Chill in the air: record low temps in 10 states

As many readers know, we’ve had an earlier than normal start to fall weather in the USA, and the cold just keeps on coming. Here is a summary of record low temperatures seen recently, courtesy of this website called IceAgeNow.

Record Lows – 2008
Record low temperatures in the United States

click here to see 2003, 2002, 2001 and 2000
Click here to see 2005, 20042005, 2006, 2007

See a table of some October 2008 temps below:

Date

City

Degrees
Fahrenheit

Oct 24

Record low

Montague, CA

Traverse City, MI  Breaks old record of 24 set in 1976
Islip, NY  31 tie

Pocatello, ID  Ties previous record set in 1949

.
26
22
31 tie
18 tie

Oct 24

Record rainfall
Pensacola, FL—3.3”

Columbus, GA—2.00”
Macon, GA—2.51” Breaks old record of 2.00” set in 1919

Oct 23

Record low temperatures in 10 states!
Rome, OR  Breaks old record of 20 set in 1980

Caribou, ME   Breaks old record of 21 set in 1982
Winslow, AZ
Traverse City, MI  Breaks old record of 24 set in 1976

Grand Junction, CO  Breaks old record of 26 set in 1996
Hilo, HI

Childress, TX

Seattle, WA
Bountiful, UT
Burley, ID
Idaho Falls, ID  Breaks old record of 18 set in 1958

Challis, ID

Pendleton, OR

Union, OR  Breaks previous record of 20 set in 1980

Walla Walla, WA
Thanks to Chuck Clancy for this info

.
15

20

21 tie

22

23

64 tie

34 tie
39 tie
28 tie
21 tie
17
17 tie

29 tie

17

32 tie

Oct 23

Record snow

A record snowfall of trace was set at Dodge City, KS today. Ties old record set in 2002.

Oct 23

Wettest October on record in Dodge City, KS

4.97 inches of rain as of today, breaking the previous record of 4.94 inches set in 1997

Wettest October on record in Hastings, NE

6.16 inches of rain as of today, breaking the record of 5.82 inches set 111 years ago in 1897

Wettest October on record in Kearney, NE
9.21 inches or rain as of today, breaking the old record of 6.30 inches set in 1946

Kearney may be headed for the wettest year on record

Total precipitation in Kearny so far this year stands at 35.48 inches. With more than two months remaining in the year, this total accumulation already ranks 2008 as the 5th wettest year ever in Kearney, where the all-time record annual rainfall stands at 40.07 inches.

Oct 23

Record rainfall
Lincoln, NE— 2.01”

Oct 22

Record rainfall

Houston, TX—3/70”   Breaks old record of 2.40 inches set in 1920

Oct 23

First snow of the season in Colorado and Nebraska – A vigorous storm pushed southeast and out of the Rockies on Tuesday night, dumping around 20cm (8inches) of snow across parts of Colorado.

Yesterday the storm continued to bring a wintry mix of weather and strong winds across the Central Plains. In O’Neill, Nebraska, snow fell during most of the day.

On Wednesday, Ottawa also saw its first snow of the season. There were also reports of snow across many northeastern states, including parts of New York and Pennsylvania.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/23102008news.shtml

Oct 22

Record lows
Marquette, MI
Rome, OR
Traverse City, MI  Breaks old record of 26 set in 1955

Alpena, MI

Bryce Canyon, UT
Pocatello, ID

.
21 tie

23 tie

22

20 tie

14 tie
18 tie

Oct 21

Record lows
Hilo, HI

About these ads

204 thoughts on “Chill in the air: record low temps in 10 states

  1. The evidence that AGW is false keeps piling up!

    Well, I gotta go throw some more coal in my furnace!!

    It’s clean coal, of course. Wink, wink.

    REPLY: Single weather events can’t be said to predict climate, only when multiple sustained trends emerge does it qualify for such a label.- Anthony

    Word.

  2. Western Europe has also had a cold Fall. Still, Eastern Europe and Siberia have been quite warm.
    This, of course, is all anecdotal.
    ;O)

  3. Global warming is no longer the issue.

    Its Climate Change.

    This allows the alarmists to smoothly transition between warming and cooling conditions without having to change their mantra.

  4. ” REPLY: Single weather events can’t be said to predict climate, only when multiple sustained trends emerge does it qualify for such a label.- Anthony ”

    That fact will not stop these weather events from being used to “prove” global warming, because…

    “…Global Warming causes extreme weather events to become more extreme and occur more frequently.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

  5. Are some of these records maybe recorded by sloppy surface stations, which Anthony has shown exist in great abundance? Anyone living near these record locations, we’d like to hear what the stations look like.
    The records might have to be adjusted downwards.

  6. I live near one of those ‘record lows’. It started early last year, when the overall temps took a plunge. Been a steady decline since then. It seems to coincide with the failure of the SC24 to take off. Of course, it’s locales that see the big change, with other locales somewhat balancing things out. Try telling that to the folks caught smack in the middle of one of the ‘colder’ locales. They would be the same ones that endured it last time, during the Dalton Minimum. We see it as a step-down function. It stepped down and didn’t step back up.

  7. A batch of proper cold is being prepared in the Arctic. High temperatures in Alert, Canada, and various spots in northern Alaska keep falling short of daily predictions by ten degrees or more. Today the best example is Eureka, Canada: Predicted high is -5 Fahrenheit. Actual temp: -22. WHEN the cold spills south, it will get the world’s attention, however briefly.

    What could — and should — get the world’s attention more seriously will be if the Denmark Strait is actually freezing between Greenland and Iceland.

    Frustratingly, the site is not updated at this resolution over the weekend. Tune in tomorrow!

    If the strait freezes, it would be (a) historic and (b) an indication that this winter may blow people’s minds.

  8. Like you said .. it doesnt matter if it gets hotter or colder, Climate change has it covered and they will tell you weather does not a trend make.

  9. Temperatures in Fairbanks, AK have been running 10 degrees or so below normal for several days. They could be on tap for record cold tonite as the forecast is saying “Becoming mostly clear. Lows 15 to 30 below…coldest in valleys”. That average low temp for this date is +8F. So temps in the -20′sF are nearly 30 degrees below normal. Record cold for dates around now are close to -30F. It is interesting to note that the record cold temp for today in Fairbanks happened in 1935 at -28F and the record high temp happened the very next year in 1936 when it got up to +48F. But what interests me most is that temperatures have been running a steady 10 degrees or so below “normal” for several days running.

    When that cold air starts pushing down across the Great Lakes in December and January as “Alberta Clippers”, there is going to be some serious cold in the lower 48.

  10. Off topic, sorry.
    Can I trust the following graphic?

    It shows 2008 Arctic sea ice just a tick higher than 2007 levels.
    But when you look at the photos, 2008 is clearly way over 07.

  11. A quick google search finds very warm temps in the US in October http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/10/13/ddn101308warmweb.html

    We know what the cause of the cold temperatures are, http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.23.2008.gif
    You can see a classic -ive PDO, I notice that the vast majority of the cold temperatures are on the west and would be immediately affected by the -ive PDO.
    Also note that there is no sign of a La Nina developing as yet.

  12. Here in the northern Sacramento Valley in Northern California, this October’s been aweful warm (low to mid 80′s so far); sure could use some of that cool and wet !

    John D.

  13. To Pierre Gosselin:
    The anomaly data in the wxmaps files are a comparison to the centennial average 1901 to 2000. I wonder who has taken the early data e.g. for the inner part of northern Greenland, where a 8 degree centigrade warming is shown (now -20 Celsius instead of -30 Celsius). There must be a lot of interpolation and extrapolation in those centennial averages.
    Important is the trend, found by comparison to 2007 and 2006.

  14. This is purely anecdotal but I think southeastern Michigan had a warmer than average summer. October seems colder than average. Its certainly not ice age stuff but chilly enough to make me long for the good old days of global warming.

  15. Mary Hinge:

    I believe we will see a slightly colder winter globaly starting already in November.

    How can i say that?

    Polar temperatures have been quite low until sep-oct.
    Reason for the sep-oct warmth in the arctic: The top layers of open waters in the polar area will loose a lot of heat. The ice isolates. But this year we saw an almost intact icesheet until August when a HUUUGE whole appeared very quiclky due to the thin ice. Therefore this year, the heat of top layers of a very big arctic ocean layer was released in a very small time window.
    This led to very hot temperatures in the arctic but only for a short while.
    Now: The ice has closed. And now we can se wheather forecasts for the huge Siberia that goes very cold in 1´st half of november. This cold also affect eastern and middle europe.

    so:
    1) The unusual warming of the arctic and Siberia is OVER around NOW. This will affect temperatures from Europe to China.

    2) The SOI index has been above 6 for 9 weeks! 8 weeks historically means LA NINA! And the SOI index in the last weeks has even been increasing, no signs of last minute change now.

    3) Befores these events mentioned above, we actually have the same temperatures now as we had last year under La Nina..

    4)The temperature level in the arctic BEFORE the thin ice collapsed was very low, in fact slightly below normaltemperatures since 1958. So actually this indicates whats waiting for us now that the ice has closed again.
    (This “50-year-back-normal” is usually used for the arctic, and the arctic only. Funny, because going back a little longer, in the 1930-40´ies there was much higher temperatures thus included in “normal”…)

    So by some good winter clothes… :-)

  16. Why do people get their nickers in a twist when we talk about weather?!?!?! I love learning and talking about weather. Don’t give a rat’s ass about proving climate one way or the other because I was too young to notice the climate earlier and will be too damned old to care when we can turn our weather talk into an overall climate statement for the 100 year period. I don’t have any motive besides the fact that I just love the topic.

    The same is true for the threads on the Sun. Not into proving anything. I just love talking about it.

    So stop trying to spoil a perfectly wonderful thread by being a snot.

  17. “But what interests me most is that temperatures have been running a steady 10 degrees or so below “normal” for several days running.”

    Boy, a few more years of that, and you might actually have a local trend going.

  18. I agree Pamela.

    VERY cold weather predicted over the UK in the next few days. Tuesday night is going to be -1 in the south! This time last year daytime temps were 18 or 19 C.

  19. I agree Pamela. I don’t like the cold but then there is nothing we can do about it. However I do get very annoyed when our politians want to tax us for the warming that is actually cooling.

  20. I get a bit frustrated with all this “weather” talk!

    As temperatures rose over the past few years, every little bit of warming, every hot day in Bullemakanka or wherever was trumpeted as if it was evidence of AGW etc etc.

    Now we seem to be giving the same sort of treatment every bit of anecdotal evidence of cooling. Every ‘record low’ somewhere or other is trumpeted as though it showed the coming of the next ice-age.

    It has to be recognised that these things go up and down in the natural course of events – always have, always will.

    Perhaps the present cooling might indicate that some sort of peak in temperatures has been passed. Or perhaps not. But the globe has been BOTH a lot hotter and a lot cooler than it now is.

    In my opinion, relying on a few days, months, years to draw conclusions in relation to global warming trends is just silly. BUT it is just as silly to rely on similar time periods to draw conclusions in relation to global cooling.

    So whether the weather goes up a bit or down a bit shouldn’t really decide anything – the causes of the late global warming and the present global cooling must continue to be investigated, we simply do not know ‘the answer’ at this point in time.

    Perhaps it’s ’42′.

  21. Harold Ambler (10:50:47) :

    > What could — and should — get the world’s attention more
    > seriously will be if the Denmark Strait is actually freezing
    > between Greenland and Iceland.
    >
    > If the strait freezes, it would be (a) historic and (b) an
    > indication that this winter may blow people’s minds.

    Nahhh. the warm-mongers will probably wait for the ice-bridge to melt and then crow about the “discovery” that Warming Island 2 (Iceland) is actually an island, not a peninsula attached to Greenland.

    Btw, even Wikipedia, that bastion of AGW, admits that “Warming Island” was mapped by Ernst Hofer and shown in his book. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warming_Island

    > http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.some.001.png

    > Frustratingly, the site is not updated at this resolution over the
    > weekend. Tune in tomorrow!

    I use http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/arctic.jpg for the latest image. To go back to a specific date, use http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh

    Some notes about that site
    1) Snowcover is shown only for recent years
    2) arctic.jpg is updated daily at approx 2:42 PM Central Time. That’s 1942 Z during daylight saving time (northern summer) and 2042 Z during standard time (northern winter).
    3) The 2 pictures appear, at first, to be half-size. In Firefox, right-click, and select “View image” from the menu. The full size is 1709×856. I don’t know what commands to use in other browsers.

