09 pm

The contiguous US has been warming and continues to warm.

comment image

But you are correct that it represents a small fraction of the earth’s surface area.

Last edited 1 month ago by Weekly_rise
PETER D ANDERSON
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 1:54 pm

Of course there’s a correlation. Warming oceans outgas more CO2, so CO2 follows temperature.

Loydo
Reply to  PETER D ANDERSON
March 13, 2021 3:05 pm

Except the CO2 conc. in the ocean is rising because the ocean has become a net sink.

comment image

From: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/climate_indicators_2016.pdf

Last edited 1 month ago by Loydo
fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:42 pm

WRONG as always

… that is the version AFTER DATA CORRUPTION !!

USA has been COOLING since the 1930s when you use REAL DATA.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 3:00 pm

REALITY, without DATA MAL-ADJUSTMENTS

comment image

comment image

comment image

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 9:17 pm

“The contiguous US has been warming and continues to warm.”

Only if you are talking about Mann made global warming.
Or Hansen made.
ON the actual surface of the actual planet in the actual place called the United States, we have actual records that have actually been systematically and repeatedly altered to agree with a failed idea, and then had this fake news be reported as if it was true, rather than the pack of lying lies told by lying liars that it is.

1998changesannotated.gif
willem post
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 7:27 am

And where temperature measurements took place, the urban developments of the past 40 years certainly have INCREASED these temperatures, above and beyond coming out of the Little Ice Age.

CO2 may, or may not have been a factor.

Increased cloudiness, smog, etc., would also affect temperatures.

Peter K
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:20 pm

Do you have the same data for butter, from 1972.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:45 pm

Except we KNOW that the adjustments are SPECIFICALLY AIMED at showing warming due to CO2.

Your DENIAL of facts is that of a fundemMENTAList CULTIST.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 3:10 pm

You are a TROLL supporting a socialist agenda that by its own admission is attempting to bring down western society.

Respect and politeness is EARNED..

… and you go backwards with each anti-science cultist post you make, earning nothing but contempt.

Stop whimpering like a petty SJW…, its pathetic

comment image

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 6:34 pm

I gave you an up vote because for once you are right — on both points.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 14, 2021 3:01 pm

And so did I. Correct = correct.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 8:27 pm

I got divorced when my wife tried to feed me the poisonous high trans fat crap called margarine.
What better reason could a man have?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 8:30 pm

Now show us the graph of the unadjusted divorce rate that had the opposite trend as the curve shown in the adjusted version you posted.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 8:44 pm

Do you want to know what lessens the quality of a scientific discussion for real?
It is people who make up crap, cherry pick information, practice curve fitting and pretend it has any value, resort to inane whataboutism as if it proves anything about the lies they are telling, and in general being deceptive, uninformative, lying jackasses.
Who the hell would even make such a graph, let alone have it on hand?
Who would try to assert it has any comparative value to a unrelated subject?
No one that any rational person ought to pay any attention to, that is for sure.
Try sticking with arguing with stupid people if you want to make stupid arguments while pretending you are smart.

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 12:43 pm

You mean like the belief that because temperatures sometimes go up while CO2 concentrations are going up, that this proves CO2 caused most of the warming?

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 1:02 pm

We should never assume that a strong correlation between two variables evinces a causal relationship between them. This applies to CO2 and temperature.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:35 pm

Kindly explain how global temperatures actually fell from 1940 to 1980, a time when CO2 concentrations were growing steadily.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 13, 2021 7:05 pm

Temperature changes in response to the net forcing in the system, which is not a function of CO2 concentration alone. My understanding is that the mid century cooling period was driving by sulfate aerosols emissions (both anthropogenic and volcanic).

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 7:44 pm

If the cooling from 1940 to 1980 was caused by aerosols in the atmosphere, then removing the aerosols from the atmosphere since then must be the cause of the warming since then.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 10:10 pm

It certainly would have been responsible for some of the return to the pre-1940 warmth, yes. It would not be responsible for any warming beyond that.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 1:04 am

“It certainly would have been responsible for some of the return to the pre-1940 warmth,”

Scientifically unsupportable balderdash !

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 7:57 pm

“which is not a function of CO2 concentration alone”

It is not a function of CO2 AT ALL

That is a scientifically unsupportable supposition.

Let’s see you PRODUCE THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE…

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 1:02 am

“My understanding is… blah, blah “

Your understanding is on par with a single cell amoeba.

You are IRRELEVANT.

Graemethecat
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:41 pm

There is an extremely strong and almost certainly causal correlation between temperature and atmospheric CO2, as shown by ice-core data. The only problem is that causation is the wrong way round.

