Here’s an opportunity for crowd-sourcing a rebuttal to Climate Central’s Top Ten Climate Events of 2010. I think it is mistitled, and should be Climate Central’s Top Ten Weather Events of 2010.
Of course it OK when they do it, because as we all know, weather is not climate except when it fits the AGW narrative, which is CC’s founding mission. The Climate Central effort here with this list seems rather weak and transparent, when you look at the story behind the story for the list they have compiled.
Get a load of this paragraph:
This year also featured plenty of extreme events, from crippling snowstorms in the American Northeast to blazing heat and deadly flooding in Pakistan. Many of these events have already been at least partially linked to natural variations that occur in the Earth’s climate system.
Um, that’s called weather.
Here’s the list with some rebuttals of my own to get started. Readers please add your own in comments, and I’ll add them to this list.
1. Mid-Atlantic Cities Break All-Time Snowfall Records
Last time I checked, it takes two to tango. Cold and weather patterns are a factor also. And, can you tie single weather events to climate?
Readers can help fill in this section with more examples.
2. Flooding in Nashville, Tennessee
Gosh, it floods somewhere in the USA almost every year. For example the Great Ohio River flood of 1937. Was that caused by global warming climate change climate disruption back then too?
3. Record-breaking Heat Waves and Droughts in Africa and the Middle East
Gosh, it gets hot there? We have about 100 years of records, some of that natural variation you allude to can’t be in play in such a short slice of the planetary history? Assume AGW is not a factor; is it not unreasonable to expect new records to be set outside of a 100 year data sample?
Readers can help fill in this section with examples.
4. Russian Heat Wave
Gee, even NOAA doesn’t think this has anything to do with global warming climate change climate disruption:
Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia.
I guess Climate Central never got that memo.
5. U.S. Summer Heat Waves
2010 had heat waves, so did other years in the USA. When was it again that we had the most frequency of heat waves? Oh, yeah, the 1930’s.
And yes, I know the graph does not go to 2010, the graphs above were published in 2006, for pre-2000 data, but perhaps readers can locate an update?
6. Pakistan Monsoon and Flooding
Isn’t there a long history of this sort of thing?
From: Khandekar M. K., “2010 Pakistan Floods: Climate Change Or Natural Variability?”
(October 2010), Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (Vol.38, No.5).
As the graph shows, rainfall records for the region prove how floods and droughts have occurred irregularly over a 150-year period and show no discernible significant trend.
Khandekar, also once a research scientist for Environment Canada, and an IPCC reviewer, sums up how Pakistan’s climate record shows no human signal:
“Among other droughts and floods, the monsoon rains were exceptionally heavy in 1917 with extensive floods over many areas of the country, while 1972 was a major drought year resulting in sharply reduced grain yields. The decade of the 1930s experienced in general surplus rains over most of India with three flood years, namely 1933, 1936 and 1938 (Bhalme & Mooley 1980). It is of interest to note that the1930s were part of the dust bowl years on the Canadian/US Prairies. A possible teleconnective link between Indian monsoon flood and Canadian Prairie drought has been speculated by Khandekar (2004).”
His conclusion:
“A rapid transition of the ENSO phase from El Niño to La Niña between spring and summer of 2010 appears to be the key element in triggering a vigorous monsoon of 2010 over the Indian subcontinent…….the 2010 Pakistan floods, although seemingly unprecedented, were well within natural variability of monsoonal climate over the Indian subcontinent.”
7. Third Lowest Arctic Sea Ice Extent
Yes, but here’s what Climate Central won’t show you:
or this:
8. Lake Mead Record Low
Yes, but it has dipped low before, and again, is a 70 year record really enough to claim a long term event outside the bounds of natural variability?
Figure 8. Time series of average monthly Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) (upper, smoothed) and standardized anomaly index (SAI) of cool+warm-season precipitation (lower). Arrows indicate regime shifts of the PDO.
The USGS says in Precipitation History of the Mojave Desert Region, 1893–2001:
Precipitation in the desert region is modestly but significantly correlated with the average PDO (computed from October to September) in the year preceding (lag 1) and the year of the cool+warm (lag 0) season (fig. 7). The three regime shifts of the PDO are largely in-phase with the annual and seasonal precipitation time series, particularly since the mid-1940s (fig. 8). The mid-century dry conditions show this in phase relation, which coincides with a period of low indices and a prolonged cool phase of the PDO. The early neutral to positive phase of the PDO is associated, although in a complicated manner, with the relatively wet conditions during the early half of the century. The strong warm phase of the PDO beginning around 1977 is readily associated with the wet climate beginning in 1978. Of particular interest is the downward shift in the PDO beginning in 1999 with concomitant decreased precipitation that has continued through the winter of 2002 with only slight relief in winter 2003. The unusually dry climate in the Mojave Desert region since 1998 is likely associated with a nearly continuous belt of high pressure in the northern mid-latitudes that produced drought conditions elsewhere in the United States, the Mediterranean region, southern Europe, and central Asia. This global-scale drying was evidently related to unusually cool and persistent SST in the eastern Pacific Ocean (Hoerling and Kumar, 2003). The weather, SST, and surface-pressure patterns of the past several years suggest that a transition to another PDO regime is presently underway (Gedalof and Smith, 2001). This transition could affect the climate of the Mojave Desert region.
