baltimoresun.com

« Videos: Why they warn us of flash floods | Main | Frost along the Mason-Dixon Line »

October 3, 2008

Exploding myth of 1970s global cooling "consensus"

When global warming skeptics set out to undermine the current scientific consensus that the planet is warming up, they often point to a 1975 article in Newsweek magazine that was titled "The cooling world." The story cited research on increasing Northern Hemisphere snow and ice, and other work on the shading effects of atmospheric dust kicked up by human activity, and suggested that the planet was sliding toward a new Ice Age. Other articles, pegged to some very cold U.S. winters in the 1970s, made similar points.

The scientific consensus then, the skeptics argue, was that the planet was cooling down.

"Back then, the 'coolers' had the upper hand because, indeed, the planet was cooling," writes one. "But nature quickly shifted gears ... Needless to say, the abrupt shift in the climate caused almost as abrupt a shift in the balance of scientists who predictably followed the temperature."

Their argument is that scientific "consensus" shifts with the winds of politics and research funding priorities, and can't be relied on as the basis for making public policy.

But in the September issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, a trio of authors reports on a study of the scientific literature and the popular press of the day. They conclude that climate scientists were struggling in the 1970s to understand the forces of global climate change, and to draw together the findings of researchers working in a variety of different fields.

There was no consensus yet, they say. But the prevailing opinion was that global warming, driven by the increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, was the dominant global trend and the larger worry for mankind on the "immediate" scale of decades to centuries. 

USGS/AlaskaThe authors surveyed the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 and found seven articles that presented evidence of global cooling, 20 that were neutral on the issue, and 44 that concluded the climate was warming. The "cooling" articles received far fewer citations in other research than the "warming" articles, a measure of which climate trend dominated the scientific thinking of the time. 

They also point to a 1979 conference of top climate scientists at Woods Hole, Mass., convened by the National Research Council. The panel sorted through the science of the day and concluded that, despite a great deal of remaining uncertainty, there was enough evidence for global warming to warrant public action. "A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late," their report concluded.

"Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus," the paper's authors conclude.

The AMS paper also raps Newsweek and others in the popular press of the 1970s for seeking out and exploiting the "dramatic or new," at the expense of nuance and accuracy. Even so, they found "no consensus" among journalists of the time, either. (In our defense, I'd argue that, taken as a whole, the journalism of that era accurately reflected the unsettled nature of the scientific opinion at the time.)

The authors argue that today's global warming skeptics seize selectively on news clips and quotes from the 1970s to bolster their argument that the scientific community back then had concluded that the planet was cooling. They use their snippets to undermine the credibility of today's scientists, who - backed by a much more mature science of global climatology - overwhelmingly agree that the planet is warming, "very likely" due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The "cooling concensus" of the 1970s, they conclude, is a myth. And "in this case the primary use of the myth is in the context of attempting to undermine public belief in and support for the contemporary scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change..."

But decide for yourself. You can read the whole article here. Scroll down to the PDF link for the piece by Thomas C. Peterson, of the National Climatic Data Center; William M. Connolley, of the British Antarctic Survey; and John Fleck, of the Albuquerque Journal.

Posted by Frank Roylance at 1:54 PM | | Comments (12)
Categories: Science
        

Comments

In fifty years it may be said that the consensus on global warming was a myth, that thousands of independent scientists did not support the IPCC position. It is obvious that then as now there is a division of opinion. The planet has fooled us before and may do so again. I am not an expert on climate change, but I fully understand the complexity of the subject. Drop a feather from a thousand foot sky scrapper and predict where it will land, I believe that problem is simple compared to the earths climate. Anyone that claims to know all the answers is foolish indeed.