Loydo
Reply to  Graemethecat
March 13, 2021 11:59 pm

CO2, like H2O, is a ghg so more of it results in a warmer climate, …so the ‘causation’ actually works both ways. Milankovich cycles may be the trigger for warming out of glaciation but their effect alone is way too weak to explain all the warming. They kick start the warming then the released CO2 takes over.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 14, 2021 1:01 am

“CO2, like H2O, is a ghg so more of it results in a warmer climate,”

More UNSUPPORTABLE ANTI-SCIENCE BS from loy-dodo.

1… Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

2… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be scientifically proven to be of human released CO2 causation?

Run away again little brain-washed ameoba..

… and stop with your INCESSANT LIES !

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:46 pm

There is MOST DEFINITELY a causal link between the TEMPERATURE ADJUSTMENTS and CO2

That is what the AGW agenda is all about

You really are akin to a BLIND MONKEY, aren’t you !

DENIAL of the DELIBERATE ADJUSTMENTS

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 5:05 pm

The CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between temperature ADJUSTMENTS and the anti-CO2 agenda is BLATANT even to the blindest monkey !!

Stop living in total DENIAL weely-FAIL !

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 6:32 pm

A spurious correlation is when temperatures decrease and a scientific proof is when temperatures increase.

fred250
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
March 13, 2021 7:59 pm

“and a scientific proof is when temperatures increase.”

Even if those temperature increases are almost all due to ADJUSTMENTS

Peter Buchan
Reply to  fred250
March 14, 2021 9:11 am

Anthony, Charles, Mods – Please. Unless you start moderating the tone and puerile pugnacity of “Fred250”, whoever this person may be, I suspect you are going to be faced with a slow drain of rational participants from what remains (for now) one of the best sites on the web. Sorry, But there is absolutely no reason for this person to conduct himself in this manner and, that it such unsavory histrionics have gone unchecked thus far is, with much respect, as surprising as it is negligent. Your readers deserve better.

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 12:42 pm

What’s silly is the belief that you can compensate for these changes without increasing the uncertainty of the data.

Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 6:54 pm

What’s silly is the belief that you can compensate for these changes without knowing exactly what the changes were. That is the problem with adjustments. You need an accurate reference value and there isn’t one.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 6:42 pm

Why isn’t RAW data good enough to plot a temperature chart with?

Independent
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 13, 2021 7:09 pm

Because it doesn’t show the “right” trend line.

Doonman
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 13, 2021 7:25 pm

Because all the clocks are different and it gets cold at night when it should be getting hotter all the time. Except in past centuries when clocks ran slower so ships bucket water evaporated faster.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Sunsettommy
March 13, 2021 10:05 pm

The problem is in averaging together the records without accounting for the fact that the composition of the station network is changing through time. The result of the averaging is going to reflect the changing composition of the network rather than any changes in the actual climate. Just imagine averaging together a station on a mountain with a station in a valley that was installed 20 years after the mountain station. You’ll see a jump in temperatures that is the result of the stations’ different altitudes, but it would appear as an actual signal.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 12:42 pm

No, that is not “the problem”.
If that was the entire reason for any of the alterations, then it would be a simple matter to eliminate the stations that have changed locations, are presnt only at one time period of the entire record, and where there have been significant changes in land usage.
In fact we have graphs of only those stations with a complete record over the entire period where there have not been large alterations in land usage, and those graphs do not comport with the idea that there has been warming.

In fact is you are just making up what you said.
Right off the top of your head.
No one who is involved with the actual process would ever say what you just said, because the obvious way to then settle the matter is to do what I described above, and eliminate the problematic stations and see what the remaining stations show.

It is also a fact that it is the warmistas who are responsible for stations being systematically eliminated from the data being collected.
How can it be that long ago we had many stations, and now we have few, when in recent years and decades trillions of dollars are being spent while long ago the expenditures were modest by comparison?

Simple: All those many stations made it easy to see what was actually happening, and hard to fudge and lie about what was happening, and so steps were and are taken to make it easy to tell whatever fairy tales the climate mafia wishes to tell to the gullible and credulous masses.

It is not lost on anyone that the ridiculous sophistry employed by warmistas and their lickspittle acolytes and apologists, have no underlying consistency or coherent logic. Instead it is a slapdash amalgamation of whatever silly nonsense one can dream up to make ad hoc arguments custom fit for purpose of deception regarding the required lie du jour.
At various times over the past several years and decades the same people have made every possible argument from every possible side, all mutually inconsistent and independently unverifiable.
Anyone not sure what I mean can use as a ready example the dozens upon dozens of separate explanations for the pause. Which BTW was eventually merely erased by elaborate adjustments, as any and all possible explanations had long since become untenable. Impossible to explain away as they did not comport with any prior predictions, pronouncements or model projections.
And so the pause was erased.

Like the mid 20th century cooling before it.
Like the dustbowl years hot period.
Like the medieval warm period.
Like the little ice age cold period.
Like all of the extensively documented warm period and alternating cold periods in the recent past.

