Statistically, it's growing warmer.
Recently, as I was working with a spreadsheet that has all of my weather forecasts for The Old Farmer鈥檚 蜜桃恋人 for the 23 years that I have been making them, it occurred to me that here was a database that contains a great deal of information that might be useful in looking at trends.
To do this, I moved the data around within the spreadsheet to be able to create graphs showing how temperatures have changed over the past 23 years. These graphs show some interesting trends that seem to fit, at least in a general sense, with the idea that it鈥檚 growing warmer.
Above-Normal Temperature 鈥淣ormals鈥
Let me explain these graphs. As you may realize, each year we forecast the coming year鈥檚 weather for 18 United States regions and seven Canadian ones. The maps of these regions that appear in The Old Farmer鈥檚 蜜桃恋人 print editions and on 蜜桃恋人.com show several cities within each; it is these cities for which I have compiled data on actual temperatures and how they have departed from normal.
Read Next
For example, when I say that the temperature departure for December 2018 was 2.61 degrees F (see Figure 1, below), this means that the average of all of the cities shown on all of these regional maps for the United States and Canada was 2.61 degrees F warmer than their most recent official 30-year normals, which cover the period of 1981鈥2010. The 鈥渘ormal temperatures鈥 that I use are the official ones updated once each decade by the United States and Canadian government meteorological services, based upon smoothed averages of daily temperatures for the 30-year period covered.
Figure 1. Monthly temperature departures from normal, 1996鈥2018.
Thus, if I say that the 2019 average temperature is 1 degree above normal, this temperature is going to be different from what it would be if I were referring to the 2009 average temperature being 1 degree above normal, because over the ensuing decade the 鈥渘ormal鈥 temperatures would have been recalculated and changed.
Since temperatures generally have been rising, this means that each decade, when the new 鈥渘ormal鈥 temperatures are computed, they are higher than the previous 鈥渘ormal鈥 temperatures. The effect of this is that a graph that shows how temperatures have departed from normal over the years actually understates the real increase in temperatures, since the normals are rising along with the actual temperatures.
When we examine the graph showing the monthly departure of temperature from normal (Figure 1, above), we see that most鈥攂ut not all鈥攎onths in the past 23 years have had temperatures above normal. However, there does not seem to be any clear trend in these temperature departures, or at least not one that I can readily see. The greatest positive departure was 8.67 degrees F back in January 2006, while the greatest negative departure was 4.78 degrees F in December 2000.
Figure 2. 12-month moving average of monthly temperature departures from normal, 1996鈥2018.
When we look at the 12-month moving average of these departures (Figure 2, above), their pattern becomes more apparent, as there does seem to be a general rising trend in the temperature departures, with nearly all above normal. The only times when this 12-month moving average of temperature departures for the United States and Canada were below normal were in 2001 and 2014.
Figure 3. 36-month moving average of monthly temperature departures from normal, 1996鈥2018.
Examining the 36-month moving average of temperature departures (Figure 3, above) seems to show a trend emerging. Although there are still peaks and valleys, a general upward trend seems more apparent, with each peak higher than the previous one.
What Causes these Changes?
Meteorologists and climatologists have proposed various explanations for the month-to-month and annual variations, including teleconnections such as El Ni帽o, changes in ocean currents, and changes in solar output.
As for the clear trend of rising temperatures over the past decades, I have seen only three viable proposed explanations: (1) natural variability (perhaps combined with changes in land use and population), (2) an expected general rise in average temperatures as we are still coming out of the last ice age, and (3) warming temperatures due to human activities that increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric greenhouse gases.
Find predicted temperatures for the upcoming year in .
Michael Steinberg
ADVERTISEMENT
I used to own a National Geographic Atlas of the World from the 1975; it commented that there was deep concern about the world moving into a new ice age, because of falling global temperatures since 1945, and reported that scientists of the day were talking about interventions to save the planet - including spreading soot over the arctic to warm it up! People have largely forgotten that prediction, and the "consensus" which created it.
That's because in 1975, the climate was still stable, and might suddenly cool. The last 40 years have seen more warming in the climate than the last twenty THOUSAND combined.
I'm guessing that the scientists in the mid-1970s did NOT believe the climate to be stable, or they wouldn't have been so worried - and wouldn't have proposed something as drastic as blackening up the Arctic. I would also observe that you get very different impressions when you review the 150-year graph, the 1000-year graph, the 20,000-year graph, and the million-year graph.
I recently read an AP story which referred to a United Nations report that unless humans took immediate action, global climate would be completely beyond our control in a decade. But the report was actually from >1989, and the "deadline" was the year 2000. I also recall a 2005 UN report which predicted "50 million climate refugees by 2010".
Reputable climate scientists were wrong in 1975, wrong in 1989, wrong in 2005. In each case they had "data" which seemed to support those dire predictions - just as they do now. Maybe you don't need to be quite so anxious about the future of your children.
Science starts with data, not faith - and not the guilt which comes from affluence. Thank you for a sober presentation of objective data, without wild speculation, baseless extrapolation, or demagoguery.
