Steve Goddard reminded me that we’ve had “220 Years of Global Warming in Philadelphia”
Starting in 1790, a prominent Philadelphia resident named Charles Pierce started keeping detailed records of the weather and climate, which has been archived on Google Books.
His report from January, 1790 is below:
JANUARY. 1790. The average or medium temperature of this month was 44 degrees. This is the mildest month of January on record. Fogs prevailed very much in the morning, but a hot sun soon dispersed them, and the mercury often ran up to 70 in the shade, at mid-day. Boys were often seen swimming in the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers. There were frequent showers as in April, some of which were accompanied by thunder and lightning. The uncommon mildness of the weather continued until the 7th of February.
Compare vs. January, 2010 which had a mean temperature of 32 degrees – 12 degrees cooler than 220 years ago. So far, February is even colder.
Here’s what GISS says about the temperature. Note Philly is now about where it was in 1950.
The water temperature in the Delaware River was close to freezing and was frozen over for part of January, 2010 – so it is unlikely that many boys were swimming there this year.
Yes, this is just one month, so here is a more detailed analysis from WUWT.
Jeremy writes:
You don’t know Philly kids. All that’s necessary to get them swimming (even two centuries ago) is to tell ’em “Don’t.”
“Icarus (13:41:46) :
It’s hard to tell what the point of this article is. Everyone knows that the climate (both local and global) has natural variability, but that doesn’t mean human factors can’t also have a substantial effect – in fact, it should make us more concerned about anthropogenic climate change, not less so, if it is telling us that climate is quite sensitive to relatively small forcings. IIRC the forcing from anthropogenic CO2 is around 1.6 W/m2 compared to a fluctuation of around 0.2 W/m2 due to the normal solar cycle. This seems significant.”
Where does the planet store the heat, Icarus? If the heat doesn’t get stored we don’t have to worry because it’s obviously not a problem of insufficient cooling then. So where is it stored?
James Sexton writes:
D’you mean something like “Mike’s Nature trick,” perhaps?
So you guys think Jan 2010 was cold throughout? Want to make a bet about what the global number will look like for the month? We can use UAH if you want.
carrot eater,
The average tells you nothing about the distribution. Suppose you have 10 numbers 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 100, 0, 0, 0. The average is 10, but the median is zero.
Now suppose you have a very warm area of ocean in the central/south Pacific aka El Nino. That can create a relatively high “global average temperature” which tells you nothing about temperatures on the rest of the planet.
The point is, the “global number” is misleading during El Nino. Consider 2007 when UAH showed having a very warm January, and then temperatures plummeted more than one degree the rest of the year.
Icarus,
If the climate is so sensitive, how did we get out of the last ice age? CO2 was very low, albedo was very high. If the climate was that sensitive, feedback should have kept making it colder and colder until Penguins and Polar Bears took over the planet.
A quick glance at the 400 yr. PDO reconstruction shows that it was crashing around 1790 from a high positive state to a slightly negative state. It very well could have been accompanied by a strong La Niña event. This would argue for mild temperatures across the eastern U.S.
Here in Minnesota, the Minneapolis records go back to 1820. There was also one record of a winter (I believe 1807/08) in the Red River Valley near Pembina, North Dakota… the winter was plenty severe.. but then April was very warm even by today’s standards. Every place has its outliers. The winter of 1877/78 was the mildest here by a huge amount. No other winter in the modern record can touch it.
What is even more interesting was that Minneapolis saw a strong cooling trend from 1835-1875… about 3˚F over that period. Temperatures more or less warmed to around the 1820-2009 average after 1885 and remained there until around 1920 when temps warmed further and were quite warm from the 1930s-late 1950s. Only the 1998-2009 period has beaten that period.
What caused the cooling trend from 1835-1875? Why did it warm again so quickly?
You can check this info out at http://home.att.net/~minn_climo/
Wish the graph went back a little further.
1930’s and 40’s was the dust bowl.
carrot eater (15:03:10) :
“So you guys think Jan 2010 was cold throughout? Want to make a bet about what the global number will look like for the month? We can use UAH if you want.”
Is that before or after Hansen’s little trick? http://i31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.gif
Or Australia’s http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/20/darwin-zero-before-and-after/
Or New Zealand’s http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
Oh, you must be talking about Bolivia! http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/
I would not trust ANY temperature information that comes homogenized out of “official” channels including satellite.
Besides we all basically agree there has been warming since the 1970’s and that warming has pretty much ended. Even the CRU e-mails (It’s a travesty) back that up.
Steve Goddard:
That’s mathematically true, but the global numbers are still very meaningful. The global trend is of warming since the 1970s, and looking at a trend map, most regions are indeed warming, except for East Antarctica.
Of course, at any given point in time, you’ll have some places warmer than usual, and others colder. I’m just underscoring that the cold January was a very regional thing.
As for how we got out of the last ice age, you know the theory. Milankovitch triggers some warming, which set off snow melt and the release of CO2, which saw to the rest. Your image doesn’t make any sense, anyway. The feedbacks don’t lead to infinite changes; they merely amplify the changes. So you reach the glacial maximum, and then wait for the orbital forcing to come back around to trigger warming again.
Gail Combs (15:44:39) :
There’s no homogenisation in satellite data. Station data isn’t used.
carrot eater,
Hansen says that orbital cycles are “a very weak forcing.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/illwesleyan_20080219.pdf
How could a “very weak forcing” overwhelm CO2 and albedo which he considers to be strong forcings? Your argument is inconsistent with Hansen’s statement.
AGW cultists, fear not, Mr. Pearce’s obviously erratic data is Bush’s fault.