The fact is the unsupported hypothesis of CO2 caused global warming is wholly inconsistent and irreconcilable with every single detail, gathered over many years and decades and even centuries, of known Earth history…as well as all that is known about the weather and climate from human recorded history.

Here is the truth: If one looks separately at each of the graphs of the time series of every particular location, you will not find a single one that shows any trend that even remotely resembles the adjusted graphs.
There are no places that are warming steadily, gradually, or even unsteadily and not gradually.
They do not exist.
There are places where UHI effects have clearly caused changes in the temperature patterns, but the steps taken by warmistas to “correct” for these changes in land use are precisely the opposite of what an honest effort to do so would entail.
How can it be that an average of stations shows a trend that is the opposite of each of the components?

In fact the UHI alterations that were perpetrated have, instead of adjusting recent years downwards as areas were paved over and large structures were built…instead of that, what was done was that long in the past temperatures were “adjusted” down!
The net effect is to increase the trend, rather than cancel out the effects of urbanization! It is current and recent temps that would logically need to be lowered to removed temps that are merely an artifact of increased urbanization.

There is no warming trend on the actual surface.
It is just people like you making stuff up, and having the power and ability to actually alter the records, and then report those altered records as if they represent reality.

Not so long ago, even the people are the center of the global warming malarkey had to admit (as they were at the time still operating under some semblance of honestly and credibility, and confined themselves to scary predictions, rather than telling outright lies about events and data that were a matter of extensive scientific documentation) that the US itself had not undergone ANY warming whatsoever in the entire period of the 20th century, and also that the 1930s were clearly and by far the hottest time ever recorded by any actual instrumental data.
It had simply not occurred them yet to simply alter past records and then lie about having done it.
In James Hansen’s own words, and those of Tom Karl, Phil Jones, et al, we have the same story. No overall warming in the US as of the late 1990s.
Even the bristlecone pines had not been corrupted and used to tell lies…yet:

News clip, Bristlecone Pines, 1993 (2017_10_05 15_42_56 UTC).png
Last edited 30 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 8:36 pm

The composition of the network has changed over time, which will introduce spurious trends into the data…”

So, here we have a warmista openly stating that data has to be changed (accounted for? Hah!) in order to be “meaningful.

Guess what Einstein?
We already knew you and your ridiculous ilk are clueless about what words like “data”, “meaningful”, “unadjusted”, and “science”, mean.

The temperatures that are recorded are not unadjusted, they are the actual reading on the thermometer in the place and at the time that the weather readings were being recorded.
Changing such information means it is no longer data, it is some biased persons’ idea.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 14, 2021 10:45 am

The data don’t need to be changed to be meaningful, you could use simple spatially gridded anomalies without any adjustments and get a pretty ok estimate of global temperature. The problem is the way in which the data are combined in graphs like the one above results in spurious trends coming out of the averaging. Tony Heller could use raw data if he was handling them correctly. I think you’ll find that our host Mr. Watts agrees on this point.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 12:56 pm

It does not matter whose results one looks at, how it was done, and it certainly does not matter who does and who does not agree or disagree.
Data is collected information.
“Adjusted” data is not data, it is someone’s idea of what the recorded numbers “should” have been.
Every word of what you just said is sophistic nonsense.
It is not even good doubletalk, as doubletalk goes.

BTW, you should maybe speak for yourself, and not try to tell everyone what you think someone else thinks or believes.
Unless you want to make it transparently obvious that you have no qualms about just making stuff up and/or putting words in other peoples’ mouths.

Last edited 30 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 1:05 pm

The truth is that Tony Heller has “handled” the data in every way it can possible be handled.
Looked at every station and every trend in every way any one has ever thought to do.
He has even been solely and 100% responsible for putting the entirety of the raw data into the hands of anyone who wants it, despite the fact that for years the agencies in charge of archiving the data refused to make this information available to him.

Anyone can download every byte of it, plus a free program that has many powerful tools that will allow anyone at all to look at it and to make graphs and tables or whatever.
Most of us have no time and in any case lack the skills or knowledge to do any such thing.
If not for the internet, even people like me, and myself specifically, would have ever had any way to figure out how the lies being told were being perpetrated.

A graph is just a picture.
It is not reality.
And when the graph is a picture of made up numbers plotted over time, and which bears no resemblance to what actually occurred in the places and at the times represented, then it is worse than meaningless.
It is quite simply a lie.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 1:07 pm

Oh, BTW…for anyone who wants to have all of the data on hand and the powerful software to analyze it in whatever way one might care too, here it is:
UNHIDING THE DECLINE For Windows | Real Climate Science

UNHIDING THE DECLINE For Linux/Mac | Real Climate Science

Last edited 30 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 8:52 pm

How can you possibly average together unadjusted station records”

Doesn’t matter if they’re adjusted. Can’t average different stations together period, and come up with anything meaningful. Intensive properties.

Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 9:10 pm

“The composition of the network has changed over time, which will introduce spurious trends into the data if not accounted for.”

No it won’t.
The spurious trends you claim exist are effectively random errors in each station’s data. Averaging the station records to generate a regional or global mean temperature trend will reduce the contribution of these errors to that mean, particularly when you average several hundred datasets. And most of these station errors amount to only small fractions of a degree over decades anyway.

The possible existence of these errors is easy to test for. Just compare average trends for neighbouring states. If network changes are significant you should get divergence between the two averages over time. In the real world you don’t. You never do. I’ve looked at the data and I repeatedly see the same features in the temperature trends for adjacent countries. e.g.
Austria
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2021/03/55-austria-temperature-trends-stable-to.html
Hungary
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2021/03/54-hungary-temperature-trends-stable-to.html
Czechoslovakia
https://climatescienceinvestigations.blogspot.com/2021/03/53-czechoslovakia-temperature-trends.html
All have the same features in their 5-year moving average for unadjusted anomaly data. So which ones need adjusting?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 9:22 pm

It took a genuine climate chiropractor to even begin to make the fake charts being shown to the public today.
The hard work or erasing the past has continued and has been moved forward by a new generation of the climate mafia after the criminal Hansen was no longer up to the challenge:
Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor | Real Science (wordpress.com)

Hansen under arrest (2017_10_05 15_42_56 UTC).png
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 7:35 am

“The composition of the network has changed over time, which will introduce spurious trends into the data if not accounted for.”

No it won’t.

The spurious trends you claim exist are effectively small random errors in each station’s data. Averaging the station records to generate a regional or global mean temperature trend will reduce the contribution of these errors to that mean, particularly when you average several hundred datasets to obtain the mean trend. And most of these presumed station errors amount to only small fractions of a degree over decades anyway.

Moreover, the possible existence of these errors is easy to test for. Just compare average trends for neighbouring states. If network changes or errors in station data are significant you should get divergence between the two neighbouring averages over time. In the real world you hardly ever do. I’ve looked at the data and I repeatedly see the same features in the temperature trends for adjacent countries. I suggest you check out the trends for Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia (Posts 53-55 on my blog).

alf
March 13, 2021 7:58 am

Was the northern hemisphere cold air mass larger then average or did the warm air balance out the cold air when it moved south?

ldd
Reply to  alf
March 13, 2021 1:27 pm

What warm air? I’m east of where the cold landed; up in Canada – we having an average winter for eastern Ontario so far; while my family in Nova Scotia is complaining about all the cold and snow they’re getting when normally around Bedford, NS, they don’t get as much winter.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ldd
March 14, 2021 1:18 pm

The specific places that warm air moved northward cannot be ascertained by looking at what is happening in some random location.
It is illogical to say that there was no warm air moving north by noting that it was not warm at your house.

Last edited 30 days ago by Nicholas McGinley
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ldd
March 14, 2021 1:39 pm

I will also post a screen shot of the hemisphere with temp patterns from a date when the worst of the effects of the cold air outbreak occurred.
Note too that one can look at any of several levels in the atmosphere…surface, mid levels, or way high up in the upper atmosphere.
This is the planet at 1400 UTC on Feb14th. Note that it is well above freezing over the ocean north of the Aleutians, near Iceland, almost as far north as Spitzbergen, over North Korea, northern areas of China, parts of the eastern US (Southern Florida was hot all that week…over 85 F in the afternoons), etc.
Note that it was the middle of February. Some places were far above average temp while still being rather chilly to very cold…just not as cold as the time of year would usually have them be:
earth :: a global map of wind, weather, and ocean conditions (nullschool.net)

Loydo
Reply to  alf
March 14, 2021 12:05 am

It is balanced out – warmer somewhere else. If you were up in Canada it might not have that noticeable. See Ric Werne’s post and map above.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  alf
March 14, 2021 1:15 pm

Did you read the article before asking this question?
Which part of all time cold airmass makes you wonder if it was colder than average or larger than average?
What average?
It was a large departure from average.
On average, the temperatures in every place are average.

And one does not have to be an atmospheric physicist to understand that whenever one mass of air moves south, another mass of air of equal volume must necessarily move north.
We have no vacuums in our atmosphere.
To understand this, simply look at a lava lamp in action.

There are variations in pressure on the surface and aloft, and in fact it is these pressure differentials that cause air to move around at all…they cause all wind and all movement of air masses.
There is a slight deficit of air molecules in zones of low pressure and a surfeit of them in zones of high pressure, but these are slight in comparison to the amount of such molecules over the entire volume of the atmosphere.