Global warming alarmists assure us that the debate on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a THEORY, is over, and that the world's scientists have reached a concensus. They claim that AGW is real and we're all going to die unless we repent and stop burning fossil fuels. Anybody that questions the "science" of AGW theory is ridiculed, discredited and accused of being bought by oil companies. That is anti-science. When anyone claims the science is settled, that is the time to ask questions. When scientific debate and alternative views are stifled in the scientific community, when grants are only given to "scientists" that support AGW theory, it is time to ask questions. When a conclusion is reached on climate based on one variable (CO2) and observations over a period of three decades while ignoring the dozens of other variables and the entire climate history, it is time to ask questions. Here is the AGW logic: average global temperatures increased (about 0.6 ºC) in three decades. Atmospheric CO2 increased in that time. CO2 must be the cause of the warming. It's terrible logic. For one, that 0.6 ºC increase was erased in 2007 - 30 years of warming erased in one year. AGW theory is riddled with errors, inaccuracies, falsifications and the science behind it is perverted. AGW theory ignores the scientific method completely. AGW alarmists do not consider climate history. They only use 30 years of data and computer models to support their claims, and the data fed into their computers conveniently supports their claims. I am a former believer of AGW theory, but when I started researching on my own I found exactly the opposite of what the alarmists claim: the science is not settled and there is not a concensus. Alarmists wail everytime someone questions AGW theory. True scientists welcome criticism and questions in their pursuit of truth. Many great scientific discoveries were made by disproving previously held beliefs. Einstein disproved some of his own theories; he made conclusions then tested them and tested them and tested them. Why has the scientific method been trashed in the case of AGW theory? Nobody ever has the right to say the science is settled. Not even Einstein did that. If any of the great scientists of the past could see the state of science today they'd be utterly disgusted. Now is the time to ask questions and not accept the conclusions of AGW theory - especially considering the Draconian measures that some wish to take to "fix" global warming.

Two things:

First, I was alive and cognizant in the 1970s, and remember well the "coming ice age", as reported widely in the press and on television. What was reported was reported as "real", and although the use of sound bites had not fully taken over the media, there was - apparently - a consensus.

Second, I know nothing of Thomas C. Peterson, nor of John Fleck. Nothing personal, I'm willing to believe they're well-qualified in their fields. William M. Connolley is, however, a well-known pro-AGW climate activist with a personal agenda and political ambition. His bias - to which he is of course entitled on a personal basis - excludes him from any reasonable and fair discussion. He is not a scientist, he is a software engineer, and a political activist for the Green Party in Britain.

Please bear these points in mind should you read the linked article.

Science is not about consensus - it's about forming an hypothesis and finding data to support the hypotheses. Eventually this can lead to a theory and fact. At this stage, anthropogenic global warming is still at the hypothesis stage, with little, if any, data to support it. In fact, as I examine the data, there is more to support failure of the hypotheses. For example, CO2 has increased 5% in the past 10 years, yet Earth has stubbornly refused to get hotter.

Re: Previous comment on William Connolley

Before you start trashing people's reputations, perhaps you should look at the facts. Connolley is a PhD from Oxford who has published other peer-reviewed climate research.

What's your agenda?

This article is ridiculous. It is a scientific fact that global average temperature declined slightly from 1940 to 1975. The consensus on this point includes everyone who knows how to read a graph. What was not univerally agreed upon was whether the earth was being plunged into a new ice age just because global average temperature declined by a fraction of a degree.
Newsweak, I mean Newsweek, does not define consensus.
Mark me down as a "true believer" in global cooling from 1940 to 1975" and a "true believer" in global warming from 1976 to 2001, and a "true believer" global cooling again from 2002 to the present time. This comes from knowing how to read graphs from the National Climatic Data Center. The alarmism is totally optional, however.

Stopping "Climate Change" is like stopping Continental Drift. Humans who believe we can control the climate are flattering themselves and our species. If you can control the climate please start by making all the weekends sunny.

Climate Change is perfectly natural and normal. We are spending billions and billions chasing a ghost.

FACT: We are currently enjoying the end of a warm interval (interglaciation) between ice ages. Our interglaciation is called the Holocene. The last interglacial (before the last ice age) was called the Eemian. The Eemian Interglacial was WAAY HOTTER THAN TODAY AND CO2 WAS SKYROCKETING AS WELL!!! Modern Man was not here yet during the Eemian but if we were some Al Gore type would have been blowing hot air and blaming "human activity."

