Heavy snow forced Giro d’Italia organisers to call off Friday’s mountainous stage 19 from Ponte di Legno to Val Martello.

Snow falls at the Tonale pass in northern Italy on Friday forcing the cancellation of the 19th stage of the fabled Giro d’Italia race

"Due to adverse weather conditions and, in particular, snow on the stage route in its entirety, stage 19…has been cancelled," race organisers RCS Sport said in a news release on Friday.

Poor weather had already led RCS to make changes to the stage-19 route on Thursday, cancelling two of the three major mountain climbs, the Gavia and Stelvio, but they had hoped to retain the final ascent to Val Martello.

However, major overnight snowfall, temperatures well below freezing on the major mountain passes and sleet falling in the region’s valleys early on Friday caused the entire stage to be cancelled, the first time that had happened since 1989.

Overall leader Vicenzo Nibali applauded the organisers’ decision, saying: "The conditions are really extreme and so I think they’ve made the right decision.

"They’d already altered the stage route but because of the weather conditions and the snow we can’t do the stage," said the Italian, speaking at his team hotel.

Racing will resume on Saturday, with a third straight mountainous stage finishing at Tre Cime di Lavaredo but all the climbs leading up to it will be cancelled because of the poor weather.

A snowplow works in Passo del Tonale after the cancellation of the 19th stage of the 96th Giro d’Italia.

Snow falls close to the start area of the 19th stage of the Giro d’Italia cycling race.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/giro-ditalia-two-major-climbs-cut-stage-19-191349894.html

The UK Government introduced the Climate Change Act in 2008, which enshrined in law a commitment to ensure that the net UK carbon account for all six Kyoto greenhouse gases for the year 2050 is at least 80% lower than the 1990 baseline.

The legislation contained a summary of the financial impact, which estimated annual costs of between £14.7bn and £18.3bn. The impact assessment also claimed that benefits would be greater. However, none of these “benefits” were directly related to the UK; instead they were simply calculated from the “Social Cost of Carbon”, or SCC, as originally devised by the Stern Review. This SCC is no more than a theoretical guess at the “avoided global damage cost of emissions”.

Furthermore, DECC have stated categorically to me that they cannot provide an estimate of any potential benefits to the UK.

And, as the impact assessment points out, if the rest of the world takes no action, all the costs would be borne by the UK, and the UK would receive no benefits from reciprocal action by other nations.

The Act, however, did not provide any detail on how the GHG emissions reduction would be achieved. This, instead, was left to a succession of Carbon Plans, each to last five years, with the first one beginning in 2008. These Plans start to fill in some of the detail.

Carbon Budgets

Let’s start by looking at the Carbon Budgets themselves. So far, the first four have been set.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/47614/3751-carbon-plan-executive-summary-dec-2011.pdf

The first significant thing to note is that, as DECC point out, emissions are already down by a quarter from 1990 levels. As the chart from CDIAC below shows, this has been a steady reduction since 1990, and indeed since 1970. Much of this reduction has been due to two factors:-

1) The switch from high CO2 coal, to low CO2 natural gas, both for power generation, but also for domestic heating.

2) Decline of heavy industry, much of which has migrated abroad.

The significance of this is that very little of the emissions reduction has been due to the Act, or any specific government planning. Despite the costs arising from the government’s green agenda, which can already be observed, there has been very little effect on GHG reductions so far. The really significant costs are still to come.

Per capita CO₂ Emission Estimates for the United Kingdom

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/uki.html

Financial Impact – Carbon Plans 1-3

In their latest Carbon Plan, published in 2011, the government have provided much more detail on the costs involved with meeting its first three Carbon Budgets. Bearing in mind, this covers the period 2008-2022, the following table summarises these costs, expressed as Net Present Value, and assuming a “Central Fossil Fuel Price Scenario”.

1) This equates to £6.1bn per year, but in reality will be much higher in the remaining years of the plans. Costs have been much lower so far, for the simple reason that emission reductions have been minimal and most of the action plans have barely got off the ground yet. As an example, wind power is only contributing about 5% of electricity generation. This will need to increase massively, along with the subsidies it attracts, if the carbon budgets are to be achieved.

