A couple of graphs to show an absence of global warming locally, updated 10/21/2014

I decided to do a little comparison graphing.

The first one  uses COOP data — Gillette 9 ese — from here:

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wy3855

which is data from 1902 thru 2013.

I compared that data to data gotten from Weather Underground for the years 2013 and 2014 (up through September).

(If you use the WU weather history feature, set your custom dates [up to a year at a time], Get History, scroll to the very bottom where you can get a CSV file.  Select that, then copy and paste  into excel.  Easy as peasy.)

10_21_14 updated 2013_2014 chart

(If you right click and open in a new tab, you can see the graph full size.)

As you can see, 2014 is following the long term average very closely, with a cold Feb, a little cooler in Jun and Jul, but nothing really out of the ordinary for this area.

Now this is data that I think NOAA has not gotten their cotton pickin’ mitts on.  So I would think it is pretty fair to say that global warming around here is a bunch of BS.

This second graph is one that compares weekly average temps for 1978, 1988, 1998, 2008 and 2013 (the last full year for data here.)  Again data is taken from Weather Underground.

screen decadal comp lrg

(If you right click and open in a new tab, you can see the graph full size.)

As you can clearly see, there is yearly variations but there certainly is no trend of any kind that jumps out at a person.  Each year is a little different, but there sure is not a lot of increased temperatures shown.

Just for the record, there is some data missing for 1978.  Rather than infill or develop some numbers from somewhere else, I just let the line go blank where there is no data.  So this is is as close to raw data as I can get.  Now, it is from the local airport, which is fine for me since I live less than 1/2 mile away.  I know the history of the area. There could be some UHI, but when you look to the first graph, it is not really showing up if there is. And I don’t expect it to affect things a lot.

The weekly average is simply excel’s averaging of the seven daily temps put into a column and then graphed.  Nothing fancy.  Just a simple look at data that has not been manipulated half to death.

I have added a chart which shows days above 90, days below zero for these same years:

comparing days above 90 below 0 (If you right click and open in a new tab, you can see the graph full size.)

In addition I have created a chart showing the Heating, Cooling, and Growing degree days for the same years (summed values for the year):

heating cooling growing deg days(If you right click and open in a new tab, you can see the graph full size.)

And finally here are the Average mean temps for the same years:

avg mean temps

Now, looking at this information in total, how can anyone with any certainty say that any one particular year is “warmer”, “much warmer” or “warmest year since …”?

This idea that you can some how reduce what has happened in any one particular year to a simple number representing the temperature for that year is bogus.  It is like taking a complex picture and reducing the resolution to one pixel … you can do it, but for the record that picture sure is not going to show you much.

If anything, you could say that 1988 was the warmer of the years in question, even though its average mean temp is the same as 1998, but it had a lot more days over 90 deg F.  It shows up in the cooling degree days and in the growing degree days as well.  That is the type of information that gets lost in the shuffle about whether or not there is such a thing as global warming, in all the hype about whether or not the current year is warmer than “average”.

But when all the data is looked at, it is so much harder to “fudge” a particular year into being the warmest, which is probably one of the reason none of the AGW alarmists wants to ever look at years in this way.

Finally I added one more table which shows the average mean temps along with the highs and lows:

avg mean temps plus highs and lows

Now, just look at the variability in the temperature range for any given year.  The difference between max high and min low ranges from 129 to 118 degrees.  How in the world can a possible difference of .1 or .01 or .001 carry any sort of significance when speaking about the average temperature?  To say a particular year is all that much warmer because the average is 47.32 instead of 47.12 is nothing but a whole load of blarney.  In particular, not when that year might have varied in temperature between high and low as much as 129 degrees!

This is the scam that so many believers in AGW are perpetuating, whether you call it climate change or not.  By simplifying to a single number representing temperature, they are throwing all nuance out the window and reducing the information to a meaningless level.  That average temperature number has no meaning what so ever.

Incidentally, if you go look at the graph for heating degree days and look at those min temp numbers, you can see why I say bring on the global warming.  Around here it takes a whole lot more energy to keep warm in the winter than it does to keep cool in the summer.

Advertisements

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s