Thank God the Earth naturally warmed up from the last ice age, because my country - Canada - was covered by ice several kilometers thick about 12,000 years ago. These warm interglacials typically end after about 12,000 years so statistically the next ice age is getting close. Ice ages (glaciations) last about 10 times longer than these warm interglacials. ALL Interglacials come to an end.

We should all be concerned about air pollution and toxic waste, but CO2 is not pollution.

CO2 is only 0.038 % of the atmosphere, and only about 5 % of that is man made. There really is not much CO2 in the air.

CO2 IS NATURAL AND GOOD: We all produce CO2 every time we exhale. Trees take in CO2 and produce oxygen from it. If we somehow removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere("carbon sequestration") all plants would die the same day, and human extinction would follow.

The simplistic notion that “CO2 causes global warming and controls climate” is equivalent to saying “hot dog sales cause recessions and control the economy “. It’s a childish oversimplification of an extremely complex topic.

Lets keep it real, and please be tolerent of disenting opinions based on scientific facts

FR: Thanks for your comments. You're right. We can't "control" the climate, but as you suggest we can and should exercise better control over the pollutants we throw into the environmental machinery that supports us all. And to the extent that we are extracting ancient carbon captured from the atmosphere and sequestered over millions of years by plants in the form of coal, oil and gas, then burning it and releasing it into the atmosphere over a period of a couple of hundred years, that would seem to to me to constitute pollution that we should try to dial back. I would also take issue with the notion that there is "really is not very much CO2" in the atmosphere. True, it's a tiny percentage of the total, just .038 percent. But the number is deceiving. Humans can tolerate up to just 1.5 percent. They euthanize animals with 5 percent. But it's not going to go that high anytime soon, so that's not the point. CO2 is also the second largest species of heat-trapping greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (after water vapor) and one of the most persistent. That's a good thing to the extent that we need to trap solar energy to keep the planet habitable. But as atmospheric CO2 levels increase (up 36 percent in the last century), so does its power to trap solar energy. Canadians may be happy to warm up a bit, but not everyone would volunteer to go along with that plan.

Frank - it is the actual pollutants and not CO2 that should have been addressed all along. Using CO2 as the scapegoat shows us that this is purely political expediency and has nothing whatsoever to do with the biosphere (Gaia or the environment).

As to its heat trapping effects, the algorithmic quality of such and its atmospheric lifetime we are still kept in the dark as there is zero recent research that provides evidence. I would be content to have policy fixed around the science, rather than vice versa, but will continue to insist on seeing the data.

The closest I could get to recent scientific research into CO2 levels was; "Data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003)"

I guess we need our submariners to be awake and somewhat alert and would assume that 4,100ppm in the general atmosphere is unreachable by humanity based on the limits of oil, gas and coal reserves.

The biggest dichotomy is dropping and fluctuating temperatures, whether the period be now or at any time in the twentieth century, while CO2 levels were, and are, climbing constantly and evenly.

I was alive in the 70's as well. I remember seeing documentaries on TV proclaiming the coming Ice Age of 1978. TV is maintream media, especially then and especially when its the BBC.

There is do denying that we live in the atmosphere of the Sun. Period. That's science we can all agree on. We can also agree that in the last 25 years the Sun has done some wild stuff. From the biggest solar flares ever recorded (during a time when people cried that the planet as warming) to going almost completely dormant for the first time in any of our lives (at a time when we're starting to cool.)

What we should all really be fearful of is when people say they can fix the problem to any degree by taking money from us. Turn off lights? Sure. Drive less? Of course. Electric vehicles? Great. But taking massive amounts of our money for taxes? Absolutely not. Be afraid, be very afraid.

I do not see the month and day for the photos included in this article. These could be summer and winter shots. Your ommission, Frank, gives me pause!!!!!!!!

FR: Are you suggesting I tried to fake the shots? Please. Glaciers do not retreat and advance this dramatically from summer to winter to summer again. You are confusing glaciers and snowpack. The disappearance of the glacier at the center of the photo would be just as significant no matter which season the photos were taken. What is significant are the years of the photos. Do a little reading about Glacier National Park and the predicted fate of the glaciers there.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH, TEMPERATURE DATA
Posted on November 30, 2009 by waterfriend | Edit
With much difficulty, I have collected temperature data, as clinching evidence to prove my point.

