Guest essay by Larry Hamlin
NOAA has updated its Contiguous U.S. National Temperature Index Temperature Anomaly data and its National, Statewide, County and City Time Series temperature data (as well as other climate data parameters) through the April 2024 period.
NOAA’s National Time Series USCRN maximum temperature anomaly dataset for the Contiguous U.S. is shown below with the data updated through April 2024.
This NOAA data clearly establishes that there is no upward trending anomaly signature for the Contiguous U.S. monthly maximum temperature anomalies for the period commencing in January 2005 through April 2024.
NOAA’s USCRN April 2024 maximum temperature anomaly value is 1.91 degrees F (highlighted in red above) with the highest measured April USCRN value occurring in April 2006 at 3.62 degrees F.
Furthermore, the April 2024 maximum anomaly value is only the 3rd highest measured April maximum temperature anomaly during the January 2005 through April 2024 period.
NOAA’s latest Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature anomaly data clearly refutes politically contrived exaggerated climate alarmist hype that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA’s National Time Series Contiguous U.S. April maximum absolute temperatures from 1895 through April 2024 are shown below clearly establishing that there is nothing remarkable about the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.
April 2024 is only the 116th highest April maximum temperature out of 130 Contiguous U.S. maximum April temperature months since 1895 as shown below with maximum temperatures in prior years 1895, 1910, 1915, 1925, 1930, 1934, 1946, 1954, 1977, 1981, 1985, 1987, 2006 (highest value) and 2012 exceeding the year 2024 value.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum April temperatures between 1895 and 2024 clearly refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA’s National Time Series Contiguous U.S. maximum January through April temperatures from 1895 through April 2024 are shown below again showing nothing remarkable regarding the 2024 January through April result that is highlighted below in red.
The January through April 2024 maximum temperature is the 123rd highest of 130 Contiguous U.S. measurements with prior year outcomes from years 1946, 1986, 1990, 2000, 2006, 2012 (highest value), 2016 and 2017 exceeding the 2024 value as shown below.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum January through April temperatures between 1895 and 2024 clearly refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA’s National Time Series Contiguous U.S. maximum absolute temperatures for all months from 1895 through April 2024 are shown below again showing nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.
April 2024 is only the 808th highest month out of 1552 highest months measured since 1895 as shown below.
NOAA’s Contiguous U.S. maximum temperature data for all months since 1895 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA’s Statewide Time Series data for California’s maximum temperature for the month of April between 1895 and 2024 are displayed below and again show nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.
April 2024 is only the 86th highest April maximum temperature out of 130 highest April measured temperatures since April 1895 as shown below.
NOAA’s California Statewide Time Series maximum temperature data for April months between 1895 and 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
Additionally, this NOAA database also establishes that none of the 48 Contiguous U.S. states experienced a record high April maximum temperature month in year 2024.
This same outcome is also true for Alaska as shown below where the April 2024 result was only the 80th highest maximum temperature out of 100 highest April months.
NOAA’s Statewide Time Series for California’s maximum temperature for all months between 1895 and 2024 are shown below again showing nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.
April 2024 is only the 745th highest maximum temperature out of 1552 highest measured monthly temperatures since 1895 as shown below.
NOAA’s California Statewide Time Series maximum temperature data for all months between 1895 and 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperature data for the month of April 2024 are shown below for the period starting in 1945 and again show nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.
April 2024 is only the 49th highest April maximum temperature out of 80 highest measured April monthly temperatures since 1945 as shown below.
NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperature data for April months between 1945 and 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperatures for all months in the period starting in 1944 through 2024 and again show nothing remarkable regarding the April 2024 result that is highlighted below in red.
April 2024 is only the 359th highest maximum temperature out of 957 highest measured monthly temperatures since August 1944 as shown below.
NOAA’s City Time Series for Los Angeles, California maximum temperature data for all months between August 1944 and April 2024 refutes climate alarmists exaggerated and politically driven claims that we are experiencing a “climate emergency”.
NOAA recently issued its report “Assessing the U.S. Climate in April 2024” (shown below) which failed to provide detailed temperature data as addressed in this essay (using NOAA’s own extensive data records) and instead used nebulous “color” charts and generalized statements that concealed what their own data shows regarding the measured temperature outcomes that clearly do not support that we are experiencing a “climate emergency” as discussed in detail above.
