3rd Coldest Oct. in U.S.
November 6th, 2009 at 9:56 pm by Bill Steffen under Bill's Blog, Weather
Click the graphics twice to enlarge. The month of October (which was the 2nd wettest in Grand Rapids) was the 3rd coldest for the U.S. since records began in 1895. The only state with temperatures that were warmer than normal was Florida. The second graph shows October temperature for the U.S. since 1895. Side Note: Carbon Dioxide has been increasing steadily since the 1940s. If CO2 was the primary or a primary driver of temperature, what would you expect the graph to show for temperatures over the past 70 years? Final note: Some severe weather in Australia…golfball-sized hail and lightning caused a roof to cave in (minor injuries) near Brisbane.
I heard Mr. Gore was going to put NOT CALIBRATED stickers on the satelites so he can blame the readings have been wrong all along. he he He probably lives in Florida so he can still prove the southern hem is hot.
This is why global warming enthusiast are now saying ‘climate change.’ Isn’t it funny. Wait — do I hear them saying, ‘new ice age’ again?
I see the “trend” (green line) on the October temperature line graph is slightly rising. I don’t understand where that comes from in terms of the other data on the graph. If the average is a straight line, why would the “trend” be slanted upward?
Lisa,
The funny thing is that Bill doesn’t understand the graph. Let me explain: The average is just that. You can take 9 years that all average 100 degrees and one year that was 110 degrees. This means the average would be 101 degrees. Even if the 110 degree year was at the beginning of the average it would still show a flat average of 101. Now if the data for the 10 years was as follows:
Year 1: 96 degrees,
Year 2: 97 degrees,
Year 3: 98 degrees,
Year 4: 99 degrees,
Year 5: 100 degrees,
Year 6: 101 degrees,
Year 7: 102 degrees,
Year 8: 103 degrees,
Year 9: 104 degrees,
Year 10: 110 degrees
This would give you an upward trend, as the graph Bill showed demonstrated. Obviously, the numbers are different, but the idea is the same. Now Bill points out the the CO2 has been increasing also, doesn’t this offer proof that the increasing temp trends are following the CO2 increasing trends??????
Now Bill will CHERRY PICK the last 70 years because that is the best he has to try to make his point, but he has offered more than 70 years as case in point. This is slanted science at its best.
Looking at the graph one thing that sticks out to me is that the year to year swing was much greater until 1980 where we had a small year to year swing for 20 years and now it appears we may be heading into a bigger swing (time will tell) One thing that has stayed rather steady is that almost an equal number of years above and below average. But as I said the spread was rather small for a 20 year time frame.
SlimJim
Kevin, do you know why belief in the AGW myth continues to slip away?
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
OK, besides the obvious weakness of your fraud-based science and the fact that Mother Nature is not cooperating in any way, shape, or form. It’s because almost every single advocate you run into is an arrogant, pompous, know-it-all little *****. Even if you were right, do you always have to present yourselves in such a way that one wants to throw you off a roof? Do you really think insulting Bill will somehow help Save the World in the long run?
Have a nice day!
“The scientific community ALL agrees on this”???
http://www.tulsabeacon.com/?p=462
Hee, hee. Right on cue, little Kev gets his ears boxed and proves my point.
Mike M,
Did you actually write hee hee? You must feel pretty special. We don’t see very many right wing conservative bible thumping homosexuals out there. I have a entirely new appreciation for you. Giggle, Giggle
That’s funny. Your mother didn’t think I was gay last night.
It’s also typical hypocrisy AND bigotry from you far leftists. You hate Christians, obviously. And you are FOR gay rights but are not hesitant to smear someone as a homosexual if you want to demean them.
Mike,
Golly, I must have hit a nerve. I really didn’t mean to demean you. I have many gay friends and find nothing wrong with it. The irony is that all of homosexuals that I know are Liberal and usually do have a strong spirituality. They are just not usually close minded right wingers like yourself. This is where I found the irony. Nothing against anyone that is gay or bi, I just find you to be in a pretty different class of gay folks. I appreciate that you are trying to be different. Keep it up Mr. Reach Around. Just kidding of course.
Poor Kevin. Mental illness compels him to troll Bill’s blog, exposing his ignorance and bigotry. He despises most readers here, but comes back daily to engage in pointless troll foolery, posting under multiple names and contributing nothing. The sorriest thing to see is the phony persona of this particular character, “Kevin.” He pretends to be a grown man with a job and children. C’mon, Kev. You know those kind of things are out of reach for boys like you. Now get off your mom’s computer and go to bed.