2) These costs do not actually cover all items. For instance, there is no allowance for:-

a) Electricity Capacity Mechanism – the amount the government, and in turn consumers, will have to pay fossil fuel generators to keep plant on standby, for when the wind does not blow.

b) Subsidies for nuclear power.

c) The extra cost for households, who switch to low carbon heating alternatives, such as heat pumps.

3) The costs are highly sensitive to fossil fuel prices. For instance, the cost of the renewables obligation/carbon price floor increases by £30.3bn under the “low fossil fuel price scenario”.

4) Figures do not include savings from energy efficiency, which the government claims will reduce the overall cost.

Financial Impact – Carbon Plan 4

The details behind the plan for 2023-27 are not as well developed, and are split down into different scenarios.

Nevertheless, the plan does give estimated costs of between £26bn and £56bn. (These costs will not necessarily be incurred in the 2023-27 period. These are just the costs that will need to be incurred, and may be incurred sooner. Equally this period may see the impact of costs connected to Plan 5.)

However, these government figures are rather disingenuous, as they are net of savings from greater energy efficiency. Without such savings, the cost increases to a range of £77.8bn to £125.3bn. (The lower figure is based on doing much less to reduce emissions, and instead buy international credits.)

This argument about energy savings is really a bit of a nonsense. If I choose to ride a bike to work, turn the central heating down, or pay extra money out for a fuel efficient car, I expect to keep the money I have saved. I do not expect the government to take this money away in the form of higher taxes or subsidies. They might just as well tell me to eat, smoke and drink less, and give them the money I save.

The true costs, therefore, equate to between £15.6bn and £25.1bn a year, or over £1000 per household.

Summary

• Most of the reduction of CO2 emissions to date occurred before 2008, or as a result of the recession. The real action/costs have not begun yet.
• If carbon targets are to be met, costs will need to significantly rise above current levels.
• Decarbonising transport and domestic heating is a huge part of the strategy. So far the government has no real idea how this can be achieved. This may well lead to costs being greater than estimated.
• Current plans are to reduce emissions by 50% before 2030. Between 2030 and 2050, emission cuts will need to increase to 80%, so costs will increase further then.
• By 2027, the total cost of the Act could have amounted to as much as £216bn, equivalent to £10.8bn a year.

References

Full details on the Carbon Plans are here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-carbon-plan-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions–2

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/22631057

Early figures from the Met Office show spring (March, April and May) 2013 is on course to be the coldest in the UK since 1979.

Estimates of the mean temperature for the whole season have been made based on data from 1 March up to 15 May as well as an assumption of average conditions through to the end of this month. The final figures could therefore be different, depending on the temperatures we actually see up to the end of May.

The estimates suggest the mean UK temperature for spring will be around 6.1 °C, which would make it the 6th coldest spring in national records dating back to 1910 and the coldest since 1979 when the mean temperature was 6.0 °C.

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/spring-on-track-to-be-coldest-for-30-years/

It seems Bill Nye has been attempting to link the Oklahoma tornado with climate change. Interviewed by Piers “Moron” Morgan on Monday night he was asked:-

“As a scientist, when you hear about the size, scale, power, devastation of this tornado, what does it tell you about the ongoing debate about climate change?”

Nye replied that climate change had to be considered after a catastrophic weather event like the devastating tornado in Oklahoma. He also claimed 10 of the last 12 years are the “warmest years recorded.”

“Thunderstorms are driven by heat and a tornado is a super thunderstorm — result of a super thunderstorm. So you’ve got to figure that if there’s more heat driving the storm then there’s going to be more tornadoes. Now this is the kind of thing that is worth investigating,” he added.

Perhaps the Science Guy should have checked a few facts, before he made an idiot of himself again.

1) Tornadoes have been declining since the 1970’s.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/05/08/long-term-tornado-trends/

2) Stronger tornadoes have also declined.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html#history

3) NOAA’s scientists don’t agree.

