Six states record coldest July temperatures ever

Story from Watts Up With That.

Record cold temperatures for July 2009
Record cold temperatures for July 2009

(Click for larger image)

A huge number of states recorded record low temperatures:

Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania experienced their coolest July on record. Kentucky, Missouri, Wisconsin, and Michigan each had their second coolest July on record, while Minnesota and Tennessee had their third coolest July on record.

But a few states were warmer than normal:

[…]Alaska posted its second warmest July, Arizona had its third warmest, while New Mexico and Washington had their ninth warmest.

That doesn’t sound like global warming to me. How is the left supposed to impose socialism now? We’ll need another lie!

Click here for more stories on global warming.

19 thoughts on “Six states record coldest July temperatures ever”

  1. Individual data points (like those you present here) are rather useless in this discussion. The claims of climate scientist (not the global warming alarmists) are based upon trends in the data (which show average daily temperature across the globe to be generally on the way up)

    Like

  2. Here is a record of global mean temperatures for the past 1000 years. it’s wikipedia, but it includes references (and a pretty graph).
    As you can see, at the right end of the graph, all studies trend towards showing a rapid increase in mean temperature.

    Climate scientists tend to include factors such as solar activity in their models. In fact, the reason anthropomorphic seems to be the more popular view among climate scientists is due to controlling for all the factors we know about, and seeing CO2 as being something which is varying up, is known to trap heat, and is known to have been added to the atmosphere by human activity.
    Whether, as one of your posts seems to claim, our activity alone (which includes other greenhouse gasses such as methane) is substantial enough to cause a positive feedback loop, or if we’re simply adding to what is already a part of a climate cycle, nothing more, is perhaps less certain, though at present I’ll accept the consensus view of the majority of experts, not alarmists :-)

    And, regarding the 700 scientists, have you seen the list of “Steve”s who accept evolution, which is a larger list, despite the limited number of those eligable to sign on?

    LCB, it’s not that an individual can effect the weather, it’s that the aggregate activity can cause changes which seem likely to be a factor in the weather changing.

    Like

    1. Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. They have an agenda on issues like global warming and intelligent design. Notice how their graphs all stop in 2000. Also, the black line on the graph that shows a sharp uptick is an outlier data set and is disputed.

      The present cooling period started in 2002 and is not shown by Wikipedia.

      Here is an updated graph from NASA showing the dip since 2002.

      The temperatures today are lower the temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period. My source for that is Science, the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in the universe.

      Like

      1. 7 years is not long enough a period to claim a reverse in the trend. If one were to run a “best fit” line through the data, it would still be trending up in the graph you provided.
        Perhaps it we are experiencing the start of a cooling trend. If so, it is too early to make that claim.

        Like

        1. How many years are needed to proclaim a trend on a celestial body billions of years old? 7 clearly is not enough, by your standards.

          14? 21? 28? 35?

          Like

          1. When a statistically signifant change has been evidenced.
            Looking at the data, the temperature jumps up and down quite a lot, over the short term, but the overall trend for the last ~200 years has been upwards. A best fit curve would still be trending upwards at this point.

            Like

    2. Havok,

      It seems to me that manipulating temperature on this planet would take some source of energy so massive, so large, that it would have to be on the scale of… our own sun.

      What is perhaps most disturbing about the so-called models (besides the fact that they are never correct) is that even when data from a previous date is plugged in, the models incorrectly predict what has already taken place. The models themselves are flawed.

      You may wish to consider a chart like this.

      I could go on and marshal some serious evidence, but instead I have a serious question:

      Is there anything, at all, that would convince you that you are incorrect on this matter?

      I find it very suspicious that we now have 30 years of individuals crying “THE WORLD IS ENDING! You must give us total power over all aspects of every person’s life in order to save it!” First it was global cooling (which all the major magazines proclaimed there was a SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS on), the solutions to which were given people of a certain political persuasion unlimited power. Then there was acid rain (THE WORLD WAS ENDING) and which required the unlimited power being given to the same people as before. Now it’s global warming, we are all going to die IMMEDIATELY if we don’t give those same individuals who previously declared an emergency over global cooling unlimited power. And now that that’s been debunked it is merely an ambiguous “climate change.” And even though they can’t say if the globe is warming or cooling, they needed unlimited power.

      Friend, the only common thread I see here is a constant demand from a certain group of people for unlimited power.

      So I repeat:

      Is there anything, at all, that would convince you that you are incorrect on this matter?

      Like

  3. LCB: It seems to me that manipulating temperature on this planet would take some source of energy so massive, so large, that it would have to be on the scale of… our own sun.

    Funny, as it seems it is the energy of the sun which is trapped by greenhouse gases – I think we agree! :-)

    LCB: The models themselves are flawed.

    While they’re not perfect, they would seem to be “good enough” for general trends. They’re also the best we seem to have, so we either go around completely blind, or we make use of this dim light source.

    The sunspot cycle covers an 11 year period, and doesn’t explain the general increasing temperature trend for the past ~200 years.

    LCB: Is there anything, at all, that would convince you that you are incorrect on this matter?

    Either a thorough investigation on my part (something which would require more time and interest than I’m currently willing or able to dedicate) which resulted in me realising I’m mistaken, or a change in the general scientific consensus on this issue (ie. The opinions of people who do commit large amounts of time and energy to this issue).

    You seem to have more of an issue with the alarmists than with the scientists. The climate scientists analyse the data, report trends, apply models and give predictions with error bars (probably large ones, as the weather is a very complex system). People with an agenda get a hold of this and make all sorts of claims.
    As it stands, the best information we have regarding the climate is that global warming is happening, and a statistically significant portion of that warming is attributable to the activity of homo sapiens sapiens (I’m sure some of it is also attributable to solar activity, as well as other factors).