MEAN TEMPERTURE FOR THE YEARS 1951 TO 1980

Station Max Rd

off
Min Rd

off
Temp

2007

Max Min
Bhuj 44 44 3.8 4 43 9
Veraval 40.5 41 9.1 9 43 11
Bhavnagar 43.5 44 7.7 8 43 12
Surat 43.3 43 9.7 10 43 12
Mumbai 30.9 31 15.4 15 36 18
Panjim 36.4 36 16.4 16 36 18
Karwar 36.2 36 14.7 15 37 17
Honavar 36.1 36 16.9 17 35 15
Mangalore 35.7 36 18.9 19 37 18
Kohzikode 34.6 35 18.7 19 36 21
Kochi 34.4 34 18.9 19 35 20
Alapuzha 35.2 35 19.7 20 35 19
Thiruvananthapuram 35 35 19.8 20 38 20
Kakinada 43.8 44 15.8 16 44 16
Chennai 41.3 41 17.3 17 43 18
Port Blair 34.3 34 17.6 18 34 16
Mini coi 33 33 19.3 19 35 20
Vizagapatnam 41.8 42 13.8 14 41 15
Kolkata 41.4 41 9.6 10 38 11
Inland stations
Srinagar 35.7 36 -7.2 -7 35 -7
Bhubaneswar 43.7 44 10.9 11 41 13
Gaya 45.5 46 4.3 4 45 5
Ajmer 43.2 43 2.1 2 43 6
Pune 41.6 42 6.3 6 42 10
Hyderabad 41.8 42 9.3 9 43 12
Bangalore 36.2 36 11.5 12 36 11
Agartala 38.4 38 5.6 6 36 7
Allahabad 46.1 46 3.8 4 45 3
Kota 45.2 45 5.9 6 45 8
Madurai 40.6 41 17.3 17 41 16
Coimbatore 38 38 15.4 15 38 15
Kolhapur 40.8 41 10.8 11 41 11
Udaipur 42.5 43 1.9 2 43 5
Nagpur 45.6 46 7.1 7 45 10

The mean temperature has been shown correct to one decimal point in the record whereas figures for 2007 are shown in round figures. So I have rounded off the mean temp. figures too, for proper comparison.

Except in a few cases, there is remarkable similarity in temperature recorded 200 years ago and now ! This exposes the fallacy of global warm-mongers. In big cities like bombay the increase in temp may be due to huge concrete forests constructed and this can in no way be called global.

Statement 2 (Mean temp. in degree Fahreheit)

Station 200 years ago Temp 2007
Cairo 72.3 71.4
Algiers 69.8 66
Rome 60.4 61.2
Milan 55.8 56.3
Cincinnati 53.6 52.55
Philadelphia 53.45 54.5
NewYork 53.8 53.9
Beijing 54.7 51.3
London 51.8 54.2
Paris 51.1 51
Geneva 49.3 53.1
Dublin 48.6 49
Edinburgh 47.8 48.9
Copenhagen 54.7 48.2 ( ? 42)
Stockholm 42.3 47.3(?)
Quebec 41.9 38.65
Petersburg 38.8 37.1
+Bordeau(winter) 42.1 39.2
+Bordeau(summer) 70.9 69.8
Paris (winter) 38.7 (?)57.6
Paris(summer) 65.3 69.6
Vienna (winter) 38.7 34.5
Vienna (summer) 71.6 71.1