  22. The peanut gallery wants to know why we keep talking about specific temperatures instead of ranges of temperature. What is the normal range of temperature for this time of year where you live? I am going to estimate between 45 and 90 in my area based on living here 19 years. Any temp within that range I would consider within normal limits.

  23. @crosspatch (11:23:46)

    When that cold air starts pushing down across the Great Lakes in December and January as “Alberta Clippers”, there is going to be some serious cold in the lower 48.

    And piles of snow measured in feet.

    With enough of these anomolous temp readings and soon we’ll have a serious trend to speak about…

  24. Tom in Fla, said – “…based on living here 19 years.” …. “Any temp within that range I would consider within normal limits.”

    It may well be, and one could conclude that to-day, say, is hotter/cooler/wetter/…whatever than any day for the past 19 years. But the point is that the base line for comparison is ONLY a period of 19 years and what is normal for a 19 year period is unlikely to be normal for periods extending to hundreds and thousands of years.

  25. Tom in Florida (14:09:43) :

    I don’t know where you are in Florida, but NOAA publishes all kinds of data that weather services can use to describe what’s “normal.” You “guesstimated” a “normal” between 45 and 90. Just to choose one spot, in Tampa, for today, the normals are (Low, then High)

    65° 82°

    and the records are

    47° (1968) 89° (1939)

    But you might want to watch to see if the cold air pushing into the South tonight and tomorrow, and to Florida on Tuesday, breaks any records. We’ve been skirting with record lows here in central Arkansas. If the current forecast holds, we’ll probably set some new records tonight, or more likely, Monday night.

    FWIW.

  26. Just back from seeing the “anointed one” at Colorado State University, where he spoke in person while visiting his ill grandmother in Hawaii. Temperatures are about 19 degrees below normal here today at 44F – the surrogate Gore effect.

    He told the very enthusiastic crowd that Bush is evil, McCain is Bush, and we need to get out of Iraq because their economy is doing better than ours. (A few months ago he wanted to abandon Iraq to Al Qaida because it was a hopeless quagmire,) Then he warned the crowd that “the other guy” was going to “say bad things” about him during the next week.

    It was some of the most childish, empty oratory I have ever heard, and the crowd of 50,000 young people couldn’t stop screaming or swooning.

  27. Love it!

    Lived in Calgary for 44 years. I’ve seen halloween nights that were -30C with blizzard conditions, cold and blowing snow, a foot on snow on the ground, I’ve seen rain, and +20C with a pleasant scent from the still green foliage. (I use Halloween night as an example because I have clear childhood memories of it).

    The cool part is, WEATHER VARIES, and far too much to get anxious in either direction about any particular weather event, season, decade, or century.

    It’s crappy weather here today, too, but not nearly as cold as it COULD be. Also, by late October we have usually had some sort of snowfall, but other than a few flakes concealed in light rain there has been nothing.

    This current weather pattern reminds me of 1995-96, which ended up being the coldest winter I can remember. We exceeded 30 days in a row below -30C in January and February. It was purely brutal.

  28. Basil: to Tom in Florida (14:09:43) :
    I don’t know where you are in Florida, but NOAA publishes all kinds of data that weather services can use to describe what’s “normal.” You “guesstimated” a “normal” between 45 and 90. Just to choose one spot, in Tampa, for today, the normals are (Low, then High)
    65° 82°
    and the records are
    47° (1968) 89° (1939)”

    Pretty good guesstimation on my part, eh? I am about 70 miles south of Tampa on the coast. Yes we have cool air coming in, but the Gulf is still 76 degrees and if the wind comes off the water I won’t feel it too much. Inland temps are almost always colder for that reason. But then, we are just talking about weather.

    Kohl Pierson:” But the point is that the base line for comparison is ONLY a period of 19 years and what is normal for a 19 year period is unlikely to be normal for periods extending to hundreds and thousands of years.”

    Based on the above from Basil, that 19 year period looks like all years on record. But the point is we are talking about a 42 degree range of weather that would then define the climate in this area for this time of year. Would a degree or two change upwards for that range change the climate? I don’t think so.

  29. deadwood (10:30:50) :

    Global warming is no longer the issue.

    Its Climate Change.

    The real issue is the false claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause global warming/climate change.

  30. Here in Ottawa, Canada, we’ve been dropping well below zero each night this past week. And it’s not even November yet!

  31. CodeTech

    Weather variations are always greater than climate variations. The latter are always slower and only visible in a historical record. We are seeing weather; but after another 1- years of cooling, we shall be seeing “climate”:.

  32. “Climate is weather over a longer time frame”
    The weather is trending with the low activity of the sun. I just bought a copy of The Chilling Stars, A Cosmic View of Climate Change by Svensmark and Calder. I haven’t seen a book report here, but I have seen many references to the work. I’ll comment after reading it.
    I have been watching the link to the sunspots on the sidebar above for a couple months and the MDI Magnetogram is as featureless today as I have ever seen it. The record lows will continue.

  33. REPLY: Single weather events can’t be said to predict climate, only when multiple sustained trends emerge does it qualify for such a label.- Anthony

    Okay, so what “multiple sustained trends” have we not seen in order for it to qualify for such a label? And, of course, which ones have we seen? And which qualifies it as false: if humanity has zero contribution, or if humanity just has less of a contribution than alleged by the AGW movement?

  34. Anthony (or anyone),

    Some time ago I took a look at the extreme high and low temperature record for the United States and discovered that a significant number of record high temperatures occurred before 1950…..I believe the the numbers came out to be 70% pre-1950 – 30% post-1950.

    I then looked at record low temperatures and it worked out to be about 50% – 50%. 50% of the record lows occurred before 1950…….50% after.

    I chose 1950 as a dividing point because rising levels of CO2 during the latter half of the 20th century “should” indicate a higher number of record highs, correct?

    I pointed this out to a global warming Alarmist on another site and never received a satisfactory answer. The first answer was that the entire United States is not a “true” representation of “global” warming. I then checked world highs and lows and found virtually a 50 – 50 split accross the 20th century also.

    My question is:

    Is my line of reasoning flawed? Shouldn’t there be a higher percentage of “record high” temperatures recorded in the latter half of the 20th century if rising CO2 is the cause of global warming?

    REPLY: Technically your thinking is correct, but there is one mitigating factor…the start of recordkeeping only began with the formation of the US Weather Bureau in 1892, and thus in the first 50 years, it is easier to establish a new record where one didn’t exist before, and then to quickly beat it with a new one. As time goes on, i becomes less and less likely in a static system that a new record would be set…except in the case of global warming…which would tend to make new high temp records plus new “highest lows” for overnight. If you have something written up on this I’d enjoy seeing it. – Anthony

  35. “BUT it is just as silly to rely on similar time periods to draw conclusions in relation to global cooling. ”

    I don’t believe anyone is actually trying to use the weather as “proof” of anything… I see it more as poking fun at the AGW crowd, not dissimilar from the cartoon regarding the letter received by the weather man that said “I just shoveled 2ft of ‘partly cloudy’ off my door step.”

    Steven Hill (15:32:05) :
    “…Bottom Up Economics”
    That’s actually close to a reality now. With approx. %48 of the working population paying zero income taxes, we are soon at a point where the majority (non taxpayers) will control the minority (tax payers).

    Jim

  36. Anthony, I’m not sure I follow your reasoning.

    Wouldn’t a new record erase an old record. It’s easier to make new records at the beginning of measurements (In fact, every day the first year would be a record), but all, except for the extremes, would be replaced with newer records.

  37. Just as a curiosity here in NE Alabama we have been running about 5-10 degrees f lower for lows this past two weeks and about 20 to 15 degrees lower for highs this same past two weeks. no records but it makes you wonder if the regional short term trend might be cooler for the south east this year. I know that I have 3 cords of fire wood cut split and stacked under shelter and am thinking about getting more. I am now raising extra grand kids (4) and the price of propane heating fuel has become restrictive. I thank the good Lord that I have enough property to have the hard wood available to harvest for fire wood. I expect it to soon be taxed also.

    I wonder if they ever think about the amount of wood burnt for fuel before the change over to coal and oil. It seems that is also carbon based and the quality of housing wasn’t what it is today. I would think it would have been an immense amount of uptake. Not to mention the amount of ash to change the abedo effect. I very doubt that it would have reached high enough in the atmosphere to have caused any cooling. Just wondering.

    Bill Derryberry

  38. In my line of work we look at 20+ years of record to discern a trend.

    With the RSS data now entering its 30th year I think trends can be examined.

    So what do we see? We have an approximate thirty year period of rising temperatures which seems to correspond to a positive PDO. Unfortunately we have only the surface record and shipping records of sea temperatures for the last negative PDO.

    It looks like we might have to wait another 30 years for a full PDO cycle, but we can reasonably predict that the next approximately 30 years will see either dropping temperatures or at best a flat trend.

    The nest US President will likely initiate some kind of cap and trade scheme regardless of who wins. How long it lasts will not depend on the CO2-Temperature curve. If will last only as long as the American people’s patience for poverty.

  39. Kohl Piersen (13:51:22) :

    “I get a bit frustrated with all this “weather” talk!”

    It is weather that we experience first hand, no?

    “It has to be recognised that these things go up and down in the natural course of events – always have, always will.”

    “In my opinion, relying on a few days, months, years to draw conclusions in relation to global warming trends is just silly. BUT it is just as silly to rely on similar time periods to draw conclusions in relation to global cooling.

    So whether the weather goes up a bit or down a bit shouldn’t really decide anything – the causes of the late global warming and the present global cooling must continue to be investigated, we simply do not know ‘the answer’ at this point in time.”

    The crux is on “decide anything”. Unfortunately a lot of decisions have been taken with this line of arguments and much worse ones are in the pipeline.

    How can one stop with saying ” we do not know the answer” when the people with power to tax the globe into poverty say they do know?

    Every little bit of cold weather helps, particularly if the Thames freezes over again :). That might wake people up.

  40. I find the AGW Crowds rush to implement Carbon taxes and it’s crusade against Carbon to be both horrific and mesmerising.

    Watching this is like watching a cruise liner collide at full speed with a dock full of unsuspecting people who are unaware of the impending mpact. The crowd are in fact largely cheering and waving as the cruise ship approaches.

    I just hope that there is some due accountability taken after this mess becomes generally apparent.

    I feel really sorry for all the people (especially the poor) – currently, apparently voiceless who will be crunched by the AGW agenda.

  41. I was at the beach in England during mid-July 2003. It was miserably cold, but the next week began a heat wave which lasted several weeks and became the European AGW poster child. The Met Office has been promising a repeat nearly every year since.

    In the mind of the AGW Borg, short term “weather” patterns are only “climate” if they are hot. Otherwise they are irrelevant.

  42. Thinking about records it would be a record if records were not being broken.
    The factors in a record are:
    time:
    any combination of hour/hours,day/days,week/weeks,month,season,year.
    Weather type:
    most rain,least rain,lowest temp,high temp,wind,snow,sunlight,storm.
    area:
    weather station,state/county/provence,country.
    If you multiply all the factors invloved in a record together then there must be a huge number of potential records. Then consider that there are not many records much more than 100 years old and that anything in say the top or bottom 5% are good enough to get a mention then i would expect records to be broken.
    Suppose whats important is not if records are being broken but in what direction they are. Since the “earth has a fever” we should be seeing a lot more warm records than one would expect so the fact that there are cold records says something.

  43. Patrick Henry (21:46:57) :

    Hadley’s CET record is littered with those type of events. Extremes butting up against their opposite.

    Risking Leif telling me the Sun did not do it I must insist that the planets did indeed do it via their influence on the Sun. This is how ancient meteorologists worked out planetary influence on weather/climate.

    They would label planets as “warm”, “wet”, “cold”, etc to describe the individual and combined effect of their conjunctions, syzygies and oppositions on our growing seasons (primarily). They risked being killed for getting it wrong. Talk about incentive. Enough were successful and helped their communities to get through the lean periods for the “science” to endure, some of it to the modern era, albeit encapsulated in anecdotes and “old wives tales” (yes Leif, also astrology. There, I said it.)

  44. Frank. Lansner (12:34:34) :
    “The SOI index has been above 6 for 9 weeks! 8 weeks historically means LA NINA! And the SOI index in the last weeks has even been increasing, no signs of last minute change now.”

