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.
Phil (10:37:08) :
Might be exaggerating.
Regardless of that, the earth is in a cooling trend. What you speak of is ‘weather’.
Curiousgeorge (17:06:31) :
I know what they are going to try to do, and what will happen instead.
I also know that there are readers of this page who have a say in that decision.
Don’t let them say I was silent when the decision was being considered to swing the hammer at the kneecaps of the West.
This means nothing, what-so-ever. It’s just the usual trick of banding about the “average” to make a biased point. We all feel comfortable with the vague idea that an ‘average’ represents a sort of general tendency. However, it depends on the data whether the mean or median actually gives you a more accurate reflection of an ‘average’ value. So there.
Actually, my take on:
is more like:
During the 80s and 90s when warming alarmists roamed the world unchallenged, while the people who actually know better were attending to actual matters of science and industry and didn’t have time to waste teaching agenda-bearing non-science people the folly of their little hypothesis.
Really. Seriously.
On the other hand, the 70s gave us “Chariots of the Gods”, the name of Erich von Daniken will go down in history (for those few who even remember anymore) as a flim-flam artist. Our era will have al-Gore and “An Inconvenient Truth”, a second rate production not NEARLY as entertaining or plausible as Chariots.
crystal paperweight (18:37:35) :
Data shows the earth is in a cooling trend for years.
Roger Sowell (17:02:15) :
Excellent post Roger. I’ve had look at your blog too. I think you can make a major contribution to the debate. I especially liked:
” ‘Measurable’ means that whatever we are to control, we must be able to somehow measure that, so we know where we started, where we are at any point in time, and when we have reached our desired goal. If we cannot measure it, we cannot control it. This is a fundamental requirement of control theory and is not subject to debate. Period.”
There is a heatwave in Bulgaria right now. Meanwhile western Europe summer is quite crappy. Regardless, it is warmer somewhere and cooler somewhere else. The key point is to figure out why.
As for weather is not climate, this is the usual mantra of those who would not want a proper meteorological assessment to ruin their crafty, expensive models results. As Leroux wrote, “climate is the sum of weathers” and thus there is no artificial boundary betwwen the two.
I know why Anthony likes these “Weather is not Climate” reports.
I’ve been reading “Forbidden Knowledge – 101 Things Some People Shouldn’t Know”. Under “How to Gaslight your Wife”:
Step 1 – Say mean ugly things and make her cry.
Step 2 – Suggest she seek treatment for her depression.
etc.
Anthony’s trying to “gaslight” rw, Mary, Phil, Flanigan, et. al.
Other “useful” knowledge: How to Rob a Bank, How to Escape from Prison, How to Pass a Lie Detector Test, etc. A humorous and informative book.
The book “Forbidden..” doesn’t have any chapters on How to Predict or Control the Weather or Climate.
Sorry I do not have time to read the entire thread. I offer a hypothesis (tough to do after my second glass of wine this evening):
— There is a correlation between cooler than normal Atlantic maritime climates and larger than normal Arctic melts that are largely due to warm Atlantic water pushing north into the Arctic Ocean
And here in Windsor, Ont across from Detroit it may well be the coldest recorded July, unless the month ends very warm.
Mary Hinge (et al):
” FIIK! try this link H.R.
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
Thank you.
Anthony:
“REPLY: We also have the AMSU daily temps as a link on the right hand side of WUWT, see “Tools”….Anthony
And I’ll be checking it regurlarly. I can actually absorb that graph, thanks to the data pointer! I don’t mean to whine but I have problems reading graphs since a fair proportion of my central vision has been burned out in both eyes. Text is hard enough and most of the maps & graphs are generally beyond my visual abilities.
The way Mary Hinge threw that out, I just had to take a look and, surprise! Finally! A climate-related graph I can work with.
It’s worked out to be a good day for me. Thanks, all.
Roger Sowell (17:02:15)
I’ve been reading more from your blog and the links there. I recommend your blog to everyone here. The following is the clincher for me:
“There is zero possibility that global temperatures can be controlled by adjusting atmospheric CO2. The lack of consistent response is the proof. “
Forgive my ignorance, but aside from obviously spurious correlations between estimated global temperatures and CO2 concentration (remembering that correlation is not causation), just what parts of the AGW/CO2 hypothesis have any “basis in reality” (by which I assume you mean empirical evidence in favor)?
/Mr Lynn
@Jimmy Haigh (19:06:58) :
“Excellent post Roger. I’ve had look at your blog too. I think you can make a major contribution to the debate. I especially liked:
” ‘Measurable’ means that whatever we are to control, we must be able to somehow measure that, so we know where we started, where we are at any point in time, and when we have reached our desired goal. If we cannot measure it, we cannot control it. This is a fundamental requirement of control theory and is not subject to debate. Period.” “
Thank you, Jimmy. As poor as the temperature measurements are (as Anthony’s surfacestations.org work shows), the Controllability requirement is even more devastating to the CO2-causes-global-warming argument.
I wrote “Controllable means that a change in the manipulated variable [in this case, CO2] has an observable, measurable, and consistent effect on the control variable [in this case, global temperature]. Stated another way, and using an electric kitchen oven as an example, when the power flows to the heating element, the oven temperature increases. Not only does it increase, it always increases, each and every time. This is one point on which CO2 fails as a means to control global temperature.”
