Skip to content

Record Temperatures At Airports!

May 6, 2014

By Paul Homewood

 

image

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/05/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-95-new-temperature-record-of-102-in-wichita-but-look-where-they-measure-it/#more-108656

 

WUWT has the story of how Weather Underground, and adjustment denier Christopher Burt, have been getting excited about a new temperature record for May, set at the busy airport of Wichita.

 

Even if it was a genuine record, unaffected by airport bias, it would still mean very little.

With 50 states and 12 months a year, there would be 600 monthly state records up for grabs. Over, say, a 100-Year period you would get six such records every year on average, hardly anything to get excited about.

If alarmists really are so desperate to use such “records” for their propaganda, it shows just how weak their case is.

 

However, there is no evidence that any records really have been broken. The two nearest USHCN stations to Wichita are El Dorado and Anthony, just 34 and 48 miles away respectively. NWS have maximum temperatures of 100F for El Dorado and 101F for Anthony, on the 5th May, when the Wichita record was set. Neither of these are records for May. According to USHCN records, the highest May temperatures at El Dorado have been:

 

  Degree F
1913 101
1913 100
1925 100
1934 100

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_daily.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=142401&_DEBUG=0

 

And Anthony:

 

  Degree F
1913 106
1913 105
1913 105
1953 105
1934 102
1967 102
1985 102
1996 102
1928 101
1939 101
1953 101
1962 101
2011 101

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?_PROGRAM=prog.climsite_daily.sas&_SERVICE=default&id=140264&_DEBUG=0

 

 

Christopher Burt claims to be a climate historian, but he evidently is not a very good one.

11 Comments
  1. May 6, 2014 10:07 am

    I am not so sure about the logic over how many record could be expected in a year,

    Is that based on the assumption of rising temperatures?

    I am by no means certain of the mathematics involved but if temperatures were NOT rising, I would expect the number of records to diminish over time to almost zero after 100 years.

    However, I look forward to being proved wrong.

    The use of airport temperatures is suspect however.

    • May 6, 2014 10:35 am

      I suppose it depends if you count ties or not.

      • May 6, 2014 12:06 pm

        If temperatures were not rising, I wouldn’t expect the frequency of ties (with the max. temp.) to increase.

      • May 6, 2014 1:34 pm

        But, on average, there would be the same likelihood of tying a record now, as in any previous year.

    • David permalink
      May 6, 2014 3:54 pm

      Assuming there’s no underlying bias towards warmer/colder months, then I think that’s right, QV. In theory I think the chances of seeing a new record in any given state, whether hot or cold, diminish over time (again, all other things being equal).

      The NCDC monthly temperature data for US states start in 1895, so the probability that this May will become the new record warmest/coldest in any given state is 1/120. Last May the same probability was 1/119, and so on.

      I don’t think the chances of a new monthly record can be multiplied by a factor of 50 for any given month just because there are 50 states. Each individual state is a separate entity with an equal 1/120 probability. You don’t increase your chances of winning the lottery by 50 times if you buy 50 tickets, unfortunately! You just get 50 chances at 14 million/1 each.

      That’s not to say that a new record will never be set. Just that the likelihood of any latest monthly value setting a new record decreases as the number of possible outcomes rises.

      • May 6, 2014 4:10 pm

        “You don’t increase your chances of winning the lottery by 50 times if you buy 50 tickets, unfortunately! You just get 50 chances at 14 million/1 each.”

        I would have thought that you would, it’s just that the chances are still v small. Doesn’t that reduce the odds from 14m/1 to 0.28m/1? However, I know that probability is a “tricky blighter” and as I have said I am no expert,

  2. May 6, 2014 11:14 am

    “now” presumably = “not”?

    Tony.

  3. Iansview permalink
    May 6, 2014 12:37 pm

    Last night on the BBC weather it was reported that the minimum temperature in London would be circa 8C whereas the outlying area’s could possibly fall to zero. I bet that an adjustment of that magnitude has never, ever been factored in to the temperature record/statistics…..one or two degree’s maybe. The data that is used to provide support to the AGW theory is just not reliable….simple as that.

  4. Joe Public permalink
    May 6, 2014 1:06 pm

    “With 50 states and 12 months a year, there would be 600 monthly state records up for grabs.”

    But many more than that, Paul.

    There’s absolute maximums; absolute minimums; summer minimums; winter maximums; diurnal maximums; to name but a few. And that’s relating only to temperatures. Add wind speeds, rainfall, snow depth, humidity, sunshine, hurricane count, tornado count. I suspect somewhere produces a new ‘record’ nearly every day.

  5. Anoneumouse permalink
    May 6, 2014 4:34 pm

    wichita lies man

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: