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.
What is the base period for that global map. For the US, it doesn't seem to match the two maps that I generated from NOAA.
His map is showing something different yours. His calculates the trend over 2001-2015. Yours averages 2001-15 subtracting against a base period. So yours says whether the last 15 years have been warmer than previous decades. While his says how much it warmed during those 15 years.
Since 2015 was the coldest winter in the 2001-15 period by a large margin in the Northeast (and 2014 for the upper Midwest) it makes the trend go strongly negative for a lot of the northern US. Doesn't mean anything climate-wise.
And once again, that's pretty much wrong. You're drawing false conclusions there by saying snowfall is completely dominated by the ambient temperatures. It's not.
We should probably move this to the never ending argument thread over snow and temperature.
In order for it to snow it needs to be below (or close to) freezing, but that's not all. There also needs to be enough moisture in the air for precipitation to fall, and lower temps naturally have less moisture available. So there are two clashing factors there.
Except colder temperatures lead to higher snow:water ratio, just makes up for the lower moisture in many cases
Quote:
So, it's not cold temps which cause the snow, but rather it's the overall pattern during winter which determines both temps and snowfall. In most of the northern US, warm winters with above-freezing temps generally get low snowfall, the coldest winter months with frigid temps generally get low snowfall as well, but the more moderate months with temps close to freezing will get more snowfall. And it's not one which causes the other, but rather both are caused by the general pattern.
At least for northern New Hamsphire, there's no pattern of average temperature months getting more (or less) snowfall than the coldest. The too cold to snow pattern doesn't exist there, or really few other places I've seen. Some places may have very cold weather associated with dry, stable air but that doesn't have to be the case. Newfoundland and nearby Canada combines frigid temperatures and heavy snow. For New Hampshire:
I thought you were referring to warming due to UHI.
Adjusted data is not significantly different than the raw. Don't believe the video maybe you will believe the words from Judith Curry who has been championed by many global warming skeptics on her luke warm stance
As for recent cooling winters in the mid latitudes could certainly be a result of a weaker PV and warming high latitudes allowing for the jet to become wavier, which might mean more extreme fluctuations in temps as the jet meanders more significantly...
The label on the chart this post showed is inaccurate. It claims to show warming trends are accelerating. It in deed shows warming occurring but not the rate of change in temperatures occurring at a higher rate of change than in the past as it claims. Perhaps it is a chart out of context or merely mislabeled? Sloppy work.
The next post by this poster does compare rates of change in warming over separate long term periods, one 15 years in length and the other over 20 years. It is not labeled accelerating warming but it shows the acceleration.
My point is the same as the one made by nei in his observations mentioned above.
Some claim more than 100% of warming trends shown by ruling temperature measurement bodies is due to their temperature adjustments, is that true? If so is there a clear document which describes the specifics of the annual evolving change in adjustment and what is driving the raw data to continually be low in reading requiring an adjustment to a higher temp?
The label on the chart this post showed is inaccurate. It claims to show warming trends are accelerating. It in deed shows warming occurring but not the rate of change in temperatures occurring at a higher rate of change than in the past as it claims. Perhaps it is a chart out of context or merely mislabeled? Sloppy work.
The next post by this poster does compare rates of change in warming over separate long term periods, one 15 years in length and the other over 20 years. It is not labeled accelerating warming but it shows the acceleration.
My point is the same as the one made by nei in his observations mentioned above.
Are looking at the map of the US? It is a winter temperature trend.
My state is showing warming to be accelerating when compared to the long term average
Quote:
Some claim more than 100% of warming trends shown by ruling temperature measurement bodies is due to their temperature adjustments, is that true? If so is there a clear document which describes the specifics of the annual evolving change in adjustment and what is driving the raw data to continually be low in reading requiring an adjustment to a higher temp?
Read the post from Dr Curry on temp adjustments and raw data.... Click the link
The label on the chart this post showed is inaccurate. It claims to show warming trends are accelerating. It in deed shows warming occurring but not the rate of change in temperatures occurring at a higher rate of change than in the past as it claims. Perhaps it is a chart out of context or merely mislabeled? Sloppy work.
That is a bogus site, and their claims are easily shown to be either deceptive or just plain wrong. And yes, of course they don't show accelerating warming, because it doesn't exist, for most of the US data. They also start their trend at the coldest period. Using either a 30 year trend, or starting in the warmest period of the past, shows just how wrong their claims are.
Not trying to cause political controversy, but just curious if higher temps from denser cities and UHIs are 10% of global warming, 2%, or something greater.
Urbanization is simply one type of "land use change" from a climate science perspective. While its impact does exist, it is actually not even the dominant land use change effect on climate. In fact if you account for all land use change collectively (urbanization, deforestation, agriculture, etc.) the net impact of land use change is actually COOLING, not warming! (this is because wild forests are very dark in color, absorbing nearly 100% of solar energy that falls on them, while farmland is somewhat more reflective, sending more solar energy back to space.)
For a discussion of the various human-made and natural impacts on the energy balance of the Earth, you can view the relevant part of the most recent IPCC report here:
The difference a large city makes on temperature is easily viewed during cold events, with the city center far warmer than surrounding forests or even agricultural land.
It's a huge difference, especially when the wind dies down.
That is a bogus site, and their claims are easily shown to be either deceptive or just plain wrong. And yes, of course they don't show accelerating warming, because it doesn't exist, for most of the US data. They also start their trend at the coldest period. Using either a 30 year trend, or starting in the warmest period of the past, shows just how wrong their claims are.
So your argument, because the trends they use start in say 1970 or 1960, that this cold period is skewing the trend right?
Here is what the study says
Quote:
Since 1970, warming began accelerating everywhere. The speed of warming across the lower 48 more than tripled, from 0.127F per decade over the 100-year period, to 0.435F per decade since 1970. In
the last 42 years the 10 fastest-warming states heated up just twice as fast, not 60 times as fast as the 10
slowest-warming states (0.60°F vs. 0.30°F per decade). Over the past 42 years 17 states warmed more
than half a degree F per decade.
So isn't it true that warming since 1970 is three times faster than the 100 year trend? What year would you prefer to place the base trend? Climatology is based on at least 30 years of data.
And this for my state shows that the warming since 1960 is faster than the longer term trend (trend since 1895) in every season
Last edited by chicagogeorge; 01-17-2017 at 09:13 AM..
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.
