Record Cold Events

[Interitus]

It's only one continent....do we measure the world by the CET?

Of course not in isolation, but we do use it along with other creditable data worldwide to make informed opinion rather than what journalists deem to be newsworthy. A tally of news articles is merely interesting, no more than that.

[Roger J Smith]

I would advise caution in these analyses of record temperatures. There is a lot of unease in weather circles over here about the changes in exposure of many climat stations in recent years. Apparently there has been a trend for some observers to move the instruments closer to their homes so that they can be hooked up electronically to computers to speed up data processing. Although this makes little difference to the average temperatures, it would impact on record lows unfavourably, and record highs favourably, as one could visualize. There are photographic records of some of these poorly exposed climat stations, and in general, I can tell you that any analysis claiming to show that 2008 is some sort of warmer than average year across North America would not meet with much support from weather watchers, the year has actually played out rather cool for the most part.

I was looking at the list of record highs and lows in the post above, and really, the only warm spell of any consequence all year was the intense heat wave in early June. All these other "daily record highs" must have been at stations with missing data or just weak points in the data. The whole year has gone by with very few notably warm days in almost all regions of the continent, and certainly nothing that would mark 2008 as an especially warm year. I hate to engage in conspiracy theories, but given the political situation behind the science in North America, many people are growing suspicious that the temperature data are being manipulated to give a false impression of reality.

There is a growing disconnect between public opinion and the UN lobby, and this is despite the fact that the mass media have bent over backwards to suppress legitimate discussion of the issues -- despite this, thanks to the relative freedom of internet discussion, the issues are being discussed, and many people seem to feel that something is just not right with this issue in general. I've described before how setting up masses of new weather stations is likely to generate more "record" highs which in fact are not records at all, but just slightly above normal days that the public don't even notice, akin to perhaps Wednesday in the U.K. ... At some point the public just start to believe that the data must be manipulated, because over here people are quite weather conscious given the extremes we normally face, and real records are pretty obvious to people, trying to pass off almost normal temperatures as records just isn't working, even if there are hundreds of them at hundreds of stations that didn't exist in 1970. Stations with longer periods of record have a lot of records in the 1930s to 1960s over here, this was not a relatively cool period, and so using a lot of stations that started up in 1976 or 1982 or whatever just catches almost every mild day as a record high -- one technique that can reduce the number of record lows is simply to filter out ties or thresh-hold values. So I don't find this convincing at all. Sometimes you have to listen to people of long experience rather than ideologues who are just twisting the facts to advance a political agenda. The people generally active for 30-40 years in meteorology in North America just don't believe in global warming, we all know that it was generally warmer in the past than the rather puny "records" that are offered up in the current decade, and some of the listed "records" are just bad jokes. I saw one the other day, something like 14 C in early November in Wisconsin, I mean that could be sustained for two weeks in a modest warm spell, so what is the point of calling it a "record?" ... a real record would be 23-25 C at that time of year.

It would be better to get back to the older established practice of having records at a few well-preserved stations with long, long periods of record, and not going bananas every time the temperature goes 2 or 3 degrees above normal in a climate with high variability. I was just looking through the period 1996 to 2008 for Toronto to compare daily records with what I had on file (1840-1995) and I only found nine, one of which was a new monthly for January. That's nine out of 366 for the past 13 years (almost). You would expect more at random (more like twenty). It just isn't happening, sorry.

Edited November 28, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[osmposm]

Roger, of course some of what you say is true, and we have already discussed this in some detail in the "Record Warm" thread since the main objections (including yours) have been that these records are especially unreliable for high records. Your point about stations being moved closer to people's homes is interesting, though presumably the improvements and price drop in wireless units will soon negate this, if it hasn't already: I myself have just set up three inexpensive new wireless temp sensors further away (c 35m) from my house than was possible before (their transmission range is greater); and before that my first wireless sensor was set up a year ago about 20m away, replacing a wired sensor that was only 8m away.

Edited November 28, 2008 by osmposm

[osmposm]

.....I hate to engage in conspiracy theories, but given the political situation behind the science in North America, many people are growing suspicious that the temperature data are being manipulated to give a false impression of reality......At some point the public just start to believe that the data must be manipulated, because over here people are quite weather conscious given the extremes we normally face.......Sometimes you have to listen to people of long experience rather than ideologues who are just twisting the facts to advance a political agenda. The people generally active for 30-40 years in meteorology in North America just don't believe in global warming, we all know that it was generally warmer in the past....

If you hate to engage in conspiracy theories then I wish you wouldn't. And I am disappointed in that last sentence. We clearly don't all know that or there wouldn't be a - in my opinion - very open and ongoing internet (and elsewhere) argument/discussion about the situation. There are clearly many, many people with long meteorological experience in N America who do not share your views, and I personally do not believe that they are all corrupt/deceitful/frightened/self-serving.

