Chill in the air: record low temps in 10 states

Cold weather in the UK has forced a big marathon event to be abandoned with people missing. It sounds serious.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24556433-2,00.html

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’.

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.

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.

84 degrees fahrenheit here in Brisbane Australia. What is a ‘cloud?’

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.

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.

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

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.