Statement 3: Latitude and mean temperature

Latitude Mean temp. – 200 Yrs ago Name of station Max Min Mean Temp now



0 29 Nairobi 25.6 11.5 18.5
6 28.78 Accra 32.7 23.4 28.5
6 28.78 Galle 30.6 22.8 26.7
6 28.78 Porto 25 5.1 15.05
10 28.13 Kochi 35 20 27.5
11 27.94 Kozhikode 36 21 28.5
12 27.75 Port Blair 34 16 25
12 27.75 Lima 26.5 14.6 20.5
13 27.53 Chennai 43 18 30.5
15 27.06 Karwar 37 17 27
16 27.06 Panaji 36 18 27
17 26.52 Kakinada 44 16 30
18 26.23 Vishakhapatnam 41 15 28
19 25.93 Bombay 36 18 27
19 25 Pune 42 10 26
21 25.98 Veraval 43 11 27
23 24.57 Kolkatha 38 11 24.5
28 22.61 Brisbane Bayside 29 9 19
35 19.46 Buenos Aires 30.4 7.4 18.9
36 18.98 Chongqug 32.8 5.6 19.2
57 8.6 Daurgarpils (Latvia) 22.5 -9.7 6.4
60 7.25 Oslo 21.5 -6.8 7.35
47 13.49 Quebec 25 -17.6 3.7
56 9.07 Grand praire Alberta 22.1 -20.5 0.8

ANALYSIS OF TEMPERATURE DATA

Figures speak the truth. The temperature data, comparing previous periods with the current period in respect of Indian and foreign cities are available in the statements above. Statement-1 shows temperature of Indian cities (both coastal and inland).

These have been collected from the meteorological department library at Mausam Bhawan, Delhi.

You will see that in the cities mentioned below, the temperature has remained stable during the last 50 years.

Bhuj, Bhawnagar, Surat, Punjim, Honavar, Alapuzha, Kakinada, Port Blair, Vishakhapatnam, Kolkata (temperature has actually decreased by 3 degrees), Bhubneswar (decreased by 3 degrees), Ajmer, Pune, Bangalore, Agartala, Alhabad, Kota, Madurai, Koimbature, Kolhapur, Udaipur, Nagpur.

The increase in temperature by 5 degrees in Mumbai is glaring, especially when we see the temperature in Surat remaining stable. In other words, for Mumbai the reasons my be local and not global. This requires investigation. My guess is that the huge increase in concrete buildings in Mumbai has contributed to the increase in temperature.

So far, I have been speaking about the maximum temperature. A scrutiny of the minimum temperatures reveals a certain trend of distinct increase.

Bhuj, Bhavnagar, Mumbai, Ajmer, Pune, Hyderabad, Udaipur and Kanpur show increase in minimum temperature by 3 degree. If you total the minimum temperatures of all the cities, then and now, there is an increase of 20degrees in respect of 15 inland stations whereas the maximum temperature in respect of the same stations show a decrease of 8 degrees. It should be remembered that the minimum temperature are recorded during winter months (December, January) when the sun is far away in the Southern hemisphere and this cannot be assigned to the heat radiated from the sun. Mr. Milner has also written about the winter becoming milder over a period of time. In my younger days, I use to find it difficult to take bath in cold water in winter in Delhi. Now, excepting some days of severe cold mostly caused by heavy snowfall in the Himalayas, the water is not so cold. The obvious inference is that this is actually global defreezing caused by geothermal energy.

Statement 2 shows temperature variation over a wider period of 200 years. The figures for the previous period have been taken from Milner’s book which was published in 1853. As these figures are in Fahrenheit scale, current figures too are shown in the same scale. The figures in respect of the following stations indicate stability.

Cairo, Algiers, Cincinnati, New York, Beijing (decrease of 3 degree), Paris Dublin, Copenhagen (decrease of 6 degree), Quebec, Petersburg, Bordeaux, Vienna (decrease of 4 degrees) – 12 out of 20 cities. London, Geneva and Paris show exceptional increase. However, it should be remembered that the increase is over a period of 200 years.

A word of caution: the current data have been extracted from the website “World Weather Information Service” and so the authenticity has to be verified independently.

A very reliable and scientific method for evaluation of the temperature of the globe, is latitude wise mean temperatures. Milner’s book shows 29 degree centigrade at equator, gradually and linearly decreasing to zero degree centigrade at the poles. I am unable to get corresponding figures for the current period. However, I could see from the website that figures remain almost constant, even though the figures for the polar region, now shows as approaching minus 20 degree centigrade. This may be due to better technology being employed by scientific team exploring the polar regions. I have calculated the value of current mean temperatures in respect of a few stations, comparing this value with that shown in Milner’s book. These are given in statement 3.

