More from the “weather is not climate” department. While our economy cools, so do apparently our cities. Cincinnati has a similar problem, and does Traverse City, and the cool weather doesn’t “play in Peoria“.
Taken by themselves it doesn’t mean much, but it is interesting.
NOUS41 KOKX 240847
PNSOKX
CTZ005>012-NJZ002>006-011-NYZ067>081-251000-
PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NEW YORK NY
444 AM EDT FRI JUL 24 2009
…UNUSUALLY COOL JULY FOR CENTRAL PARK…
FOR SOME PERSPECTIVE…HERE ARE THE TOP TEN COOLEST JULYS ON RECORD
SINCE 1869 FOR CENTRAL PARK IN NEW YORK CITY:
COOLEST
AVG. TEMP. YEAR
70.7 1888
71.9 1884
72.1 1914
72.3 2000/1871
72.4 1891
72.6 1895
72.8 1902/1869
72.9 1956
73.1 1890
73.2 2001
DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL CONDITIONS THUS FAR IN JULY…HERE ARE
SOME INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE…
WITH AN AVERAGE DAILY TEMPERATURE OF 71.6…CURRENTLY RUNNING 4.7
DEGREES BELOW NORMAL…THIS JULY IS ON TRACK FOR THE 2ND COOLEST
ON RECORD. BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES HAVE OCCURRED ON 21 OUT OF
23 DAYS…WITH THE OTHER TWO DAYS BEING NORMAL. THERE HAVE BEEN
ZERO ABOVE NORMAL DAYS.
CENTRAL PARK HAS ONLY REACHED 85 DEGREES ONCE THIS MONTH…ON THE
17TH…AND HAS NOT YET REACHED 90 DEGREES THIS SUMMER. IF THIS
CONTINUES THROUGH THE END OF THE MONTH…IT WILL ONLY BE THE
SECOND TIME SINCE 1869 THAT 90 DEGREES WAS NOT REACHED IN JUNE OR
JULY. THE ONLY OTHER TIME THIS OCCURRED WAS 1996.
$$
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Horticultural up-date from West Sussex, UK.
Courgettes have failed miserably, flower-end rot and mildew have ruined the crop. Runner beans should be in harvest right now. They have only just begun to flower. Arran Pilot potatoes should have been lifted a month ago. The caulms are still in flower, indicating that the tubers below are still being formed.
I live in one of the warmest areas of England, Selsey Bill. We are in the lee of the Isle of Wight and enjoy an acknowledged micro-climate of some clemency.
Doesn’t seem to have helped this year.
Douglas H. Wood :
“ignoring facts which disagree with your hypothesis is not science.”
If you’re going to adopt that tone of voice, Douglas, then you are going to have to define your meaning of the word “plausible”. As per your first post “conclude that AGW/CO2 was plausible”. An apparent correlation for 30 years out of the last 4,600,000,000 years, and that makes it “plausible”? No, sorry Douglas, the facts indicate that it has never been plausible (according to my usual understanding of the meaning of the word).
lulo (13:39:51) :
Here’s a great opinion piece on the same topic in Toronto, Canada
I spent two weeks in Ontario last summer when the same kind of weather was happening. The temps were in the mid to low 20’s (70 to 80F) last year, but still 5 to 10C cooler than usual for Ontario in July.
I would crack jokes like “where’s the global warming when you need it”, etc. and folks were clearly a bit uncomfortable.
I suspect more than a few of them are now a bit less convinced about the truth of AGW now that they have had cool summers in a row, but that’s still a long way from demanding their elected officials drop the matter.
We’ll see this coming winter how many are wavering, when the Canadian Government commits their economy to oblivion in Denmark.
Here is another way of looking at the temperature trend.