One of the charts is shown below which portrays the “Mean Temperature Departures from Average” for the Contiguous U.S. but provides no specific temperature data that allows any perspective to be obtained regarding the large natural variations of measured temperature outcomes that occur over time as provided in this essay using NOAA’s data.
A similar chart (shown below) is also provided that portrays “Mean Temperature Departures from Average” for the January through April 2024 period but again has no specific temperature measurement data that provide any useful perspectives regarding the patterns and extent of natural occurring temperature behaviors over time as provided in this essay using NOAA’s data.
What is particularly concerning is that this NOAA report failed to provide its clearest temperature anomaly data regarding Contiguous U.S. temperature anomalies (shown below and addressed in the essay above) that clearly establish there is no “climate emergency.”
NOAA’s temperature data as addressed in detail in this essay do not support and clearly refute climate alarmist hype that we are experiencing a “climate emergency.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tony Heller makes a decent case that the official “records” have been stepped on, eliminating the hot spell in the 1930’s, and the decline from 1945-1975.
The Nation’s Heartland is devastated? Did the tornado’s remove all the crops and topsoil?
I think the NOAA headline writers confuse some trailer parks with the entire midwest land mass. Of course, that’s what insurance policies are for.
The facts behind a headline often do not support the headline.
What US CRN shows is what the WUWT surface stations project found—US HCN is not fit for purpose.
The ‘climate emergency’ was based on contaminated surface temperature data compounded by bad climate models that cannot even agree on hindcast temperatures after being tuned, something CMIP hides by comparing only anomalies.
A lot of people built academic careers proclaiming the climate false alarm. History of science will not look kindly on them.
What USCRN shows is that the surface stations (ClimDiv) give exactly the same result as USCRN
ps USHCN was replaced over 10 years ago.
Do ClimDiv and HCN agree in the past? If not, which one was fiddled with? If they agree, then HCN should agree with CRN too, right?
You should get the idea that something is amiss with the temperature record.
Yes, USHCN and ClimDiv agree over their range. NOAA hasn’t published a USHCN average for ten years. USHCN and USCRN had only about 9 years of overlap, but there they agreed too.
“You should get the idea that something is amiss with the temperature record.”
If they don’t agree, something’s amiss. If they agree, something’s amiss. It’s like a broken record.
Mr. Stokes,
USHCN is not raw data, it’s homogenized and otherwise tinkered with. It would be relatively easy to make the homogenized data agree with USCRN during the period that they overlap, but that tells us nothing about the long period before the advent of USCRN.
A few years ago NOAH adjusted USHCN data to the new Climate Norms, their adjustment turned a long period of no warming into a period of warming. I pointed out to them than this should not be possible and they fixed it. Everybody makes mistakes but you would think they would be more careful with such an important dataset.
ClimDiv is extensively “fiddled” so that it matches USCRN very closely.
Even Nick knows that. !
It is claimed the use of unadjusted raw USCRN data allowed NOAA to make USCRN adjustments more accurate
Whether that is true or false is your guess
Evaluating the impact of U.S. Historical Climatology Network homogenization using the U.S. Climate Reference Network – Hausfather – 2016 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
Quoting Zeke horsefather…. one of the major con-artists of the whole AGW scam.
That’s funny..
Next you’ll be citing Mickey Mann.. and really showing your AGW cultist colours.
They don’t refer to USCRN as a “reference” network for no reason, Nick ! 😉
USCRN has all rural stations with allegedly perfect siting
nClimDiv has a minority of rural stations and prior studies of USHRN siting suggest poor nClimDiv station siting
That both networks result in such similar statistics does not pass my internal BS detector. Very suspicious.
“What US CRN shows is what the WUWT surface stations project found—US HCN is not fit for purpose.”
First of all USHRN was replaced ny nClimDiv in 2014
If you assume the USCRN is accurate, then nClimDiv is similar and also accurate.
Because USCRN is all rural stations, you would expect no increase of UHI and a smaller warming rate than nClimDiv.
But NOAA claims nClimDiv is rising at a slower rate than USCRN
.
That is very suspicious, and another reason to distrust NOAA. If you distrust NOAA, as I do, then you have no idea if either USCRN or nCllimDiv are accurate.
Studying temperature data anywhere is a pointless effort. What we see as the maximum and minimum temperature reading for a day are actually hourly averages, not the actual peaks and troughs experienced.