MELTING OF POLAR ICE CAP

The density of water at zero degrees centigrade is 0.9999 grams per cm. The density of ice at zero degree centigrade is 0.9150. In other words, 1 cc of ice weights only 0.91 gm and hence will displace only 0.915cc of water, when the ice is floating in water. When the ice float, almost the whole of body sinks below the surface of water, expect a small portion projecting above the surface. In the North Pole area, there is no land. The crust of the earth forms a huge bowl filled with seawater and a huge mass of ice floating in it just like an ice cube placed in a bowl of water. The volume of ice submerged below the ice may be almost 9 times more than the icecap which we observe above the surface of water. The molecules covering the underwater portion of the icecap absorb heat from the sea water in which it floats and melt into water. This is a continuous process happening round the clock, allover the year, irrespective of summer or winter. As I have explained in my booklet, the necessary energy is supplied by the earth itself. The role of the Sun which shines only for a limited period is too insignificant to have any impact on this process. As the density of water is more than that of ice, the volume of water generated by the melting of ice is less than that of water originally occupied by the ice block in the ratio 9999:9150. Therefore the sea level will actually come down because of the melting process. In practice, this may not happen because of the continuous deposition of snow in the polar region which will continuously push down the ice cap.

A lot has been talked about the rising of sea level because of Global warming. This is a misconception. In some places, the sea level goes up and in other places, it recedes. This phenomenon has been extensively discussed in Milner’s geography.

My contention can be tested by a simple experiment. Place ice cubes in a tumbler and fill it with water until the water overflows. Leave it until all the ice melts. Watch for any overflow of water during this process.

I quote from Milner-page-513

Excessive summers

In 763 the summer was so hot that the springs dried up.

In 870 the heat was so intense ,that near Worms the reapers dropped dead in the fields.

In 993 and again in 994,it was so hot that the corn and fruits were burnt up.

The year 1000 was so hot and dry ,that, in Germany ,the pools of water disappeared ,and the fish ,being left in the mud ,bred pestilence.

In 1022 the heat was so excessive ,that both men and cattle were struck dead.

In 1130 the earth yawned with drought. Springs and rivers disappeared ,and even the Rhine was dried up in Alsace.

In 1159 not a drop of rain fell in Italy after the month of May.

The year 1171 was extremely hot in Germany.

In 1232 the heat was so great ,especially in Germany, that it is said that eggs were roasted in the sands.

In 1260 ,many of the Hungarian soldiers died of excessive heat at the famous battle fought near Buda.

The consecutive years of 1276 and 1277 were so hot and dry as to occasion a great scarcity of fodder.

The years 1293 and 1294 were extremely hot ;and so were likewise 1303 and 1304,both the Rhine and the Danube having dried up.

In 1333 the corn fields and vineyards were burnt up.

The years 1393 and 1394 were excessively hot and dry.

In 1447 the summer was extremely hot.

In the successive years 1473 and 1474 the whole earth seemed on fire. In Hungary , a person might wade across the Danube

The four consecutive years 1538, 1539 ,1540 ,and 1541 were excessively hot ;and the rivers dried up.

In1556 the drought was so great that the springs failed. In England wheat rose from 8 shillings to 53 shillings a quarter.

The years 1615 and 1616 were very dry all over Europe.

In 1646 it was excessively hot.

In1652 the warmth was very great, the summer being the driest ever known in Scotland. A total eclipse had happened that year, on Monday the 24th of March,which hence received the appellation of ‘Mirk Monday.’

The summer of 1679 was extremely hot.It is related ,that one of the minions tyranny ,who in that calamitous period, harassed the poor Presbyterians in Scotland with captious questions, having asked a shepherd in Fife ,whether the killing of a notorious Sharp, Archbishop of St.Andrews, which had happened in May,was murder; he replied , that he could not tell, but there had been fine weather ever since.

The year 1700 was excessively warm, and the two following years were of the same description.