Therefore, as Dr. Latour wrote, making changes to CO2 is doomed to failure if one is hoping to reduce global temperatures.
There are several thousand chemical engineers in the U.S., and many more thousands around the world. It is likely that 4000 to 5000 from all over the world will attend the annual meeting in Nashville. My hope is that they will all become outspoken and carry the message forward.
Also, I do not intend to disparage any other science/engineering disciplines by my focus on chemical engineers. Many others are keenly aware of the requirements for process control. In fact, I will be speaking to a general audience comprised of many engineering disciplines in September in Ventura, California.
Regarding another recent thread on WUWT, on the Apollo moon program, it was fundamental that the rocket and various space capsules must be properly controlled. It would have been idiotic to choose a nonsense variable to control the rocket’s speed and direction. Those guys knew what they were doing, and Dr. Pierre Latour was one of them.
Eyeballing the 10 coolest July chart in Central Park, a majority (60%) were set back in the 1800s.
Besides the natural oscillations, a reasonable or partial explanation for this is that back then, there was much less of an urban heat island effect.
Which makes this year’s low numbers all the more interesting…
CHRIS
Norfolk, VA, USA
Roger Sowell (20:34:39)
I think you have it cracked (to use a catalytical metaphor)! Chemical/physical engineers are just the right kind of people to get to the bottom of AGW. The climate, after all, is just a physical process albeit an extremely complex one. Spread the word! ‘Climate science’ is not rocket science! (Those rocket scientists sure did know what they were doing.)
(I’m a geologist myself. I’ve been anti-AGW right from the start having seen geological evidence of climate change recorded in rocks. It’s what’s called a ‘no brainer’.)
Is it fair to say that weather is the manifestation of climate? If the climate is cooling,then the weather will act in response and vice versa.
There seems to be many climates around the world, regions where there are markedly different climates. it is folly to try to make it a global average. I am in agreement with the poster stated that our short time of recorded temps (about 150 years) is but a speck in the history of the earth. My belief is that we are in a time of cooling. How long it will last is yet to be determined but it will eventually start to warm again. That is the nature of the chaotic environment where climate is concerned. It is time that we begin again to use empirical measurement to build a historical reference understanding that it is not a long moment in history. Predicting trends with any accuracy out beyond 5 days is mostly something to be hoped for. Our dependence on models with many of the “facts” being assumptions is not fact. Until we have a better understanding of just what drives our climate we will not be able to predict future events with any degree of accuracy. I wonder what would be said if we were to enter a Maunder minimum with the resultant drop in temperatures.
It is time to reopen the books and begin a true study of the worlds regional climate with well sited surface stations and the use of modern up to date satellite measurement systems. The manipulation of the records to attempt to correct for the use of poorly sited measurement stations is useless. Our data collection must become a professional process. The siting of surface stations must be standardized with less than CRn 2 to be unacceptable. What we are currently using with the poor siting is nearly worthless. All data must be open sources and available to all. All methodology must be open and available for replication. Then and only then will we be using science to understand our climate. Much is yet to be learned about our planet. It is up to us to learn it.
Bill Derryberry
Roger Sowell:
Like Mr. Haigh I am a geologist, but unlike him I initially trusted my colleagues in the other sciences. It was not until I looked into AGW myself that I realized the depth of the deception.
More scientists and engineers need to not only hear the truth but to pass it through their own BS filters.
I wish you well at the Nashville meeting.
I know where New York’s heat is: it’s in Northern Cal/Southern Oregon. Redding/Shasta Lake will get up to 106 this week, with 5 straight days of 100+ weather. I know because I’m going up there on thursday, not looking forward to the heat.
Phil wrote:
“Yes, but globally, this month is a scorcher
– and the arctic ice is disappearing quickly – nearing 2007 levels…”
Mike Bryant replied:
“You seem to equate average earth temps with greater than average Arctic melt, while the Arctic is cooler than average…. ”
However, the picture ‘Sea Ice Extent’ does show that the extent of arctic ice is indeed nearing 2007 levels, as Phil wrote.
“Douglas H. Wood :
“ignoring facts which disagree with your hypothesis is not science.” ”
Douglas H. Wood HAD you been a true science believer well educated in Theories of Science you would have known that corrected (manipulated) data never ever are FACTS!
Please look at Theories of Science: Definitions
There was an old Broadway show called “Kiss Me Kate” that included a song called “Too Damn (Darn) Hot”. This was about Baltimore summer weather. Having lived a near 50 year period in the same area, I can tell you that the song is appropriate. Except for this year. We’ve had only 2 days this summer with temperatures of 90 degrees (f). In my youth, almost ALL the days could be described as such.
This has been an incredibly mild summer as far as high temperatures go.
norah4you (23:50:46)
The thing is Norah, science is NOT my religion, so belief does not come into my understanding of it.
Climate science is not my area of study. As an earth scientist there is some overlap, but science is quite specialized beyond the undergrad level. As I mentioned above, we depend upon the honesty of of scientists and of the system to keep them honest.
What has happened in climate science is that the system has become corrupt and dishonest brokers have used that to create a fear based belief system that now infects the worlds of politics and the media.