In my location during the summer, it’s not uncommon to experience scorching, arid conditions with temperatures hovering in the triple digits, only to have a thunderstorm roll in, bringing a rapid, dramatic cool down—all within the span of an hour.
So, if we consider a hypothetical example of this scenario, the station’s data logger would depict this over an hour:
These data points represent 5-minute averages. The hourly average would be 97.5°F, and this would be recorded as your maximum reading for the day. As a result, a significant amount of detailed information is lost.
Yes, averaging temperature readings over hours is nonsense, that’s for sure.
So what do we call averaging temperatures over days, weeks, months, seasons, years, decades?
And down to hundredths of one degree C no less.
I call it lunacy. Or perfidy.
Take your pick.
And, as is typical, there is no margin of error envelope for the nominal measurements.
It is why we should move to a “temperature*day” metric derived from integrating 2, 5, 10 minute data for whatever peiod of the day you need. Many sites have been upgraded to provide at least 5 minute data. A super computer should be able to do that world-wide in seconds.
See here: Calculating Degree Days
You wouldn’t need a supercomputer to do the integrating at a single station. It was possible to integrate weather measurements (not only of temperature, but of wind speed and direction as well) using a PC back in the 1990’s, for measurements at 10-second intervals to calculate 10-minute averages, in real time.
The integrated averages from each weather station could then be transmitted electronically to a central computer, which would calculate national averages, such as those for the “contiguous 48 states”.
Hypothetical examples are BS
They are not real data.
Science requires data
“Yes… science requires data.. !”
Still waiting on data evidence for CO2 warming.
Conjectures, bluster, and calls to consensus, aren’t science either.
I am still waiting for an intelligent comment from you (that would be a miracle) announcing that you have finally read at least one scientific study that provides evidence of AGW. There are abput 100,000 to chose from
Try the latest paper by Lindzen, Koonin and Happer for a skeptical scientist view of AGW. They do not deny AGW: They do say it will be small and harmless (my position since 1997)
Lindzen-Happer-Koonin-climate-science-4-24.pdf (co2coalition.org)
There is also ”evidence” of ice cream consumption causing shark attacks.
Twonk!
What caused the MWP and why is that not causing the current ”warm” period? Can’t answer? Then you have zero evidence of AGW. You have conjecture. Sorry old chap.
AGW is hypothetical Lol.
Climate models are hypothetical examples.
Wind and solar output do the same….lots of holes in capacity at any point in time….W/S depend on robust grid system to absorb wild fluctuations…like a parasite.
NOAA examined the data from 1895 to 1989 and found no trend.
https://www.climatecatastrophefund.com/
You can see the front page from the New York Times summarising it in 1989. No warming trend they said.
The Earth is still in an ice age named the Quaternary or Quaternary Glaciation in a cold interglacial period that alternates with very cold Glacial Periods.
Outside the Tropics heating is a necessity in our houses, workplaces, and transportation.
The IPCC should be happy if it is warming, cooling would be a disaster and plants grow best at CO2 levels over 1,000 ppm.
In the last Glacial Period, which may start at any time, the CO2 levels dropped to only 180 ppm, and at 150 ppm most land plants would die from lack of photosynthesis taking most land animals with them. https://pioga.org/just-the-facts-more-co2-is-good-less-is-bad
There is NO CLIMATE EMERGENCY
Well, where’s the funding in that?
Brutal heatwaves and submerged cities: what a 3C world would look likeClimate scientists have told the Guardian they expect catastrophic levels of global heating.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/may/11/brutal-heatwaves-submerged-cities-what-3c-world-would-look-like
Suspend your disbelief…
Those graphs from NOAA’s Climate at A Glance have a show Display Trend [✓] box to check off. 0.12°F/ Decade is all it is, but why did I have to go the NOAA’s site to find out what it is?
Opps, wrong settings the default is the current month, When I set to All months, its the same.
Funny Story Tip..