MarkW
March 13, 2021 8:04 am

I’m sure the same people who proclaim every heat wave as proof of global warming, will be out in force telling us that one month means nothing this time.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 12:35 pm

They’ll be tellin’ us what you said, fer sure, then they’ll be showin’ us how this is proof positive that “hotter makes it colder”, with purty graphs ‘n everything.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 2:02 pm

Indeed, indeed, the cherry-picking scoundrels. Why, that would be just as preposterous as claiming “ the warming is so minor that an area… can still set a coldest ever record for a time period for as long as a full month.”

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 13, 2021 2:48 pm

Poor loy-dodo Yet another non-comment, devoid of evidence.

The desperation is palpable 🙂

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 13, 2021 2:59 pm

You never have been able to produce any evidence for any form of warming except UHI effect and data adjustment, have you loy-dodo.

AGW as such.. DOES NOT EXIST.

Lrp
Reply to  Loydo
March 13, 2021 7:26 pm

That’s what climate science has become; cherrypicking weather events to provide justification for grants and subsidies

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
March 13, 2021 7:50 pm

I notice that Loydo completely ignored the point I was making.
But then again, actually refuting arguments takes intelligence.

Regardless, when it comes to cherry picking data, nobody does it like you alarmists.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
March 14, 2021 12:10 am

Watts may be a cherry-picker but whaddabout them alarumists.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 14, 2021 1:06 am

Loy-dodo cannot support anything he/she/it says with anything even approaching science.

You are a SCIENTIFIC ABYSS, loy-dodo.

Your comments are totally irrelevant to any scientific or rational discussion

Abolition Man
March 13, 2021 8:35 am

Does the CO2 climate control knob go to 11 or 12?
Maybe some of the Climastrology scientism experts took the knob off when they were adjusting data for their models, and the knob got put back on incorrectly! Sure looks like somebody didn’t get the memo that increased CO2 leads to higher temperatures!

BCofTexas
March 13, 2021 9:09 am

I watch the U of ME website for climate change which reports global 2m temps and the daily global average. Been doing that for between a year or two. During the cold snap here, I saw the global average anomaly go negative for the first time I could recall. It stayed around zero for a while so I was expecting the monthly average to take a dip. Instead it went up. There were no upward spikes that I observed. What happened???

March 13, 2021 9:10 am

Proof that the climate changes
… in both directions!

Bruce Cobb
March 13, 2021 9:14 am

Meet Ma Nature; Chief Climate Denier and bottle-washer.

John I Reistroffer
March 13, 2021 9:23 am

In March of 1836, when Generalisimo Santa Ana was marching his troops through the northern state of Coahila Mexico to put down the insurrection in Texas, a cold front moved through. Hundreds of Santa Ana’s troops died of exposure in the ice and snow, before they reach San Antonio de Bexar (Today: San Antonio, Texas). This is an early historical example of the effects of the “Polar Vortex”.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  John I Reistroffer
March 13, 2021 10:28 am

“The entire Taylor army bivouacked in Corpus Christi during the winter of 1845-46 was fed with many wagon loads of freshly killed fish and turtles.” [Letter from General Marly, in Collins, J. W. 1884. History of the tilefish. Report Commissioner U. S. Fish and Fisheries. 10(1882):237-292.] I have a list of major freezes [kills fish, ice on bays] in the northwestern Gulf in 1820, 1845, 1853, 1868 (perhaps minor), 1880, 1886, 1899, 1917, 1924, 1930, 1940, 1947, 1951, 1962, 1983 and 1989.Plus 2021. Minor freezes not as well recorded, but still could be bad more inland. The zero San Antonio record which I saw just north of there on a thermometer was in January 1949. Remembered the thermometer, not the date.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John I Reistroffer
March 14, 2021 1:10 pm

“This is an early historical example of the effects of the “Polar Vortex”.”

Arctic air comes down into the United States every winter. Most of the time it doesn’t reach as far south or get as cold as the last arctic front, but we get these things every year. Sometimes we will get two excursions of arctic air into the United States during one winter.

John I Reistroffer
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 14, 2021 4:28 pm

Sometimes, rarely into Mexico.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  John I Reistroffer
March 15, 2021 7:06 am

Yes, very rarely into Mexico.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 15, 2021 8:20 am

Depends on how far into Mexico you want to talk about. My wife’s relatives live in Juarez, and it got very cold there. They also lost power for a couple of days.

DHR
March 13, 2021 9:41 am

I believe it is also correct to say that the Climate Reference System also shows that the lower 48 have not warmed since 2005 when the system was first placed in service.