    Frank, you are commiting the same basic error that many of the posters on this blog are guilty of, you are only looking at something in only one dimension. To determine if a La Nina is likely you must also look at the SST. Take a look at the SST anomilies for this time last year http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.25.2007.gif
    You will see the very cold surface waters up the western coast of South America feeding into the equatorial waters of the Pacific. Compare that with the current SST: http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.10.23.2008.gif
    You will see this supply of cold surface water is not there. The equatorial waters will only receive cold surface water from the mid Pacific this year. This is one instance when the correlation between the Southern Oscillation Index and sea surface temperatures is out of synch. If you look at the SST you will see that there is a small possibility of a weak El Nino developing in December/January, the probability remains, as I stated in August, that a neutral ENSO will be in place for the northern hemisphere winter.

    For the rest of your post, I hope you had your party hat on!
    The Arctic Ocean is showing reduced salinity which off course means the water will freeze at higher temperatures. Looking at the Arctic in three dimensions thn this summer had a record melt and was the first time the sea ice was completely surrouded by clear water, surely more of a newsworthy than the average ice extent for the time of year!

  45. Mary Hinge (11:31). Yes the cooling globally now and during the last year is due to natural causes; PDO. What a pity that climate models missed these natural causes, since this means they missed that the temperature isn’t rise.

    The model and actual temperature as a blend of Hadley CRUT3 and UAH satellite data [1]:

    http://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/.a/6a00e54eeb9dc18834010535b4046b970b-pi

    -
    [1] http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/07/why-does-nasa-o.html

  46. I don’ t think so, i believe that this winter will be mild as the latest two at least in Europe, briefly in the western side of continents(NAO and AO positive)
    Maybe US are in for another harsh winter similar to the last one…

  47. Mary Hinge:

    First of all thanks for writing, and funny with the hats and all :-)

    Mary, this is a neutral description of the dynamics concearning SOI, La Nina and El Nino:

    http://www.weatherzone.com.au/climate/indicator_enso.jsp?c=soi&p=weekly

    Its written by people that are not sceptics. People with experience and knowledge of the past.
    We have indeed seen a 9 weeks periods of SOI over 6, actually much higher than 6 (!) so what puzzles me is, tha when this indicator CLEARLY says La Nina, you don’t want to trust it?
    Interesting for me is that you even now predicts a El Nino en December???
    While the SOI is in fact increasing??

    ?

    Then you compare the La Nina oct 2007 with upstarting La Nina 2008…?!
    Mary, of course its wrong to compare an ongoing La Nina 2007 with a just-starting La Nina 2008.
    If you want to take a view at the 2007 La Nina in its opstarting face, do so!

    The similar view of an upstarting 2007 La Nina is here, FEBRUARY 2007:

    Since then the La Nina was only getting stronger and stronger. And notice, you do NOT see any of those things you demand to see on the upstarting La Nina 2008.

    No, Mary, stick to the only thing we have got, SOI. A VERY secure indicator. If you generally compare SOI with global temperatures, you will see that SOI precedes temperatures with 3-6 months with impressing accuracy. So even if La Nina very unexpectedly should not develop…

    But Mar, what puzzles me the most: Of course you must know that you cannot compare SST between a ½ year old La Nina and an upstarting La Nina.
    So why do you do that?

    Is it because you think that La Ninas can only start in October ? Or?

    Then you write. “Looking at the Arctic in three dimensions thn this summer had a record melt..”

    Mary, Please look at it in three dimensions as you say: The ice was exceptionally thin…!
    So the VOLUMEN of ice melted this year was much lower than 2007.
    Come on Mary?!

  48. deadwood/Terry Ward/Ed Scott:)

    Remember it will soon turn into “Climate Chaos”, as the AGWers will have to keep re-inventing the problem to keep it the forefront of the minds of the populace. That’s how subversion works, constant steady reinforcement of the chant. The whole point of AGW is that it requires no proof whatsoever. Funny, they keep calling it “Climate Change”, yet insist that temperatures are on the up, than claim natural factors are masking the AGW signal! Can I please have my big fat cheque (check) from Exxon now as times are getting hard?

    Then again, if we lower CO2 levels I won’t have to keep mowing the grass every blasted weekend! Hoorah!!! I read somewhere that @ 200ppm atmospheric CO2 crops start to fail regularly & plant growth diminishes. Can anyone confirm/deny that apparent fact?

    I wonder why those primitive useless peoples of the past times bothered worshipping the Sun, it clearly has very little influence on our planet??? They new nothing!

    I remember a German man staying with my parents in the 1970′s as part of their Church group. He claimed that Acid Rain was destroying forests in Germany, & this was evidenced by the tops of Fir trees drooping over slightly according to him. I have been observing this aspect for donkey’s years & it would appear that most Fir tree tops droop slightly in any case, so that theory was knocked on the head as far a I was concerned. He was not to my knowledge a scientist in that field.

  49. Tom in Texas,
    You’re right. Whether the record was set 99 years ago, or just yesterday, it’s the coldest (or hottest) in 100 years – no matter how you look at it. In fact late records would be indicative of cooling.
    Still, much of the land surface in the world today are above “normal” temps.

    Aside, the hurricane season really went out with a whimper.
    Did something change in the tropics in September/October?

  50. Everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it.

    Wooops…. Sorry that’s right…. Removing CO2 like we’re being told to will make it just right!

  51. Tom in Florida (15:21:30) :

    I think you missed a point I was trying to make. Your “normal” range is about the same as the range of extremes, and is quite a bit wider than the range of “normals.” For example, the normal low I quoted is 65, not the 45 you “guesstimated,” which is closer to the record low of 47 for that date.

    New records, given how long a history we have now of temperature data, are going to be, by their nature, extremes that are outside any reasonable range of what’s considered “normal.” Of course, that’s just as true with any record highs we’ve had in recent years, as it is with any record lows we may be experiencing now. But the thing to keep in mind about extremes, is that they arenot indications of what is “normal,” unless they are part of a pattern of regime change in which they become part of the “normal” under the new regime. That’s rarely known until long after the fact.

    The current wave of cold weather in the South is just following the jet stream. With the cool phase of the PDO the polar jet stream will bring more arctic air to the midwest and eastern US than we’ve been seeing in recent years.

  52. Basil,

    True. In DC the ‘normal’ range in October is 70 – 45 (weather.com)

    We have been roughly 10 degrees below the high and 4-5 below the lows for the last week and the forecast through the end of the month is
    Tue Oct 28 H 53° L 36°
    Wed Oct 29 H 50° L 31°
    Thu Oct 30 H 56° L 37°
    Fri Oct 31 H 62° L 42°

    As of the 26th ASU temps are .12C below October of 08 and Oct 08 was below Oct 07.

  53. Mary: I wouldn’t write off a possible La Nina for this winter just yet. As for the “first time” that Arctic Ice was surrounded by water, that’s the kind of rhetoric favored by desperate AGWers to manipulate the ignorant. Nothing climatological that is happening on Earth at present is doing so for the first time, least of all Arctic melting.

    John Finn: The anomalies you post for the past 30 days are incorrect for the Arctic. One clue to this is the seriously low anomaly over Alaska and the seriously high anomaly over the Beaufort Sea. Another clue: The dramatic refreeze of ice throughout the Arctic basin. Another clue: northernmost temperature stations don’t reflect anything other than cold for the past 30 days.

  54. Anthony,

    Haven’t written a paper; I’m an Engineer not a scientist. I probably could, but I’m certain that one of you smart guys could cook something up that would better convey what I’m trying to point out.

    I simply used these two resources…….

    Record Highest Temperatures by State:

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001416.html

    Record Lowest Temperature by State:

    http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0113527.html

    I discovered that 35 of 50 extreme high temperatures were recorded prior to 1950 (70%) when CO2 levels were lower.

    Conversely, 26 of 50 extreme low temperatures were recorded prior to 1950, (52%), a pretty even split across the century.

    My thinking is that over the course of 100 years, (1900 – 2000) the extreme high temperature records achieved should show up in the latter half of the 20th century when CO2 levels were higher, (if the CO2 = higher temperature theory were correct). You’d think that out of all 50 states that at least a slightly higher percentage of record highs would be broken after 1950. The chances are there are a higher number of monitoring stations nationwide than in the first half of the 20th century also increasing the odds of catching an extreme high spike.

  55. Evolution: ENSO: The latest weekly SST departures are: NOAA : 10/27/2008
    Niño 4………… -0.1ºC
    Niño 3.4……… -0.3ºC
    Niño 3………… -0.1ºC
    Niño 1+2……. -0.1ºC
    well: (?????????)
    PDO index: oct 2007….=…..-1.45
    PDO index: sep 2008…=…..-1.55
    very well:
    FM

  56. I really believe this will be a “classic” winter. Been a while since the last one. We will see some mild periods, too, as the cold reloads. Each shot being a little colder than the first, along with some intense storms.

  57. I’m wondering whether the people who believe we can somehow “stabilise” the world’s climate by adjusting CO2 levels, like selecting values on a thermostat, have a clear idea of what would be the perfect state of worldwide heat and cold?

    I’m not just talking about the ideal ppm for CO2 but about the length of summers and winters in different places around the world, the frequency of hurricanes, the rates that glaciers recede or advance.

    Putting it another way, is there a snapshot or a perfect period of time in the past, that AGW proponents would like to return to, in terms of world climate? The 1860s? The 1920s? If there is one, and once that desired state is achieved, is there anyone who believes that global climate would remain in that ballpark, so to speak, for perpetuity, so long as CO2 levels stayed at 350 ppm, (or whatever the ideal value is)? I’m curious and have searched for evidence of some sort of consensus on the matter, but no luck so far.

    (Putting it yet another way, AGW proponents want to avert the negative outcome of global warming; so what positive (and measurable) outcome are they aiming for?)

  58. alexjc,
    “So what positive (and measurable) outcome are they aiming for?”
    Answer: Chains and shackles for the American lifestyle.

  59. The Sun still sleeping, North Pacific cold pool ramping up again, heliosphere shrinking, Earth’s magnetic field weakening, global economy in a tail spin, food growing scarce, WMD proliferation amongst those who hate us … nothing to see here, move along.

  60. Weather note from my house…
    Snow flurries spotted today, snow showers expected tomorrow morning and night…much earlier than usual. Also looking at low temperatures 10F degrees below normal.

    Brute: I think I read this, and Anthony and probably answer, surface stations have dropped from 6000 to 2000…of course this is worldwide numbers. My questions when I heard this was: are the stations still well distributed? What effect does the change in number of stations have on the average? Are there more urban stations now, than rural?

  61. Brute (10:28:31) : My thinking is that over the course of 100 years, (1900 – 2000) the extreme high temperature records achieved should show up in the latter half of the 20th century when CO2 levels were higher, (if the CO2 = higher temperature theory were correct). You’d think that out of all 50 states that at least a slightly higher percentage of record highs would be broken after 1950.

    If you think about it, not really. The records are extremes. The premise behind global warming is an increasing average. It’s not hard at all to increase the average temperature and simultaneously remain within previous extremes.

    A maybe not so good example: the conterminous U.S. has east and west extremes at the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It’s quite possible for the center of population (a location) to move toward one extreme or the other without going past either. To use this example, pretend temperature is location. The average temperature is approximately where most of the daily temperatures appear.

    It’s also possible to have a new record without appreciably changing the average value.

    Even so, one expects the number of extreme values to increase over time. at a rate logarithmic to the number of observations.

    More talk about records and the extreme value fallacy.

  62. DAV : Even so, one expects the number of extreme values to increase over time. at a rate logarithmic to the number of observations.

    Correction: That sentence doesn’t even come close to what I meant. One expects the values to increase at a logarithmic rate. This means that the likelihood of finding another extreme decreases with time.

  63. Well if you’ve been measuring “weather” (isn’t hat what GISStemp does) and maybe doing it for say 100 years.
    Then in any perfectly ordinary year, on any date, at any “weather station”, you should on average expect to get 3.65 new record lows, and 3.65 new record highs, 3.65 new wind highs, and 3.65 new rain highs; etc.

    If you only report say the record highs, you convince people it is warming, but if you only report the record lows, then you convince the same people it is cooling.

