Record Warm Events

[jethro]

Good effort Ossie, you're a little star - thanks for that.

Isn't it odd how different parts of the world warm/cool at different rates; Europe doesn't seem to follow the same pattern as the USA. It would be great if we could establish this level of information for all continents - not sure how feasible that is though.

[osmposm]

Thanks, J. The website is so good that although it is rather long & boring it's not that difficult!

Yes, it would be great, wouldn't it, to have similar figures easily available for more countries and continents - comparisons within the Northern Hemisphere alone would be fascinating. But inevitably we have this data because of the USA's great positives - a rich and successful country highly tuned into the IT revolution; a large & widely-distributed population of resourceful, interested people; and that people's government and its branches that essentially does wish (and has laws to prove it) to publish as much as it reasonably can.

There seems no earthly reason why Britain - indeed much of the EU - could not do the same....but I doubt it'll be appearing any time soon. For once - well, it happens quite bit, actually - I offer three heartfelt cheers for the Americans.

Edited November 25, 2008 by osmposm

[Chris Knight]

I am posting this in both the Hot & Cold Record Events threads since it details both.

This webpage http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear...cords/index.php enables you to look up the daily record cold and hot temperatures notified since 2006 by up to 200,000 weather stations in the USA. Only stations with at least 30 years' records are included, and they must have at least 50% data completeness. I have analysed the data for the daily temp records equalled or broken each month for 2008 to date, and here are the results. There are four potential records - lowest maximum & lowest minimum, and highest max & highest min: I've put these together in pairs as "cold records set/tied" & "warm records set/tied":

Jan 2008: 5300 record events - 26% cold; 74% warm

Feb 2008: 3737 record events - 35% cold; 65% warm

Mar 2008: 2086 record events - 53% cold; 47% warm

Apr 2008: 4076 record events - 74% cold; 26% warm

May 2008: 4599 record events - 48% cold; 52% warm

Jun 2008: 5239 record events - 25% cold; 75% warm

July 2008: 2814 record events - 50% cold; 50% warm

Aug 2008: 4199 record events - 47% cold; 53% warm

Sep 2008: 4503 record events - 46% cold; 54% warm

Oct 2008: 3953 record events - 58% cold; 42% warm

Overall, Jan-Sept, there were 40,506 daily record temps set or equalled, of which 45% were cold records & 55% were warm records. To me that looks like a clear pattern - even in the USA that we are so often told isn't warming now at all. You can draw your own conclusions.

They also give figures for November to date, but it is clear from the smaller number of stations mentioned (about 100,000) that many data sets are not yet in. So far there are 405 cold records listed this month vs 2658 - nearly 87% - warm ones. I imagine, though, that the recent bitter blast has not yet fed into the figures properly. I should probably do the whole year's figures again come January - not to mention repeating the exercise for 2006 & 2007. Any other volunteers...?! :lol:

Ossie

Perhaps there's a reason for the warm USA records

[osmposm]

Perhaps there's a reason for the warm USA records

Don't quite understand the point you're making, Chris. Are you saying that many of those records are likely to be from stations of suspect accuracy? That may well be true, and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that far fewer genuine daily temp records are in fact being set. But surely that would affect the reliability of the cold "records" as much as the warm ones? I don't think that your chart shows that the errors are all in a warm direction, does it, the colour coding blue to red only reflects the size of the error, not the direction.

EDIT: just realized that the underlined USA in your brief post was a hyperlink. I do now understand the point you're making, your linked website only concerns itself with suspected upwards errors in temperature measurement. Should they not also analyse which of the stations is poorly placed to record representative low temps - in a canyon or other frost hollow, for example?

We could repeat the exercise selecting "only return ASOS stations" on the website I used: their positioning may be more reliable, I don't know. I'd be interested to see: perhaps you'd like to do it for us. I am always open to evidence of temperature trends whether they show warming or not - but I don't have time to do all the work myself, alas.

Ossie

Edited November 26, 2008 by osmposm

[Android]

Here's a graph of the temperature trend in CRN 1+2 stations, and the temperature trend in CRN 5 stations, compared to GISTEMP. This is as of September 2007:

From:

http://opentemp.org/_results/20070922_CRN12vsCRN5/

Edited November 26, 2008 by Android

[osmposm]

......just realized that the underlined USA in your brief post was a hyperlink. I do now understand the point you're making, your linked website only concerns itself with suspected upwards errors in temperature measurement. Should they not also analyse which of the stations is poorly placed to record representative low temps - in a canyon or other frost hollow, for example?

Just been thinking this through some more. Actually, does it make that much difference? What is being compared is temperatures being measure at the same stations, and presumably they are likely to be as badly situated now as they were 30 years ago. Indeed, as knowledge of good siting has improved I imagine some of them may have been moved to better positions. On the other hand there may have been some increase in the urban nature of some of them, I would guess. Swings and roundabouts. But each station's comparison with its own earlier data is, I would have thought, still basically valid and useful.

