Verifying what we’ve already known from news reports and global metrics (it was a cooler than expected winter nationwide and worldwide) NOAA just issued a press release saying that we had the 54th coolest Winter since records began in 1895.
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average – yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.
With 113 complete years of records, 54th would put it slightly below the mean position of 56.5. While there was a lot of worldwide cold and snow events, the map of the USA shows that much of the southeast had a very mild winter, which fits with the kind of pattern seen with La Nina.
Click for larger image
NOAA also has detailed analyses of January 2008 and February 2008 available online. January came in 49th coolest on record, and February came in at xx coolest. I say that since NOAA didn’t offer a similar “coolest” comparison for Feburary, opting instead to highlight the “54th coolest winter” in the February 2008 analysis. But NOAA did say:
February was 61st warmest in the contiguous U.S. and 15th warmest globally on record.
I wonder why they switched descriptions from “49th coolest” one month to “61st warmest” the next?
Colder than average: Isn’t that what we should expect from global “warming,” when additional energy in the atmosphere gives higher highs, and lower lows?
Thank you Arthur. We saved it. Or, should I say, We saved it./i>
Plus we can add our blog link: fatfinch
Philip_B: BTW, the current ‘record heatwave; in Australia is restricted…”
And being right in that designated hot-spot (the sound of the F1 cars limbering up for tomorrow’s first race of the season at Albert Park filtering through the window) leaves much to be desired. Oh to be in England… or America…
Ed,
The arguments have been made that we should expect many more extreme high temperature records, but that hasn’t really been the case in the U.S. for the past decade. Therefore, the argument has been made that we should be experiencing higher low temperatures, but that hasn’t been happening for the past decade.
Now GW apologists are saying that bitterly cold weather with a lot of snow is the result of global warming.
It seems that if there is a contra-indicator to warming, it must be caused by warming… because it must be warming.
I suggest you go over to Climate Science and read what Roger Pielke has published recently… to wit: global warming should be indicated by an increased frequency of high temperature records. Cold is, indeed, a contra-indicator to warming.
Global warming isn’t about very high highs and very low lows, it’s about very slightly higher lows and slightly less than imperceptibly higher highs.
Re: Temperature records
A running average of record high – record low temperature records (for each calendar day or day in each month) for a selected set of stations would make an interesting metric with lots of data points. In the stock market this kind of metric is considered a measure of recent momentum up or down.
Any ideas where the data could be sourced from?
Like I’ve said before, I really want to see an analysis of just the lows. I want to see every data point thrown out except the data points immediately preceded and followed by a higher temperature. Take that and then perform an analysis.
This article in Climate Science explains what high temperatures are the only important metric in establishing whether long-term warming is occurring:
http://climatesci.org/2008/02/14/important-summary-abstract-by-professor-richard-t-mcnider-of-the-university-of-alabama-at-huntsville/
Furthermore, over the past decade in the U.S., almost no new statewide monthly high records have been established.
http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2008/02/2007-monthly-us-high-temperature.html
True, some daily record high temperatures have been established, but many of them are tying old records set decades ago. NOAA takes away records previously established and credits the most recent year with the record in the event of ties.
Philip B. You can get daily data from ushcn or ghcn.
if google is not your friend then write again and I’ll hunt up the direct linakge
for you
“Science is being savaged, by people who claim to be scientists.”
I second Kim’s eloquent assessment.
I became aware of the “record” problem when I was a freshman at a relatively new high school, only 4 years old when I started attending. Naturally, there were a lot of school records being set each year in various sports. The first year, there’s automatically going to be a new school record in every event measured. Assuming a relatively constant number and relative ability of students each year, the second year about half of the old records will be broken, the third year about 1/3 of the records will be broken, and now that my old high school is about 40 years old, only about 2 1/2 % of school records will be broken in a year. In general, the precentage of records being broken is proportional to the logarithm of the time period.
If temperature records in the US go back to 1880, roughly 1 in 128 should be broken each year. For a given date, roughly 1 in (128 *365) or 1 in 46,720 should be broken for each date of the year, assuming no trends. With a warming trend, new highs should be somewhat more frequent than that, with a cooling trend, less frequent than that.
Here I’m guessing, but I suppose the number of new records with a constantly increasing temperature trend should be rougly proportional to
time / (1 – (T/SD))
where SD is the standard deviation in temperature
from year to year, say about 0.1 degrees, and
T is the linear trend fit, say 0.01 degrees per year.
In my example, if the world was warming up at 1C per century, and the standard deviation in temperature is 0.1 C per year, you’d expect 10/9
as many records as the logarithmic prediction.
With constantly decreasing temperatures, again
given the above figures, you’d get only 9/10 as many new highs as a strictly logarithmic projection-
Since the real climate shows increasing from 1880 to 1940, decreasing from 1940 to about 1970, and increasing again from about 1970 to 2000, fudge factor adustments for new records will be slightly more complex than that.
Somone who knows more than me check out this ENSO forecast:
http://attachments.climatepatrol.com/53/sstsa_080872.gif
If I read this correctly, we’re forecast to have La Nina all year. Yes/no?
MattN: I’m no expert (Kristen B. may well be, see the La Nina thread sticking around thread) but these ENSO forecasts seem to be ‘for jollies’. Kristen indicated that the warming off S. America is seasonal and La Nina will regain momentum next fall.
I became aware of the “record” problem when I was a freshman at a relatively new high school, only 4 years old when I started attending.
Wow, you were quite the advanced young tot!