Oh, and nobody's 'going bananas' about these supposed records. It was just an attempt to analyze statistically the high vs low "records" to see how they compared, as just one more small piece of a large and complex jigsaw. I basically entirely agree that fewer, better-quality, longer-term records are more useful; but as you well know even those get constantly attacked for their supposed failures/shortcomings in siting, equipment, paint finishes, methodology and indeed blatantly manipulated results. It seems we can't win. If we look at the official stations we are told they aren't representative, their data is suspect and being official they are probably lying about what the data is anyway. If we try and open it out into hundreds of thousands of amateurs in an attempt to cut through at least the conspiracy theory element, then we are told that those statistics are worthless too. And if we use satellite data we are told that the evidence on the ground is different and doesn't support what they say!

Ossie

Edited November 28, 2008 by osmposm

[paul tall]

Hmmm, 45% cold, 55% hot. Its hardly a major pointer either way with both points just being a fraction either side of chance.

[osmposm]

I think you'll find that purely statistically-speaking, over such a large data group, it is very significant indeed. If you tossed a coin 40,000 times (which is the number of records analysed) and it came down heads 55% of the time what would you think, Paul? The probability of it happening by chance over such a large group is vanishingly small (I wish Stratos would pop in and calculate it for me!). If all other factors were equal you would have to conclude that the coin had a serious bias in that direction.

However I agree that there are questions about the amateur data set's reliability - even that it may, just possibly, be more prone to high errors - so I offer it as I've said only as another interesting piece of the jigsaw.

[Essan]

Sometimes you have to listen to people of long experience rather than ideologues who are just twisting the facts to advance a political agenda. The people generally active for 30-40 years in meteorology in North America just don't believe in global warming, we all know that it was generally warmer in the past than the rather puny "records" that are offered up in the current decade, and some of the listed "records" are just bad jokes.

No disrespect Roger, but that sounds very much like parochialism whereby anything happening outside America - a very small part of the planet - doesn't matter.

It's possible for the whole of North America to be cooling but for the planet to be warming.

AGW is not based on events in America. Events in America have very little relevance.

And we all know people who tell us summers were always hot and dry and sunny and winters cold and snowy when they were young

[paul tall]

I think you'll find that purely statistically-speaking, over such a large data group, it is very significant indeed. If you tossed a coin 40,000 times (which is the number of records analysed) and it came down heads 55% of the time what would you think, Paul? The probability of it happening by chance over such a large group is vanishingly small (I wish Stratos would pop in and calculate it for me!). If all other factors were equal you would have to conclude that the coin had a serious bias in that direction.

However I agree that there are questions about the amateur data set's reliability - even that it may, just possibly, be more prone to high errors - so I offer it as I've said only as another interesting piece of the jigsaw.

I agree. With all of it. 55% pretty much backs up a warming world, which we know about, but its hardly devastating either.

Now if it was 30/70, in other words miles past the probability of chance, then start sweating.

[jethro]

Trouble with statistics here though, is a warming bias may be revealed but it still doesn't provide an answer as to why. Take the period say from 1920 - 1940 and you'd probably come up with a similar warm bias.

[Stratos Ferric]

I think you'll find that purely statistically-speaking, over such a large data group, it is very significant indeed. If you tossed a coin 40,000 times (which is the number of records analysed) and it came down heads 55% of the time what would you think, Paul? The probability of it happening by chance over such a large group is vanishingly small (I wish Stratos would pop in and calculate it for me!). If all other factors were equal you would have to conclude that the coin had a serious bias in that direction.

However I agree that there are questions about the amateur data set's reliability - even that it may, just possibly, be more prone to high errors - so I offer it as I've said only as another interesting piece of the jigsaw.

Os, a very good series of posts there. I did try one or two of Jethro's links but almost lost the will to live when I came up against the "Smallville Georgia Herald" report of the possibility of an unseasonal nip in the air.

Having threads like these is a great idea, but as so often tends to happen the intent is rather undermined by sonme often desperate (if not that then ill-informed) choice of "data".

And I too was rather disappointed by Roger's tone. To go some way to inferring that somehow the entire temperature record might be undermined by careless resiting of instruments rather suggests that the hard scientists out there are lacking a faculty so critical to their expertise as to render them incapable of any of the other work they do; work, which, presumably, we accept when the outcome is otherwise in the favour of our own chosen opinion.

Anyway, I think there's a record cold in my snug this evening, or there will be if I open the window and the heating goes off early. It'll be in the Craven Herald next week, and then on here, believe me.

[jethro]

Welcome back SF, turned up just in time to hand over that champers for Christmas.