This is the scary Hadley Graph, from 1997 to the present. Although the Warmists don’t blame US for boiling the world until 1940.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1917/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1917/trend
There was a definite “universally accepted” uptrend, from 1920 to 1935, but then temperatures leveled out.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1910/to:1950/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1920/to:1935/trend
After 1935, temperatures leveled out, FOR 45 YEARS until 1980, all the while man was getting more affluent and the world more populated because of the use of ENERGY from fossil fuels. Goodbye horse and goodbye candles.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1980/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1935/to:1980/trend
Now in 1979 satellites started measuring temperatures and Hadley and his crew began to ponder. Anthony Watts proved how unreliable surface temps are so let’s use high tech Satellites . As you can see from 1980 until 1997 temperatures were PRETTY WELL FLAT! The trend show a slight uptick which is not even large enough to be a trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/plot/uah/from:1980/to:1997/trend
Now, no doubt about it, 1998 was a hot year. Temperatures jacked right with the very strong El Nino. But overall the trend is still flat.
Let’s just look at what has happened since 1997, which includes the El Nino.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2009/plot/uah/from:1997/to:2009/trend
So basically temperatures are FLATO if we use Hadley from 1935-1980 and then satellites from 1980-1997. That is 62 years of man trying his hardest to heat up the planet. A very crazy thing happened in 1998. Some “brains got boiled” by the heat for sure.
Now there is a little “slight of hand” I’m doing. Because the 1997-Present period was on average warmed than prior period, temps have jumped up and you can see on the left we are .2C above, which I assume is compared to prior years?
Now one reason the temps surface temps from 1935-1980 are flat or downward a bit, is because our cooks in the kitchen were “cooking the books” a bit, to make the uptrend from 1980 onward look steeper.
Kum Dollison (13:56:01) : A good paper. Funny that some people believe CO2 non sense. If they should know that plants are made of carbohydrates, sugar, cotton…Just imagine, if they are convinced believers they should walk naked, clothes are made of chains of glucose=cotton=CO2.
This the most stupid conspiracy ever concocted, perhaps based on the fact that a lot of people in the “first and developed world” are by far more ignorants than the third world poor people.
Steve Schapel (15:30:02) :
. . . you are going to have to define your meaning of the word “plausible”.
(2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
plau·si·ble
Pronunciation: \ˈplȯ-zə-bəl\
Function: adjective
1 : superficially fair, reasonable, or valuable but often specious.
2 : superficially pleasing or persuasive.
3 : appearing worthy of belief.
I’m a little baffled that you seem to take offense.
While I have always enjoyed fall weather, it belongs in the fall. I’m not exactly complaining but I have acclimated to the lower temps. I went out today and felt hot so I checked the temperature and it was 76. That is not hot for July, I am beginning to sound like my aunt from Canada.
FIIK! try this link H.R.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
REPLY: We also have the AMSU daily temps as a link on the right hand side of WUWT, see “Tools”….Anthony
“This the most stupid conspiracy ever concocted”
Just wait, the next big concocted environmental disaster will be a water shortage on a planet that is 70% covered with that stuff.
Ask anybody from NYC … NYC is the world
from Mark Steyn at NRO “The Corner”
For the last century, we’ve had ever so slight warming trends and ever so slight cooling trends every 30 years or so, and I don’t think either are anything worth collapsing the global economy over.
Things warmed up a bit in the decades before the late Thirties. Why? I dunno. The Versailles Treaty? The Charleston?
Then from 1940 to 1970 there was a slight cooling trend. In its wake, Lowell Ponte (who I believe is an expert climatologist and, therefore, should have been heeded) wrote his bestseller, The Cooling: Has the new ice age already begun? Can we survive?
From 1970 to 1998 there was a slight warming trend, and now there’s a slight cooling trend again. And I’m not fussed about it either way. But here’s how Media Matters corrects me:
In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, annual global average temperatures have both risen and fallen over the past 11 years, and while there have been some relatively cooler years during that period — including a decline in each of the past three years relative to the year before — climate scientists reject the idea that those temperatures are any indication that global warming is slowing or does not exist.
Gotcha. Those scientists “reject” the cooling trend of the last decade and think it’s part of the “long-term” warming trend of the previous three decades. Just as, presumably, when he published his book on “the new ice age” in 1976, Lowell Ponte thought the warming trend of the 1970s was part of the “long-term” cooling trend of the previous three decades.
If you dig that jive, I’m happy for you. Glad you’re a satisfied customer – like the lady who went to see the fortune teller and was told she’d meet a tall dark stranger the following Wednesday, and on Thursday met a blond midget! Amazing! But I like the way Professor Ian Plimer puts it:
I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.