    Why is your opinion on this matter of more weight than the general consensus of people who have made the study of climate and weather their lifes work? I’m not talking about the “OMG cars should be banned!” type people, just the everyday scientist publishing the results of empirical investigation into climate and weather.

    Like

      1. 1) Mars has a (thin) atmosphere.
        2) I’ve never said, and I would think that the science agrees with me, that solar activity is having no effect on the climate.

        Seriously, it’s seems you’re arguing against the position that human produced CO2/greenhouse gas is the ONLY factor involved in global warming. I do hope I’m mistaken.

        Like

    1. I do not concede the point that there is a scientific consensus.

      The alarmists (read: people of a certain political persuasion) claim there is a consensus, and engage in reckless intimidation of those who dare to say otherwise. A sycophantic media (which is of the same political persuasion and supports the same goal, that is, transfer of unlimited power) contributes to creating an illusion of a consensus where none exists.

      Let’s be clear. We are having one of the coldest summers in decades, and you are saying you want to make the planet colder.

      You might like these:

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/3-of-4-global-metrics-show-nearly-flat-temperature-anomaly-in-the-last-decade/

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming/

      In the second post you’ll find links to more work from Dr. Richard Lindzen. But hey, what does an MIT climate scientist know about these things? Hasn’t anyone told him to shut up and join the consensus?

      Like

  4. LCB: I do not concede the point that there is a scientific consensus.

    It seems that a clear majority of climate scientists accept anthropomorphic global warming. That is what I mean by consensus, not universal agreement. It’s science, there’s always room for dissent.

    LCB: The alarmists (read: people of a certain political persuasion) claim there is a consensus, and engage in reckless intimidation of those who dare to say otherwise. A sycophantic media (which is of the same political persuasion and supports the same goal, that is, transfer of unlimited power) contributes to creating an illusion of a consensus where none exists.

    So you’re claiming there isn’t a clear majority of experts who accept global warming?

    LCB: Let’s be clear. We are having one of the coldest summers in decades, and you are saying you want to make the planet colder.

    Well, the trend of warming carries on for centuries, so I don’t see what your decades has to do with it.

    I’ll read the links when I get the time.

    LCB: But hey, what does an MIT climate scientist know about these things?

    About as much as his colleagues, the majority of whom disagree with him.

    LCB: Hasn’t anyone told him to shut up and join the consensus?

    Because he’s an expert. He’s qualified to have a dissenting opinion. We’re simply interested laymen. We should either gain some kind of expert knowledge, or simply accept the prevailing consensus view.

    You seem to have a distorted picture of the scientific process, where dissenting views (such as Big Bang cosmology, Plate Tectonics, Relativity, Natural Selection etc were in the past) must be silenced to accord with the consensus.

    Like

  5. Definitely know you’re slipping when you have to let go of the data (that has something to do with the actual practice of scientific analysis and experimentation if I recall correctly…),

    and simply base your argument on the “majority says”, especially when establishing such a “majority” is impossible, and such attempts thus far have been disengenuous at best.

    Me, I’ll go with the data. Oh, and the models that actually predect the temperature behavior (sun spot activity maybe?), rather than the models that need constant readjustment when the facts done fit the theme (NOAA, UN Climate Change Dupes).

    Like

  6. James: Definitely know you’re slipping when you have to let go of the data

    Who’s letting go of the data? An analysis of the data reveals an upward trend over the past ~200 years, even taking the recent downswing into account.
    It those claiming an end to the warm spell due to 7 years of decline who seem to be ignoring the data.

    James: and simply base your argument on the “majority says”,

    The majority of experts in the field. I don’t see the problem.

    James: Me, I’ll go with the data. Oh, and the models that actually predect the temperature behavior (sun spot activity maybe?),

    The models include sun spot behaviour, solar output, etc etc. You seem to think that CO2 is being claimed as the ONLY factor here.

    James: rather than the models that need constant readjustment when the facts done fit the theme (NOAA, UN Climate Change Dupes).

    It’s called incremental development. You include all the factors you know of, and run the numbers to get a prediction. You find out you’re wrong, so you search for the source of error. After all, they’re only models. To model the climate with great accuracy you would basically have to run the climate – it’s a very complex system.

    Like

  7. Oh, and what majority is it that has only scientists in the field?

    Only ones I’ve seen consist of a great many people who have no expert weight.

    I also find it very telling that you’re repeating only the data that you find helpful to your position while ignoring others. What do you think of ice core data as it points to temperature oscilation over the last 42,000 years? Wouldn’t that be more helpful than just looking at the last 200 years? Speaking of which, aren’t those same ice core samples helpful in showing that CO2 is a lagging variable for global warming?

    I understand incremental development, but aren’t correct assumptions important, as well as HONEST modelling important to the process. I mean, if we had political activists scientists being funded by partisans distorting the data, that’d be a problem right? Good thing Hansen was never funded by Soros to lead to the “7 out of 10 of the warmest years on record in the last decade” lie, right? Because that would be unnerving:

    http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/nov_2000/gos_thomas.htm

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1902715/posts

    And unfortunately the UN Climate Change commission and the NOAA study that kicked off all this garbage relied heavily upon the NASA Goddard Space Institute study run by Soros funded James Hansen.

    Which is why I go back to the facts. The full history of temperature and the ability of the solar activity model alone to predict temperature trends. The “complex” ones are based on junk science and unproved assumptions.

    Oh, you hear the one about the replacesments to CFCs being worse for the ozone? :D

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s