    All GISStemp reports is what their algoritm computes from whatever raw data they get from their “sites”, and in the end, none of that is actually “Climate”. it is just anecdotal information about a very small number of arbitrary spots on earth. I’ve read that the number of actual weather reporting sites in the arctic (+60-+90 Lat) was about 12, 100 years ago, and increased up to 80 something at maximum, and is now down to 70 something; and this is supposed to be a reliable history of conditions in that region ?

  64. Re: Steve M.
    With either 6000 or 2000 observation sites globally, one thing you can say for sure is that there is no way you can be getting a correct “Average” temperature for the entire global surface or lower atmosphere.

    For some reasons; unknown to me; climate scientists seem totally oblivious to the basic laws of sampled data systems. Every point on say the surface of the earth (solid or liquid) has some specific temperature at some specific time, and those values are continuous functions of both time, and space co-ordinates (say Lat/long).
    It isn’t practical to measure all of those points at every point in time, even for say no longer than a full year orbit of the sun. So the best you can do is to sample that function of three variable (lat, long, time) at various intervals.

    If you do that correctly according to the laws of sampled data systems, it is theoretically possible to reproduce the original continuous function from the set of data samples, so you can determine the value at any place and time that was measured, but you can also determine what is was at any point not measured at any time not measured.
    The Nyquist sampling theorem stipulates the requirements for correct sampling of the continuous function, in order to enable recovery. If you violate those conditions, the recovered function will contain errors, called “aliassing” noise, that is false information mixed in with the real information, in such a way that the two cannot be subsequently separated by any form of filtering; real or imagined.
    If you violate the Nyquist criterion by just a factor of two; then it is not even possible to compute the average value of the function; which will itself be corrupted by aliassing noise.

    The global sampling system used to determine GISStemp, violates the Nyquist sampling theorem criterion by orders of magnitude. Whatever its algorithm computes, it in no way can be represented as a mean global temperature. It is simply the result of a ritual carried out with no scientific validity to the result at all. GISStemp anomaly plots display GISStemp anomalies, whatever they are, and nothing else.

  65. George E. Smith (12:49:35) : Then in any perfectly ordinary year, on any date, at any “weather station”, you should on average expect to get 3.65 new record lows, and 3.65 new record highs, 3.65 new wind highs, and 3.65 new rain highs; etc.

    That may be true but the values changes from the previous record will become less and less over time. After a while, the record can only be broken by a value that has more precision than the measuring equipment. IOW: you will asymptotically approach the “real” extreme.

  66. John Finn: The anomalies you post for the past 30 days are incorrect for the Arctic. One clue to this is the seriously low anomaly over Alaska and the seriously high anomaly over the Beaufort Sea. Another clue: The dramatic refreeze of ice throughout the Arctic basin. Another clue: northernmost temperature stations don’t reflect anything other than cold for the past 30 days.

    The anomalies are relative to the 1966-1996 period. The arctic was considerably cooler then than it is now. Current temperatures are only ‘low’ with relative to recent years.

    The “dramatic refreeze” is, at least partly, due to the the extent of the summer melt (as with 2007).

  67. George E Smith – “The global sampling system used to determine GISStemp, violates the Nyquist sampling theorem criterion by orders of magnitude. Whatever its algorithm computes, it in no way can be represented as a mean global temperature.”

    Now you’re talking! But I can’t see how this ‘average’ thing works at all. For example, what am I to make of the fact that the average between a daily max. and min. is not necessarily the same as the average of a set of measurements taken at set periods over the 24 hour period? What does it ‘really’ mean to say that either one of these is the average temperature for that day? And of course, this is the data which then feeds into the whole average global temperature thing.

    Is it just me or is there a real stink hanging over the rational behind this whole thing?

    Brute said – “My thinking is that over the course of 100 years, (1900 – 2000) the extreme high temperature records achieved should show up in the latter half of the 20th century when CO2 levels were higher.”

    To which DAV replies – “If you think about it, not really. The records are extremes. The premise behind global warming is an increasing average. It’s not hard at all to increase the average temperature and simultaneously remain within previous extremes.”

    Seems to me that whilst this is correct as far as it goes, nevertheless there is a problem. The extremes on any graph of daily/monthly etc weather are themselves averaged to obtain the smoothing necessary to try and ‘make sense’ of the data. Isn’t it these smoothed (averaged?) figures that are fed into the global average thing. And therefore, are we not immediately involved in an average of extremes? And in the real (climate) world, wouldn’t an increasing average be accompanied by higher maximums and higher minimums? And wouldn’t absence of such higher maximums and minimums argue against any underlying ‘increasing average’.

    And continuing the population centre example – what would it mean to say that the ‘average population centre’ was at such and such a location? Isn’t that the very problem with average temperatures?

    Sorry, more questions than answers!

  68. There’s still a lot of material left in the stratosphere from the eruption of the Kasatochi volcano in Alaska – so much so that people from around the northern hemisphere are still sending in their pictures of volcanic sunsets.

    http://www.spaceweather.com

    So, even though Kasatochi is a tiny fraction of Pinatubo, prepare to be told that material lingering from the Kasatochi eruption is “masking” global warming.

  69. A bit of cool weather in a few places is not the end of AGW. I don’t know how anyone could seriously believe that it does. The level of certainty expressed by so many here, the certainty that AGW is false and the uncompromising position that no policy decisions should be made on the basis of it being true make it seriously look to me like a vocal group with a political agenda trying to hijack this issue. The consequences of choosing to continue the expansion of emissions by choosing to disbelieve the consensus scientific view will be very serious. I don’t want to bet the future climate of the planet on the opinions of a few maverick scientists who, a. have already lost the scientific debate, b. mostly can’t even get published in the relevant science journals, c. complain that it’s innate prejudice against their conclusions when their work just isn’t good enough. They losers and they’re sore losers. Why would I bet anything on the losers being right and the whole science establishment being wrong?

    I expect the government of my country to take the advice of the international body it helped set up to advise on climate change, to take seriously the findings of the scientific institutions that study climate and to look to the peak science associations and academies to guage the consensus scientific view. Unless of course they are in serious disagreement with each other. Unless there were fundamental disagreements between IPCC and climate research orgs like NCAR, NOAA, Hadley CRU, CSIRO, unless the peak science associations and Academies found the science flawed, unless the FBI found there really is a conspiracy to reject scientific publication that disagree with them in order to undermine civilisation and democracy, it would be a serious deriliction to choose to presume they are wrong. If there were serious fundament disagreements then I might take the complaints that the process is flawed seriously. There aren’t.

    Sorry, I just can’t take the fuss over a bit of cool noise in a long term warming trend as seriously indicative of anything except the capacity of people to support opinions that align with their political prejudices.

  70. The argument above is an example of “appeal to higher authority” and it is inconsequential to a scientific debate.

    If you believe that the Earth is warming, and that manmade CO2 is the cause, produce your data. Tha’s all you have to do in this forum.

  71. Look, you guys are going to have to speak, (write) English with me. Nyquist sampling theorem criterion is slightly out of my league.

    If the “average” temperature is rising, shouldn’t the extreme high temperature rise also?…… Somewhere?…. At sometime during the course of the 100 year period? Is it simply because we are discussing such infinitesimally small increases? Are you guys suggesting that there is a ceiling or limit on extreme high temperatures?

    Keep it simple for my sake please.

    I don’t have any numbers or sources; however, I have to believe that the number of temperature monitoring stations has had to increase and become more widely dispersed over the last 100 years especially in the western United States.

    Now, I’ve seen the sloppy work of many of the weather monitoring stations that Anthony has showcased, but even factoring in temperature monitors mounted on asphalt parking lots in Death Valley should indicate an extreme high temperature post 1950 if CO2 were the cause, right?

    (I still can’t believe that we are discussing an “average” increase of .7 degrees “averaged” over 150 years, “averaged” over the entire surface of the globe and some in society have come to believe that this is a problem).

  72. I don’t think that 30 years of weather is conclusive proof of anthropogenic global warming given that the planet has been warming (a) since records began (b) since the last ice age.

    We should not be funding political initiatives based on a what if, especially as these initiatives will put millions of lives at risk through poverty. AGW is not conclusive, no matter how much the IPCC would like us to believe it.

  73. “John D. (11:48:57) :
    Here in the northern Sacramento Valley in Northern California, this October’s been aweful warm (low to mid 80’s so far); sure could use some of that cool and wet !

    John D.”

    That’s not in any way abnormal, for that location. Wait until tomorrow (if it has not already hit you today).

  74. Ken, the “long term warming trend” started way before humans started increasing levels of CO2. Recent “scientific” studies show the sensitivity of the climate to increased CO2 is less then the models are projecting. The recent 7-10yr “cooling” trend may very well continue.

  75. Pingback: ------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------ - Page 319 - The Environment Site Forums

  76. They losers and they’re sore losers. Why would I bet anything on the losers being right and the whole science establishment being wrong?

    I seem to recall some Nobel prize winners, you know, winners of real Nobel prizes, who are skeptical of the AGW case.

    Perhaps I am wrong … it was also my understanding that real science does not proceed through consensus …

  77. Ken Fabos,

    You’ve forgotten to post the obligatory “Gore 08″ slogan at the bottom of your comment.

  78. alexjc38 (10:58:11) :

    “I’m wondering whether the people who believe we can somehow “stabilise” the world’s climate by adjusting CO2 levels, like selecting values on a thermostat, have a clear idea of what would be the perfect state of worldwide heat and cold?”

    This was raised by George Smith in another thread, when he said “…and what temperature would you set it to if you could?”
    Which prompted me to think about WHO gets to decide where to set it?
    Talk about a political mess. I do believe it’s an excellent question to ask someone engaged in this debate tho. It at least makes them think about something they haven’t been programmed to respond to…yet.

    Jim

  79. Ken Fabos,

    Try realclimate I think you will be happy there, they are the consensus.

    Ever heard of Helicobacter pylori.

    The bacterium had been observed in 1979 by Australian pathologist Robin Warren, who did further research on it with Australian physician Barry Marshall beginning in 1981. After numerous unsuccessful attempts at culturing the bacteria from the stomach, they finally succeeded in visualizing colonies in 1982 when they unintentionally left their Petri dishes incubating for 5 days instead of the normal 3 days over the Easter weekend. In their original paper, Warren and Marshall contended that most stomach ulcers and gastritis were caused by infection by this bacterium and not by stress or spicy food as had been believed before.

    In the early 1980s, Warren, a pathologist at Royal Perth Hospital, had become resigned to unkind jokes from his peers about his theory that an unusual bug he was seeing down his microscope had some role in causing stomach inflammation. No-one had taken much notice because it was such an outlandish notion. Everyone knew that bacteria couldn’t survive in the stomach’s acid environment (consensus).

    The consensus was that these two doctors were talking rubbish, sound familiar Ken.

    http://www.vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html

  80. ” DAV (13:37:17) :
    >> deleted <<
    That may be true but the values changes from the previous record will become less and less over time. After a while, the record can only be broken by a value that has more precision than the measuring equipment. IOW: you will asymptotically approach the “real” extreme. ”

    Well DAV, that presupposes that what is being measured is supposed to be some value that never changes. Also many physical processes exhibit something like 1/f noise; that are actual variation in observed value, (so they are real data) but the variations from any sort of main trajectory can grow indefinitely but at ever reduced frequency.
    Now if you average every single data point (of a single variable) that has ever been measured, then I agree that the next data point is going to change the mean by a diminishiong amount (on average)
    I have been known to claim that the “big bang” was just the bottom end of the 1/f noise spectrum.

    And for hungry Brute out there; Nyquist is quite simple and you are very familiar with it unless you just never watched a horse opera movie or TV show. TV and movies are sampled data systems, in that you are presented with discrete pictures taken at certain intervals of a scene that is continuously changing; for example the wagon wheels on the runaway wagon with the maiden in distress, are rotating at some speed so the spokes move around at a certain rate, and unless they are non uniformly spaced, each spoke eventually replaces its neighbor at some frequency. If you sample at exactly that frequency, the spokes appear to be stationary; whcih is a false reconstruction of what is really happening.
    A fairly simple statement of the Nyquist sampling theorem, would be:- “Any BAND LIMITED continuous function; f(x,y,z) can be completely reconstructed from a set of discrete samples of the function , so long as the sampling rate is at least twice the highest signal frequency contained in the band limited signal. So for example an audio music signal that contained no signal frequencies higher than say 20 KHz, must be sampled at least as fast as 40 KHz, in order to accurately reconstruct the original music, without distortion. if the sampling rate was 40 KHz, but the original music included signals as high as 25 KHz, which would be entirely inaudible to most people, upon reconstruction, would yield a noise component that was 5 KHz BELOW the 20 KHz band limit, or 15 KHz, so it now appears as an in band signal that is erroneous, and in an audio system would be eminently hearable. signal at twice the band limt or 40 KHz, same as the sample rate, would appear at zero frequency, which is the average value of the signal, and so even the average is not recoverable for just a 2:1 undersampling.