In the mid-nineties, which climatologist and which model predicted the cooling trend of the turn of the century and the oughts? And, if they didn’t, on what basis do you trust their claims for 2050 or 2100?
“Average temperatures in Illinois are about 6 degrees below normal, he said. If current patterns continue, the summer could be among the five coolest on record.”
The warmers would call that the 95th warmest on record.
Kind of makes one REALLY, REALLY wonder if this wonder-gas CO2 being at the all-time high concentration of 380 ppm (or whatever) is performing its ‘miracle act’ of keeping LWIR from radiating from the earf’s (no mispelling) surface into space.
One has GOT to REALLY wonder …
.
.
.
@ur momisugly Kum Dollison (13:56:01) : A good paper. Funny that some people believe CO2 non sense. If they should know that plants are made of carbohydrates, sugar, cotton…Just imagine, if they are convinced believers they should walk naked, clothes are made of chains of glucose=cotton=CO2.
Actually I’d expect them to wear polyester. Oh, wait. Did that back in the ’60’s I think it was. But they probably wouldn’t anyway, since poly is made from that evil black stuff.
Those satellites Daily Temp links above don’t seem to work. Try this one.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/amsutemps.html
Plug in Channel 5 and Draw Graph in the lower left.
A hot day = proof of AGW
Record cold = weather
Hot weather + Record cold weather = Record hot weather!
When does weather become climate, you say 30 years, is that because we have roughly a bit over 30 years on some of the climate sets? Yet those same climate sets were valuable when they only had 5, 10 , 20, 30 years of data? By my estimation climate should be measured over 100’s of years, otherwise ITS ALL WEATHER. We have aprox 30 year ocean cycles, we have known about them for way longer than the 30 year data sets we have now, yet we seem to have forgotten that in mother nature time 30 years is only half of a sine wave.
We also used to know that climates were different depending on area. But now seem content to stick up a few thermometers, add them up and do whatever magic we do on them and announce the CLIMATE of the WORLD in one big package with a pretty red bow. To that I cry foul. If our northern hemisphere is losing ice but our southern hemisphere is gaining ice, when you add them together and divide by two, we have more ice in caps now then we did over that weird adverage line they made up from the older data.. So where exactly is the disaster.
Instead of learning why these things work.. we have just stomped our foot like a two year old and proclaimed, “we dont need no stinkin science. We know how everything works”. In responce Mother nature laughed and the Sun laughed, even the oceans laughed and whispered, “dream on pal”.
Anthony every once in a while I come across a post that makes me want to stand up and cheer. Your response to RW was one of those.
Douglas H Wood: plausible
I owe you an apology, sir. I normally regard myself as having a good grasp of the English language. But I thought you were saying something different from what you were. You have assisted to expand my vocabulary 🙂 for which I am grateful, and I agree that “plausible” is an accurate description for the historical AGW arguments.
@ur momisugly Douglas H. Wood (11:04:47) :
“Steadfast adherence to the facts that support your beliefs while ignoring those that cast doubt is a sign of either mental illness or religious conviction. It has no place in science.
This is true no matter which side of the AGW/CO2 debate one chooses.
During the 80’s and 90’s when warming was correlating well with temperature, it was reasonable to conclude that AGW/CO2 was plausible. It was also plausible that natural variation could explain both CO2 and temperature. Neither hypothesis was established as being correct, since both appeared plausible.”
There can be no reason to conclude that AGW/CO2 was (or is) plausible, even if warming appeared to be correlating well with temperature in the 1980’s and 1990’s. As I routinely show in my speeches on Global Warming laws in California, the atmospheric CO2 increases regularly, while global temperature increases at times, decreases at times, and remains fairly constant at times. There is zero possibility that global temperatures can be controlled by adjusting atmospheric CO2. The lack of consistent response is the proof. (see second link below)
My audiences are usually chemical engineers, who are well aware of process control theory and practice. Not a one of them has ever challenged my conclusion that CO2 in the atmosphere has no bearing on global temperatures. These are not timid men and women, but politely but firmly challenge false conclusions. (see first link below)
This speech was so well-received that I have been invited to make this into a formal paper and present it at the annual meeting of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers to be held in November in Nashville, Tennessee, and several other venues.
