Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The irony of the climate change deniers to accuse others of "pushing an agenda" is absolutely priceless. Yes the climate change proponents, AKA "scientists," are convinced by data that the Earth is indeed warming and it is caused by humans. The only people I ever see bloviating about how warmer temperatures don't matter because its still cold in places, are right wing pundits and people connected to the fossil fuel industry.
Who to trust on complicated scientific processes...scientists? Or right wing pundits? Hmmm, this is a tough one.
It is nice in a way that it does include cooperative observer sites, but one must be very careful and understand the time period of observation and how the cooperative observer sites vary from the automated ASOS/AWOS sites.
The automated ASOS/AWOS sites are set to give a 6 hour max and 6 hour min every 6 hours. For the purposes of climate data, the 24 hour period form 06z to 06z is used to define the day of record. Now 06z (or 6 UTC if you prefer) varies when converting to local time depending on where you live and if daylight or standard time. For example for this time of year, the time peroid taken for climate data for the automated sites in the eastern daylight time zone is 2 am to 2 am....in the central time zone it is 1 am to 1 am. Thus for example where I work at Grand Forks ND we run the previous day's climate with the high/low/precip for the period 1 am to 1 am.... so for today Monday at 1 am Monday the climate report for Grand Forks ND is run with high/low/precip data for Sunday Oct 14th....using data from 1 am Sunday to 1 am Monday.
Now....for cooperative observing stations this is different. These sites are human observers and we cannot ask them to wake up at 1 or 2 am to re-set their temperature units and empty the rain gauge. Thus the standard time for reporting for the cooperative observers has been between 7 am and 7 am local.
Thus... for example...when they would call or send in their data via weather coder this Monday morning 10/15 into our office...they will give us their high/low/precip that occurred between 7 am Sunday and 7 am Monday.
Now getting to the ham climate....I noticed that for Saturday 10/13 it plotted a record low of 16 for Long Prairie MN for Saturday Oct 13th. Well actually this temperature occurred just after 7 am Friday. The weather data sent in for Long Prairie cooperative observing site at 7 am Sat 10/13 covered the high/low from 7 am Friday 10/12 to 7 am Saturday 10/13. In this case the 16 occurred just past 7 am Friday....as the nighttime period early Saturday morning from 7 pm Fri to 7 am Saturday had a low of 33.6.
Now since the observation with the low of 16 in the past 24 hours came in at 7 am Saturday....the website grabbed the data and assumed it was the low Saturday morning and thus we got plots of record lows for Saturday Morning 10/13 when actually there were no record lows for Saturday 10/13 for the sites in central Minnesota.
I probably confused everyone....but bottom line the cooperative observer record reports given on that site may or may not have occurred on the date given.
This is where the NCDC comes in...because of the difference in reporting times between cooperative observers and the automated sites...they adjust the data before final publication of a sites certified data to account for the time difference.
Hence...use this prelim climate data and climate records with caution as looks can be deceiving.
Snowfall records and data are particularly terrible especially in the Plains where wind makes snow measuring nearly impossible to be accurate. I have seen cases where it actually snowed 4 inches due to catch of melted snow in the can but snow depth dropped 2 inches as the wind was so strong in the storm it blew the new and old snow into the nearest tree line.
Short answer: No, that would not be the new normal under a warming climate. If you want a preview of what normal would look like in a warmed climate, look at the March 2012 heat wave.
Quote:
To all the people who pushed global warming on us when the U.S had a 3 day heat wave...Where are you now?
Secondly, this is weather, not climate, and is thus irrelevant to global warming, just like the March 2012 heat wave was also irrelevant. It's the trend that counts. Now, bouts of extreme heat or cold do provide a preview of what the new normal would look like if the climate changed, but that's a bit different than what you're talking about. I do appreciate you sticking it to the crowd that doesn't know the difference between a three-day heat wave and an actual climate change (and there are some of them out there).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambium
I'm seeing a lot of excuses which is typical to hide the fact that temp departures were up to 30 degrees below normal in spots.
True. There's been an extreme cold snap and several cold waves this month that have been downplayed and been pushed out of the limelight. Is it due to media bias towards warmth? That's probably a part of it, but it should be noted that the brunt of the cold snap came in the Upper Midwest and Plains, two regions that the media people love to ignore. Think: when was the last time a TWC meteorologist was deployed to Montana? In almost 20 years of viewing, I can't recall any.
Quote:
It's also comical that the same ones screaming Global Warming were showing the "U.S" only. Last I checked there were more parts of the "Globe" than just the U.S.
Exactly. Folks, this is the point Cambium is trying to make
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom77falcons
Your map shows record low max temp in my neck of the woods, but none officially happened around here(NWS). The record low here occurred in 1988 for October 13th (32f). We got to 37f, not even close.
We figured that out a long time ago. That map shows other weather stations that probably haven't been operating long, thus producing record low maxima and the like. Many, many record lows were set this month, but that map shows more record lows (and record highs) than there really is. The point is to give a general idea of where the unusual/record cold and heat is, and how much there is of each.