JOHN CHISM
March 13, 2021 9:56 am

The Ionosphere is generated by our Magnetic North and Magnetic South Poles and when those move at different rates but at the same tilt from the Axis respectively, caused by our Magnetic Core Moving, it causes a shift of the atmosphere in relation to the Equator with it’s own Atmospheric Equator. As the Earth is spinning on it’s Axis in relation to the Sun, the Solar Radiation entering our Atmosphere changes with this Ionosphere Shift that changes the Jet Streams as they are moving across different parts of mountain ranges. The Magnetic Poles also causes the Tilting of the Axis Wobbling. That changes surface weather patterns especially in the Northern Hemisphere that has the greater land mass of mountains. This was simple 8th grade science taught by my teacher and I have been following it for decades. While our Axis Poles and Magnetic Poles locations are just over 200 years of being recorded. You can link major weather patterns to the movement of the Magnetic Poles. And with volcanoes magnetism showing shifts of the magnetic field, you can link those to historical weather shifts throughout Earth’s history. I’m just an observer as a hobby and never thought of actually keeping records of this.

https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-8ef0212e2bda262bd4f8c7b3b6923d83
comment image

UNGN
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
March 13, 2021 12:53 pm

Is there anything Putin cannot do?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
March 13, 2021 6:43 pm

As Carl Sagan remarked, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” I don’t see any evidence, let alonge extraordinary evidence.

beng135
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
March 14, 2021 9:36 am

caused by our Magnetic Core Moving, it causes a shift of the atmosphere in relation to the Equator with it’s own Atmospheric Equator.

WTF?

Last edited 30 days ago by beng135
JOHN CHISM
Reply to  beng135
March 14, 2021 10:49 am
JOHN CHISM
Reply to  beng135
March 14, 2021 11:37 am

Use the below links and compare the Magnetic Pole movement years to the Holocene temperatures. Currently the Magnetic North Pole is closer to the Axis Pole and using the link given on the Ionosphere Tilt that has provided an Ionosphere Equator in relation to the Axis Equator, the Solar Radiation entering the atmosphere currently is close to the same. From 1,000 AD to 1,200 AD was the Medieval Warming as the temperature dropped as it moved to Alaska in the 1,300s at the 1600s it was closer to the Axis on the Northern Europe side at the peak cold during the Little Ice Age and the temperature warmed as it moved to the Norther Canada by the 1850s. By the 1950s it moved closer to the Axis in this Modern Warming where in 2020 it is closer to the Axis with incremental warming. While other factors of Solar Radiance Fluctuations, Volcanoes activities, and others play their roles, there is a marked difference in Climate Changes in relation to the Magnetic Pole.

holocene temperature graphs – AOL Image Search Results

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
March 14, 2021 1:57 pm

Confused gobbledygook, not to mention incoherent to the point of incomprehensibility.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
March 14, 2021 1:50 pm

The Magnetic Poles also causes the Tilting of the Axis Wobbling.”

Fact check: False.

I think it is well established that the axis of the earth’s rotation wobbles due to gravitational effects, as well as such things as tectonic movements, air masses, etc.
There is no indication that there is enough energy in the magnetic field or the ionosphere’s interactions with the solar wind to alter the rotation of the mass of the Earth.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  JOHN CHISM
March 14, 2021 1:53 pm

The Ionosphere is generated by our Magnetic North and Magnetic South Poles…”

Also false.
The ionosphere is ionized by solar radiation.

n.n
March 13, 2021 9:56 am

A climate stasis, nowhere.

Vuk
March 13, 2021 10:04 am

Pray for active (now moribund) sun and moribund (recently active) Kamchatka volcanoes and absence of the SSW, else it might get ‘far worse than expected’ and even more ‘unprecedented’ next winter and the winter after. More at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/18/the-stratosphere-has-warmed-profoundly-this-month-what-are-the-implications/#comment-3164797

winter2021.png
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Vuk
March 14, 2021 1:58 pm

To which of the gods should we direct such prayers in order to maximize the effects on the volcanism of the planet?

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
March 14, 2021 2:00 pm

Oh, wait…logically it ought’s to be Vulcan, no?

Ra2ef16c7ba52ab77249b65ebc18db9eb.jpg
Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 10:32 am

“While this coldest February on record for over 30 years does not disprove the claim of “man-made global warming,” it does show that the warming is so minor that an area the size of the ENTIRE United States can still set a “coldest ever” record for a time period for as long as a full month. 
This event is a strong indicator that nature, not man-made emissions, is still the deciding factor in temperature.”

A single month in an area covering just 6% of the world’s land surface cannot tell us anything about long term climate change or its drivers.

Doonman
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 10:44 am

Oh Look. MarkW is psychic. He predicted your post 2 and a half hours before you wrote it.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 11:52 am

Your DESPERATION is showing, weakling-fail.

….. and it HILARIOUS !! 🙂

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 12:49 pm

Yet every heat wave, no matter how small the area covered, is always cited as proof of global warming.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 1:17 pm

I’m certain that I’ve never cited a heat wave event as proof of global warming, but please do have fun tilting at the straw man you’ve constructed.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 2:51 pm

ROFLMAO

Your fellow AGW cultists do that “an indication of global warming” malarkey every time there is a warm record broken by even 0.001 C

Seems you don’t pay any attention, or are DELIBERATELY LYING as AGW cultista tend to do.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 6:46 pm

It’s not a strawman since warmist/alarmists do it a lot and so does the media.