“It is now imperative that more honest researchers speak out as a few have done. They need to do so now, before they retire, so it is clear they are willing to risk their livelihoods. They need to do so now, before we go any further down the road to economic ruin we have embarked upon as a society.”
I completely agree that more people, including engineers, should make their voices heard and point out the false premises and false conclusions of the AGW proponents. I take action myself in this, not just urging others on from the sidelines.
Science, by definition, deals with much uncertainty and a few things that are certain. Engineering, in contrast, deals much more with certainty. Engineers know with absolute certainty that CO2 has zero to do with air temperatures, even allowing for thermal absorption in certain narrow ranges of infrared radiation. This concept of CO2 and water vapor thermal absorption is well-known to engineers (and has been for many decades) because it plays a key role in radiative heat transfer calculations in fired furnaces that burn oil or natural gas as fuel. As an aside, engineers who design fired furnaces deal with CO2 and water vapor with very short residence times in the radiative zone, not at all like the very long residence times of atmospheric CO2. The molecules absorb and re-radiate their energy very quickly.
The proof is, as I wrote just above, that air temperatures do not exhibit a consistent response to increasing CO2 concentrations. That fact, by definition, violates fundamental process control principles. It is no surprise to any in my audiences that the globe is cooling. What causes great dismay is the draconian laws that were passed (see AB 32 in California and some other states) and that may be passed (see Waxman-Markey in the U.S. House, and a similar bill in the U.S. Senate) to punish business and industry in a futile effort to cool the planet by reducing low-cost fossil fuel consumption.
see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/speech-to-aiche-on-june-16-2009.html
and http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
REPLY: Roger check your email please. – Anthony
“What we have here is failure to communicate.” ( The Captain to Luke )
The real issue for real people is the impact that various upcoming legislation will have on their lives, not whether it’s cooler this year than last or whether CO2 is good or bad. The most well known piece of legislation is HR 2454 commonly known as the “Climate Bill” (although there are over 200 other related bills in work ). According to the EPA, if this becomes law approx. 78 million acres of cropland will be taken out of use and turned into forest by 2050. That is nearly 20 percent of total cropland in the United States. http://www.dtnprogressivefarmer.com/dtnag/common/link.do?symbolicName=/ag/blogs/template1&blogHandle=policy&blogEntryId=8a82c0bc22ad9a120122b23492cd0032&showCommentsOverride=false . That means 78,000,000 fewer acres to grow food on for a lot more people (~ 415million by 2050 in the USA ). This does not include land that may be devoted to growing junk crops for ethanol.
Nobody gives a rats patootie about CO2 or a couple degrees of temp up or down when they are starving.
On topic — the weather forecast for New York, NY averages near 77. If accurate (and holds for Central Park), the average for the month will rise significantly. Looks like it’ll stay in the top ten though.
Here in the opposite corner of the country we’re having a decidedly average summer so far. Which, in the case of San Diego anyway, it’s about as perfect as it gets. So far the high temp is running 0.2F below average. Several days below average and several above average – in other words, just what you would expect.
The weirdest weather we’ve had so far this year was back in January when we had usually warm weather – with above average temps for SUMMER in mid-January. Now that was very unusual!
a ps
Heres some cherry picking at its finest : http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/10723/hittegolf_en_vervuiling_groot_brittannie_vanuit_de_ruimte
Translated the first line on google translator :
During a period of persistent stable summer weather from July 15-19, the temperature rose to record heights in Great Britain.
Now lets go to the bbc article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5211592.stm
and
http://www2.le.ac.uk/ebulletin/news/press-releases/2000-2009/2006/07/nparticle.2006-07-24.4533859192
Both of whom equate this week long weather event to climate change. So next time someone gets ticky about Anthony posting a weather event, remember we do not come close to the spin these folks are putting on warm weather.
Record cold across the entire contiguous USA last week, especially in the Eastern 1/2
http://globalfreeze.wordpress.com/2009/07/22/usa-chills-1077-lowest-max-temps-and-856-low-temps-for-week-ending-tue-21-july/