Quote:
Our average October temps are running -.4 for the month, basically average. And now we are heading into warmer weather. Big deal. Temps fluctuate here all the time, but trust me, this past cool weather here was nothing to write home about.
East Coast bias really shows, doesn't it ? It hasn't been anything special on the East Coast, but this month sure has been special in the Midwest. Several spots had their earliest 3+ inch snow accumulation ever recorded, many record lows were smashed, and Tulsa, Oklahoma had its earliest freeze ever recorded. Teens occurred as far south as Iowa, which is something notable. It's also worth noting that earlier in September, International Falls experienced its second-coldest September temperature on record, second only to last year's record low. The point is that if you lived in the Plains you would have something to write home about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Sure, why can't global warming get some cold temperatures?
Well, it isn't exactly a preview of what the new normal would be under warming, but as you said, global warming (or at least a mild form of it) doesn't preclude below-normal temperatures. The trend is what counts, and I believe it's towards the cool end. We could debate that until the Pyramids explode on the Solstice (), so let's just leave it at that.
*I actually saw that prediction recently on some crazy website. I don't put any stock in it, and I highly doubt that anything would happen on that date. However, I think if anything happens it would probably be something to do with those crystal skulls.
Quote:
How many other times have we had a similar cold wave to the one in October? The heat wave this summer?
Well, in the case of Tulsa they never had a freeze that early, and many locations in Minnesota never had a 3-incher that early, so I'd say it's very unusual, perhaps nearly unprecedented. Now, the biggest heat wave of the summer was the late June/early July "deathwave" which was very unusual, but similar conditions did occur before. Very few of the record highs were broken by much during that event. My point is that the October cold wave is very unusual, just like the June heat wave, and like the June heat wave cooler or warmer weather can take place at other times of the month. Which one is rarer is another matter, but I believe it would be close.
I'm talking about regional "events" here, not the nationwide average (or lower 48 average). I find the nationwide average to be of little value for assessing local on-the-ground conditions.
Quote:
Well that's just one week. What's the ratio of high temperature records to low temperature records for the entire year? Regardless, suppose the US has warmed by 1°F (no clue what the correct number is). And 1°F will do what? You'll still get below average temperatures and above average temperatures, just somewhat more of the latter.
That also falls under the "weather, not climate" category. One year of sea ice doesn't prove much. The trend over many years is definite, but one year of sea ice is just weather. Meanwhile, Antarctica is experiencing the exact opposite weather.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaninEGF
Snowfall records and data are particularly terrible especially in the Plains where wind makes snow measuring nearly impossible to be accurate. I have seen cases where it actually snowed 4 inches due to catch of melted snow in the can but snow depth dropped 2 inches as the wind was so strong in the storm it blew the new and old snow into the nearest tree line.
Good point, but the pictures I've seen out of the area have backed up the reported numbers (the gist of them anyway).
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomBoxing
Who to trust on complicated scientific processes...scientists? Or right wing pundits? Hmmm, this is a tough one.
Trusting "experts" and believing what they say just because they are "experts" is not scientific. Some of us want to find out the truth for ourselves instead of having it handed to us on a silver platter. Whether that truth confirms or denies global warming is another matter. The point is that I don't like your unscientific attitude, which is frankly an attitude more befitting of religion than genuine science*.
*I'm not comparing global warming to a religion (it obviously isn't). I'm only comparing your attitude to broadly similar attitudes that are present in religion.
Yes Tulsa weather was unprecendented, but when looking at overall averages like std deviation, the current month of October is running about 4f below normal. Std deviation on monthly averages there for October is 2.3f. So, the monthly temp avg is currently within two std deviations, nothing unusual there.
In Tulsa this past year:
March monthly avg temp = +10.2f (std deviation 3.0) much more unprecendeted than the current 4f for October.
April = +5f
May = +5f
June = +3.1f
July = +6f (std deviation 2.3f, again more impressive than std deviation for October)
August = +.7
Sept = +2.9f
October = -4f (to current date)
So we have months of above normal temps, and one month below. Besides the two days with extreme weather in October, what about a year in Tulsa where the avg number of days above 90f is 71, and this past year they have had 101 days above 90f. And in 2011 Tulsa had 101 days over 90f. What about that trend? Doesn't look like cooling to me.
East Coast bias really shows, doesn't it ? It hasn't been anything special on the East Coast, but this month sure has been special in the Midwest. Several spots had their earliest 3+ inch snow accumulation ever recorded, many record lows were smashed, and Tulsa, Oklahoma had its earliest freeze ever recorded. Teens occurred as far south as Iowa, which is something notable. It's also worth noting that earlier in September, International Falls experienced its second-coldest September temperature on record, second only to last year's record low. The point is that if you lived in the Plains you would have something to write home about.