Ossie

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd have to agree that 'the trend' (if any) is what is being sought and that will not be skewed by the odd station being poorly sited.

[Chris Knight]

Don't quite understand the point you're making, Chris. Are you saying that many of those records are likely to be from stations of suspect accuracy? That may well be true, and I'm perfectly prepared to believe that far fewer genuine daily temp records are in fact being set. But surely that would affect the reliability of the cold "records" as much as the warm ones? I don't think that your chart shows that the errors are all in a warm direction, does it, the colour coding blue to red only reflects the size of the error, not the direction.

EDIT: just realized that the underlined USA in your brief post was a hyperlink. I do now understand the point you're making, your linked website only concerns itself with suspected upwards errors in temperature measurement. Should they not also analyse which of the stations is poorly placed to record representative low temps - in a canyon or other frost hollow, for example?

We could repeat the exercise selecting "only return ASOS stations" on the website I used: their positioning may be more reliable, I don't know. I'd be interested to see: perhaps you'd like to do it for us. I am always open to evidence of temperature trends whether they show warming or not - but I don't have time to do all the work myself, alas.

Ossie

Yes, Ossie, I agree that the surface stations site was primarily concerned with poorly sited stations which may be partly responsible for the apparent warming of the USA record. See this link for a criticism of one of the COOP sites. I would also suspect that some cold records may be just as unreliable.

Poorly located/maintained sites, regular relocations of stations, and lack of quality control of a network primarily set up to provide meteorological data is a cause for concern when their data is used to support apparent climatological changes, which may or may not be real, because a large part of the data network may be supplying unreliable raw data.

Can we trust the record as a whole? If not, can we trust the broken records?

As an aside, there are at least three local AWS near me whose data can be found on the internet. One of them consistently reports temperatures at the low end of the scale about 2to3 degrees lower than other AWS in the area. At the present, the mean for this AWS for 2008 so far is about 9.3degC. Is this a record? :lol:

[osmposm]

Poorly located/maintained sites, regular relocations of stations, and lack of quality control of a network primarily set up to provide meteorological data is a cause for concern when their data is used to support apparent climatological changes, which may or may not be real, because a large part of the data network may be supplying unreliable raw data.

Can we trust the record as a whole? If not, can we trust the broken records?

I basically agree with that, Chris, but am at a loss to know what to do about it - or the answer to your questions!

I think my default position is to believe (hope?) that notwithstanding the probable unreliability of a lot of this temperature data (in both directions), over a very large number of stations it is still worth analysing the balance between hot & cold......but to use that comparison as no more than an interesting adjunct to more scrupulously measured data from elsewhere.

So, I'm not nailing my colours to it, but I still offer it as another piece of the jigsaw.

Just out of interest, when I re-visit all the 2008 data next year I will do an analysis just using the **ASOS stations as well as one for all of them.

Ossie

**ASOS stands for Automated Surface Observing System - see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_air...stem_.28ASOS.29 & here http://www.nws.noaa.gov/asos/

They must surely be more reliable overall as a data source than the (magnificently) huge number of NCDC's "cooperative observers".

Edited November 26, 2008 by osmposm

[Devonian]

Yes, Ossie, I agree that the surface stations site was primarily concerned with poorly sited stations which may be partly responsible for the apparent warming of the USA record. See this link for a criticism of one of the COOP sites. I would also suspect that some cold records may be just as unreliable.

Poorly located/maintained sites, regular relocations of stations, and lack of quality control of a network primarily set up to provide meteorological data is a cause for concern when their data is used to support apparent climatological changes, which may or may not be real, because a large part of the data network may be supplying unreliable raw data.

Can we trust the record as a whole? If not, can we trust the broken records?

Chris, can you explain why every single error found by these people shows a warming bias? You don't suppose that they might only be looking for one thing only...

If I did a survey of many sites why would I expect me to find more warming biases (undiscovered warming biases) than cold ones?

As an aside, there are at least three local AWS near me whose data can be found on the internet. One of them consistently reports temperatures at the low end of the scale about 2to3 degrees lower than other AWS in the area. At the present, the mean for this AWS for 2008 so far is about 9.3degC. Is this a record? :ph34r:

I'd be interested to look at these, which three are they?

Edited November 26, 2008 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Moscow enjoys warmest November 12 on record Edited November 26, 2008 by Devonian

[Chris Knight]

Chris, can you explain why every single error found by these people shows a warming bias? You don't suppose that they might only be looking for one thing only...

Hi Dev,

Here are the criteria for the survey from SurfaceStations.org:

"Climate Reference Network Rating Guide:

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

I believe the intention is to survey all 1200+ USHCN stations, 44% already done with the great majority falling in the bottom three classes.