No ice recovery on the cards....an endless downhill descent..... You accepted my wager when I said we'd begin to see a recovery; less melt this summer, greater recovery and volume this winter thus far

[laserguy]

Long time since this thread's seen the light of day....

Ossie will be along subsequently to point out the error of my ways but here goes.

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...mp,mintemp,snow

Five hundred and five (say it quickly and it still sounds a lot) record cold temperatures broken in the past week alone in what is presumably the USA's warmest time of year,and in the era of... Global Warming? Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Red Raven]

Long time since this thread's seen the light of day....

Ossie will be along subsequently to point out the error of my ways but here goes.

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...mp,mintemp,snow

Five hundred and five (say it quickly and it still sounds a lot) record cold temperatures broken in the past week alone in what is presumably the USA's warmest time of year,and in the era of... Global Warming? Ha ha ha ha ha.

What about all the red dots showing record highs? It's a bit cherry picking to flag only half the data.

[Methuselah]

Long time since this thread's seen the light of day....

Ossie will be along subsequently to point out the error of my ways but here goes.

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...mp,mintemp,snow

Five hundred and five (say it quickly and it still sounds a lot) record cold temperatures broken in the past week alone in what is presumably the USA's warmest time of year,and in the era of... Global Warming? Ha ha ha ha ha.

Fair dos LG. The USA has had a colder than average summer...

[osmposm]

Long time since this thread's seen the light of day....

Ossie will be along subsequently to point out the error of my ways but here goes.

http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/7d...mp,mintemp,snow

Five hundred and five (say it quickly and it still sounds a lot) record cold temperatures broken in the past week alone in what is presumably the USA's warmest time of year,and in the era of... Global Warming? Ha ha ha ha ha.

Yup, here I am, LG. An unusually - exceptionally in many places - cold week in a big chunk of the US (though note that those numbers are for the total individual daily records set that week, not the number of places that had a whole record week). And what's the time of year got to do with anything? Record highs and record lows happen at all times of year, and are just as relevant to the discussion....which is not very, as we should be looking at the records for long periods and large areas, which one arbitrary week in one arbitrary country is not.

To elucidate, although you can't do week-long analyses for previous weeks on that website, you can at least bring up an individual past day's records. So, going back at random exactly one week, and then two....on the single day of 11th July there were 151 temp records set, of which 76% were, um, HIGH ones; on the 4th July there were 145, of which 64% were also high. So that obviously proves, or at least implies that there was Global Warming one to two weeks ago, doesn't it? Ha ha ha ha ha.

Except that of course it doesn't, as I'm sure you'd agree. It's all a bit silly, isn't it?

Edited July 20, 2009 by osmposm

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

on the single day of 11th July there were 151 temp records set, of which 76% were, um, HIGH ones; on the 4th July there were 145, of which 64% were also high

Is that using data before or after the adjustment for urban warming?

[osmposm]

Is that using data before or after the adjustment for urban warming?

I really don't know, AFT, probably before (assuming the stations are urban). Which is yet another reason why I am NOT (as I thought I'd made clear) presenting it as evidence of global warming, which it ain't, merely as evidence that you can always find a week or a day or a place that supports whatever view you already hold - in either direction.

Similarly your foot-of-page photo caption "1934 joint-warmest year on record - NASA" doesn't exactly make it clear to the casual viewer (who doesn't realize that NASA is a link to click, and just takes it at face value) that the statistic is only true of most - not even all - of one country (the US), not the globe. I would imagine that you present it like that because it supports the view you already hold, no?

Ossie

Edited July 21, 2009 by osmposm

[laserguy]

And what's the time of year got to do with anything? Record highs and record lows happen at all times of year, and are just as relevant to the discussion....which is not very, as we should be looking at the records for long periods and large areas, which one arbitrary week in one arbitrary country is not.

Except that of course it doesn't, as I'm sure you'd agree. It's all a bit silly, isn't it?

What's the time of year got to do with it? You are kidding,right? If a similar number of record high temps were being observed in mid-winter (or even high summer,fercrissake),are you telling me that 'global warming' would not be shoved down the necks of US citizens at every corner? As for the week to date, seven hundred and eleven record cold temps have fallen,Stateside,against a pitiful one hundred and eighty one records for heat. Any records being broken when temps are at their expected peak and in the era of 'global warming' *should* not be low ones. I must be missing something,ahh it's only the US and it's weather,not climate. Let's see how winter pans out. I'll fully concur on one thing - it is indeed all a bit silly. The notion of global warming that is,man-made or otherwise. As has been pointed out by others,it would probably take a rerun of the Younger Dryas before some folk might get the feeling that the numbers don't add up.

[Methuselah]

What an odd argument?????

