NCDC : June 2012 Was 15th Hottest In US History

The official numbers are out from NCDC, and it turns out that the record hot June of 2012 was cooler than 1933, 1918, 1952, 1931, 1934, 1911 1936. and a number of other years.

And this was after they adjusted the temperatures upwards by more than a degree!

The hottest June in US History was 1933. Temperatures on the South Dakota/Minnesota border were 12 degrees above normal. The 1930s is what global warming looked like

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to NCDC : June 2012 Was 15th Hottest In US History

  1. Ivan says:

    If June 1931 was the third hottest June, and it was also the “hottest June for 60 years”, then where does June 1871 rate in the scheme of things?
    The hottest June for 60 years killed 50 persons in the eastern United States on Friday and Saturday. The temperatures in many cities exceeded 100 degrees.”
    29 June 1931

  2. Mike says:

    NCDC : June 2012 Was 15th Hottest In Recorded US History

  3. johnmcguire says:

    Hey Steven, was on Drudge this morning and clicked on a an article on cnn about drought. Yes they are having a tough time in the corn belt and yes it will affect the price of chicken food and all , but the point I want to make is about the comments. They all were going on about global warming and it’s being caused by pollution or big oil or too many people or yayayaya. It was mind boggleing to read such drivel and stupidity. There did’t appear to be a brain in the collective bunch. It made me wonder if the comments are generated by some kind of spam program due to the likeness and the radical nature of every comment. I think only idiots must watch cnn. Makes me proud I threw out my tv in the eighties. And who can believe NCDC anyway? Your right only people who can’t think for themselves.

  4. gregole says:

    Drought? I am in Phoenix Az in the so-called permanent drought of the US Southwest and it is pouring rain outside! This has to be the wettest drought in history.

  5. I was shocked today when the weather channel actually mentioned that in 1995, the heat wave in Chicago killed hundreds (estimates are around 700) and that it was much hotter that year than now. Someone missed editing that bit of history out….

  6. Andy DC says:

    This drought has zeroed in on the Corn Belt, which will send the alarmists into orbit. Food prices are going to rise, which is all the bad economy needs at this time. Like most everything else, the droughts seem to be part of a cyclical weather pattern, having nothing to do with global warming. Our wonderful fortune with cool summers and bumper crops could not last forever.

  7. Ken Towe says:

    Official NCDC June numbers? True, but It also turns out that the “number of other years” includes six that were after 1985, a period of 27 years. Mr. Goddard’s selected six years were before 1953, going back to 1895 (where the NCDC database starts). That covers a period of 58 years, more than twice as long. It seems to be a bit disingenuous and misleading to emphasize these data by not also mentioning this relevant fact.

  8. This “adjusting” of data is disturbing. Generally speaking, unless there are huge outliers, data is not adjusted. I have also read the adjustments are always up, never down. That in itself is suspect. Why are we not also looking at the records for snowfall and low temperatures that have been set? I mean, that’s part of the whole picture. Europe froze this year. There was snow in Finland in July, if I remember right. Also, the cute “23%” higher really is just a statistical manipulation that sounds cool. How do we know a .07 degree increase is actually a problem? We have less than 200 years of data–unless you count tree rings and ice cores, which is like comparing building with axes and forged nails to modern construction with power tools. Which is to say there really is no comparison. There’s just so much manipulation to get the desired answer to actually qualify any of this as science.

  9. Ken Towe says:

    RE: Your USHCN adjustments. It would have been useful if you had plotted the actual adjusted temperatures for comparison with the NCDC values. If I read your adjusted chart correctly you imply they adjusted the 2012 Mar-May average up from 57.1F to 57.8F and the 2011 value of 52.3F was adjusted up to ~52.4F. Then It looks like you say they lowered the Mar-May 1895 value from 52.0F down to~51.7F.

    Can you show us the fully-adjusted temperature charts for comparison with each other instead of the plus-minus values that are impossible to compare? We can then see the total temperature picture. Failing that, maybe a side-by-side table of each, by year?

  10. Ken Towe says:

    The scatter charts, raw, time-bias adjusted or fully adjusted or with other manipulations, are impossible to compare. Give us the NCDC temperatures and the USHCN temperatures, in table form, side-by-side. Should be easy to do.

    • I am happy to do that, but the difference graph is quite clear. Why are you having a hard time understanding it?

      • Ken Towe says:

        Steven…I’m not having a hard time understanding your results. But, it is your presentation that is awkward and difficult to understand. Comparing scatter charts is difficult in detail and virtually useless for someone who wants to use temperature data for other purposes, especially with someone’s own revised data. You show us Excel spreadsheet scatter plot squares that are of no help in actually knowing what the temperatures are that you have implied are wrong.