Yes, I hadn't picked on how cold the Plains has been. While we've had some cold spells, I'd say New England is running near normal. When I hear cold reports from the Plains, it doesn't register that well. I assume that extreme cold snaps are normal there. Fargo has been running 5.2°F below normal this month, roughly normal last month. Oddly, my town (22°F) experienced a lower temperature than Fargo (24°F) so far this month.
As to the heat wave, Chicago's departures are really more impressive than anything I've seen in the US, at least in my (recent) memory. Departures:
If we're going to toss the Arctic around, I'll add in this example:
Watch Svalbard warm!
It's a graph of temperature anamolies. Unfortunately, the temperature station moved in between the record period, and the graph author combined the two by adjusting them so that the averages of both stations were the same around the time of the switch.
In the last 30 years, a warming of 4°C. In the last 100 years, a warming of 6°C (10°F). Whether it's a reflection of global trends is another debate, but the warming trend is enormous.
Trusting "experts" and believing what they say just because they are "experts" is not scientific. Some of us want to find out the truth for ourselves instead of having it handed to us on a silver platter. Whether that truth confirms or denies global warming is another matter. The point is that I don't like your unscientific attitude, which is frankly an attitude more befitting of religion than genuine science*.
*I'm not comparing global warming to a religion (it obviously isn't). I'm only comparing your attitude to broadly similar attitudes that are present in religion.
Nice try but completely wrong. They have data and you can read the data they provide. Unless your assertion is that they are making the numbers up (because I don't personally track the temperature in the arctic), then they have the facts on their side.
Are you denying those figures, or are you saying because you personally aren't out there measuring each of those, that you shouldn't trust it? The fact is that all of our knowledge as a human race is learned, and in order to learn and understand anything you need "experts" to explain it to you either in person or written in a book. As I learn more about climate change and meterology, I trust those who are widely respected, widely credentialed, and widely read to gather the facts and information needed to make an informed decision. I will read dissenting opinions too, but if their assertions aren't backed by data (and the data, again is very clear), then how I can I take their positions seriously? So far, the vast vast majority of scientists in climatology and related fields believe global climate change is real and caused my people.
"Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading." This is key folks... I always preach when talking about the Global temps "You MUST provide a time frame before making your claim". Past decade we have NOT warmed. Thats not debateable. Past 100 years we have. What irritates me is the focus on the warming part only and picking and choosing certain dates to show.
Nice try but completely wrong. They have data and you can read the data they provide. Unless your assertion is that they are making the numbers up (because I don't personally track the temperature in the arctic), then they have the facts on their side.
Are you denying those figures, or are you saying because you personally aren't out there measuring each of those, that you shouldn't trust it? The fact is that all of our knowledge as a human race is learned, and in order to learn and understand anything you need "experts" to explain it to you either in person or written in a book. As I learn more about climate change and meterology, I trust those who are widely respected, widely credentialed, and widely read to gather the facts and information needed to make an informed decision. I will read dissenting opinions too, but if their assertions aren't backed by data (and the data, again is very clear), then how I can I take their positions seriously? So far, the vast vast majority of scientists in climatology and related fields believe global climate change is real and caused my people.
Generally speaking…you do have a point and I would agree: Most of the objective scientists in the climate/earth science community (both academic and research) agree - in the main the global climate is warming. The real issue they seem to be debating now is why, and how long will it go on.
I think it is important for many (especially the OP ) to keep in mind that the media is in the business to sell you entertainment and headlines to get you to tune in…not to offer objective and balanced viewpoints. They likely concentrate on warmth more because outside of a few far northern/high elevation areas (the Western Mts/Upper Midwest/Great Lakes/upper New England…etc), much of the USA has a rather fleeting winter season. They can’t effectively market something that only lasts for a few months - they need to get you to tune in 12 months a year (and there is always drought or heat or flooding somewhere on the USA mainland – lol). They want to increase their audience/viewership…and they do it any way they can.
Look at Fox News in the USA - the more goofy their news characters are or the more outlandish headlines they market - the BIGGER their audience gets.
You do make a lot of great points (esp the cherry picking comment!) and I agree 1000%....but maybe we should cut our poor weather friend some slack - he/she is a lover of hard core winter weather and is stuck in the Atlantic lowlands on the East Coast
But what boggles my mind is that almost to a man, every single person I've met that denies global warming is a cold weather fan. At least the few I've met. Why is that? They should be the very people fighting hardest to prevent warming from happening instead of claiming the world is cooling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? It hasn't been anything special on the East Coast, but this month sure has been special in the Midwest. Several spots had their earliest 3+ inch snow accumulation ever recorded, many record lows were smashed, and Tulsa, Oklahoma had its earliest freeze ever recorded. Teens occurred as far south as Iowa, which is something notable. It's also worth noting that earlier in September, International Falls experienced its second-coldest September temperature on record, second only to last year's record low. The point is that if you lived in the Plains you would have something to write home about.