    No central limit theorem, or other mathematical prestidigitation can rescue you from Nyquist violations; the noises are in band and cannot be filtered out (unless some how you know exactly where they are and could devise a narrow band filter to exclude that band, whcih would also exclude any real signal that was there.

    Now in Global temperature determination, you ahve spatial variations over the globe, covering a total temperature variation range that could go from +60 C or hotter, to -90 C, all on the same day. A 6PM weather map of just the SF Bay area for example last night, showed over a 10 deg F range of temperatures occurring over a spatial extent of no more than 50 x 50 miles.

    As for time variations; I understand that most of these weather stations report daily min/max temperatures. If the daily temperature excursion was simply sinusoidal, thent eh min, and max would occur 12 hours apart, and you would in fact record two samples per complete daily cycle, which is OK. But the daily temperature record is not sinusoidal, and even if you ignore clouds moving around during the day, it is not sinusoidal, since heating under a 6000 Kelvin solar source, and cooling by IR radiation to outer space, are not comparable processes. So the daily min/max strategy is already in violation of Nyquist even without cloud changes during the day, and cloud changes do change the amount of heating or cooling that aoccurs in that area.

    Heat island measurements observe local ofsets due to the heat island, but they are often used to represent a much larger areal extent, than just where the temperature hots pot offset occurts; and that is the crux of the heat island problem; not that heat islands report abnormal temperatures due to very local effects; but that those abnormal numbers are then used to represent remoter areas; that is a Nyquist violation. the heat island is aphenomenon well outside the “band limit” of the GISStemp sampling process..

    But in any case; suppose you could actually measure the true average surface temperature of the earth (you can’t afford to); there is no scientific validity or meaning to the result; because the heat flows, into or out of planet earth; which is what you are really wanting to know (are we heating or cooling), are not simply related to local temperatures. Some effects are related more to the fourth power of the absolute temperature; not to the average temperature. (such as Infra-red radiation from the surface). Other effects are more dependent on the fifth power of the local temperature. The peak radiant emittance of the emitted IR varies as the fifth power of absolute temperature; and the wavelength at which that peak occurs varies inversely as the absolute temperature, so the amount of IR radiation that falls within say the resonance absorption band of the CO2 molecule, varies in a very complex way with both the surface (emitting temperature) and the receiving (atmospheric) tempertaure, which determines the kinetic statistics of the CO2 molecules, and hence the Doppler broadening extent of the intrinsic CO2 line width.
    The thermal processes over water are quite unlike those over a rocky desert, or an alpine tundra, ar a tropical rain forest. So even an accurate knowledge of the true earth average temperature; tells you nothing meaningful about the net heat balance of the planet. It’s what i call a phone book average.
    You can average all the telephone numbers in your local phone directory, and come up with an average telephone number for your region. It might even be a real telephone number that would ring if you dialled it; but unless it is your telephone numebr, it is of no earthly interest or use to anyone, and even more useless, is what happens to the average telephone number when they print a new edition of your phone book with some new numbers.

    You can apply statistical analysis to any set of numbers you want to; even the calculated output values of F(x); but that doiesn’t mean there is any meaning to the results. Some numbers are jsut meant to be different.

  81. For Ken Fabos,

    Could you please point us to the scientific evidence that has proven that AGW is true.

    Please note Ken, I’m asking for scientific evidence, not PR announcements.

  82. For Ken Fabos,

    The whole basis of the IPCC’s hypotheses is that CO2 is the culprit in the AGW debate. This is the contentious issue.

    Many reports done by reputable scientists and others are done on the single basis that CO2 is behind AGW.

    Some researches will find that birds are starting to fly backwards because these investigators blindly accept the IPCC theories. Note that many researchers do not question the underlying CO2 theory. Many accept a research grant on the consequences of IPCC AGW. This is not proving AGW.

    You need to go behind the IPCCs premise that CO2 is the enemy. (You will probably find that even the IPCC will state that CO2 “may” be the cause of AGW.)
    Secondly don’t confuse the IPCC’s actual political releases with their secondary scientific releases.

  83. Ken (15:37:19) Why is the globe cooling while CO2 rises? That needs to be explained before we adjudicate who’s a loser, here.
    ===============================================

  84. Basil:”New records, given how long a history we have now of temperature data, are going to be, by their nature, extremes that are outside any reasonable range of what’s considered “normal.”

    I would agree only if the records are well outside and isolated from a consistant range. If the record is simply the lowest of a lot of close by low temps, then that could and should be considered part of the normal range of temps. Same with high temps. For example, if there are a bunch of low temps over time for a certain date between 47 and 50 degrees with 47 being the lowest on record, then you could say that it is still part of a normal range. But if there were no other low temps under , let’s say 54 degrees, then the 47 would be an extreme outside the normal range. The point I was trying to make was that I think it misleading to focus in on a single temperature and call it normal or average. No one could possibly think that a low temp of 63 degrees would be “abnormal” when the cited normal temp is 65 degrees. Yet isn’t that what all these charts, graphs and models try to do? They try to pin down a specific data point as the benchmark for every other data point. I think using ranges is a better way to go, especially when dealing in generalities with the public.

  85. “A 6PM weather map of just the SF Bay area for example last night, showed over a 10 deg F range of temperatures occurring over a spatial extent of no more than 50 x 50 miles.”

    Ummm, there is, routinely, a 40-degree Fahrenheit spread in that same 50 x 50 mile area. Same deal for most of the Pacific coast, due to the relatively frigid sea out there.

  86. Thanks George E Smith, that was illuminating. Most people will have heard of the sampling rate specs. on such things as CD players and so on. But any analogue to digital and digital to analogue conversion must comply with the 2 x max. analogue signal frequency rule. And better players involve ‘oversampling’ which in some cases at least may actually improve the audio.

    There really is a stink hanging over the ‘average global temperature’ thing – it doesn’t really mean anything!

    So is there any point in trying to follow it?

  87. George E. Smith (17:24:07) : Well DAV, that presupposes that what is being measured is supposed to be some value that never changes. Also many physical processes exhibit something like 1/f noise; that are actual variation in observed value, (so they are real data) but the variations from any sort of main trajectory can grow indefinitely but at ever reduced frequency.
    Now if you average every single data point (of a single variable) that has ever been measured, then I agree that the next data point is going to change the mean by a diminishiong amount (on average)
    I have been known to claim that the “big bang” was just the bottom end of the 1/f noise spectrum.

    Not at all — at least not in the near future. It is highly unlikely that the Earth’s temperature will rise indefinitely if one is to take the lessons of thermodynamics to heart.

    Don’t confuse mathematical model with reality.

    Brute (15:56:10) : If the “average” temperature is rising, shouldn’t the extreme high temperature rise also?…… Somewhere?…. At sometime during the course of the 100 year period? Is it simply because we are discussing such infinitesimally small increases? Are you guys suggesting that there is a ceiling or limit on extreme high temperatures?

    Well, yes and no. How’s that for simple ? ;-)

    Temperature (large scale) is connected to heat energy. The availability of energy affects the maximum temperature. The max/min records can only get wider by definition. There’s only so much energy to go around.

    Another max/min example: Take an auditorium of 1000 people.. There’s an obvious limit to how loud or quiet any given set of occupants can be because there is a limit to how loud or quiet any given person can be without electronic or mechanical aid. The audience can’t only be at maximum loudness if it consists of the 1000 loudest individuals. Now if there are more loud people than quiet people, the audiences will become louder on the average. However, just because there are more people who are louder doesn’t mean the loudest possible persons have gotten louder.

    Kohl Piersen (14:28:11) : … er, I’m no going to quote all of that. Let me just say there are usages of averages that are meaningful — center of mass, e.g. I have to admit that locating the center of population might not have much use to most people.

    Since you’ve a lot of questions, the ones that should be uppermost in your mind is “can the Earth really have an average temperature?” and “If so, what would it mean (no pun intended)?”

    Here’s someone pondering just that.

  88. I remember a day in San Jose when it was over 100 degrees, so we drove up to San Francisco to cool down. It was so cold there that we turned around and went back. It was either cold fog, or hot sun – no middle ground that day.

    I love California, but the cold water and high taxes are very annoying. The only time I ever remember enthusiastically wanting to go in the water was Labor Day weekend, 2004 when it reached an amazing 97 degrees in Carmel.

  89. George Smith and others mentioning the difficulty in measuring “average”; consider the utility of biotic signals, e.g., altitudinal, latitudinal, and temporal shifts in populations and migratory patterns. These also are “noisy” indicators, but tend to be finely tuned and responsive to both regional and local climatic shifts and weather patterns.

    Sometimes I wonder if we place too much confidence in our technology-based abilities; maybe it’s as simple as asking a natural historian, a farmer, hunter, or fisherman?

    Just a simplistic thought from a simple-minded biologist!

    John D.

  90. Thanks DAV. However, the ponderings at your reference are only part of the problem. I suppose that I am heading towards a view that questions whether average temperatures can be meaningful at all; but if so, then what interpretation are we entitled to place upon such a concept and what use can be made of them.

    For example, take two locations – x is at +10 deg C and y is at -10 deg C. What can it possibly mean to state that they ‘average’ 0 deg C. ? After all, heat energy still flows from x to y. Is it an indication of the equilibrium temperature which the two locations would reach in the event that they exchange energy free of any outside influence. Of course, in the real world that is precisely what does not happen – the system is non linear as you have pointed out, and even chaotic.

    I don’t know the answers to these questions yet. However, it leads me to think that an argument about 1 or 2 degrees difference in such an average over the course of decades or centuries is without substance whether or not it has anything to do with CO2.

  91. When I read an article that tells me that there’s a) been a 4deg increase in temperatures at Walden Pond in the past 100yrs, and b) lilacs, along with %36 of the other plants at Walden Pond are in “imminent danger” because of this increase…well…I guess I really am a skeptic.

    Jim

  92. Harold Ambler (09:54:19) :
    “Mary: I wouldn’t write off a possible La Nina for this winter just yet.”

    At this stage I would, a La Nina is looking very unlikely at the moment, we are less than 60 days to the solstice and if there was going to me a meaningful La Nina then there would be temperature trends to support that, there isn’t. As I described above there is SST patterns suggesting a small chance of a weak la Nina, thougha neutral ENSO this Southern Hemisphere summer looks to be the most probable.

    “As for the “first time” that Arctic Ice was surrounded by water, that’s the kind of rhetoric favored by desperate AGWers to manipulate the ignorant. Nothing climatological that is happening on Earth at present is doing so for the first time, least of all Arctic melting.”

    I should have stated ‘recorded’ so my mistake there. I’m sorry if you feel I’m trying to manipulate you as you suggest, but going by your logic there would be no point to the blog, presumably rapid refreezes have happened before, cold temperatures have happened before etc.
    It sounds like the hint of desperation is being ushered forth from your goodself.

    Frank. Lansner (04:37:13) :
    “….when this indicator CLEARLY says La Nina, you don’t want to trust it?
    Interesting for me is that you even now predicts a El Nino en December???
    While the SOI is in fact increasing??

    It’s not that I don’t trust SOI, but there are other factors involved.This is the latest sea level anomolies map from Jason, this gives a good indication of stored heat in the ocean. http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/jason1-quick-look/2008/images/20081001G.jpg

    The Eastern South Pacific looks like it is building up the heat reserve, for a La Nina to develop you would expect to see a cold Humboldt/Peruvian current showing, but it is at normal levels. Notice also the build up of heat in the Pacific of the West coast of Central America and the north of South America.
    The SOI index is taken from the difference in barometric pressure from Tahiti to Darwin, Australia. It seems that for the moment the Eastern south pacific isn’t playing ball even if all the indicators suggest we should be having/entering a strong La Nina.
    If an El Nino does develop, though this is still only a small possibility, then maybe you might start to believe that there are strange things happening to the global climate. You can get back to your party now ;-)

  93. JimB, I’ve said many times that it is foolish to put so much faith in people that sit on their butts all day in a climate-controlled office staring at a computer model. Ask somebody that’s spent their life outdoors, and I’m not talking about an 18-year-old surfer.

