Attributing any significance to 115 years is the point of my post.
What does 14th in 115 years matter? What's the significance of "14th"?
Why not tell us about the top 10 and the timeframes involved in them, and any trends we are headed towards or against as the data is analyzed?
Why not tell us how we sit over the last 100 years?
14 and 115 are both very arbitrary numbers, picked to develop sensationalism one way or another.
Oh, please.
I explained 115 and 14 is even easier, since that is what we just experienced and DEC2009 is the subject of hte cryptically named "CONTIGUOUS UNITED STATES
Climate Summary December 2009" web page. It also tells us how it stacks up relative to the other 115 Decembers on record. It doesn't quite make the top 10%, IOW, but is still pretty damn chilly.
115 & 14 are actually much more useful to a casual reader than stating the mean temp, as they provide context.
The difference one finds in ranking if you choose from the year 1900-2009:
DEC2009 is the 13th chilliest
The difference one finds in ranking if you choose from the year 1909-2009 (somehow the Gold Standard):
DEC2009 is the 13th chilliest
Yep, I'm glad someone was able to call shenanigans on such blatant...whatever.
I will repeat: 115 years is significant, as it is the farthest back we can go for relatively reliable data. It is equivalent to saying, "DEC2009 is the 14th coldest DEC on record." Everything before 1895 for CONUS is much less reliable.
Playing with the site's little temp app is of interest.
Whatever three intervals for mean DEC temps (1895/1900/1909-2009), the trend is approx +0.1degF per decade or +1degF per century.
Plug in 1998-2009 and the trend is -2.7degF per decade, -27degF per century.
This tells us several things flat-out and implies others.