According to the tornado experts at NOAA:-

Does global warming" cause tornadoes? No. Thunderstorms do. The harder question may be, "Will climate change influence tornado occurrence?" The best answer is: We don’t know. According to the National Science and Technology Council’s Scientific Assessment on Climate Change, "Trends in other extreme weather events that occur at small spatial scales–such as tornadoes, hail, lightning, and dust storms–cannot be determined at the present time due to insufficient evidence." This is because tornadoes are short-fused weather, on the time scale of seconds and minutes, and a space scale of fractions of a mile across. In contrast, climate trends take many years, decades, or millennia, spanning vast areas of the globe. The numerous unknowns dwell in the vast gap between those time and space scales. Climate models cannot resolve tornadoes or individual thunderstorms. They can indicate broad-scale shifts in three of the four favorable ingredients for severe thunderstorms (moisture, instability and wind shear), but as any severe weather forecaster can attest, having some favorable factors in place doesn’t guarantee tornadoes. Our physical understanding indicates mixed signals–some ingredients may increase (instability), while others may decrease (shear), in a warmer world. The other key ingredient (storm-scale lift), and to varying extents moisture, instability and shear, depend mostly on day-to-day patterns, and often, even minute-to-minute local weather. Finally, tornado recordkeeping itself also has been prone to many errors and uncertainties, doesn’t exist for most of the world, and even in the U. S., only covers several decades in detailed form.

4) Global temperatures stopped rising 16 years ago.

Global temperatures last year were lower than the average of the previous ten years.

Last month was even colder, and was the 3rd coldest April this century.

5) USA is having coldest Spring in years.

March/April are the coldest in the US since 1996, and are more than a degree colder than the 20thC average.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

6) Oklahoma & The South are also much colder than normal

The South Region of KS, OK, TX, AR, LA & MS are 2.4F degree colder than the 20thC so far this Spring.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

7) Temperatures in the Gulf lower too.

In April, sea temperatures in the Gulf were also well below normal.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/nmaps.cgi?year_last=2013&month_last=4&sat=4&sst=3&type=anoms&mean_gen=04&year1=2013&year2=2013&base1=2000&base2=2010&radius=1200&pol=reg

8) Cold dry air from Canada

According to NOAA, the tornado was caused by cold, dry air sweeping down from Canada mixing with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico.

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID=1349&MediaTypeID=1

Warm, moist air is usual at this time of year. Such cold air is not.

9) Record tornado lows last year

In 2012, tornado numbers were some of the lowest on record. Last year also saw the warmest Spring on record in the US.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/

10) EF5 Tornadoes occur once a year on average

Since 1950, there have been 59 F5/EF5 tornadoes, virtually one a year on average.

http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/05/22/oklahoma-tornado/

11) Tornadoes still well below normal this year

Despite the latest outbreak, tornado numbers are running at less than half the usual level so far this year.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/ptorngraph.png

A Pair of Fools

We don’t expect any better from Piers Morgan , who was a dismal failure at the Daily Mirror, even before he was sacked for publishing hoax photos.

As for Bill Nye, it seems that wearing a bow tie is more important than checking facts. If he is the “face of science”, heaven help us all!

Does anybody actually take him seriously?

I have deliberately held off running this post for a day or two, partly because I felt it inappropriate to do so earlier, and also because I wanted to wait until the facts became clearer.

NWS have now officially declared the tornado that hit Moore, Oklahoma on Monday as an EF-5, the highest category, which is given when wind speeds are estimated to be over 200 mph. The current estimate for this tornado is 200-210 mph.

Latest estimates are that 24 people have died, although this figure may rise.

NOAA’s Environmental Visualisation Laboratory gave an ominous warning, earlier that day, of what was to come :-

May 20, 2013

Converging Air Masses Makes for a Rough Day in the Central Plains

Cold, dry air sweeping down from Canada mixing with warm, moist air from the Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean are merging in the U.S. Plains today, creating conditions for some very turbulent weather. A tornado outbreak today in the early morning hours caused destruction in Kansas and Oklahoma. This image shows the air temperature at 40,000 Pascals (about 23,000 feet high in the atmosphere) using data outputs from the NOAA North America Model for 2100z on May 20, 2013, combined with an overlay of the winds at the same elevation. Tornadoes typically occur at the convergence of these two different air masses. A distinct boundary of "cold meeting warm" is visible in this temperature data, extending from Texas into Illinois.

http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail2.php?MediaID=1349&MediaTypeID=1

Unfortunately, EF-5 tornadoes occur only too frequently. This latest is the 59th recorded since 1950, so on average about one every year.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html

The full list is in Appendix A, but Figure 1 shows that these strongest tornadoes were more common in the colder climate of 1950-80.

