NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

[Shady]

Did anyone else see this? NOAA has reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record, after proclaiming July of 2012 to be the hottest month. How is this possible? Science is science right, and temperatures are temperatures. Does anybody know if this has happend with other months as well?

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

And by the sounds of it, they didn't make any kind of public statement. They just quietly changed it on their website. With no one knowing.

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the-hottest-month-on-record/

[bush_cheney2004]

Good find...the heat and drought of the 1930's in the U.S. plains states are legendary. Nothing these climate change alarmists do will change that.

[cybercoma]

It's hilarious that you accept the word of bloggers with little to no credentials at face value, but are radically skeptical of scientists who study the environment every day of their lives. If you had half as much skepticism for your sources as you do the scientists whose job it is to study this stuff, your arguments might actually be worth reading.

[cybercoma]

More importantly, "isn't science science and temperatures temperatures?" Use your faculties to unpack that for a minute. Start asking why and maybe go a bit deeper than the first thing that pops into your head. I'm sure you can figure out what's going on.

[The_Squid]

So because it was hot in 1936 that means the trend in climate over the last several decades is not real?

I see a flaw in that logic....

[waldo]

just another Shady effort - the "Daily Caller no less"! ... right on the heels of your other failed thread where you trumpet the idiocy of renowned crank/denier blogger "Stephen Goddard". Have you no shameShady?

by the by... who talks about the warmest month on record? I expect the change reflects upon NOAA's new gridded dataset... with NOAA providing access to its new nClimDiv maximum and minimum temperature data coincident with the release of the May 2014 climate summary in mid-June. And, of course, you would expect that intrepid denier extraordinaire blogger Tony Williard of WTFIUWT would be hot after this blazing news story!!! Where the new dataset presents July 1936 @ 76.80°F... and July 2012 @ 76.77°F. Yowzer, that's gonna percolate across the denialsphere for months!

of course, the warmest years on record is what the comparative measure really is. Notwithstanding, this is just to do with the contiguous U.S. 48 states - not Global temperatures.

[waldo]

Good find...the heat and drought of the 1930's in the U.S. plains states are legendary. Nothing these climate change alarmists do will change that.

your MLW denier posting history is an abysmal big-time fail in presenting anything of substance/truth/reality... here... have a couple of better, as you say, "finds"! Oh, and here's a 'waldo fast fact' for you: the US takes up approximately 1.927% of Earth's total surface area... you know, Global warming... not U.S. warming!

- Contiguous U.S. Average Annual Temperature:

- Global Land & Ocean Annual Temperature Anomolies:

[Shady]

On the heels of NOAA reinstating July 1936 as the hottest month on record, we now have date from them, showing a 9 year cooling regarding American temperatures. From 2005 to now, temperatures have actually decreased by 0.4 degrees.

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor citing issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely cited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

This is date from what is held up from alarmists as the most reputable source. This date backs up what has already been established, there hasn't been any warming for almost a decade. What scientists should be asking is why? What natural or unatural factors haven't been properly assessed to account for this fact?

[bush_cheney2004]

The data does not lie...but the alarmists sure do ! Their models are being destroyed ....with...data.

[waldo]

hey guys, guys... is a reduced rate of warming... cooling? Of course, any ole denier can focus on short-term trending... Shady, what does your guy (none other than "lawyer" James Taylor from the Heartland Institute... referring to the prolific denier blog WTFIUWT) actually say about short-term trending... of course, he says it somewhat buried in the article. Why he says, "Of course, 10 years is hardly enough to establish a long-term trend". Did you get that, guys, guys?

but again, guys, guys... you're isolating on surface temperature ONLY. It's a big globe out there... you know, GLOBAL WARMING - not U.S. surface temperature warming. Let me repeat that 'waldo fast fact' for you: the US takes up approximately 1.927% of Earth's total surface area

well done Shady - keep em coming!

[waldo]

Shady... you'll need to make up your mind here! Can you continue to trash NOAA and the adjustments you're so concerned about... while in turn presuming to use the NOAA data/processing/methodology to attempt to 'score points' from? Make up your mind Shady!!!

[Keepitsimple]

What scientists should be asking is why? What natural or unatural factors haven't been properly assessed to account for this fact?

There's no funding for that.