I wondered for a moment if you could clone yourself, as we need more rational discussion and less screaming - but alas, cloning of an entire personality is ALSO unscientific.
As of my writing this comment, this article has had two votes - a 5 and a 1 - illustrating the difficulty of having a calm discussion of such a polarizing issue. Two guesses as to which vote was mine.
I too am disappointed in the author's opinion. I looked back at my temp data at my farm. There is no "warming" trend present over the last 30 years. Cities have grown bigger, with more concrete, yet this is not accounted for. More volcanic activity is also not accounted for. A large eruption spews out more CO2 than the USA over a year. Yet this author does not address these causes. Poor reporting at the best, a political agenda more likely.
So you're saying your local weather data accounts for the whole planet's climate data? Who's the one with a "political agenda" here? One lone data point compared to literally thousands means nothing. Climate science isn't politics. It's SCIENCE. Stop politicizing it and actually listen to those who study it and know what they're talking about, before there is no more habitable world for myself and my children to live in.
From the article: "As for the clear trend of rising temperatures over the past decades, I have seen only three viable proposed explanations: (1) natural variability (perhaps combined with changes in land use and population) ..."
He was simply presenting the data, not claiming that anthropogenic global warming was the culprit; but when he referred to "changes in land use and population", I presume that he WAS referring to larger cities with more concrete. Someone with "a political agenda" would have offered only one possible explanation, not three equally plausible ones.
Yet if we look at actual temps we do not see an increase. Recall the "pause" in warming when looking at actual temps. None of this temperature departure counting accounts for more reporting stations. More reporting stations statistically generates more departures. Plus this is the same strategy the climate change crowd has been pushing for a few years now, it is not some new revelation taken from the history of the Farmers 蜜桃恋人 as is implied here. The recent article on sun spot activity clearly shows the effects of the sun on temperature and how we are actually going into a cooling time with the solar minimum. If we are getting warmer overall as is the suggestion it is because heat is trapped. Meaning temps get warmer all the time. So record cold winters cannot happen. More importantly there is no correlation with CO levels and temperature. Basically no single cause and effect graph. If CO goes up by "x" temp goes up by "y". But you can match the solar cycle directly to the average temp and it matches. NASA has just such a graph. I'm disappointed that the author pretended they pulled all this data from the archives to arrive at this "startling" conclusion to father the climate change hysteria.
" If we are getting warmer overall as is the suggestion it is because heat is trapped. Meaning temps get warmer all the time."
You do realize that is the very basis of climate change, right? CO2 traps heat and makes temperatures rise. You literally just defined global warming.
It isn't hysteria. Literally all the data backs it up. We know CO2 correlates with temperature. It has been proven numerous times.
If it were the sun, 2018 would have been a cooler than average year, as we have been in solar minimum since last May. Not only that, it's been the DEEPEST solar minimum on record. However, 2018 was the 4th HOTTEST year on record.
Literally everything you said in your post was an outright lie, except for what I quoted, which is the definition of global warming.
"Yet if we look at actual temps we do not see an increase. Recall the "pause" in warming when looking at actual temps."
The so-called "global temperature" hysterically reported in the media is based on a whole lot of assumptions - and in fact a certain amount of fudging of the data, which of course they refer to as "correction factors". The author is simply presenting a more limited data set, with fewer variables; he acknowledges that this is URBAN data, not global data, and specifically mentions this as a possible explanation for the apparent rise.
"Plus this is the same strategy the climate change crowd has been pushing for a few years now, it is not some new revelation taken from the history of the Farmers 蜜桃恋人 as is implied here."
I didn't read it as a "new revelation", but simply as a presentation of a large amount of data the Old Farmer's 蜜桃恋人 had in its database - data which may or may not be included in other presentations. As for him being a part of the "climate change crowd", no one seriously thinks that the climate NEVER changes - the dispute is about the cause; and if he were one of the "true believers", I doubt he would have concluded the article by writing: "As for the clear trend of rising temperatures over the past decades, I have seen only three viable proposed explanations: (1) natural variability (perhaps combined with changes in land use and population), (2) an expected general rise in average temperatures as we are still coming out of the last ice age, and (3) warming temperatures due to human activities that increase the levels of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric greenhouse gases." Surely he would have omitted (1) and (2) and gone straight to (3).
"The recent article on sun spot activity clearly shows the effects of the sun on temperature and how we are actually going into a cooling time with the solar minimum ... you can match the solar cycle directly to the average temp and it matches."
Here's the other part of the author's conclusion: "Meteorologists and climatologists have proposed various explanations for the month-to-month and annual variations, including teleconnections such as El Ni帽o, changes in ocean currents, and changes in solar output." So he DID list solar activity as an important factor. If he were a climate evangelical, would he have admitted that the sun may play a large role, or would he have blamed it all on humans?
Part of the problem with the climate discussion is that people are so irritated by the self-righteous idiots in the debate that they overreact even to thoughtful presentations, seeing demagoguery when none is there. I don't know the author, but I think your reaction is colored by others whom you have heard screaming about this topic, and I'm not sure he really deserved it.