Figure 1

Many tornadoes, of course, pass through relatively empty farmland, and don’t lead to the damage and loss of life that this one did. Nevertheless, there have been 27 tornadoes since 1970 that have caused more than 20 fatalities, so on average it is, unfortunately, what we can expect to see nearly every year.

I cannot finish without saying how utterly disgusted I am by those who have chosen to make political capital out of human suffering, such as Senator Boxer. What they have done is pure evil. She and the rest should be ashamed of themselves.

APPENDIX A – F5/EF5 TORNADOES SINCE 1950

=================================================
NUMBER	DATE                    LOCATION
======	=====================   ===========================

59	May 20, 2013		Moore OK
58	May 24, 2011		El Reno/Piedmont OK
57	May 22, 2011		Joplin MO
56	April 27, 2011		Rainsville/Sylvania AL
55	April 27, 2011		Preston MS
54	April 27, 2011		Hackleburg/Phil Campbell AL
53	April 27, 2011		Smithville MS
52	May 25, 2008		Parkersburg IA
51      May 4, 2007             Greensburg KS
50	May 3, 1999             Bridge Creek/Moore OK
49	April 16, 1998          Waynesboro TN
48	April 8, 1998           Oak Grove/Pleasant Grove AL
47	May 27, 1997            Jarrell TX
46	July 18, 1996           Oakfield WI
45	June 16, 1992           Chandler MN
44	April 26, 1991          Andover KS
43	August 28, 1990         Plainfield IL
42	March 13, 1990          Goessel KS
41	March 13, 1990          Hesston KS
40	May 31, 1985            Niles OH
39	June 7, 1984            Barneveld WI
38	April 2, 1982           Broken Bow OK
37	April 4, 1977           Birmingham AL
36	June 13, 1976           Jordan IA
35	April 19, 1976          Brownwood TX
34	March 26, 1976          Spiro OK
33	April 3, 1974           Guin AL 
32	April 3, 1974           Tanner AL 
31	April 3, 1974           Mt. Hope AL 
30	April 3, 1974           Sayler Park OH 
29	April 3, 1974           Brandenburg KY 
28	April 3, 1974           Xenia OH  
27	April 3, 1974           Daisy Hill IN  
26	May 6, 1973             Valley Mills TX
25	February 21, 1971       Delhi LA
24	May 11, 1970            Lubbock TX
23	June 13, 1968           Tracy MN
22	May 15, 1968            Maynard IA
21	May 15, 1968            Charles City IA
20	April 23, 1968          Gallipolis OH
19	October 14, 1966        Belmond IA
18	June 8, 1966            Topeka KS
17	March 3, 1966           Jackson MS
16	May 8, 1965             Gregory SD
15	May 5, 1964             Bradshaw NE
14	April 3, 1964           Wichita Falls TX
13	May 5, 1960             Prague OK
12	June 4, 1958            Menomonie WI
11	December 18, 1957       Murphysboro IL
10	June 20, 1957           Fargo ND
9	May 20, 1957            Ruskin Heights MO
8	April 3, 1956           Grand Rapids MI
7	May 25, 1955            Udall KS
6	May 25, 1955            Blackwell OK
5	December 5, 1953        Vicksburg MS
4	June 27, 1953           Adair IA
3	June 8, 1953            Flint MI
2	May 29, 1953            Ft. Rice ND
1	May 11, 1953            Waco TX

============================================================

If the UK is to get anywhere near it targets for reducing CO2 emissions, it needs to do three things:-

1. Totally revolutionise its structure for electricity supply.
2. Decarbonise domestic heating.
3. Replace conventional cars with electric ones.

We already know that the government is struggling to achieve the first two objectives, but what about transport? The Committee on Climate Change has called for 1.7m electric cars on the road by 2020.

And DECC’s Fourth Carbon Budget, published in 2011, is based on a target for 50% of new car sales to be electric, during the budget period of 2023-27.