We have some data that (among many other things) seem to show something everyone knows anyway: that parts of the USA are having a cooler than average summer. What's so contentious about that? It happens, It's the weather!

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Similarly your foot-of-page photo caption "1934 joint-warmest year on record - NASA" doesn't exactly make it clear to the casual viewer (who doesn't realize that NASA is a link to click, and just takes it at face value) that the statistic is only true of most - not even all - of one country (the US), not the globe. I would imagine that you present it like that because it supports the view you already hold, no?

Ossie

The contiguous United States is a vast land area, and so, like a bigger thermometer, is more representative of very recent historical global temperatures than a record like the Hadley CET which, because it is recorded on just a tiny island, can be pretty much thrown out.

As far as the rest of the world goes nowhere else has the systematic, nearly homogenous coverage over a huge land area that existed in the US as far back as 100 years ago.

As far as the contiguous United States is our most reliable proxy for global temperatures over 100 years ago, it is significant 1934 is the joint hottest year record.

Edited July 21, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[osmposm]

A good and reasonable reply, AFT. I just think you might alter it slightly to include the words "contiguous USA", if only to avoid accusations of bias.

Ossie

[osmposm]

What's the time of year got to do with it? You are kidding,right? If a similar number of record high temps were being observed in mid-winter (or even high summer,fercrissake),are you telling me that 'global warming' would not be shoved down the necks of US citizens at every corner? As for the week to date, seven hundred and eleven record cold temps have fallen,Stateside,against a pitiful one hundred and eighty one records for heat. Any records being broken when temps are at their expected peak and in the era of 'global warming' *should* not be low ones. I must be missing something.........

I think what you're missing is....

1. Exceptionally high or exceptionally low temperatures are notable at any time of year, surely? Global Warming, or Global Cooling, or Global Standing-still affects (or doesn't ) the climate just as much in the winter as in the summer...or indeed the spring or the autumn. We notice such records at any time of year: record cold temps in the summer are no more or less remarkable than record cold temps in the winter, it's the difference from the norm that is of interest, isn't it?

2. You're quite right that shoving high-temp records of questionable relevance down the throats of US citizens is far too often done, and is far too often stupid, not to mention counter-productive. I hope we are a little more clued-up on climate here than the general populace, so probably aren't too impressed by equally irrelevant low-temp records shoved down our throats either (nor the high-temp ones for that matter).

3. The reason they are irrelevant, low or high, is that taking one remarkable week in isolation demonstrates very little. Would you appreciate it, would it mean anything much if I posted, gleefully and mockingly, the stats from that site every time there was a week with a 4-1 preponderance of high temps over low?

The analogy is not at all good, but if I toss a coin seven times (your one week) in succession and get five or six tails, that is a bit unusual, but doesn't say anything much. If I do it 365 times (one year) and it's still showing even 55% one way or the other, then that's very significant.

Similarly if you looked at a whole year's daily records, and it showed 55% cold vs 45% hot I would say you've definitely got something to talk about there in terms of what the climate of the US, at least, may be doing. Earlier in this thread (25 November 2008) I did pretty much that for the first 9 months of 2008, and this is what I wrote:

This webpage http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/records/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"............Overall, Jan-Sept, there were 40,506 daily record temps set or equalled, of which 45% were cold records & 55% were warm records......

So in fact for the first nine months (274 days) of 2008 the proportions were 55:45 in favour of HOT, not cold. If you've got the time (which I don't at the moment, sorry), you - or somebody - could continue the analysis for the last three months of 2008 and the first six months of 2009, another nine month period. Let's see what it shows, I'd be very interested to know whichever way it turns out. Though as AFT suggests, it would only then lead us back to further intractible arguments about how many of those records were set at stations subject to urban warming errors.

Ossie

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

A good and reasonable reply, AFT. I just think you might alter it slightly to include the words "contiguous USA", if only to avoid accusations of bias.

Ossie

I'm using it as a proxy for global temperatures. When the GISS "global temperature index" notes, "oh actually, not including vast areas of oceans, huge swathes of Siberia, Africa and South America, and yes, pretty much it's just Europe and US plus Japan and a rag-tag conglomeration of goodness knows what's in that data from elsewhere" then I will, likewise, qualify my own sig.

Edited July 21, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[jethro]

I'm using it as a proxy for global temperatures. When the GISS "global temperature index" notes, "oh actually, not including vast areas of oceans, huge swathes of Siberia, Africa and South America, and yes, pretty much it's just Europe and US plus Japan and a rag-tag conglomeration of goodness knows what's in that data from elsewhere" then I will, likewise, qualify my own sig.

That's funny. Good answer.

[❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️❄️]

I thought this thread was for posting events, not arguing?