Latest Official Government Data Shows the U.S is Cooling at a Rate of 9.4 def / F per Century!

Posted: January 13, 2011 in Global Cooling, global warming fraud, global warming hoax
Tags: ,

December temperature data for the continental U.S. has been released by the National Climatic Data Center and as I have done in previous months I have graphed the data to show the temperature trend.   It appears that since 1998 there has been not only no significant warming in the U.S. but instead  there is a clear cooling trend.  Now, 13 years is not a very long time in the big picture but it must be remembered that during this time period atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have continued to climb.  If carbon dioxide is causing unprecedented warming and we keep pumping more and more of the gas into the atmosphere then why are we seeing no evidence of warming in the U.S.?  More importantly, why are we seeing a cooling trend?  And why is this cooling trend showing signs of increasing?  The latest data shows a cooling trend of 9.4 deg F (17 deg C) per century.  This should be all very embarrassing to the global warming crowd.

Most Recent 12-Month Period (Jan.-Dec.) 1998 – 2010

1998 – 2010 Data Values

Trend = -0.94 def F / Decade (-9.4 def F / Century)


source: National Climatic Data Center.


Jim Hatem

  1. sammisen says:

    This is great stuff. It truly is amazing that something like this is not reported in the popular press. We are expected to accept global warming data from scientists who are in charge of collecting the data. At least this information is public and accessible by all. Thanks for this analysis.

  2. Alex Kemel says:

    “Trend = -0.94 def F / Decade (-9.4 def F / Century)”

    This seems like incredibly specious reasoning. If I lose 1 pound in a day, could I tell people that I’m losing 30 pounds/month?

    Also, the temperatures look like they’re holding pretty steady with some minor statistical variation. The only real drop looks to be about 1.3d from 2007 to 2008. In other words, 1300d per century.

    • 1. Yes, your TREND would be 30 lbs / month if you were losing one pound per day over a statistically significant time period (not one day but surely if it was over 13 days).
      2. This is not a specious argument. It is a common statistical analysis method. What’s more, I did not calculate this trend. The trend is calculated using the statistical algorithm used by the NCDC. It doesn’t matter what the data “looks” like to you. Statistically, this is the trend over the last 13 years.

    • johnathan_is_here says:

      Alex, you clearly do not understand the concept of a statistical trend.

  3. Alex Kemel says:

    1. But 13 days would be 43.33% of 30 days. You’re using 13 years out of 100, 13%.

    So what if I lose 1 pound in a day, could I tell people I’m losing 7 pounds in a week? 1/7 = 14.3%, more than your statistically significant 13%.

    And if we round 1 month to 4 weeks, could I say that since I’m losing 7 pounds per week, I’m losing 28 pounds per month? 1 weeks is 25% of a month, again more than your statistically significant 13%.

    But math isn’t the issue.

    My main concerns are simply your (a) phrasing:
    1701-1800: 38.8d average temp
    1801-1900: 30d average temp
    1901-2000: 20d average temp
    THAT is a “-9.4d / Century.” It requires 300 years worth of data to see the change over time.

    and (b) your extrapolation:
    Because you have 13 years instead of 300, you’re making the assumption/prediction that what happened in those 13 years will happen every 13 years for centuries. And that is extra silly because there is no pattern in your graph. It goes up 6 times and down 6 times with no pattern.

    2. Your source link doesn’t actually go to the data, so I couldn’t look at it. But again, there is no pattern to the data. So looking for a trend is futile. Especially since that one drop from 2007 to 2008 is skewing the entire graph.

    • I don’t even know where to begin. 300 years? What are you talking about? This is the trend since 1998, pure and simple. I do not know what your mathematical background is but it clearly did not include a course in statistics.

    • jozie says:

      Alex, you have absolutely know idea what you are talking about. Your rants sound like those of a crazy person. That is good though because it shows your level of mathematical sophistication. You really have no business delving into a subject you know nothing about.

  4. Hernan_G says:

    I checked your graph from last month and for the twelve month period ending in November the trend was 8.4 F/C. That means the trend is increasingly sloping downward. Thanks for this, Hatem.

  5. jackson says:

    This graph has made it around the internet because I saw it referenced in several places. Nice work.

  6. Rick says:

    This is a great example of how trending can be used to influence the conversation and how the data can be used to support a position. I pulled the data you used to reference the graph and did some analysis myself. The trendline goes downward starting at about 1993; any years chosen prior to that will produce a trendline that flattens out and begins going upwards the further back you go. AGW proponents will use the data they need to produce an upward trendline, ignoring the fact that for the last 15 years the trend has clearly been downward. They’ll point to the trendline and say “See?! Global Warming is real!” The question is whether or not 15 years is enough to suggest that the trend is going to continue downwards. Since a proponent of AGW would consider a shorter trend upwards as proof that AGW is real, it stands to reason that we ought to consider a 15 year trend a clear indication that we may be in for a cooler future. Any AGW proponent that thinks otherwise can fairly be called a hypocrite.

    • Yes Rick, I only chose 1998 for the US data because several climate scientists have gone on record to say that there has been no statistical GLOBAL warming since 1998. I am just using the easily available US data to confirm this statement. The funny thing is that the US data shows not just a lack of warming for the period in question but a definite cooling. And let’s not forget all the while that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been increasing steadily.

  7. eric says:

    For the life of me I don’t understand how informatin like this does not get reported in the mainstream press.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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