So how is progress going?

According to the Department for Transport, only 2198 electric cars were sold last year, despite a £5000 government bribe. This figure includes all electric variants, such as plug-in hybrids, not just pure electric models, such as the Leaf.

This figure is a minute 0.1% of the total figure of 2,044,609 new car registrations last year.

It has been evident for a long while that the “experts”, who put together these plans and legislation at DECC, have been living in their own little fantasy world. But surely it is evident, even to them now, that they need to come down from their ivory tower, and join the rest of us in the real world.

The Soviets learnt the hard way that bureaucratic, centralised state planning does not work. How much more damage will be inflicted on our economy before our commissars learn the same lesson?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/ncdc-releases-april-2013-global-climate-report

NOAA’s global temperature numbers are out for April. At 0.52C above the 20thC average, they are the third coldest April this century.

Perhaps of even greater significance is the fact that ENSO conditions for the last few months have been neutral. This is in contrast to April last year, when La Nina conditions were just beginning to fizzle out, and the two previous colder April’s of 2006 & 2008, when La Nina conditions existed.

Current temperatures are also lower than least year’s average of 0.58C.

Warmists in a Tizzy

This worrying news, about the planet getting colder, is understandably getting warmists into a frenzy.

One, apparently called Andrew Freeman, is so concerned that he wheeled out the tired old cliche:-

https://twitter.com/afreedma/status/336501047956758528

Now, if global temperatures suddenly crashed back to 20thC levels, I suggest we would all be mightily worried, even Mr Freedman!

h/t Gamecock

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

I posted yesterday about the State Climate Records that NOAA keep. These are the official state records for highest temperatures, precipitation and so on. As such, a great deal of care goes into ensuring that the observations are meteorologically sound and that “the observing platform meets or exceeds instrument and siting standards set forth by the WMO, OFCM, and NOAA”.

Since 1996, only two state maximum temperature records have been set or equalled – Fort Pierre in South Dakota in 2006, and Columbia in South Carolina last year. The latter record of 113F was measured there at the University of South Carolina, but as a reader pointed out, things are not quite that simple.

Reader Gamecock knows the place well and describes it:-

“The SC record is garbage. It is in the city of Columbia, a sure UHI candidate. The station itself is 20 meters from a parking lot, and less than 20 meters from a stone rail bed. There used to be some vegetation around it, too. At best, a CRN Class 3 station. Not one you’d use to set your state record. Unless you were hungry for a record in the hottest year on record!”

The station metadata confirms this well. (The blue marker is the current location)

https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/map.cfm?fid=17893&stnId=17893

But it actually gets worse! The station has only been sited at its current location (or within a few yards) since 1973. Between 1954 and 1973, it was sited a couple of miles away, but more significantly at a height of 322’, as opposed to the current altitude of 242’.

https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/locationGrid.cfm?fid=17893&stnId=17893

And it gets even worse than that! Although the station number remained the same, the original site, from 1899 to 1954, was in a completely different location, at an altitude of 387’, and by the river, away from the built up area.

https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/map.cfm?fid=17898&stnId=17898

https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/locationGrid.cfm?fid=17898&stnId=17898

I wonder what the temperature would have been last June at the original site?

Footnote

There is an official station, just a couple of miles down the road from the University, at the airport, and at 212’ is at a slightly lower altitude to the latter. According to NCDC records, the temperature at the airport only reached 109F, on the day the University site measured 113F. And they claim there is no UHI effect!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datasets/GHCND/stations/GHCND:USW00013883/detail

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/scec/records

As I mentioned in my last post, NOAA keep track of climatological records for each state. The procedure is a very tightly controlled one, as they describe.

The State Climate Extremes Committee (SCEC) was created in 2006 in response to the need for proper and comprehensive evaluation of meteorological observations which may have tied or exceeded existing statewide all–time record values.  Beyond their intrinsic human interest factor, climatic extremes are an important component of a location’s climatology, used for, among other things, quality controlling meteorological observations, setting engineering limits, and helping authorities to develop climate related safety plans.