        So… a simple request? Please provide both sets of temperatures, side-by-side for the years from 1895 to the present. These can be easily compared with one another.

        The Spring averages can then be put into context with the monthly values that were used to derive those Spring averages… from both sources. My assessment of the “traditional” Spring averages from the NCDC database, STATE by STATE, shows, as I said earlier, that there were no less than 32 (out of 48) NEW state record Spring (Mar-May) highs in 2012. What does your re-assessment of the numbers show? Give us some numerical data, please. I’m sure others might want to see the numbers, especially for the early years back into the 30s. Thanks.

        • You are looking at data which has been upwards adjusted by more than 1.5 degrees relative to 100 years ago. There are reasons why we don’t allow the head coach and head cheerleaders also be the referee and scorekeeper. The NCDC US data is complete crap.

        • Ken Towe says:

          Well now., Steven.. I guess that means that you are NOT happy to give us the side-by-side temperatures that you just said you would be happy to do. To assert that someone else’s data are “complete crap”, without showing the data for comparison (except through self-computed scatter charts) doesn’t help. Show us the Spring numbers, please. Simple request. Easy to do on a spreadsheet.

          The USHCN temperatures at their individual stations can be compared, one by one, back through the years with the NCDC numbers and the old Weather Bureau numbers. The raw data, if complete, will usually agree. It’s the time-biased and fully-adjusted numbers that can vary.

          But, the point is this: the “drd964x.tmpst” NCDC/NOAA numbers are the ones that are regularly used for year-by-year comparisons for public consumption, not the various esoteric USHCN adjustments, many stations of which are incomplete anyhow. Show us YOUR numbers, please that will, you argue, invalidate the NCD Spring data.

        • I take it that you didn’t actually follow the link I provided in my last comment.

        • Ken Towe says:

          Steven…I did follow your link. Your numbers there do not agree with those anyone can download from the NCDC drd964x.tmpst.txt. It is these numbers (the 48 states, the regions, national) from that database that have been used for years in many of the various NCDC.NOAA reports on the climate offered to the public. Those numbers are consistent, back through time, with very few discrepancies. They are the ones used to locate record high or low temperatures for any state or region. Are they the ones you say are “crap”?

          So… show us YOUR numbers for the Spring 1895-2012 side-by-side with those one can derive from that database. Easy to do. Please do it. Your scatter charts don’t show any numbers!

        • I have explained my methodology in great detail and released my code. Sorry you are too lazy to check that out.

          This is comparing USHCN raw daily vs NCDC published

  11. I am now confused. The raw data is for the MEAN temperature, but up to this point, average is what was being discussed. Are we talking mean or average?

    • Ken Towe says:

      “A statistician or mathematician would use the terms mean and average to refer to the sum of all values divided by the total number of values.”

      This is what Mr. Goddard is complaining about, apparently. He began: “The official numbers are out from NCDC, and it turns out that the record hot June of 2012 was cooler than 1933, 1918, 1952, 1931, 1934, 1911 1936. and a number of other years.”These are all means/averages. No difference. Mr. Goddard asserts that they have all been changed from the measured data, up or down. He seems reluctant to show the two temperatures side-by-side so we can see the differences and compare them value by value. Don’t understand that because it’s such an easy thing to do.

      • Brian G Valentine says:

        I don’t know, but are side by side comparisons meaningful? Suppose one year is an El Nino, another not. Suppose one June 15 was cloudy, another not. Suppose one June 15, it rained one day, another not.

        Now tell us what you would conclude.

    • Ken Towe says:

      Brian… The causes of temperature changes from one year to the next are not the question. The question was: Can the June or Spring (Mar-Apr) numbers published by NCDC be used as published? Mr. Goddard asserts that NCDC has altered them upwards. Eye-balling his scatter charts (not easy to do) his Spring charts seem to show that 2012 was adjusted up by about 0.7°F from what looks like 57.1°F to what looks like 57.8°F. At the other end, the 1895 Spring value seems to have been lowered by about 0.3°F. Of course, what all this means is that some or all of the three month temperatures,(Mar, Apr, May) must also have been individually changed… state by state, year by year for 117 years… to arrive at the changed US 48 state average.

      That’s what I would conclude. How could it be otherwise? All Mr. Goddard has to do is give us his “raw” temperatures in table form. or failing that his yearly degree changes and we can add and subtract them ourselves from the NCDC values. So far, at least, he doesn’t seem to want these numbers out where others can see them except in scatter chart form where any given year is very hard to compare. We are just supposed to accept his scatter charts and conclude that those 14 warmest Junes and the warm Springs are “crap”. Seems like someone at NCDC would surely have touted their jacked-up 2012 Spring from 57.1 to 57.8. After all that makes it seem even warmer, does it not?

    • Ken Towe says:

      The numbers “out there” are DAILY RAW means compared to MONTHLY means, both presumably calculated using the appropriate 30, 31 day, and leap year divisors

      The NCDC monthly means back through time, 20’s 30’s, (i.e., the old US Weather Bureau monthly means) have indeed been changed — and lowered, except for a few states, like CA, NM. Some states, like ID, NY have been lowered substantailly. There is some seasonality to it as well. The winter months have been lowered more than the summer months.

      There is a fairly detailed explanation for these changes here:

      The net effect of this lowering can be important…

      Without the various NCDC temperature revisions and their negative departures from the early U.S. Weather Bureau data…

      1. 1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Alabama
      2. 1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Iowa
      3.1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Kansas
      4.1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Missouri
      5. 1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Nebraska
      6.1921 becomes the warmest year on record for New York
      7.1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Ohio
      8.1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Pennsylvania
      9.1921 becomes the warmest year on record for Virginia
      10.1921 tied 1934 as the warmest year on record for Oklahoma.

      This adds 10 other states to the 10 already listed with 1921 as their warmest on record. It also removes 1998 as the warmest on record in three states… NY, OH, PA

      Having said all that, I don’t think that the remarkable 32 state-by-state 2012 Spring records have been much affected by any raising or lowering on NCDC’s part.

      • My calculations show that the last 12 months were the warmest on record, but there are problems going backwards from 2012

        • Ken Towe says:

          Last 12 months in the US 48 a record? Ditto for the last 6 months. 28 states (60%) established new records for the first half of the year, and several of those that didn’t were close. The only regions that escaped a record were the West, Northwest and Southwest. Looks like 2012 will almost certainly end up as the warmest on record for the US 48.

        • The last 12 months were just barely warmer than 68 years ago. Must be due to massive global warming.

          More importantly – the raw trend is down

        • Ken Towe says:

          The first six-months of 2012 were warmer than 1998 by 0.7°F and warmer than 1921 by 1.3°F, warmer than 2006 by 2.1°F and warmer than 1934 by a whopping 6.1°. These were the top four record high years.

        • You are using adjusted data. 1921 is adjusted down by at least 1.3 F, which is what you are claiming for the difference.The adjusted data is crap.

        • Ken Towe says:

          “You are using adjusted data. 1921 is adjusted down by at least 1.3 F, which is what you are claiming for the difference.The adjusted data is crap.”

          My comparison of the, 48 state-by-48 state temperatures between the US Weather Bureau data and the NCDC data, for the six-month period in 1921, shows a downward adjustment of 0.78°F. And in 1934? Downward adjustment of 0.85°F. Both still cooler than 2012.

      • Question: Okay, let’s just say for argument purposes that we are breaking records. What does this mean? It’s means we were at minimum 1 degree warmer than any day in the past for which records were kept. If we break records in 48 states, it means it is at minimum 1 degree higher for x umber of days than in the past. Min and max measurements are interesting and if we are warming say one degree in the past “x” number of year, what does that mean? Has it happened before? I mean, records were broken over and over again for highs and lows. What is the statistical significance of all of this? We can sit around and argue record adjustments and trends, but unless there exists substantial evidence that breaking records now has any more meaning than it did in 1930, we are just arguing numbers and statistics with little or no practical application. Is breaking records now more serious than in say 1930? Since we have no actual numeric records for the 1700s, could the same increase have happened then? Where is the evidence that breaking temperature records is ominous?

  12. Okay, it’s the arithmetic mean–which is what most people use as average. I would note it is the least useful statistic out there due to outliers. This may be why the “adjustments” keep occurring. Actually, adjusting is wrong–use a better statistic for what you are trying to measure. On the other tread of this discussion, there are explanations for some of the adjustments (whether they are correct or not). However, there is the nagging question of why adjusts are nearly always UP in the last 20 or 30 years and DOWN before that.
    As far as a side by side comparison, what would show up would be the difference removal of outliers and data changed based on moving of a weather station, tree shaded measurement, interpolation and extrapolation for missing data points, etc. In other words, as they called it back in the dark days of actual college learning, the fudge factors thrown in to prove one’s theory. It seems now that fudge factors are actually perceived as scientific data. How cute! I could have done so much better in math and chemistry if that were accepted back in the 70’S!!

Leave a Reply