    /Heading out to feed the livestock on a record cold day for both highs and lows in my section of Florida.

  94. I got about an inch of snow here in the Catskills last night. About three weeks too early.

    Yeah… yeah… Weather is not climate. However climate is a collection of discreet weather data points. And this is just one more in the same general direction.

    I am going to have to change the name of my periodic lecture from Much Ado About Global Warming to Avoiding the Dire Consequences of Global Cooling.

  95. Hey Anthony

    The Brit Met office is forecasting 2 consequetive nights of frost. For October, if they occur, that is very rare, I think.

    sorry about conseq;;;; don’t know if that is spelt right

  96. Mary Hinge:

    Thanks for your last writing with some nice information.

    But this “party thing” of yours is a little out of place.

    La Nina IS starting up any moment now says even NOAA:

    Notice that it will proceed at least into the middle of 2009.
    BUT! Its true the pressure difference making up the SOI can be wrong. However 9 weeks in a row with SOI so much higher than 6, has it ever not included a La nina? Has it ever not ment falling global temperatures??

  97. Wooo hooo… the forecast for my neck of the woods is now up to 9 inches.

    Today: Rain and snow, becoming all snow after 2pm. High near 36. Breezy, with a north wind between 15 and 23 mph, with gusts as high as 34 mph. Chance of precipitation is 100%. Total daytime snow accumulation of 3 to 5 inches possible.

    Tonight: Snow, mainly before 2am. Low around 29. Windy, with a northwest wind between 23 and 26 mph, with gusts as high as 43 mph. Chance of precipitation is 90%. New snow accumulation of 2 to 4 inches possible.

    This is an unheard of amount of snow for the past 20 years. Looks like a big turnout for my next Global Cooling lecture – unless it gets snowed out!!

  98. JimB (01:44:12) :

    Apparently, AGW has had a significant impact on Walden Pond…time for another concert?

    http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/climate-change.html

    I heard a story about this on a Boston radio station. It would take hours or days to look into it, the paper says remarkably little, at least if you don’t know the species names of everything in a cool graphic that can only be read at 400% magnification.

    Just from the number of species, I think covers mostly wildflowers. It refers to dogwoods, but genus cornus includes dogwood trees, that I associated with warmer areas, and Bunchberry, a 6″ tall wildflower that I associate with cooler areas.

    Both are listed by the paper (in fact, dogwoods are called out for major declines). The paper looked at some other effects, suggests climate change “may” be involved and runs with it for the rest of the paper:

    Although habitat loss due to succession and development (e.g., loss of wetlands, abandonment of farms, reforestation, and construction of homes and roads) has contributed to decreases in abundance for some species in Thoreau’s Concord (20), climate change may also help to explain the seemingly nonrandom pattern of species loss among certain plant groups.

    A decade or two ago, acid rain would sure to be blamed, no mention in this paper. My suspicion is that reduced logging of firewood has allowed wooded areas to become more dense leading to shade stress. That’s another reason I looked at dogwoods, they like a fair amount of sunlight. One of the few patches of dogwood trees in New Hampshire is struggling due to forest growth. Another affected plant, Bluets, also likes moderate sun.

    The paper is from the Harvard University Herbaria, which I think has a good reputation.

    I wish I had more time to investigate. Ah well, next spring there will be plenty of Bunchberries, Bluets, and violets (they like moderate sun too) up here in cold New Hampshire.

    In the meantime, it looks like Dee Norris may be getting a good early snowstorm.

  99. Ric Werme (05:31:27) :

    “One of the few patches of dogwood trees in New Hampshire is struggling due to forest growth. Another affected plant, Bluets, also likes moderate sun.”

    Ric,
    They are struggling due to AGW. In fact, they are in imminent danger. Oh wait…it’s just Walden Pond.

    Why are only the lilacs at Walden Pond effected?…Why only the roses there? Given that the MSM loves to sensationlize whenever possible, it’s a wonder that the local press hasn’t announced this as a state-wide…New England wide issue.

    Jim

  100. Mary Hinge (02:44:58) Frank. Lansdner (04:55:53) is right, the NOAA CFS ensemble suggests La Nina into the middle of next year.

    H/t David Smith.
    ==================================

  101. On whether or not La Nina is ramping back up, I like getting Klaus Wolter’s take on things:

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/SWcasts/index.html

    A couple of quotes:

    1. While the 2007-08 La Niña event almost disappeared this summer, at least in terms of sea surface temperatures, it appears to have kept an atmospheric ‘footprint’ right into the fall. Global atmospheric circulation anomalies have ‘stubbornly’ retained La Niña-like features, such as a wet “dry season” in Indonesia and mostly stronger-than-normal trade winds over the tropical Pacific. While most forecasts show continued near-neutral conditions into the upcoming winter, a return of La Niña is still possible, especially since moderate-to-strong La Niña events like the last one often return for an encore performance.

    4. Bottomline: My summer monsoon forecast appears to have hit the target in much of the southwestern U.S., including a dry summer in northern Utah and north-central Colorado, and wet conditions from southwestern New Mexico into the plains of eastern Colorado. Where this season has been wet, drought conditions have improved, especially in eastern Colorado. The overall ENSO situation remains somewhat unsettled, leaving the door open for a return to La Niña this fall, or a gradual transition into El Niño in 2009. Unfortunately, my (dry) outlook into October-December is more consistent with the former scenario than the latter. The subsequent winter season shows more of a mixed message, leaving the possibility of at least adequate moisture in the mountains of Utah, Colorado and New Mexico.

  102. We had frost this morning in Central Arkansas (thermostat said 31 when I looked at it at 7:30AM). This is a couple of weeks early for the first frost, and we set a new record low overnight.

    I don’t think this is just “weather.” It is a sign of how the cool phase of the PDO influences weather in the midwest and midsouth. You can see a nice little graphic of the difference here:

  103. JimB (06:15:13) :

    Why are only the lilacs at Walden Pond [affected]?…Why only the roses there? Given that the MSM loves to sensationlize whenever possible, it’s a wonder that the local press hasn’t announced this as a state-wide…New England wide issue.

    The interest in Walden Pond is both historical (one of the authors commented he’d like to be able to show his children something that looked much like it did to Thoreau) and botanical.

    Thoreau kept records of flowering dates and other events, I don’t know how many other sites have that sort of records. The researchers could then identify shifts in those dates as examples of warming. Lake Mohonk in NY has that sort of record.

    The only other related stuff I’m familiar with in New England are dates of ice-out on major lakes and dates of tapping maple trees for sap.

    I’ve only visited Walden Pond once and wasn’t terribly impressed. Just a kettle pond (a pond formed by glacial till deposited around a chunk of glacier) with typical woods around it. I could see it being interesting in the 1800s, but there are lots of areas with more varied terrain. My wife and I bought a large lot on the SE side of Mt. Cardigan. Swamp, streams, hillside, big erratics, exposed bedrock. Too much logging, but a southern exposure and current elevated CO2 levels may fix that faster than I expected. Hunters got a big moose there a couple weeks ago and gave us 20 pounds on Sunday. Moose stew last night. Very good moose stew….

  104. Although habitat loss due to succession and development (e.g., loss of wetlands, abandonment of farms, reforestation, and construction of homes and roads) has contributed to decreases in abundance for some species in Thoreau’s Concord (20), climate change may also help to explain the seemingly nonrandom pattern of species loss among certain plant groups.

    MAY also help explain… Famous weasel words which really mean “we have to add AGW in so our funding comes through”. Let’s see some actual evidence that a half degree C average rise (if it’s actually that much) causes plants to die.

  105. Philip_B (13:48:26) :

    It was heavy rain and flooding that led to the cancellation of the mountain marathon in the UK Lake District, not the cold. I was there. Having said that it is very cold today

  106. Dee,
    I just read the weather forecast for my old hometown, and it sounds identical to what you just posted.
    Is your neck of the woods up in Upstate NY or Vermont?
    I’m from Vermont.

    Reply: I am in the Shangra-la of New York: The western Catskill Mountains where I now have 6+ inches of wet snow. – Dee Norris

  107. I’m struggling with this item from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7696070.stm

    “The cold air originates in the Arctic and it has not been polluted, which is why it feels so crisp.” (Attributed to Kevin Hogg, of the Met Office.)

    It’s in quotes on the BBC site, so presumably he actually uttered these exact words.

  108. Anyone notice the HUGE area under a freeze warning tonight? I don’t ever recall seeing such a large expanse of the south, especially in October, seeing widespread freezing temperatures.

    See the map at http://www.nws.noaa.gov

  109. Here in south England we’ve just had nine hours of snowfall – while the leaves are all still on the trees. In my 50 years I’ve never known snowfall like that in October in southern England. Just weather, of course, but I hope that’s all!

  110. Waa, it’s cold in some place at this time of the year, what a surprise!

    Did anyone notice that the AMSU global temperatures are rightnow simply the highest ever measured for this time of the year? This once again points in the direction that temperatures are increasing again after the huge la nina we had… So much for the “predicted” global cooling…

  111. Roy,
    I think “crisp” is the new politically correct word for “cold” which has been officially removed from public discourse. Please, everyone, adjust your thinking and vocabulary.

  112. kim (07:01:59) :
    ” Lansdner (04:55:53) is right, the NOAA CFS ensemble suggests La Nina into the middle of next year.”
    Basil (09:20:29) :
    “The overall ENSO situation remains somewhat unsettled, leaving the door open for a return to La Niña this fall, ”
    Frank. Lansner (04:55:53) :
    “La Nina IS starting up any moment now says even NOAA…
    ….However 9 weeks in a row with SOI so much higher than 6, has it ever not included a La nina? Has it ever not ment falling global temperatures??

    OK, I see, not for the first time that I am outnumbered here but I can confirm that the probability of a La Nina returning this SH summer is very low. The NOAA model uses the SOI as its main bias, but this year the Eastern Pacific is not reading the script. The very latest forecast in OZ is as follows:
    CURRENT STATUS as at 29th October 2008
    Summary: ENSO conditions to remain neutral
    Neutral ENSO conditions still prevail in the Pacific Basin. There have been only minor fluctuations in ocean temperatures across the tropical Pacific Ocean in the past three weeks, with surface temperatures now close to their long-term average across the basin. Subsurface waters are cooler than normal in the eastern Pacific, suggesting the possibility of further surface cooling over the coming weeks. The current conditions have been maintained by slightly stronger than normal trade winds, particularly over the western half of the equatorial Pacific. As a result, the SOI remains positive and has increased in the past three weeks to +14.

    Given current conditions, trends over the past few months and climate model forecasts, neutral conditions are likely to remain until the end of the year and throughout the southern summer – there is now very little potential for El Niño or La Niña conditions to develop. The Indian Ocean Dipole is now neutral and displaying only week-to-week variations. It is expected to remain neutral for the coming few months. About IOD.

    The increase in the trade winds have reduced further the small possibility of an El Nino. If a La Nina does form in late summer/early autumn it will be a very weak event and still unlikely at this stage.

    As I said earlier, it won’t be too long before we know who is right but one thing is for sure, there is some strange weather out there!

  113. Flanagan (01:45:38) :
    “Did anyone notice that the AMSU global temperatures are right now simply the highest ever measured for this time of the year? ”

    The majority on this blog won’t believe you, if the data doesn’t show cooling the results must be either faulty, skewed, unbalanced, fraudulent, lies or part of a great AGW conspiracy. I bet some are already thinking this is caused by UHI!!

  114. Mary Hinge (03:08:21) Did you even look at the graph of the NOAA’s CFS ensemble? La Nina from now until mid next year.

    Mary Hinge (03:17:58) If you are right, being outnumbered won’t make you wrong. Did you check the figures, or are you just blathering? Please, don’t be silly.
    ================================

  115. October surprise: Northeast snowstorm closes major highways, schools
    It seems mother nature is doing a bit of pre-holloween pranking with her own brand of white. Here in New Hampshire, we are mostly on the warm side of this nor’easter.
    Last winter we were hammered by near-record snowfall. Many roofs collapsed under the weight, partly due to wet snow and rainfall.

  116. My total snowfall here in the Catskills was about 18 inches. A VERY unusual storm. And very dangerous as most don’t put on their snow tires until late November.

  117. Steve Berry (03:21:52) :
    “Flanagan. I don’t know which planet you’re talking about, but it’s not this one http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+004

    See Flanagan, told you it wouldn’t be too long. Steve, try it at 3,3000 feet or 14,000 feet.

    kim (05:21:16) :
    “Did you even look at the graph of the NOAA’s CFS ensemble? La Nina from now until mid next year.”…..”Please, don’t be silly.”

    Kim, I think your are straning beyond the limits of sillyness to something a little more worrysome. You seem to be clinging on to the increasingly desperate scenario of a big global freeze and are blocking out anything that does not agree with your opinion. The Ocean SST’s, especially to the east of the Pacific, are not condusive to La Nina formation. The Australians and their dynamic models ( I believe the NOAA’s is a static model though I am not 100% sure of this) ALL predict a neutral ENSO at least until the autumn (SH).

    I’ll repeat this once again : Given current conditions, trends over the past few months and climate model forecasts, neutral conditions are likely to remain until the end of the year and throughout the southern summer – there is now very little potential for El Niño or La Niña conditions to develop.

  118. Mary Hinge (02:44:58) You are only telling part of the story of Jason and stored heat. There has been a recent drop in sea level, reported from Jason, which suggests thermal contraction of the ocean, in other words, no extra ‘stored heat’. Kevin Trenberth, in a famous slip earlier this year to an NPR journalist suggested that the ‘extra heat’ had been radiated back into space. He’s right, you know, but there goes the last gasp of AGW hot air.
    =========================================

  119. Mary Hinge (03:17:58) :

    “Flanagan (01:45:38) :
    “Did anyone notice that the AMSU global temperatures are right now simply the highest ever measured for this time of the year? ”

    The majority on this blog won’t believe you, if the data doesn’t show cooling the results must be either faulty, skewed, unbalanced, fraudulent, lies or part of a great AGW conspiracy. I bet some are already thinking this is caused by UHI!!”

    Yes…you’re right. It’s very very difficult to overcome a severe lack of credibility.
    Two words…”boy” and “wolf”.
    So you’re saying that this time…THIS time, after all of the other times that have been proven to be inaccurate/false…that THIS is the time everyone should believe your side?

    Jim

  120. Early chill means early skiing! Though I know it’ll be a while before the slope start up in California, though it’s been unually cold here too.

    Kevin

  121. Mary Hinge (06:12:51) You really should go look at the NOAA CFS ensemble graph. It has a range of model runs with the mean clearly in La Nina territory through the middle of next year. Gad, I’ll have to go look for the URL for you. Furthermore, Harry van Loon expects a moderate La Nina this winter, deepening next year.

    We are cooling, Mary, for how long, even kim doesn’t know. The PDO has flipped to a 30 year cooling phase, and the sun is quiescent. If we are entering a Grand or Lesser Solar Minimum we will cool for anywhere from 20-100 years. Encumbering carbon in such an event will starve and freeze any number of the world’s poor. And the longer the world believes the false CO2=AGW paradigm, the worse it will be for those poor people, and the worse the moral disapprobation for those who clung to an overly simplified conception of climate far past when climate data showed them to be in error. How cold does it have to get before you quit trusting Wikipedia, and join the real world? Yes, real world, rather than your fantastical, inadequately modeled one.

    Now I’m not nearly as certain of this scenario of global cooling from natural cycles as you are of your scenario of global warming from CO2, but the temperatures are dropping as CO2 continues to rise. Now, that’s silly.
    ===========================================

  122. Mary (06:12:51) You can find the CFS ensemble graph at comment #154 by David Smith on the ‘Tsonis and Telecommunications’ thread at climateaudit.org
    ============================

  123. Mary (06:39:10) Now you’ve gone beyond silliness to projection. You are the one ‘clinging’ to an outdated paradigm of CO2=AGW in the face of declining temperatures.

    If the coming cooling is deep and prolonged a partial die-off of the human race in likely, and will be worsened if it comes upon us by surprise as we are deluded into the false belief of global warming from CO2. It will be worse if carbon is artificially encumbered, since the best way to avoid a die-off holocaust will be energy as cheap as possible, which in this day and age means fossil fuels. A die-off of even 5% is 350,000,000 human souls and no matter how protected you feel in your first world incubus, you will not be safe from the repercussions of such a worldwide disaster.

    I repeat, how cold does it have to get, and for how long, before you can look at the objective data with other than the jaundiced eye you’ve apparently got from the likes of Connolley’s Wikipedia, and the captive site, RealClimate?
    ============================================

  124. kim (06:17:29) :
    “You are only telling part of the story of Jason and stored heat. There has been a recent drop in sea level, reported from Jason, which suggests thermal contraction of the ocean, in other words, no extra ’stored heat’.”

    I would love to see your reference link, latest Jason data has the sea level continuing its upward journey. There was a decrease due to the La Nina last year, pehaps your reference is only up to last February/ March? This shows the latest data point (August) http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#
    What is VERY clear is the the rate of 3.4mm per year is still continuing. If you can now accept the sea level is still rising perhaps you can accept the idea of stored ocean heat now ( or do you prefer it came from the melting glaciers).
    I think you should think more in terms of trends rather than short term events, a good example was your ridiculous idea that this summers melt (the 2nd highest on record) was the start of a new Ice age. This melt is the continuation of a trend of progressively greater melts (aprroximately 11% per decade. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/
    I would suggest you have a wider range of reading matter. Your passion for the subject is good, but wasted in the direction you are going.

  125. Mary Hinge. Dear oh dear! Yes, I tried them all before I posted. The 3,300 ft is consistently below 2007 – just very ocassional peaks. The 14,000 graph is even worse – for you. Bang on the 20-year average up until 2-3 months ago – but still below 2007. But why choose two out of nine? The other seven are all below anyway! Straws and grasping, on your part, me thinks!

    Flanagan. What about 25,000 feet? Did you conveniently forget that one? Oh, I think you did. Lucky I’m here to let us all see it then http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+003 Flanagan (and Mary!) Try ticking all the year-boxes and see what happens to the 2008 line. Oh I think you’re in for a shock.

  126. Mary (06:12:51) My last comment is also directed to your 06:12:51 comment. By projection, I mean this. You claim I am ‘clinging on to the increasingly desperate scenario of a big global freeze and are blocking out anything that does not agree with your opinion’. It is you who are bitterly clinging to the CO2=AGW paradigm and ignoring dropping temperatures worldwide, a cooling phase PDO, a quiescent sun, and falling sea levels. Now, who’s being desperate?
    ==========================

  127. Had to do this. Couldn’t help it. Some things we write just beg for it.

    Mary, that’s funny! “…there is some strange weather out there.”

    It’s October. I get up to frost every morning here in the PNW. Funny that. Frost in autumn. How strange. Elsewhere we are having a bit of the Indian Summer. LOL! The north east part of the country is complaining of bitter cold! LMAO!! The ocean is languishing in neutral!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!! For all we know, we could be facing SNOW soon!!!!!! Now that is STRANGE!

    snark off

  128. kim (06:32:51) :
    Good grief! For the last word on the ENSO over the next few months follow this link. http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/tropnote/tropnote.shtml

    For the dynamic model forecasts go to his link: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/ENSO-summary.shtml

    Kim, I know you think you mean well, and we all worry about effects on the world’s poor but you are being misguided bigtime. We know that small changes in the composition of the earths atmosphere can have large consequences, even small rises in temperatures can have devestating results due to changes in currents, jet streams etc. The people who will be most affected by these are the very people you are worried about.
    I will also put you straight on Wikipedia. If you look at all my posts you will see I have mentioned them only once as a pointer to further reading. I don’t trust Wikipedia totally but they have improved immensely in the last 18 months in all fields and I would always suggest cross referencing their work.
    As for the real world, well global temperatures are starting to rise again, the sea level is continuing to rise, oh,and its colder than average in some parts of the world, warmer in others!

  129. The weather here in south Texas is rather crisp this morning, Yesterday tied the crispiness record of 36F which was set in 1957. This morning I had to put on my jacket, er I mean my crisper.

  130. PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FAIRBANKS AK
    151 AM AKDT TUE OCT 28 2008

    …THE COLD OCTOBER CONTINUES AT FAIRBANKS…

    THROUGH YESTERDAY…OCTOBER 27TH…THIS OCTOBER IS THE 4TH
    COLDEST ON RECORD AT FAIRBANKS. THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF 17.4
    DEGREES IS 8.6 DEGREES BELOW THE 30-YEAR AVERAGE. ONLY
    1958…1965…AND 1996 WERE COLDER. IN 1958 AND 1996 MILDER
    TEMPERATURE WERE OBSERVED DURING THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THE MONTH.
    TEMPERATURES ARE EXPECTED TO REMAIN BELOW AVERAGE THROUGH
    THURSDAY…AND IT IS LIKELY THAT THIS MONTH WILL GO DOWN AS ONE OF
    THE TOP 2 OR 3 COLDEST OCTOBERS ON RECORD AT FAIRBANKS. SO FAR
    THIS MONTH ONLY TWO DAYS HAVE HAD ABOVE AVERAGE TEMPERATURES.

    $$

    CB

  131. Flanagan (01:45:38) :

    You forgot the minus sign! Up until the last day or two it has been the most negative global temperature at 36,000 ft since records began.

  132. Mary Hinge (03:17:58) :

    Mary, it’s interesting how you automatically supported Flanagan without apparently looking at the numbers. You even threw in your standard ad hominem attack

    “The majority on this blog won’t believe you, if the data doesn’t show cooling the results must be either faulty, skewed, unbalanced, fraudulent, lies or part of a great AGW conspiracy. I bet some are already thinking this is caused by UHI!!”

    How about science instead of political advocacy?

  133. Mike Bryant (07:14:03) Thanks for the link; what a classic. Quite plainly, Kevin Trenberth states that the ‘extra heat’ has been radiated back into space. I wonder just how dumb he thinks his audience is. He’s right, that is where the heat has gone, but it puts the lie to CO2=AGW.

    Mary Hinge (06:46:27) Well, that’s a peculiar graph you show with the line not being extended and two pieces of data at the end without the intervening data. Doesn’t that raise your suspicions, or are you just too in the tank?

    Mary Hinge (06:46:27) Granted it is a short trend, but this year’s Arctic Melt is changing your trend of progressively greater melts. I suggest you try reading something skeptical rather than swallowing the CO2=AGW paradigm hook, line, and sinker. You are very much a true believer, made manifest by your contempt for skeptics.

    Mary Hinge (07:15:54) You still haven’t looked at the NOAA graph of CFS ensemble runs. It is available at David Smith’s comment #154 at the ‘Tsonis and Telecommunications’ thread at climateaudit.org. It shows La Nina conditions likely well into 2009. You might as well start understanding that it is the PDO flipped into a cooling phase that is generating the worldwide global cooling and not just cool weather for the last year, though I know you desperately want to believe the latter.
    =====================================

  134. Confession of a skeptic:

    I just installed a pellet stove. I’ve been told that if everyone in North America converted from fuel oil to wood pellets for heat, it would reduce our C02 emmissions by %8. Never mind the fact that we’d likely have to cut down every tree from coast to coast on the continent to accomplish this….I’m GREEN, baby! :)

    Jim

  135. Dee,
    I’m certain that the link (I visited but haven’t digested) is very applicable.
    However…we can’t get people to invest 20mins of their time to actually investigate their claims. I’m skeptical (once again?…still?) that folks will invest the time to read them, or the discipline to apply them.
    Nonetheless, the link is on my list, and I’ll start taking swings at it in free moments, as priorities allow.

    Thanks,

    Jim

    Reply: It is not a very long posting, but with WUWT nudging toward 1 million views per month, it save on moderator wear & tear in addition to resulting in more productive discussions if the bulk of us understand the principles it contains. – Dee

  136. KIm,
    please refer to material other than climateaudit, you’re only embarrasing yourself now. As for the graph try and aquire the skill of ‘joining the dots’. Youy are just showing the talents of rejecting data because it goes against your beliefs. I also do not have contempt for skeptics, I appreciate their comments and though they sometimes drive me mad (and I assume vice versa!)it gives us an opportunity to learn more. Most of the posters here are skptics. You are not a skeptic , you are just trotting out the usual garbage without at least an ounce of knowledge of the subject you are discussing, you fall into the camp for extreme cases such as yourself, a full blown denier. Try and learn what a ‘trend’ is for a start.
    Do you fully understand what a PDO is and how it affects global temperature, not just USA temperatures? The PDO itself doesn’t affect global temperatures, it’s how it affects the ENSO that determines global temperatures. It was the La nina earlier this year/last year
    that caused global temperatures to falls lightly, now that effect is diminished we are seeing lower troposphere temperatures rise (as Flanagan pointed out earlier).
    Mike (07:51:22) :
    You yourself should have looked at what Flanagan was referring to, not the cherrypicked link supplied by Steve Berry. he admitted he tried them all but only selected the high altitude readings that support his faith. The GW models show that the lower troposphere temperatures will rise while the upper atmospheric temperatures will fall, this is happening. Flanagan was also pinpointing that the reading is for NOW, not the rest of this year which we know was cooled slightly by La Nina.

    Mike (07:51:22) :
    Mary, it’s interesting how you automatically supported Flanagan without apparently looking at the numbers. You even threw in your standard ad hominem attack

    We’ve established the numbers were looked at, I looked at what Flanagan was saying, you obviously didn’t. I certainly didn’t throw in an ‘Ad hominem’ attack. It was actually an observation. QED I have been shown to be right! I suggest you look up the definition, or of you want to see it described in its purest form read any of Kim’s posts.

    Warning: Lets all take the sarcasm and personal digs down a notch. – Dee

  137. Jeez…

    according to, well, all warming scenarios the troposphere should be warming AND the stratosphere cooling. All these observations just simply confirm the existence of a greenhouse effect. The only way for the stratosphere to be warming would be that the observed warming is sun-induced.

    oops!

    PS how strange the fact that a day being colder than the same day in 2007 and/or 2006, but higher than any other day ever measured, is seen as a “proof” of cooling.

  138. Mary Hinge (09:03:57) No, I am not embarrassing myself when I refer to climateaudit.org—it is a highly scientific site. Have you looked at the graph of CFS ensembles which is from NOAA? It projects a La Nina into the middle of next year. Do you have a good reason why you are attempting to ignore this graph?

    I’m suspicious of those two dots on your graph without the intervening dots which I’ve seen on other graphs which show a drop in sea level by TOPEX/Jason. You’ve not addressed why your graph looks so peculiar.

    Of all the oceanic oscillations, which together help determine the globe’s climate, the PDO is the strongest and most influential of the them, so yes, it determines global temperature, at least more than the others.

    Sorry, atmospheric temperatures are not showing what has been projected by your inadequate climate models. For disconfirmation of your models see lucia’s Blackboard at rankexploits.com. Furthermore, the Argos buoys show a slight drop in oceanic temperatures to about two miles, and the oceans hold a lot more heat than the atmosphere.

    And if you’ll look carefully, I have attacked your points rather than you. Show me an ad hominem that I’ve written.
    =============================================

  139. Flanagan: “..temperatures at altitudes of about 36 000 feet, where temps should be stable or slightly cooling over time.”

  140. Mary Hinge (09:03:57) More projection; I have attacked your points and you have attacked me. For examples of the ad hominem fallacy, your posts are full of them and mine not.
    ===========================================

  141. Mary, you’re still doing it, or rather not. Go to the 25,000 feet (400mb) and click all the year boxes. Come back here and tell me what you found.

    And please be polite and accurate. I didn’t cherry pick as you said, and neither did I choose the high altitude ones either. If you cannot accurately reflect what people have written then we’re all wasting our time.

  142. Mary Hinge (09:03:57) :

    Do you fully understand what a PDO is and how it affects global temperature, not just USA temperatures? The PDO itself doesn’t affect global temperatures, it’s how it affects the ENSO that determines global temperatures. It was the La nina earlier this year/last year that caused global temperatures to falls lightly, now that effect is diminished we are seeing lower troposphere temperatures rise (as Flanagan pointed out earlier).

    Let’s go with this for a minute. It sounds like maybe you are trying to say that the PDO is ultimately neutral with respect to long term global temperature trends. Okay, say that it is. If you’ve made any serious study of long term temperature trends, you’ll know that most of the “global warming” of the second half of the 20th century coincides with the 1976 “great climate shift” flip of the PDO to its warm phase. So if we’re going to “ignore” the current cooling because it is just the PDO, then we likewise need to ignore most, or maybe even all, of the warming from 1976-2000 because it was just the PDO.

    What’s sauce for the goose…

  143. Flanagan (01:45:38) :

    Did anyone notice that the AMSU global temperatures are rightnow simply the highest ever measured for this time of the year? This once again points in the direction that temperatures are increasing again after the huge la nina we had… So much for the “predicted” global cooling…

    You are getting excited about a trend that is only a week old?

  144. Basil, like I said…straws and grasping! If there’s warming, then it’s warming. If there’s cooling then it’s weather, oh unless it’s noise. A trend is applicable if it suits AGW, but too short if it doesn’t. A freak weather event is indicative of climate change – even though there have always been freak weather events. A freak weather event of a cooling nature is indicative of extreme weather being caused by climate change. Adjustment of data will result in warming. Arctic or Antarctic melt is to be publicised as proof of AGW. Arctic or Antarctic ice build is actually caused by climate change, and is predicted in the models. Sea level rise is due to warming oceans. Sea level falls are indicative that the warming is being stored and will result in even worse sea level rises in the near future. Finally, rising temperatures are due to AGW. Falling temperatures are merely masking underlying rising temperatures which will rebound with a vengeance.

    You can’t win. The Marys of this world will do their best to see to that.

  145. The snow we had here in the UK yesterday was the first October snow since 1934, with some parts reaching -4 degrees C!

  146. Pingback: One of the most interesting sources of news about science and nature! « Fabius Maximus

  147. RECORD EVENT REPORT
    NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE JACKSONVILLE
    1245 PM EDT WED OCT 29 2008

    …LOW TEMPERATURE SHATTERS RECORDS AT JACKSONVILLE THIS MORNING…

    THE TEMPERATURE AT JACKSONVILLE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT DROPPED TO 33
    DEGREES AT 743 AM THIS MORNING…SETTING A NEW RECORD FOR THE DATE.
    THE PREVIOUS RECORD WAS 39 DEGREES SET IN 1987.

    NOT ONLY WAS THIS A NEW RECORD FOR THE DAY…IT IS ALSO THE COLDEST
    TEMPERATURE ON RECORD FOR OCTOBER GOING BACK TO 1871…AND…IT IS
    THE COLDEST READING SO EARLY IN THE FALL SEASON.

    LOW TEMPERATURES ELSEWHERE AROUND JACKSONVILLE INCLUDE…

    CECIL FIELD……. 30 DEGREES
    CRAIG FIELD……. 38 DEGREES
    JACKSONVILLE NAS.. 38 DEGREES
    MAYPORT NS…….. 41 DEGREES

    Lots of low temperature records being set from North Carolina down to the Florida panhandle.

    Meanwhile, the weather has been amazing here in San Diego and the monthly average is about 4 degrees above normal. Oct 2008 is the first month in at least 18 months that was above normal.

  148. Hi there,

    I’m not excited about a 1-week trend. Since the end of la nina, global temperatures keep increasing. So, we’re basically at the same temperature as last year rightnow. We’ll see in 2009 what’s going to happen, but since the solar cycle (finally) seems to have started, we should see a nice increase.

    The global circulation models (which are not “mine” by the way) predict troposphere warming and a “hot spot” a little above it, as can be read in the IPCC report or (if you prefer blogs) at Real Climate. This trend is confirmed by measurements, even at the tropics where people thought for some time that the hot spot was not present. References available upon request.

  149. Basil (12:29:56) :
    “It sounds like maybe you are trying to say that the PDO is ultimately neutral with respect to long term global temperature trends”

    The PDO itself is approximately neutral which is why it should be described as a negative (which is what is happening now) and positive. the terms ‘cool’ phase and ‘warm’ phase are misleading. (look at recent SST anomoly maps to see why.
    The PDO has historically had an effect on ENSO and it is this that can produce significant warming or cooling. Generally a -ive PDO increases probability of more frequent and stronger La Ninas and the +ive phase more and stronger El Nino. We had a strong La NIna a few months ago that falls into the pattern but to show it is only increased probability rather than a PDO direct cause, the ENSO will be neutral this SH summer.

  150. Mary Hinge (02:02:36) You make yourself foolish when you keep repeating that there will be no La Nina these coming eight months when the NOAA CFS ensemble graph clearly shows a nice dip of the curve well into next year. Why don’t you refer to that graph? It puts a lie to all your confabulating efforts. I know it’s a projection, and this SH summer may well have an ENSO that is neutral, but the NOAA’s one picture is much more convincing than all your thousands of words. Is that why you won’t follow my reference?
    ===============================

  151. Flanagan (01:05:17) Don’t let Lief Svalgaard see this post. What about Solar Cycle 24 starting up makes you think that will warm the globe back up? There is a big prize for the mechanism you suggest you have.
    ==========================================

  152. Flanagan (01:05:17) Sorry to be so snide, but I was fresh from commenting with Phil. and Mary Hinge. Whether the sun is entering a minimum like the Dalton or Maunder, and whether or not that is connected to global temperatures is not determined, yet, and may not ever become predictable, but that has little to do with Cycle 24 starting back up. The sun cycles, seemingly inevitably, whether it is in a minimum or a maximum or in between. The questions of the energy it puts out depend on cycle length and strength, but a good correlation with earth’s temperatures is yet to be shown.

    Most of we sunworshippers trust, not know, that the sun does regulate the globe’s climate. I believe the mechanism by which it does is modulated through clouds, maybe and maybe not cosmic rays, and the oceanic oscillations. Figuring out the precise mechanisms is beyond human understanding, but perhaps not for much longer.
    ============================================

  153. Flanagan: “..temperatures at altitudes of about 36 000 feet, where temps should be stable or slightly cooling over time.”

    and: “References available upon request.”

    I already asked for a reference but I’ll gladly do it again. Even a Realclimate reference will be appreciated.

  154. One source for GCM implementation: mitgcm.org. Have another pint and look it over.

    The little brown and black catepillars are banded to half their length. I say La Nina is returning by the end of Nov.

  155. In case there will be stable climate the political bandwagon which claims that the western world must stop its indutries they maybe rephrased it as Climate Something. ;)

  156. Spell errors removed:

    In case we’ll have a stable climate the political bandwagon claims which claims that the western world must stop its industries may rephrase it as Climate Something…

  157. Pingback: Jennifer Marohasy » News Reports for October Indicate Global Cooling

  158. Clearly these temperatures are due to instrument bias of unknown origin. For this, we need to call upon the learned James Hansen. Under his carful attention, I’m certasin they can make corrections to the datasets for said biases of unknown origin and show the continued warming…

  159. Gene L (09:08:30) He’s becoming an object of ridicule, hasn’t he, poor guy. I really believe that Hansen started out with good intentions, to save the world, but somewhere along the way he’s gone off the path of objective science, and is leading us to Hell.
    ===================================

  160. Quote “This is purely anecdotal but I think southeastern Michigan had a warmer than average summer.”

    You clearly must live in some other SE Michigan than I. We couldn’t plant flowers, nor had leaves on the trees till late in the season. Only had the AC on twice. It was the summer that never happened. Same as four years ago.

  161. A quick google search finds very warm temps in the US in October

    A quick look at the revised October GISS map shows the lower 48 as well below average. And for GISS, “average” is 1951 – 1980. (I’ve even seen comment that this may be a US conspiracy to prove they are not responsible for GW in order to dodge Kyoto!)

    You can see a classic -ive PDO, I notice that the vast majority of the cold temperatures are on the west and would be immediately affected by the -ive PDO.

    Well, yeah. That’s the point, isn’t it? PDO flipped warm in 1976. It turned cold after the El Nino ending in 2007. And look at the other five warm/cool multidecadal cycles. They went from cold to warm from 1977 to 2001. Now it looks as if the AO also has done a turn and the NAO may be about to follow suit. Draw it all back further to the 1920s. Do we see a pattern here?

    There are underlying factors, I am sure: “recovery” from the end of the LIA (c. 1840), an increase in solar activity and now a huge drop. And yes, human influence, including land use and soot (and even a teeny bit of direct CO2, but without feedback loops).

Comments are closed.