While similar in function to the National Climate Extremes Committee, the SCEC is an ad hoc committee established to evaluate the climatological records of individual states. When a potential record meteorological value has been observed, it will be brought to the attention of the local National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Forecast Office or the state’s State Climatologist. If, after reviewing the observation, the WFO or State Climatologist feels it is legitimate, they will convene the SCEC for a review and vote on the value.

It is worth looking at the maximum temperature records more closely. Including ties, there are 83 records, and the graph below shows the distribution by decade of when they were set.

As can be seen, the vast majority were set in the 1930’s, with a total of 31. It is also noticeable that the period from 1911-30 also saw many more records than in the last decade. Since 1996, in fact, only 2 records have been set, or tied:-

Fort Pierre – SD – 2006

Columbia – SC – 2012

I have listed below the states which set records between 1930 and 1939. With the exception of the New England states, they pretty much cover the whole nation, from Delaware to Montana , and Wisconsin to Texas. Even Hawaii did not escape!

Arkansas

Colorado

Delaware

Florida

Hawaii

Idaho

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maryland

Michigan

Mississippi

Montana

Nebraska

New Jersey

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Don’t let people tell you that it was not that hot in the 30’s!

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13/supplemental/page-6/

I return again to NOAA’s State of The Climate Report for 2012, and their claim that “many stations broke or tied all-time records”. Detailed analysis of stations in Kansas and Ohio suggested that most of the records claimed were at stations that were not open in the 1930’s, when top temperatures were much higher. (Also, many are airport sites).

I wanted to check out whether the same was true across the nation, so I have now audited the whole list, of which there are 355 claimed records, and identified how many are at USHCN stations.

Why USHCN?

• The USHCN dataset is described by CDIAC as “a high-quality data set of daily and monthly records of basic meteorological variables from 1218 observing stations across the 48 contiguous United States”.
• USHCN stations were chosen using a number of criteria including length of record, percentage of missing data, number of station moves and other station changes that may affect data homogeneity, and resulting network spatial coverage.
• There is a known number of stations, 1218 at the last count, which will give perspective to the results.
• Limiting the list to just USHCN sites will exclude unreliable locations, such as airports.

If NOAA’s all-time temperature records are a true reflection of the climate, then we should expect to see the same sort of records being set at USHCN stations. But, in fact, the results could not be starker.

1. Out of NOAA’s list of 355 records, only 18 are at USHCN sites.
2. Of these, only 10 have records going back to 1930 or earlier.
3. And of these, 7 are ties, which leaves only 3 new record highs.
4. One of the 3 is McCook, Nebraska. The original handwritten records for this site, however, show that a higher temperature was set in 1932, therefore casting doubt on NOAA’s claim. (See here).

(The full list is in Appendix A. )

So, less than half a percent of USHCN stations managed to tie or beat previous records, despite the summer being so hot. The law of averages would suggest double that each year, over a hundred year period.

The results of this survey show just how meaningless and misleading NOAA’s claims are, and one is entitled to wonder why they made them. But a table with 3 new records listed does not carry quite the same alarmist message as one with 355.

In my view, NOAA should withdraw their table, and replace it with a list drawn from only USHCN and other high quality sites. All airport and urban sites should be automatically excluded, and the results presented as a percentage of the overall total, so as to give perspective.

I would also suggest that they include a graph, showing the number of records set by year/decade. If the the list of State record temperatures kept by NOAA are anything to go by, most records will have been set pre 1940. (Including ties, 69% of State record temperatures were set prior to 1940 – see here.)

As the list stands, it seems to be nothing more than a propaganda exercise.

References

1) Full NOAA list of records

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/2012/13/supplemental/page-6/

2) Full list of USHCN sites

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html

3) Three independent sources have been used to verify station opening dates.

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/epubs/ndp/ushcn/ushcn_map_interface.html

https://mi3.ncdc.noaa.gov/mi3qry/login.cfm?forced=true

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html

APPENDIX A – LIST OF USHCN RECORDS/TIES SET IN 2012

(Interesting that they are nearly all clustered in the South East)

UPDATE

By coincidence, Steve Goddard has just published his analysis of all USHCN stations, with data back to 1920. He comes to the same conclusions.

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/summers-used-to-be-much-hotter-in-the-us/#more-78423