You live in the basement?

MarkW
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 7:54 pm

I never said that you have, at least not under this pseudonym.

Weekly_rise
Reply to  MarkW
March 13, 2021 10:16 pm

Then why present the statement as a counterpoint to my comment? I do not agree with citing a single heat wave event in the US as proof of global warming any more than I agree with citing a single cold February in the US as proof of the opposite.

fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 14, 2021 1:09 am

Yawn,

Poor weekly-fail, the petty DENIAL of what its fellow cult alarmists continually yap on and on about….

SO pathetic that you have to stoop to blatant LIES and DENIAL.. !

philincalifornia
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 12:50 pm

The graph is from 2004/2005 you loser. Buy some better reading glasses.

Last edited 1 month ago by philincalifornia
fred250
Reply to  Weekly_rise
March 13, 2021 4:20 pm

The every FACT that many of your fellow looney AGW cultists are trying to blame this extreme cold weather on “Global warming™”…

….. should tell you all you need to know about the zero-science of the cult religion you are bowing and scraping to. !.

Time to WAKE UP TO REALITY and stop being such a gullible fool.

tommyboy
March 13, 2021 11:21 am

What was that quote again? It was said someone very famous I think I remember it.
“THE PLANET IS BURNING UP!”
Or some rubbish to that effect.

Sara
March 13, 2021 11:28 am

Seriously, the shape of the mean temperatures color map looks like the shape of the last ice sheet from the Nebraska cold period. That lasted a very long time. The question is does that temperature map mean anything more than a one-time event, or is there more to come?

Joachim
March 13, 2021 11:33 am

The correct average temperatur line should be rising from 2004 to 2016, the absolute peak, from where on the temperature line will continue downwards for decades. Who is not yet convinced will see this in the coming years.
I read an article recently that the question was asked to a British scientific society: How many decades without rising temperatures would it take, until you give up the Warmist hoax? And they replied: From 2050, another 30 yaers to go until they smarten up.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Joachim
March 13, 2021 9:03 pm

Who is not yet convinced will see this in the coming years.”

Me. I’m only convinced that no one knows, period.

March 13, 2021 12:08 pm

“The USCRN shows a -4.32°F negative deviation in the average US temp anomaly for Feb, 2021 which is -1.12°F colder than NOAA’s problematic and biased surface temperature network.”
No. If you click on that page
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/national-temperature-index/time-series?datasets%5B%5D=uscrn&datasets%5B%5D=climdiv&datasets%5B%5D=cmbushcn&parameter=anom-tavg&time_scale=p12&begyear=2004&endyear=2021&month=12
and ask it to show ClimDiv too, it tells you that the ClimDiv average is 4.71°F cooler than the average; colder than CRN’s 4.32.

But what it also shows is that the “problematic and biased surface temperature network” almost always gives a very similar average as USCRN, as now.

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 13, 2021 12:32 pm

ROFLMAO,

You are such a GULLIBLE little man, Nick

ClimDiv HAS to be calculated to match USCRN

Even a low-end mathematician like you should be able to look at the USCRN and ClimDiv graphs and know what was happening.

How stupid would they look if they kept up the manic adjustments from pre-USCRN days.

The divergence would be highly comical.. Like your posts are becoming. !

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
Reply to  fred250
March 13, 2021 1:10 pm

You don’t seem to have any regard for facts at all. The claim was that USCRN showed cooler than ClimDiv, showing the faults of ClimDiv. In fact, ClimDiv showed cooler than USCRN. But now you say ClimDiv is rigged to match USCRN. So how then could any comparison of results ever show faults in ClimDiv?  Indeed, why would they bother to post ClimDiv at all, if it is just a renamed CRN?
 

fred250
Reply to  Nick Stokes
March 13, 2021 2:53 pm

Look at the graphs, nick.

USCRN has brought the US temperature data maladjustments that were a consistent part of USHCN UNDER CONTROL

Sorry your mathematical comprehension doesn’t get far enough to realise that ClimDiv is being “CORRECTED” to approximately match USCRN

Senility beckons to you, nick !

Last edited 1 month ago by fred250
taxed
March 13, 2021 12:14 pm

Just checked out the Rutgers snow lab graphs and during 2021 N America has had its highest February snow extent since 2010 and 4th highest since 1967.
A other interesting trend in N America is the growth of the snow cover extent that has been happening during the Fall since the late 1990’s. The snow extent during the Fall in recent years has been noticeable higher then it was back in the late 1960’s. lts would be interesting to check the records of the date of the first snow during this time. To see if there has been any trend towards earlier first snows.

fred250
March 13, 2021 12:43 pm

USCRN – UAH USA48

Pristine surface data vs Satellite difference.

