NYT: U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

[daveman]

U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend

By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Published: January 26, 1989
Correction Appended

SIGN IN TO E-MAIL
PRINT
SINGLE-PAGE

After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.​

Odd how history seems to have been changed since then, huh?

Wonder why anyone would do that?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

AGWCult responds ....er, because of Global Warming, just as predicted in our models

 

[Mr. H.]

That article is dated 1989. Just look at all the warming we've had since!

 

[Abraham3]

The Heat is On: U.S. Temperature Trends | Climate Central

This site has two maps: one showing warming between 1911 and 2011 and another showing warming between 1970 and the present. You, Mr H, should check them both out.

 

[Abraham3]

And if you guys are interested in refuting global data, it'd be a lot more productive were you to attempt it with GLOBAL DATA.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate at a Glance | National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)

Just more lies from the same old liars. Above is the data from NOAA.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate Change: Consensus

Global data from four sources.

 

[IanC]

There are a large number of steps going from the individual station data series to the final global temp. At each stage discretionary decisions have been made on how to adjust and correct the previous stage. I have shown how individual stations have been dramatically altered from the original thermometer readings. I have not (recently) shown how the choice of stations included makes a difference. Likewise the fashion in which empty grid cells are filled with estimates makes a difference. The latest methodology fashion is kridging, which drops low readings much more often than high ones.

No one here has the knowledge or resources to redo global temp calculations. But the simple fact that every change of methodology has increased the temps and the trend should lead to the suspicion that the numbers are being purposely pushed in the favoured direction.