Mike M or should I say Mr. Reach Around,
If you are going to come on here and attack, at least use your own insults. Direfloyd coined the original Troll, not you. I suppose you are now going to start with the man-bear-pig stuff. What a joker. Again with the mother comments from you. It looks like someone by the name of Mike M may be having an Oedipus Complex. Kinda gross dude, but there is help for that. By the way, I dispise nobody on here, Not even you! Rather, I feel sorry for you. If I thought that you would actually meet me, I would pick a place and see what I could do about helping you out. Now don’t get too pumped up! This is not a gay offer, but rather one young guy at home on his mom’s computer to another. Let’s stop pretending that we are other people and come clean buddy.
Peace Out
The problem for me in seeing the “trend” is that there are high and low temperatures on the graph (it’s not just one number). It looks like the highs and lows today are pretty much similar to what happened back in the 30s and 40s, so I’m still not seeing how a trend for a steady increase would make sense. I guess I would have to see the data set for the graph and compare it to what is on the graph to know what’s going on.
I would think you could look at the average line to determine if there were any trends in average temperature over the years, and that would be enough.
Lisa, The temps on the graph are the average temp for the whole month of October for the whole US and the average runs from around 49° in the coldest October to around 60° in the warmest October vs what looks like 50.8° or so for this October. In the last 10 years it looks like the warmest was 57.5° and the coldest was that 50.8° this year.
SlimJim
The trend line on the graph is from 1895 to the present. If one uses 1940 as a starting point, there is a dramatic downward trend to the present. Who determined that the period around 1895 was the normal temperature for the earth? Why NOT 1940? 1895 is merely the year we began keeping records. The point here is that, if there is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures, why didn’t that hold true for the period beginning in 1940?
One interesting item I noticed was that 20 period from around 1980 to 2000 when the spread was much smaller with few spikes so maybe we are now into a more average October pattern with greater year to year difference. Bill it would be nice to compare the other 11 months and see if there was less or more spikes in the year to year difference.
Looks like a great weekend weather wise its now up to 63° here with sun, wouldn’t it be funny while we did not make 70° in October we make it in November! Its made 70 or better in November in the past tomorrow or early Monday would be our best shot of getting in the mid to upper 60’s and who knows with a little luck and a good warm push of air out of the south we could maybe reach 70. (thats just a maybe LOL)
SlimJim
Whoops I better start proof reading that should have read a 20 year period. So I cant write (I cant talk either so what else is new)
Have not gone up much here its now 64 (well 64.4) but with the sun out it looks and feels nice.
SlimJim
65.7 here at 1:25pm, maybe 2 to 3 more degrees…70 possible tomorrow!
Three Rivers is really close to 70 right now.
CO2=carbon (footprint, and so forth) which is black and sooty, therefore bad (just like H2O=hydrogen, which blew up the Hindenburg). Case closed.
carbon = diamond, which is nice and shinny. Besides CO2 is plant food, duh.
What we really need is for the federal government to institute an Exhalation Tax. That way, when all those people walking around out there breath out their evil CO2, there will be a ready source of income for all those new government programs. And as for that deadly H2O, the government should build large wet/dry vacs and suck up all the lakes, rivers, and oceans and send that noxious stuff up to the moon. Case Closed!
lisa and kevin go hug a tree and enjoy our short time on earth winter is great
It was the second coldest October in Denver’s history (8.1 degrees below average). Plus the amoount of snow we got with that late october blizzard was insane. However, we’re running 7.7 degrees above normal for November thanks to a string of 60 / 70 degree days. Coming from MI, I’m still in shock on how fast 2 feet of snow melts (it was mostly gone by last Monday).
winter sucks… i miss craig james
Will this coming little ice age be called the Copenhagen minimum? What temperature will God set the thermostat to in December in Copenhagen?
Wow, I’m staying out of this =) I’m too late to the party?
I do REALLY hope this is sarcastic because this has to be the most uneducated post in the history of all blogs if not!
“CO2=carbon (footprint, and so forth) which is black and sooty, therefore bad (just like H2O=hydrogen, which blew up the Hindenburg). Case closed.”
Now I’m a little worried that anyone would think it wasn’t sarcastic!
As I was worried also! Good one then! I’m sorry, it was early and my sarcastic meter wasn’t functioning =)