2012 3rd Hottest Summer Ever for US

[PhillipS]

The NCDC has released the State of the Climate Report for Ausgust 2012. [source] It says:

The summer season's (June-August) nationally-averaged temperature was 74.4°F, 2.3°F above the 20

^th

century average. Only the summers of 2011 (74.5°F) and 1936 (74.6°F) had higher temperatures for the Lower 48.

The January-August period was the warmest first eight months of any year on record for the contiguous United States. The national temperature of 58.7°F was 4.0°F above the 20

^th

century average, and 1.0°F above the previous record warm January-August of 2006. During the eight-month period, 33 states were record warm and an additional 12 states were top ten warm. Only Washington had statewide temperatures near average for the period.

But it wasn't just hot, it was dry, too:

As of August 28

^th

, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, nearly 63% of the contiguous U.S. continued to experience drought conditions.

According to the Palmer Drought Index, which goes back to the beginning of the 20

^th

century, 55.1% of the CONUS was in moderate to extreme drought, a decrease of about 3% compared to last month. The percent area in severe to extreme drought increased to 39.0%, indicating that the drought has intensified. The 2012 values have been exceeded only by the droughts of the 1930s and 1950s.

Many of the hardest hit states make up the 'grainbelt' and the heat and drought has had a large impact on the forecast corn, soybean and wheat harvests.

[SVT450R]

I see AGW was stronger in 1936.

[FloridaJohn]

I thought this was an interesting chart:

We can be below average for the rest of the year and still set the record for warmest year.

[tacoman25]

Where did 2009 rank for the summer and year as a whole?

[SVT450R]

Where did 2009 rank for the summer and year as a whole?

Summer ranked 42nd coolest since 1895 the year as a whole was 53.1F 0.3F above 20th century average didn't see a rank tho.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I thought this was an interesting chart:

We can be below average for the rest of the year and still set the record for warmest year.

September is not helping the cause.

[Entropy]

Summer ranked 42nd coolest since 1895 the year as a whole was 53.1F 0.3F above 20th century average didn't see a rank tho.

2009 ranked as the 78th coldest (or the 41st warmest) year on record in the United States. The last year to rank among the coldest half of all years (1895-2011) was 1996. The mean temperature of 52.62F, was the 50th coldest (or 69th warmest) on record.

[donsutherland1]

Some statistics...

The average summer mean temperature for 2000-12 was 73.42°F. The average summer mean temperature for 1930-39 was 73.24°.

The 2000-12 period has had 3 of the 5 warmest summers; the 1930s had 2. Adjusted to consider the larger number of years since 2000, each year during the 2000-12 period had a 15% higher probability of being represented than each year during the 1930-39 period.

The 2000-12 period has had 7 of the 10 warmest summers; the 1930s had 2. Adjusted to consider the larger number of years since 2000, each year during the 2000-12 period had a nearly 170% higher probability of being represented than each year during the 1930-39 period.

The 2000-12 period has had 9 of the 15 warmest summers; the 1930s had 4. Adjusted to consider the larger number of years since 2000, each year during the 2000-12 period had a 73% higher probability of being represented than each year during the 1930-39 period.

Each of the last 3 summers ranked among the 10 warmest summers (6th for 2010, 2nd for 2011, and 3rd for 2012). Summers 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012 ranked among the 20 warmest summers. Summer 2008 was the 29th warmest summer.

On the cool side, 2004 had the 16th coolest summer and 2009 had the 42nd coolest summer.

During the 1930s, 1931, 1933, 1934, 1936, and 1937 ranked among the 20 warmest. The coolest summer during the 1930s was 1935, which ranked 50th warmest.

[SVT450R]

As always great stats don.

[easternsnowman]

Don's stats I feel show why we should only consider averages over the last 10 years or so and not the 1981-2010 normals. We are in a fast changing climate and temps from the 1980's are way different from today.

[ORH_wxman]

Don's stats I feel show why we should only consider averages over the last 10 years or so and not the 1981-2010 normals. We are in a fast changing climate and temps from the 1980's are way different from today.

The climate is so noisy on a 10 year level on one specific part of the globe, the averages would be nearly useless.

[Jonger]

Don's stats I feel show why we should only consider averages over the last 10 years or so and not the 1981-2010 normals. We are in a fast changing climate and temps from the 1980's are way different from today.

I have no problem using 1981-2010.... It eliminates out the anomaly of the 1970's.

[Vergent]

2009 ranked as the 78th coldest (or the 41st warmest) year on record in the United States. The last year to rank among the coldest half of all years (1895-2011) was 1996. The mean temperature of 52.62F, was the 50th coldest (or 69th warmest) on record.

[Jonger]

September is not helping the cause.

Run that temp anomaly today.... I went from +8 to +2.8 in 3 days. This month will be below average for everyone east of the Mississippi.

[ORH_wxman]

The U.S. temperature trend is actually negative since the late 1990s (this includes all the way through Aug 2012). Most people probably have no idea though with the hot summers the past 3 years.

[ORH_wxman]

Run that temp anomaly today.... I went from +8 to +2.8 in 3 days. This month will be below average for everyone east of the Mississippi.

I highly doubt that...the central US could cool down pretty good though over the next 2 weeks.

[SVT450R]

Run that temp anomaly today.... I went from +8 to +2.8 in 3 days. This month will be below average for everyone east of the Mississippi.

[tacoman25]

I highly doubt that...the central US could cool down pretty good though over the next 2 weeks.