Is Roy getting a “warming” satellite drift he is not properly accounting for, as Rick has suggested ?

comment image

philincalifornia
March 13, 2021 12:54 pm

Does anyone have a link to the Climategate quote by Phil Jones that “if it turns out to be cyclical, they’re going to kill us” or something like that? I Googled, but that was like talking to a door.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  philincalifornia
March 14, 2021 10:17 am

I think that was Tommy Wils, when asked what will happen if all this turns out to be bogus he said “we’ll likely all be ki!!ed”

Jean Parisot
March 13, 2021 1:00 pm

1989, I recall snow on the ground in Charleston, SC

Peter K
March 13, 2021 2:09 pm

Don’t worry. Bill Gates has all weather events covered in his new book.

Independent
Reply to  Peter K
March 13, 2021 7:17 pm

You know, I suspect that was shadow-written. I believe he’s too busy elsewhere building his Weather Dominator.

Abolition Man
Reply to  Independent
March 13, 2021 8:30 pm

I thought he was working with the ChiComs on their next corona virus! Don’t they have to build another lab now that everyone is onto the Wuhan Biological Warfare Center?

Independent
Reply to  Abolition Man
March 13, 2021 11:02 pm

Um, the press and Democrats (I repeat myself) are doing everything they can to deflect attention away from the Wuhan lab. Fauci still wants to fund it, even, and no doubt they will – probably the most insane thing from the whole China virus ordeal, to be honest.

ResourceGuy
March 13, 2021 3:56 pm

And the AMO is just getting started in that 60-year downcycle with irregular cycle amplitude.

A multi-cycle solar minimum, PDO, and ENSO help in the short run. I suggest a collection of natural anti-depressants and good exercise to deal with the visions and policy distortions of having to watch the Climate Maginot Line being built for warming. It does give you a very real, upfront and personal look into the historical situations of people dealing with religious orthodoxy or wrongheaded build up to wars.

ResourceGuy
March 13, 2021 4:02 pm

I would much rather see the record cold in the Northeast so we can watch John Holdren tell them it’s caused by global warming. There will be a next time with all these cycles lining up for more cold.

Tom
March 13, 2021 4:19 pm

I look at this routinely, but last time I checked Feb wasn’t up yet. I figured it would show a dip.

March 13, 2021 6:46 pm

but somehow the great lakes could only muster 46% ice coverage. of course, the people doing it had already predicted the 30% also predicted by their models.

uhh yeah.

James F. Evans
March 13, 2021 7:33 pm

Nine years left…

John
March 14, 2021 1:43 am

The plot shows no warming over the past 15 years. Who from NOAA released that! They should be fired for exposing to the world that there has been no warming in the US since 2005. John Kerry, you know anything about this?

March 14, 2021 7:21 am

I’m tempted to say: so what?

One swallow doesn’t make a summer and one bad winter is not that unusual. If you look at the temperature records over the last 200 years there have been many months in many countries where the average temperature was extremely low. In most northern latitudes extreme lows in winter are much more extreme than extreme highs in summer. The only thing that matters is the long term trend. You need at least 150 years of data to see this and most are stable.

March 14, 2021 9:42 pm

This NOAA data on US temperature anomalies looks similar to temperature and (inversely) ice mass data from Greenland:

https://notrickszone.com/2021/03/10/danish-institute-data-greenland-ice-melt-has-slowed-down-significantly-over-past-decade/

85A617E1-8497-483F-BB00-7A87D6A9E632.png
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
March 14, 2021 9:42 pm

Here’s the other one

16FD45F9-4261-44A6-BE0F-794847CF3CAE.png
CO2isLife
March 15, 2021 2:16 pm

People are really missing the point with all these various temperature charts. CO2 is 415ppm at all locations, and yet temperatures in the US are wildly different than in Europe and Australia. You have temperature differentials between N and S Hemi, the top 1/3, middle 1/3 and bottom 1/3, you get temperature differentials between the Poles. CO2 can’t be causing those temperature differentials. Identify a location that isn’t impacted by the UHI effect or Water Vapor and you will find no warming. Simply look at the Desert Locations.

Alice Springs (23.8S, 133.88E) ID:501943260000
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v3.cgi?id=501943260000&dt=1&ds=5

Facts are, fewer clouds leads to warming, and somewhere there are fewer clouds to the warmists simply find those locations and report it as CO2 driven warming.

Moscow has 3 stations, all exposed to 415 ppm, and yet only one shows warming. How can that be if CO2 causes the warming?

Moscow U Of I (46.7281N, 116.9558W) ID:USC00106152
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00106152&ds=14&dt=1
Moscow (35.0711N, 89.4117W) ID:USC00406274
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00406274&ds=14&dt=1
Moscow (55.8331N, 37.6167E) ID:RSM00027612
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=RSM00027612&ds=14&dt=1

%d bloggers like this: