Frequency Of Hot Days In Sharp Decline In The US

The percentage of days reaching 100 degrees in the US is down 50% since the 1930’s.


Similarly, the average temperature has declined, and is now about 0.5C cooler than the 1930’s.


About Tony Heller

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

12 Responses to Frequency Of Hot Days In Sharp Decline In The US

  1. How much Forest Coverage in 1930?

  2. sfx2020 says:

    From long experience with this, the “answer” will be something like “The US is not the world”, because when data shows no warming, that’s always the answer.

    When US weather shows warming (or a slew of bad weather), then the US counts. You know this is how it goes.

  3. ST says:

    I have a challenge for you. I doubt if you’ll be up to it though as it is a huge task. Present all of the data for and against human induced warming and not just the data that makes your point. Then we can decide if the earth is warming and if it is influenced by human activities.

    • Jason Calley says:

      “Present all of the data for and against human induced warming and not just the data that makes your point.”

      I just want to point out that “data for and against human induced warming” is a different thing from “data for and against warming.” Just showing that it is, or is not warmer does essentially nothing to prove whether humans were the cause of the change. Additionally, let me point out that even presenting strong data to support the specific idea of “human induced warming” is not the same as showing that human induced warming is in any way catastrophic; human induced warming might even be a great boon to mankind.

      It is important to remember that sceptics are not particularly worried about either warming or even human induced warming. Maybe it is so, maybe it is not so; you have to specify the time periods and the magnitudes before the question has much meaning or significance. What we see no evidence to support is the idea that human induced warming both exists and is an unprecedented danger to either humans or to life in general.

  4. ST says:

    Yes there may be winner and losers. Actually it is all a moot point since we will do nothing to reduced greenhouse gases enough to make a difference. We will test whether or not it will be catastrophic or a boon to mankind, the experiment is underway and the way things are moving (or not moving) will probably not change it. We will find out who is right.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey ST! “Actually it is all a moot point since we will do nothing to reduced greenhouse gases enough to make a difference.”

      Actually….no. IF (notice that that is a big “IF”) it is true that human generated CO2 is going to wreck the ecosystem, and we do nothing, then certainly, at least in the longer term, it is moot. After all, yes, if we destroy the livability of the planet, what difference does it make whether we did it knowingly or unknowingly. As you say, it would be a moot point.

      On the other hand, if we are NOT, in fact, catastrophically altering the planet through production of CO2, then what we do makes a big difference. At present, the various nations of the world are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on various programs ostensibly designed to mitigate climate change. If CO2 induced climate change is not a real problem then all that investment is wasted and it will never accomplish the other good things which it might have funded. I happen to think that real chemical and nuclear pollution of the land, the ground water and the sea is a MUCH more pressing problem than CO2. None of the money that is wasted on building wind generators will be used to clean up Fukushima. None of the money wasted on building CO2 sequestration sites will be used to clean up toxic rivers. None of the money wasted on global climate models that cannot predict a non-linear chaotic system will be used to prevent over fishing or coral reef destruction from agricultural runoff. No, it is not a moot point — not unless your mind is already made up that we are already doomed to destroy the planet with CO2.

      Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard) and others, have done an extraordinary amount of work showing that the temperature data has been systematically altered in such a way that the altered numbers support the catastrophic CO2 meme. Because of that changed data governments around the world now have a new excuse for taking money from citizens and giving it to their favorite corporations and operatives. Third world people are literally starving because climate change is being used as an excuse to take their land, their homes and to make food more expensive than they can afford. No, CAGW is not a moot point, not for anyone who cares about other people or for future generations.

  5. Doug B. says:

    Martin W. Smith (aka Trading Baby) assessed this post on a climate board on Investor Village, where it was reposted. Smith says, “It is wrong to use Steven Goddard as a source. He lies quite a lot.” Post #32409

  6. Hifast says:

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

Leave a Reply