Climatologist Says a Century of Weather Data Contradicts Claims of Record Heat

Despite perception, study indicates a moderation of both hot and cold temperatures in the U.S. over the past century.

By Kevin Stocklin

American author Mark Twain famously stated: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

Likewise, digging deeper into data sometimes reveals a different picture from what you saw at first glance. Combing through reports from more than 1,200 weather stations across the United States, former University of Alabama climatologist John Christy’s analysis challenges a commonly held belief that extreme high temperatures have become more prevalent.

According to his report, published this spring in the academic journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, the data don’t show an increase in extreme temperatures; rather, they indicate that temperatures have become more moderate over the past century.

“We have the systematic measurements in the United States that show the extremes of the [19]20s, 30s and 50s in terms of heat were much greater than the ones currently,” Christy told The Epoch Times.

“Even when you include the western parts of the country that are having their ‘1930s’ today, the rest of the country is not following the script.

“On balance, you don’t have a countrywide extreme event.”

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated that average temperatures have risen by 2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1850 and that this increase has accelerated in recent decades.

According to NOAA, the year 2024 was the warmest year since global records began in 1850, and the 10 warmest years during this period all occurred during the decade from 2015 to 2024.

Regarding the cause, NOAA said that “Earth’s average surface temperature has been rising because human-produced greenhouse gases are causing Earth to absorb more energy than it radiates back to space.”

Christy’s study, however, indicates that, far from an increase in extreme weather, there has been an overall moderating of temperatures in the United States. In contrast to NOAA’s assessment, Christy’s analysis indicates fewer extreme high temperatures and extreme low temperatures since 1899.

Given that Christy and NOAA are looking at the same data, how can there be such a large discrepancy?

The difference stems from two main factors, Christy says. First, NOAA’s chart shows average annual temperatures, while Christy focused on the highest and lowest recorded temperatures during the warmest and coldest seasons. The extremes, he said, are more relevant to climate science because they are setting the “environmental boundaries” in which plants and animals live.

The second reason for the different results, Christy said, is that NOAA employs algorithms that eliminate data points it believes could be errors or anomalies.

Christy’s research entailed going back through the original reports and collecting the extreme data points that NOAA had removed from its calculations.

It includes more than a century of weather station reports, from early handwritten notations by the Army Signal Corps and the Weather Bureau to measurements taken by the military and federal agencies today, all of which are collected in a central network managed by NOAA.

NOAA’s figures raised questions and led to more research, Christy said, because some of what NOAA data showed as recent record highs didn’t match what he remembered from his own experience.

“When I was going through the federal data that’s digitized, I noticed that the government’s website says the hottest temperature in Newport, Oregon, in history was 94 degrees,” Christy said. “I knew a lot more about the West Coast because I grew up there.”

So he went back to the original handwritten temperature readings for that site and found not only a reading of 100 degrees in June 1925, but also 10 other days hotter than 94 degrees in Newport. He incorporated those missing numbers and then did the same for other reports from the more than 1,200 stations across the United States.

To confirm that these extreme temperatures were not an error, Christy cross-checked his findings with other nearby stations to confirm they were getting similar readings.

“This takes a tremendous amount of manual intervention, and that is something we just don’t have today because everything’s done with AI or a computer algorithm,” he said. But without the original data, “you can’t quite get the true nature of climate and the type of rapid extremes that truly occur.”

“My data set is far more complete than what the federal government provides to scientific researchers,” Christy said.

Continue reading at https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/climatologist-says-a-century-...

************************************* 


Fair Use Notice: This website may reproduce or have links to copyrighted material the use of which has not been expressly authorized by the copyright owner. We make such material available, without profit, as part of our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, economic, scientific, and related issues. It is our understanding that this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided by law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes that go beyond "fair use," you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

 

Views: 236

Comment

You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!

Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine

Comment by Dan McKay on August 25, 2026 at 7:00am

Too hot, get AC.

 

Maine as Third World Country:

CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power

 

Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.

Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT

******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********

(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/

Not yet a member?

Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?

We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

 -- Mahatma Gandhi

"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi 

Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!

Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law

Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future

"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."

https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/

© 2026   Created by Webmaster.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service