If I did a survey of many sites why would I expect me to find more warming biases (undiscovered warming biases) than cold ones?

I don't know why you would expect to find more warming biases than cold ones. Can you tell us?

I can't offhand think of any non-natural sources of direct cooling, except dumping of ice and chilled water from fish processing plants - does this happen? So I'd probably agree with you that I would expect more warm than cold biases in any chosen locality.

Re: Local AWS stations:

I'd be interested to look at these, which three are they?

Here, Here, and Here

I live somewhere in the triangle north of the first, southwest of the second, and southeast of the third.

The first is the "coolest" record station, about 2-300m from the high tide mark at West Worthing, several rows of houses inland, with the sensors sited on a mast to the North West of the roof, though not above the rooftop level, about 10m asl (I was curious and walked by once). Not exactly likely to be the coldest (or warmest) location in our little town. (Seriously, I think the OWW (One Wire Weather - Texas Instruments) AWS is reading the dew point as temperature, and vice versa!).

The second is a mile or so further inland, and I believe has changed location in the last year, from a site a little further north. It is a Vantage Pro plus AWS and seems reliable.

The third is also inland, somewhere to the north of Durrington as far as I can guess. The station is a Vantage Pro 2 AWS, and the website is quite snazzy.

Moscow enjoys warmest November 12 on record

Must be all those hot women that that site seems to like reporting about

[Essan]

Balmy November near record - Temperature six degrees above month's 30-year average

[Gray-Wolf]

We've not included all the Ozzi records that fell their past winter have we???

The dust storm that they suffered this a.m. (due to the ongoing drought inland) show us just how extreme things have gotton over their winter.

[stewfox]

We've not included all the Ozzi records that fell their past winter have we???

The dust storm that they suffered this a.m. (due to the ongoing drought inland) show us just how extreme things have gotton over their winter.

Please provide us with the link

[Essan]

Please provide us with the link

Hot August night: record winter heat in Alice

Winter scorcher: mercury may break record

Hottest August day on record for NSW

Australia's warm winter a record

after hot August nights, Alice swelters in September

All taken from http://weatherearthnews.blogspot.com/

[Solar Cycles]

Is there an IPCC meeting due anytime soon?

[osmposm]

We've not included all the Ozzi records that fell their past winter have we???

I didn't know I'd broken any records....

Ossie

[Essan]

I didn't know I'd broken any records.... :lol:

Ossie

Here's another :o

Sydney's hottest September in 150 years

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's another

Sydney's hottest September in 150 years

Which means 'hottest since records began' and not hottest in 150yrs

[Solar Cycles]

Which means 'hottest since records began' and not hottest in 150yrs

Remember the old warmists adage, tis only weather, not climate!!

[Gray-Wolf]

Remember the old warmists adage, tis only weather, not climate!!

I'm saddened if it may take a month for a reply but this is a thread about one type of statistical record S.C.

It would appear that the Ozzi records have been brewing for a while and the Sydney Dust storm may well have been a year in the making (though I know 'dust storms' are not part of this thread but it was a 'once in a life time ' event......hopefully).

[paul tall]

http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/perth-shivers-through-coldest-september-days-in-15-years/

You have your Yin. And you have your Yang.

You have your East. And you have your West.

You have your Warmest in 150 years. And you have your Coldest in 15 years.

In the same country. In the same month.

Global warming? No, no, no! We got rid of that a few years ago didn't we, in favour of "Climate Change".

Aaaaaaaaah, that explains it then! Climate change will surely explain the differential here, better than AGW ever could. Bingo!

[osmposm]

...Global warming? No, no, no! We got rid of that a few years ago didn't we, in favour of "Climate Change"....

Jeez, how many times? Repeat after me: IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That was the name it was given when they set it up in 1988.

[paul tall]

My point was not to do with the name of the IPCC, but the use of the term "global warming" in the mainstream media and literature, its subsequent discontinuation, and replacement by the term "climate change".

To the layman, it was always portrayed as global warming. Not anymore. The term climate change has only came into popular usage in this decade when some people started questioning global warming.

Also, the rest of my post that you replied to still stands - i posted a cold link because for warm there always is cold somewhere else, thats climate. I think it is futile to have a thread that brings up individual warm reports as they come in, what does it prove? Nothing.

For the record I am not in denial that the world warmed. I am in doubt though of the anthropogenic influence, but, whatever.

As for the change in climate, well every event is portrayed as "worst since year x, and experts warn us to expect more of this due to climate change" this type of statement that we hear regularly is at best an assumption or a forecast not a fact, and at worst pure scaremongering and propaganda. But either way it is portrayed as a fact. Keeps the climate change industry ticking along nicely.

Lets face it, climate change, beautiful, you can nail absolutely anything to it.

Edited November 23, 2009 by paul tall