Eco-friendly brake cables eaten by foxes after switch to soy insulation (telegraph.co.uk)
Paul has the same story, without the “pay for”
Eco-friendly brake cables eaten by foxes after switch to soy insulation | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
“NOAA recently issued its report “Assessing the U.S. Climate in April 2024” (shown below) which failed to provide detailed temperature data as addressed in this essay (using NOAA’s own extensive data records) and instead used nebulous “color” charts and generalized statements that concealed what their own data shows regarding the measured temperature outcomes that clearly do not support that we are experiencing a “climate emergency” as discussed in detail above. “
“One of the charts is shown below which portrays the “Mean Temperature Departures from Average” for the Contiguous U.S. but provides no specific temperature data that allows any perspective to be obtained regarding the large natural variations of measured temperature outcomes that occur over time as provided in this essay using NOAA’s data”
“A similar chart (shown below) is also provided that portrays “Mean Temperature Departures from Average” for the January through April 2024 period but again has no specific temperature measurement data that provide any useful perspectives regarding the patterns and extent of natural occurring temperature behaviors over time as provided in this essay using NOAA’s data.”
Larry still hasn’t figured out commas. Just all run-on sentences.
“Larry still hasn’t figured out commas. Just all run-on sentences.”
Should be…
Larry still hasn’t figured out commas, just all run-on sentences. 🙂
Commas don’t necessarily solve run-on sentences. It’s called a “comma-splice.” You need something stronger like a comma and a conjunction or a semicolon or a period.
I’;ll continue to assert that if there were a climate emergency it would be having an adverse effect upon population growth, life expectancy, and agricultural production. None of this is happening; in fact, all three are increasing. What the climate alarmists are attributing to climate change is simply the seasonal variation of weather events—end of story.
If you want to find warming you need to be looking at minimums. Atmospheric moisture is trending up in the NH so the atmosphere has more thermal inertia. It is harder to warm and slower to cool. But, on average the minimums drop less than the maximums increase so the average increases.
The place warming the most of anywhere on the globe is the Greenland plateau in January. That it why it is gaining elevation and the Island gaining permanent ice extent:
?ssl=1
Another Gish-gallop of garbage from Larry.
There is a clear upward warming signal in the USCRN average temperature data; and this is what would be expected. In fact, average USCRN is warming faster than average ClimDiv over their joint period of measurement.
But Larry doesn’t want to talk about the average data; he just wants to cherry-pick 50% of it and dismiss the rest as if it doesn’t exist.
And you guys, the most non-sceptical people it is possible to imagine, just fall for it time and time and time again…
See the broad El Nino hump from 2015-2017.. Then the 2023 spikes at the end.
Before those El Nino, USCRN was basically zero trend.
Use those El Ninos….. they are all you have.
Do you have any evidence of human causation??
I’m adding your hot air to my list of climate change variables.
Your list should consist mainly of your own posts.
Do YOU have any evidence of human causation,..
… or are you as lost and bewildered as fungal ??
Again, ClimDiv started higher and has been gradually adjusted closer to USCRN.
There is no statistical difference in the two trends.
But you already know all that.. so why keep regurgitating your nonsense.??
graph of Climdiv – USCRN…
Trends for 3 US data sets.
And of course, up until the 2023 El Nino, USA trends have all been negative since 2015.
Please present evidence of human causation for that. 😉
ps. Note how close USCRN and ClimDiv trends are now..
With USCRN COOLING faster than ClimDiv. 😉
Pick a hot year from a huge El Nino heat release as your starting point for data mining exercise. You are a data mining dingbat.
Unfortunately the “climate” emergency is not defined by monthly temperatures, so they cannot “refute” its existence.
If it had a definition it would be in terms of extreme events. Of course there is no definition because it is a political term not a scientific one. It is like “Saturday night special” and “pit bull”. Vagueness makes it easy to wield.
The crisis is defined as an average prediction of +0.3 degrees C. warming per decade, forever after. That is the average climate confuser game prediction (aka The Consensus)
That is a very specific definition and has been about the same since 1979.
The actual warming rate is +0.15 degrees C. per decade per UAH and has been very pleasant because the warming is mainly TMIN, not TMAX, and mainly in the colder months of the year.
Can you point to,a place where this supposedly common and specific definition is asserted? I have never seen it.
Also I think the “emergency” term is relatively recent so can you point to it being used prior to say 2010?
‘Climate emergency’ is an oxymoron. Come on. Help me out. I’m trying to start a meme. Weather is not climate. There can be a weather emergency, but a climate emergency?
The “emergency” is with the mental state of climate alarmists. !
Since climate is usually referred to as multi-decade average weather a climate emergency would be if that average relatively rapidly changed in a very bad way, probably for several features.