In 1718 the weather was extremely hot and dry all over Europe. The air felt so oppressive that all the theatres were shut in Paris. Scarcely any rain fell for the space of nine months and the springs and rivers were dried up. The following year was equally hot. The thermometer at Paris rose to 98 degree Fahrenheit. The grass and corn were quite parched.

In some places the fruit trees blossomed two and three times.

Both the years 1723 and 1724 were dry and hot.

The year 1745 was remarkably warm and dry; but the following year was still hotter insomuch that the grass withered, and the leaves dropped from the trees .Neither rain nor dew fell for several months ; and ,on the continent, prayers were offered up in all the churches to implore the bounty of refreshing showers.

In 1748 the summer was again very warm.

In 1754 it was likewise extremely warm.

The years 1760 and 1761 were both of them remarkably hot, and so was the year 1763.

In 1774 it was excessively hot and dry.

Both the years 1778 and 1779 were warm and very dry.

The year 1788 was also very hot and dry ;and of the same character was 1811 ,famous for its excellent vintage, and distinguished by the appearance of a brilliant comet.

Post a comment

All comments must be approved by the blog author. Please do not resubmit comments if they do not immediately appear. You are not required to use your full name when posting, but you should use a real e-mail address. Comments may be republished in print, but we will not publish your e-mail address. Our full Terms of Service are available here.

Verification (needed to reduce spam):

About Frank Roylance
This site is the Maryland Weather archive. The current Maryland Weather blog can be found here.
Frank Roylance is a reporter for The Baltimore Sun. He came to Baltimore from New Bedford, Mass. in 1980 to join the old Evening Sun. He moved to the morning Sun when the papers merged in 1992, and has spent most of his time since covering science, including astronomy and the weather. One of The Baltimore Sun's first online Web logs, the Weather Blog debuted in October 2004. In June 2006 Frank also began writing comments on local weather and stargazing for The Baltimore Sun's print Weather Page. Frank also answers readers’ weather queries for the newspaper and the blog. Frank Roylance retired in October 2011. Maryland Weather is now being updated by members of The Baltimore Sun staff
-- ADVERTISEMENT --

Sign up for FREE weather alerts*
Get free Baltimore Sun mobile alerts
Sign up for weather text alerts
SKY NOTES WEATHER

Returning user? Update preferences.
Sign up for more Sun text alerts
*Standard message and data rates apply. Click here for Frequently Asked Questions.
Maryland Weather Center


Area Weather Stations
Resources and Sun coverage
• Weather news

• Readers' photos

• Data from the The Sun's weather station

• 2011 stargazers' calendar

• Become a backyard astronomer in five simple steps

• Baltimore Weather Archive
Daily airport weather data for Baltimore from 1948 to today

• National Weather Service:
Sterling Forecast Office

• Capital Weather Gang:
Washington Post weather blog

• CoCoRaHS:
Community Collaborative Rain, Hail and Snow Network. Local observations by volunteers

• Weather Bug:
Webcams across the state

• National Data Buoy Center:
Weather and ocean data from bay and ocean buoys

• U.S. Drought Monitor:
Weekly maps of drought conditions in the U.S.

• USGS Earthquake Hazards Program:
Real-time data on earthquakes

• Water data:
From the USGS, Maryland

• National Hurricane Center

• Air Now:
Government site for air quality information

• NWS Climate Prediction Center:
Long-term and seasonal forecasts

• U.S. Climate at a Glance:
NOAA interactive site for past climate data, national, state and city

• Clear Sky Clock:
Clear sky alerts for stargazers

• NASA TV:
Watch NASA TV

• Hubblesite:
Home page for Hubble Space Telescope

• Heavens Above:
Everything for the backyard stargazer, tailored to your location

• NASA Eclipse Home Page:
Centuries of eclipse predictions

• Cruise Critic: Hurricane Zone:
Check to see how hurricanes may affect your cruise schedule

• Warming World:
NASA explains the science of climate change with articles, videos, “data visualizations,” and space-based imagery.

• What on Earth:
NASA blog on current research at the space agency.
Most Recent Comments
Blog updates
Recent updates to baltimoresun.com news blogs
 Subscribe to this feed
Charm City Current
Stay connected