DirkH (15:00:59) :
Where does the planet store the heat, Icarus? If the heat doesn’t get stored we don’t have to worry because it’s obviously not a problem of insufficient cooling then. So where is it stored?
In the climate system, and the bulk of it in the oceans. If you have the same energy coming in from the sun and the outgoing energy is reduced by an enhanced greenhouse effect then that is inevitable (until an equilibrium at a higher temperature is reached).
Well, I sure hope icarus is right. We could sure use another couple of degrees warming. Increased crop yields due to longer growing seasons and warmer nights sure would help feed a growing world population.
The increase in precipitation should lessen droughts as well. Fewer cold weather deaths across the world is surely something to look forward to. In fact, it’s hard to come up with a single reason we shouldn’t all look forward to warmer temps.
Steve Goddard (15:20:19) :
…Now suppose you have a very warm area of ocean in the central/south Pacific aka El Nino. That can create a relatively high “global average temperature” which tells you nothing about temperatures on the rest of the planet.
The point is, the “global number” is misleading during El Nino. Consider 2007 when UAH showed having a very warm January, and then temperatures plummeted more than one degree the rest of the year
It’s true that we don’t have a perfectly accurate ‘global number’, and all climatologists recognise this, and recognise the need to have better monitoring (e.g. Trenberth’s paper). However, the long-term trends are clearly more important than short-term variability, and the warming trend over recent decades is clearly revealed by rising global sea levels and melting global ice cover.
Steve Goddard (15:31:06) :
Icarus,
If the climate is so sensitive, how did we get out of the last ice age? CO2 was very low, albedo was very high. If the climate was that sensitive, feedback should have kept making it colder and colder until Penguins and Polar Bears took over the planet.
We got out of the last ice age precisely *because* the climate is so sensitive to changes in insolation (solar forcing) over the Milankovitch Cycle, amplified by positive feedback mechanisms (albedo, greenhouse gases, clouds etc.). Several billion years ago with a ‘faint young sun’ the conditions might have been right for a ‘snowball Earth’, but now solar irradiance is substantially higher (30%? I forget) and the planet is more likely to have a problem with keeping cool than with warming up from an ice age.
“Richard M (17:04:17) :
In fact, it’s hard to come up with a single reason we shouldn’t all look forward to warmer temps
Seriously? How about:
Loss of many major coastal cities including mine (I live at sea level)
Increased drought
Increased wildfires
Death of most tropical coral and livelihood of millions of people
Heatwaves killing tens of thousands
Widespread destruction of rainforest
Major cities abandoned as glacier-fed water supplies dry up
Massive crop failure
Southern Europe turns to desert
Massive extinctions
Oceans are largely dead as overturning ceases
etc…
Satellites may say the earth is warm, but the people living there might feel differently.
US http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp1.html (90% of the country below normal)
Mexico – http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp3.html (100% below normal)
Europe – http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html (80% below normal)
Central Asia – http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp11.html (70% below normal)
Middle East – http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp9.html (80% below normal)
Icarus,
The last ice age was only 20,000 years ago.
As it got colder, feedback caused snow cover to increase and CO2 to decrease, which in turn caused snow cover to increase and CO2 to decrease, etc. etc.
If the climate was so sensitive, then this cycle of feeding back Hansen’s “strong forcings” (CO2 and albedo) would have been impossible to break – certainly not by a “very weak forcing.”
Hansen wants to have it both ways, but it isn’t going to work.
Steve Goddard (16:37:09) :
Hansen says that orbital cycles are “a very weak forcing.”
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/illwesleyan_20080219.pdf
[snip] what he actually says is: “Chief instigator of climate change was earth orbital change, a very weak forcing.” and “Chief mechanisms of Pleistocene climate change are GHGs & ice sheet area, as feedbacks”
i.e. only a small forcing is needed to result in large global climate changes because of positive feedback from ice sheets, greenhouse gases etc. – precisely why anthropogenic factors are having, and will have, such a huge effect on the climate.
Please don’t misrepresent other people’s work like that.
Icarus,
I’m not misrepresenting Hansen’s work – rather I am pointing out that his statements make no sense. Obviously a “very weak forcing” can not be the “primary instigator.” He is talking out of both sides of his mouth.
I’m just hoping that people like you will try thinking for yourself.
Steve Goddard (16:37:09) :
Orbital forcing is a weak forcing that (if we’re starting from a glacial maximum) starts a bit of warming, and which starts ice melting, which leads to more warming, and also the release of CO2, which also leads to more warming. How is that inconsistent with what Hansen said? The point Icarus is making is that climate is sensitive – that a weak forcing like Milankovich has such impacts because of feedbacks.
Keep in mind that in the ice age cycles, CO2 is itself a feedback; it’s the orbital forcing that kicks everything off (either going into, or coming out of, an ice age).
Hansen’s whole tipping point idea is based around the idea that increased greenhouse gases and loss of albedo feed back and overwhelm all other “forcings” – leading the planet to an irreversible Venus like state.
He can’t then turn around and claim that this theory works sometimes and not others. Using his logic, it should also be impossible to come out of an ice age – certainly not by a “very weak forcing.”
Or does he also believe that a “very weak forcing” could reverse his “tipping point?”
His logic is completely scattered.
The uncommon mildness of the weather continued until the 7th of February.
So this was uncommon.
The Google book said he took 3 temperatures each day – sunrise, 2pm and 10pm.
If so, he does not capture the daily minimum Temperature as is done now.
Has anyone run a check against current data to see the average bias introduced by using different collection methods? Isn’t this a “Time of Observation” problem?