[bush_cheney2004]

Agreed...the only thing melting from the heat are bad "climate change" models and alarmist predictions as more data and scrutiny are forthcoming.

[waldo]

There's no funding for that.

Simple! There's no shortage of funding studying natural forcings... your personal issue is that you simply can't handle the results of that research funding. Of course, you could actually step out of your fake-skeptic comfort zone and read IPCC reports... they'll give you a great appreciation of just where natural influences/factors fit. Your perpetual theme of 'keeping the poor denier man down' just begs the question as to why your kind of "scientist" or your kind of fake-skeptic/denier funding sources just can't seem to find that ever elusive AGW Killer!

[waldo]

Agreed...the only thing melting from the heat are bad "climate change" models and alarmist predictions as more data and scrutiny are forthcoming.

you don't know what you're talking about... you've never known what you're talking about... same ole, same ole!

[bush_cheney2004]

Well...look at the bright side...Canada's colossal climate change KYOTO FAIL is now looking like a stroke of brilliance. The Americans knew better from the 'git go, never falling for the IPCC circle jerk.

[waldo]

Well...look at the bright side...Canada's colossal climate change KYOTO FAIL is now looking like a stroke of brilliance. The Americans knew better from the 'git go, never falling for the IPCC circle jerk.

out of the blue, out of context, you once again bring forward KYOTO.... as you've done many, many times in the past. What's the word for doing that again? Given the past effect of your repeated claim/statement, you do so simply to incite, to inflame. It's what you do; it's what you're about... nothing more, nothing less. As stated before, the American KYOTO FAIL begins with U.S. commitments made to the world community... commitments that ultimately shaped the treaty... the Kyoto treaty that the U.S. refused to ratify. The U.S. signs it, get world nations to align around the U.S. involvement, get the treaty structured around U.S. involvement... and then the U.S. completely turns it's back on the treaty, on the world community, and on it's commitment. That sir, that is the ultimate KYOTO FAIL.

care to speak to what the IPCC had to do with the KYOTO treaty?

carry on!

[On Guard for Thee]

Agreed...the only thing melting from the heat are bad "climate change" models and alarmist predictions as more data and scrutiny are forthcoming.

Yeah that and most of the arctic ice and the Thwaites Ice Shelf. What is that bird that sticks it's head in the dirt when it wants to hide?

[On Guard for Thee]

Of course who can trust these people to know anything?

http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=0F46C3CD-1

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

[Shady]

Of course who can trust these people to know anything?

http://ec.gc.ca/meteo-weather/default.asp?lang=En&n=0F46C3CD-1

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting/

Those are great links, but do nothing to discount the fact that according to NOAA's own data, temperatures have actually cooled by 0.4 degress over the last nine years. Facts can be annoyingly inconvenient.

[On Guard for Thee]

Those are great links, but do nothing to discount the fact that according to NOAA's own data, temperatures have actually cooled by 0.4 degress over the last nine years. Facts can be annoyingly inconvenient.

Cooled where? So what the hell melted all that damn ice do you suppose. The majority of scientists conclude that GW will cause spikes both up and down with an overall trend up.

[TimG]

The majority of scientists conclude that GW will cause spikes both up and down with an overall trend up.

This is a good example of the completely dishonesty of alarmists. The fact is the *majority* of scientists have said no such thing. What some might have said is that short term cooling trends are consistent with a long term warming trend. The problem for alarmists is the current cooling/non-warming trend exceeds variability expected by the climate models which means the climate models do not represent the real world and cannot be considered to be useful predictors of the future. Edited July 7, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

This is a good example of the completely dishonesty of alarmists. The fact is the *majority* of scientists have said no such thing. What some might have said is that short term cooling trends are consistent with a long term warming trend. The problem for alarmists is the current cooling trend exceeds variability expected by the climate models which means the climate models are wrong.

And then where did all that ice go?

[On Guard for Thee]

Just one of many. But deniers are deniers for a reason, I guess.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

[TimG]

And then where did all that ice go?

What does that have to do with anything? The temperatures have risen over the last 40 years but it is not enough for temperatures to rise to validate the models. They should have risen at a rate consistent with the models assumptions about CO2 sensitivity. They have not which means their assumptions are most likely wrong.