That’s all very well but we are in uncharted territory and Gavin hasn’t got a clue what’s going on-
The world has been its hottest on record for 10 months straight. Scientists can’t fully explain why – ABC News
“If we can’t explain what’s going on, then that has real consequences for what we can say is going to happen in the future,”
Well that’s what we’ve been trying to tell you doomsters for quite some time but you would keep banging on about a colourless odourless tasteless gas that’s food for the plants and tasty animals that feed on them that we ultimately feed on. Now can we stop building exorbitant temples to the weather Gods before the virgins get really paranoid about volcanoes?
Larry Hamlin is a long winded liar and a fool
He should be banned from this website
USCRN had reflected a +0.34 degree C. per decade warming rate since 2005. The April data will only make that number increase
The warming rate for the USCRN since 2005 was +0.34 degrees C. per decade, higher than NOAA’s nClimDiv US network that is mainly non-rural weather stations (+0.27 degrees C. per decade).
It can be argued that such a warming rate is not a climate emergency, but not that the numbers are wrong.
Frequent claims about rural stations are deliberately ignoring these contrary US data.
It can also be noted that USCRN warming per decade of +0.34 degrees C. and the global average warming since 2007, of +0.3 degrees per decade, both meet the average CMIP climate model prediction for a +0.3 degree C. per decade warming rate, which the IPCC claims will be catastrophic.
Meaning that people have been living with a catastrophic warming rate for almost 17 years globally, or almost 19 years in the US, and no one even noticed.
That’s a climate emergency?
I actually loved the warmers winters here in SE Michigan.
RG:
“Meaning that people have been living with a catastrophic warming rate for almost 17 years globally, or almost 19 years in the US, and no one even noticed.”
Well, of course you didn’t – you and I just experienced a few extreme weather events.
It is not possible to notice 0.3C/dec rise in ave temp.
However, the point about any “Climate emergency” is that the biosphere will notice it.
Just not on a human lifetime’s scale.
The processes of particular concern (eg SLR) will take many decades to unfold.
But eventually we will notice.
So the question becomes – do we continue denial of an emergency knowing that we personally will not be affected in the future.
Or does the future in your mind extend to the end of the century and beyond.
That is what is promulgated by the science to be the “Climate emergency”.
Currently any evidence gleaned from US temps will not reveal anything to the average man/woman. It needs to be weighed with much other evidence.
But Hey – makes a typical WUWT dog-whistle post.
Of course most peeps do not think beyond themselves – just basic human behaviour.
Which is why world governments are pushing it.
And the pushback resistance is inevitable from the political right.
The warmer winters here in Michigan and elsewhere are VERY easy to notice and very pleasant
Anything resembling a climate emergency is completely invisible.
We would enjoy the global warming even more if losers like you were not hysterical Climate Howlers and Global Whiners
“Anything resembling a climate emergency is completely invisible.”
Indeed …. as I said.
I also said that if there was a climate emergency, it’s decades away.
Ya takes yer money and makes yer choice eh!
Trouble is the choice will impact future generations, not us so much.
Oh, and save the vitriol for Mr Oxymoron.
It has impact there.
At least at my end.
The global average temperature is meaningless for any individual because he or she lives in a local climate
The warming is mainly in the colder months, mainly at night, and mainly in the colder states and nations.
The change in local climate is very easy to notice
That our Michigan winters are much warmer than in the late 1970s is easily noticed without a thermometer. That driveway snow shovelling was 10 minutes ONE TIME for the entire winter season this year’s compares with once a week in the late 1970s and early 1980s
No science PhD, thermometer or US average temperature statistic is needed to know how our local climate has changed for the better in the past 48 years/
Your claim that “any evidence gleaned from US temps will not reveal anything to the average man/woman” is meaningless claptrap.
People live and work in local climates.
Not average temperatures.
If winters are warmer with less snow, and summers are cooler with record precipitation, as they are here in SE Michigan. ordinary people notice
No one lives in average temperature anomolies.
What would be interesting is to show examples of daily temperature swings in specific addresses for many individual years.
What would be great!– A lookup app that allows individuals or businesses to examine locations important to them…just put in the address and get highest swing (Low to High) for one day or several months.
Of course many more options of specific interest could be provided.
Oh…utiilities and other weather dependent businesses do that now..
But a simple app would give everyone the ability decide whether weather is in a crisis….
Thanks for this article. Good insights again.
PS isn’t total energy a better indicator of change, than strictly temperature anomalies?
When I run the app right out of the box, I get a very different picture. This is what I remember last year.