Global Cooling

[VillagePlank]

You can use records to deduce a conclusion.

For instance, if you were to take all of the records in a year then count the frequency of cold and warm records you'd get two numbers, over the eons of, say, the CET record.

Two numbers can give seven possible conclusions ...

(i) Nothing interesting

(ii) Frequency of cold records increasing

(iii) Frequency of warm records increasing

(iv) Frequency of cold and warm records increasing

(v) Frequency of cold records decreasing

(vi) Frequency of warm records decreasing

(vii) Frequency of cold and warm records decreasing

Has anyone done this sort of analysis, rather than using average figures?

Edited November 2, 2008 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Not as far as I know; fancy taking up the challenge?

CET or global?

[laserguy]

Someone asked how many records for warmth were tied or broken on the date in question.

Well here you go:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...et+Records#recs

34 new records for warmth,15 tied. This is of course applicable to that one day and on the face of it I'd be the first to admit it means nought. But someone did ask...

Edit. Sorry Jethro,should have put this in the new thread - didn't see it 'til too late!

Edited November 2, 2008 by laserguy

[Android]

Nice work Android! Have you graphed high temperature records by any chance?

Btw, I remember that comment at WUWT, and your question is dead right. All he needed to do was what you have to see what an unremarkable day October the 29th was.

There are 4 types of daily records on the site, high minimum, high maximum, low minimum and low maximum. I guess one of these might contain an significant trend, but as the data only goes back to Sep 2001 it's possible they don't. I might as well plot the other 3 seeing as I just have to change the URL to get the different data.

There is a far easier way of determining how cold the US was in October. Sometimes I feel global warming skeptics don't like where such shortcuts lead and prefer to get lost in the details of a longer route.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...10092008_pg.gif

Nice work Android! Have you graphed high temperature records by any chance?

Btw, I remember that comment at WUWT, and your question is dead right. All he needed to do was what you have to see what an unremarkable day October the 29th was.

There are 4 types of daily records on the site, high minimum, high maximum, low minimum and low maximum. I guess one of these might contain an significant trend, but as the data only goes back to Sep 2001 it's possible they don't. I might as well plot the other 3 seeing as I just have to change the URL to get the different data.

There is a far easier way of determining how cold the US is (edit: this is september, october isn't there yet). Sometimes I feel global warming skeptics don't like where such shortcuts lead and prefer to get lost in the details of a longer route.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...rrentmonth.html

[Android]

It's just a curiosity but I had time to waste so daily minlow and highmax record counts attached. I put a running mean in which is not all that exciting. Can't even remember what it is now, 200 days I think. I realised lowmax and highmin records only go back to 2004 so I haven't bothered attempting to graph those two.

The drop in the highmax trend is a better argument for being cooler recently, although perhaps not too suprising given that national temps are lower this year than since 2001:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...10092008_pg.gif

Perhaps a fall from peak temperature has more impact on reducing record highmaxs than it does increase record lowmins.

Again the image dimensions suck but other than one day per pixel I don't know how to represent 2500+ days where the day-to-day values can have such variation.

Edited November 2, 2008 by Android

[Mondy]

Almost seven years of Global Cooling

[pottyprof]

Someone asked how many records for warmth were tied or broken on the date in question.

Well here you go:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...et+Records#recs

34 new records for warmth,15 tied. This is of course applicable to that one day and on the face of it I'd be the first to admit it means nought. But someone did ask...

Edit. Sorry Jethro,should have put this in the new thread - didn't see it 'til too late!

Interesting to note that there are 87 record cold temperatures on that site with 33 tied.. hmmmmmmm

[Devonian]

Interesting to note that there are 87 record cold temperatures on that site with 33 tied.. hmmmmmmm

And on the 31st 32 record lowests and...59! (nearly double as many ) record maximum.

Or, if the record for the 29th mean something then the records for the 31st don't?

[jethro]

And on the 31st 32 record lowests and...59! (nearly double as many ) record maximum.

Or, if the record for the 29th mean something then the records for the 31st don't?

Of course they count.

I've opened a couple of threads, one of each for warm and cold records, go ahead and post them in there; let's see which one gets the most.

[laserguy]

Or, if the record for the 29th mean something then the records for the 31st don't?

"34 new records for warmth,15 tied. This is of course applicable to that one day and on the face of it I'd be the first to admit it means nought. But someone did ask"...

Here's what I said earlier. Why get all defensive and immediately assume ,well,I don't know what you're getting at to be honest. Be interesting to see how things transpire on Jethro's new threads. This place'll be deserted as the cold and warm factions go scurrying off to find 'evidence' for their cause! 'Scuse me while I nip off in my time machine.... back again,and I can safely say global warming is dead . I've got the mkII model and it's better than Hansen and Gore's.

[Devonian]

Of course they count.

I've opened a couple of threads, one of each for warm and cold records, go ahead and post them in there; let's see which one gets the most.

So, it's a competition How does someone win?

[pottyprof]

And on the 31st 32 record lowests and...59! (nearly double as many ) record maximum.

Or, if the record for the 29th mean something then the records for the 31st don't?

Still 59 on the 31st isnt as many as 87 on the 29th....

Even cherry picking is failing you Dev me owd mucker..

[jethro]

So, it's a competition How does someone win?

It's a place to put all the record events which make other topics/threads go off track.

If it brings out people's competitive spirit, all well and good; it's only a bit of fun, not a scientifically controlled experiment.

I for one think it will be interesting to see if any trends emerge, we're approaching winter, after all the record warm winters (especially in this part of the world) it will be interesting to see if the quieter Sun, the reversal of the PDO and the state of the Arctic have a discernible knock on effect. After all, in the climate change section all these have been held up as drivers of climate change, let's see if they make a difference this winter.

[Thundery wintry showers]

What would have to be done is to take a longer timespan- preferably a year or so, or maybe a seasonal "quarter"- and total up the number of warm records vs. number of cold records. Another task would be to take the mean of how much these cold/warm records are being broken by.

As the Earth's temperature has not warmed in absolute terms over the last 10 years I wouldn't particularly expect vastly more warm records to be going, though as temperatures are still about 0.6C higher than in 1900, or 1950, I would expect slightly more warm records than cold ones overall.

In the UK there's certainly been a strong preponderance of warm records over the last deacde, but with this year seeing more in the way of cold records than we've grown accustomed to recently- which might turn out to be a blip of course.

[noggin]

Hmmmmm, I may well transfer an entire thread which I started last Winter, but which got sentenced to death in a seldom-visited area of Netweather.....

Ahhhhhhhh, here it is.......http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=45624

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=45624 did it work this time?

Edited November 3, 2008 by noggin

[jethro]

Hmmmmm, I may well transfer an entire thread which I started last Winter, but which got sentenced to death in a seldom-visited area of Netweather.....

Ahhhhhhhh, here it is.......http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=45624

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=45624 did it work this time?

Hi Noggin,

I hoped you'd turn up with that, I couldn't find it anywhere! Feel free to transfer the whole lot

[Roger J Smith]

Lists of daily records set in the USA or Canada have to be carefully examined for significance.

So many new stations have opened up since 1990 that almost any anomalous spell of weather can set a whole raft of these records without really being that unusual, I've seen cases where a few degrees above or below normal trigger off a whole list of records but they are all at the new stations. Personally, I think they should be restricted to stations that have 80 years of records. When there was quite a heat wave in 1999, any station that wasn't open in 1936 had a good shot at an all-time record; said stations were duly reported by the media as "proof" of runaway global warming, even though any station open in 1936 was probably safe by 5 degrees.

My feeling is that record daily maximum temperatures are not increasing in frequency, and that many stations have a surprising number of monthly records way back in the pre-AGW era, which may indicate that the climate was if anything a little more variable in the recent past. On the other hands, daily minimum temperatures are becoming scarce at long-term stations, the temperature distribution in general seems to have inched upwards in the middle, remained the same at the top end, and moved more substantially upward at the bottom end.

The net effect of this is warming, but if it were a different distribution, the impacts might be worse. What we have lost seems to be about 2-3 degrees at the extreme cold end of the spectrum. If it stabilizes into that pattern, there won't really be any negative impacts, the positive impacts might outweigh the negatives of the overall warming.

[noggin]

Hi Noggin,

I hoped you'd turn up with that, I couldn't find it anywhere! Feel free to transfer the whole lot B)

I have felt free and done it! :lol:

[laserguy]

I really don't want to open a new thread to take the place of the temporarily(?) suspended general climate change thread,so perhaps this is as good a place as any.

Have a read of this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...1/16/do1610.xml

Whatever credibility Hansen may have had (hey,even Crippen was a 'doctor'),it must surely now lay in ruins. Junk science,junk data,just plain ol' junk. The overwhelming mass of anecdotal evidence knocks all this warming twaddle into a cocked hat. And don't get me started on 'trends'.... kipper ties and platform heels were once a trend,y'know.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Right, for the centrillionth time:

1. The GISS records for Russia, erroneously making October the warmest October on record, have been reported as erroneous and corrected,

2. Individual events do not disprove or prove global warming. If all the recent cold events disprove global warming, then did all the hot events in summer 2003 prove global warming?

3. Since global temperatures have stalled since 1998 we would expect there the preponderance of warm events over cold ones to have declined since then, and furthermore a decade is not a long enough span against 100 years of upward trend to say the trend has stopped,

4. The AGW argument is not disproved by its abuse by a very vocal minority of environmental campaigners who preach very extreme views.

[SP1986]

Actually I'd like to bring something up, people have said were too insignificant to cause changes to our planet, well I ask what about those billions of bacteria who helped make out planet hospitable for life by creating oxygen on the planet, if they can create that and have a major impact on our planet then we sure as hell have an even greater chance of having an impact on our planet given the world is currently overpopulated with billions of medium sized, 'intelligent' mammals (us)

I think it's quite clear that anthopogenic factor are causing the climate to become unstable. That said I don't think there's an ice age on the way especially with no clear evidence pointing that way at the current moment.

[laserguy]

Right, for the centrillionth time:

1. The GISS records for Russia, erroneously making October the warmest October on record, have been reported as erroneous and corrected,

They wouldn't have been,had certain someone's not flagged them up. Certainly ain't the first time either. As for the rest of the warming nonsense,certain people could open their door to four feet of snow and insist that actually,it hadn't been snowing at all. Such is the ludicrosity level we are currently at. And for the zintillienth time,once it actually dawns on the warming mob that they have no alternative to come clean on this,all the snow and ice etc will be as a direct result of a negative feedback from all that CO2 which we have to eradicate at all costs because one way or another it'll be the end of us all blah blah. Know it.Where's me pills,I feel another hot flush (pun intended) coming on. Does anyone really have time to wait another 100 years to see if the current 'trend' turns out to be a sustained one? Doesn't matter anyway,the PTB have already decided that the only way is up. Now if we chuck climate out of the frame and talk about the need to reduce emissions for much more pressing,real reasons,I'm all ears.

Stephen P,the mass of bacteria and other microorganisms generating O2 must surely exceed all other life forms by a massive amount,and in our terms they've been around long enough to make our tenure no more significant than a nanosecond. So far as I know,there's never been a runaway O2 scenario!

[SP1986]

Stephen P,the mass of bacteria and other microorganisms generating O2 must surely exceed all other life forms by a massive amount,and in our terms they've been around long enough to make our tenure no more significant than a nanosecond. So far as I know,there's never been a runaway O2 scenario!

Perhaps but relatively speaking, in terms of body mass and size of us humans compared to these micro organisms we have a similar if not bigger impact than they do. Size of the extraction will always counteract the amount, especially if they are micro sized dwellers.

Ian has said countless times that it's not just warming that needs action taking, but by reducing emissions, and fuel use/consumption you are also securing our fossil fuels against a scenario where we run out of them, yes to me that's more pressing as it's something we know is going to happen, however we cannot blantantly ignore the warming trend, just because we want to see more snow in our lifetime.

[Gray-Wolf]

We used to live on a forested isle. The peat bogs above us here show the remnants of the forests up to the 2,000ft level, all gone ,all human induced. NW Australia was semi brush before folk and their 'managed burns' over the past 25,000yrs. From herds that took over 2 days to pass the U.S. Bison had been whittled to a few hundred pairs by the 1880's. Look at the acreage of the prairies brought under agriculture. Look at the desertification south of the Sahara, the deforestation of the Amazon, the paddies in Asia.

The myriad of lights from the planet when 'dark side' on the shuttle.

Once upon a time the only 'evidence from space' that life existed here was the Great Barrier reef (which is now dying back from 'Coral bleaching') and today???

Look at whale numbers, Tiger numbers, Koala numbers,Panda numbers, Gorilla numbers, what of the 'Dodo'?

How we can delude ourselves that we cannot impart significant impact to the planet beggars belief.....how far into denial can some folk immerse themselves to offset the guilt we all must bare?

To actually be able to measure, year on year, the manipulation of the atmosphere by our emissions and then claim 'it wasn't me!!!' .....crazy thinking surely?

[laserguy]

Ian has said countless times that it's not just warming that needs action taking, by reducing emissions, and fuel use/consumption you are also securing our fossil fuels against a scenario where we run out of them, yes to me that's more pressing as it's something we know is going to happen, however we cannot blantantly ignore the warming trend, just because we want to see more snow in our lifetime.

See the struck thru bit - minus that,this more or less says what I've been banging on about for ages but no-one takes a blind bit of notice! Ah well. However,there is currently no warming trend (how many more times...?). What has more snow in our lifetime got to do with anything? All those places around the NH which saw snow for the first time last winter,and all those who got more than they've ever seen before. 'Course,this is only to be expected in a warming world . We'll get ours,don't worry about that. Anyways,if I wanted snow so badly (I don't!) and also believed the CO2 theory,dontcha think I too would be clamouring to reduce emissions if only for that reason?

Anyway,sorry for this brief interruption - this is already becoming a substitute for the limbo'd General Thread,don't want this to go the same way for that reason!