Yeah, pretty much everything points to a big cooldown in anomalies for much of the U.S. east of the Rockies over the next 7-10 days. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see much of the country below normal by the 20th or so. The heat ridge in the middle of the country that has dominated the CONUS weather pattern for the past number of months is dead.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Most Recent 12-Month Period (Sep - Aug) 1900 - 2000 Average = 52.80 degF

Most Recent 12-Month Period (Sep - Aug) 1895 - 2012 Trend = 0.13 degF / Decade

[ben4vols]

Roy Spencer on comparing USHCN and USCRN stations....

I would say these preliminary results, if they pan out, indicate we should be increasingly distrustful of using the current NOAA USHCN data for long-term trends as supporting evidence for global warming, or for the reporting of new high temperature records. As the last 2 plots above suggest:

1) even at “zero” population density (rural siting), the USHCN temperatures are on average warmer than their Climate Reference Network counterparts, by close to 0.5 deg. C in summer.

2) across all USHCN stations, from rural to urban, they average 0.9 deg. C warmer than USCRN (which approaches Anthony Watt’s 2 deg. F estimate for July 2012).

This evidence suggests that much of the reported U.S. warming in the last 100+ years could be spurious, assuming that thermometer measurements made around 1880-1900 were largely free of spurious warming effects. This is a serious issue that NOAA needs to address in an open and transparent manner.

Credit to "Steve Goddard" for the graph.

[donsutherland1]

Credit to "Steve Goddard" for the graph.

Goddard either doesn't understand the reasons adjustments to the raw data are necessary e.g., time of observation bias, or rejects them outright to avoid having to explain the observed increase in temperatures (global and national). The necessity of adjustments is not unique to the temperature record. One finds a lot of adjustments in economic data for factors such as seasonality, weighting of items in the basket of consumer goods to reasonably represent consumer expenditures, etc.

[TerryM]

Keeping "Steve Goddard" in quotes is a good start.

That Dr Roy would rely on graphs produced by "Goddard" says a lot about his credibility.

Terry

[ben4vols]

Goddard either doesn't understand the reasons adjustments to the raw data are necessary e.g., time of observation bias, or rejects them outright to avoid having to explain the observed increase in temperatures (global and national). The necessity of adjustments is not unique to the temperature record. One finds a lot of adjustments in economic data for factors such as seasonality, weighting of items in the basket of consumer goods to reasonably represent consumer expenditures, etc.

[ben4vols]

Keeping "Steve Goddard" in quotes is a good start.

That Dr Roy would rely on graphs produced by "Goddard" says a lot about his credibility.

Terry

Where did Roy rely on Goddard's graphs? I think you are confused Terry.

[donsutherland1]

Keeping "Steve Goddard" in quotes is a good start.

That Dr Roy would rely on graphs produced by "Goddard" says a lot about his credibility.

Terry

Terry,

Ben posted the Goddard graph. Dr. Spencer didn't use it.

Having said that, I believe Spencer's analysis may be erroneous. He compares the mean temperature for the USHCN and USCRN (as well as mean temperatures between USCRN sites and nearby USHCN sites). Differences in mean temperatures should be expected given differences in location, among other factors.

Where there should be reasonable agreement might concern the overall temperature trend over time assuming there are enough USCRN sites to be representative of the national trend. Even then, it is possible that one might have to compensate for altitude in comparing trends given that the lower troposphere has been warming more slowly than the surface.

[PhillipS]

Roy Spencer on comparing USHCN and USCRN stations....

Credit to "Steve Goddard" for the graph.

Sad to see that once again you trot out your beloved conspiracy theory that the adjustments are being made to corrupt the temperature record. Even though it has been shown to be nonsense. I take it to mean that you have no data or research to share with us.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

[ben4vols]

Terry,

Ben posted the Goddard graph. Dr. Spencer didn't use it.

Having said that, I believe Spencer's analysis may be erroneous. He compares the mean temperature for the USHCN and USCRN (as well as mean temperatures between USCRN sites and nearby USHCN sites). Differences in mean temperatures should be expected given differences in location, among other factors.

What do you think would cause such differences between neighbor USCRN/USHCN stations? Only stations that were close in elevation were used. So elevation can be thrown out.

[ben4vols]

Sad to see that once again you trot out your beloved conspiracy theory that the adjustments are being made to corrupt the temperature record. Even though it has been shown to be nonsense. I take it to mean that you have no data or research to share with us.

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

I'm not wrong nor am I right. There isn't enough data to prove either way. However as more and more USCRN data is compiled in future years and compared against USHCN data, I think it will show the USHCN adjustments were done in error. As to why they were done in error will be up to those who did them (i.e. conspiracy).

[tacoman25]

Goddard either doesn't understand the reasons adjustments to the raw data are necessary e.g., time of observation bias, or rejects them outright to avoid having to explain the observed increase in temperatures (global and national). The necessity of adjustments is not unique to the temperature record. One finds a lot of adjustments in economic data for factors such as seasonality, weighting of items in the basket of consumer goods to reasonably represent consumer expenditures, etc.

I think the reasons for such adjustments in economic data are a bit more obvious. Temperature data is pretty straightforward compared to economic data, so I have to wonder about why exactly some adjustments are made.

[TerryM]

Jeez!

You can't believe how hard it is to give credit to Spencer for anything. That he's not so stupid as to use a "Goddard" graph places him ahead of at least one of our posters, but still at the low end of the credibility curve.

If I recall correctly even Watts has dismissed "Goddard". I don't believe that anyone wishing to be taken seriously would post or defend anything produced by such a widely acknowledged fraud, and I suppose that Dr Roy still maintains illusions of adequacy.

Terry