As noted in Icecap, NOAA published the September temperature ranks by state. I noticed that Michigan was ranked 77th warmest of 114 years.
Okay. I guess I'll have to believe NOAA that Michigan's September temperatures were "above normal." After all, the temperatures I track in Southeastern Michigan were 0.1° F above average. Does that mean in order to be "near normal" there has to be less than 0.1° F variance from average?
I guess it is possible that the rankings are based on highly skewed temperature averages. In that unlikely scenario, there would be a lot of years slightly below average and a few years very much over average. Anything over 0° variance would then be ranked above normal.
Or, maybe just this part of Michigan was "near normal" while the rest was "above normal."
Somehow, this doesn't seem to compute. Well, actually it does. "Normal" is based on 114 years which, indeed, does include some very cold years [but excludes warmer years prior to that]. Meanwhile, "average" just refers to 30 years or so.
The point is that when you have oscillating climates, "normal" and "average" begin to lose their normalness and averageness... especially when you compare a series that includes data that is excluded from others. So, if the weather cools for a decade or so, then we might have "near normal" "below average" temperatures. Got it?
..