Well, that’s inconvenient.
9. Amazon Drought
Wide open for readers.
10. Final Annual Temperature Ranking
Um, no, it’s not final yet. Final is the word you use when all the data is in, we still await December. But, it seems there’s been a lot of pressure to make 2010 the “hottest year ever” in advance of the year end.
EternalOptimist show me anyone who can prove any portion of this entire discussion. There is not anyone on this earth who can explain that. There is only one, the Creator who can prove any of it, El Shaddai, God of Israel. That is the ultimate truth that we can not discuss here so what’s the point? People will believe what their masters tell them to believe. The Fallen will have their way with them, use them up, then let them be destroyed. Their leader will arrive soon, then all these stupid discussions will have been a waste of time. All eyes are closed, all ears are covered. Good luck world, I had higher hopes among the intellectuals, but alas, they are mostly Brain-Dead to. Such a shame, Jesus is reaching out His hands to forgive you and accept you into His Kingdom. Repent, Jesus is coming soon.
So what was that global Temperature again ? I do mean the Temperature; not interested in any anomalies; just the Temperature. The usual absolute thermodynamic scale of Tempertaue is ok by me; but I can actually convert Temperatures in degrees Celsius; or even in Degrees Fahrenheit; but I don’t know how to convert anomalies; whatever they are; into Temperatures on any recognizable scale.
So the Temperature please (including error bounds.
GULF STREAM
I have read more than once that the Gulf Stream is NOT the reason for the relatively mild climate of the UK and western Europe. Rather, the mildth is due to the temperate temperature of the air reaching those regions, and it is known as a maritime climate.
If what I have read is wrong I want to hear about it.
IanM
Tim Folkerts wrote:
“For example, NOAA says “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
Do you doubt this change occurred? Do you think this change in measurement should NOT be considered? That current morning readings should indeed be compared with earlier afternoon readings? ”
What this indicates is that the data they collect is next to useless for measuring decadal climate shifts.
What is the point of collecting temperature data at 9am? If you know the temperature at 9am, can you determine the maximum for the day? You can’t adjust for this, the data is meaningless.
They don’t even have historical 9am measures to do the adjustments for that station, they are using the data they had from other stations to adjust the stations that have moved to 9am temperature collections. This is madness. What if local conditions normally have an afternoon windshift? Or a storm. How the hell do you determine that from a 9am temperature reading?
The reason they moved to 9am readings is for hydrological studies, so they seem to not take temperature readings as important.
So crippling snowstorms are proof of global warming? Then it’s true. The state of science education in US schools is abysmal.
Regarding Lake Mead.
At the moment it seems to be raining in the area!
http://www.instacam.com/showcam.asp?id=LAKMD&size=L
Links to long term data and charts.
chart
http://www.arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/
Data
http://www.arachnoid.com/NaturalResources/
Tim Folkerts says:
December 17, 2010 at 3:26 pm
The “reading” (NCDC says “observing”) events are to record the high and low temperatures. On a hot day the afternoon readings might result in that day’s temperature being used as the high recorded that day and the following. There’s a similar problem with low temperatures with morning readings. Vose et al at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2003rv20grl.pdf say there cat be a 2.0°C bias in a month.
There’s also an issue involving the overall temperature change with the seasons, e.g. in spring as the days warm quickly, shifting the observation time from PM to AM mixes in a half day’s bias.
Back around 1970 I keypunched data from an obsolete thermograph my father brought home from work, quickly discovered the importance of software to do consistency checks on the data, and wound up with a temperatures for every three hours. While there were obvious differences in the average temperatures computed from the 3 hour data and average of high/low data, things averaged out better than I expected.
These days, I have years of temperature (and pressure, RH, wind, etc) with 10 minute resolution. What does the NCDC have? High and low temperatures. (USCRN data has hourly data.)
You ask “That current morning readings should indeed be compared with earlier afternoon readings?”
My answer – “They both suck.” So yeah, they compare quite well, it’s all a matter of how you look at it.
Tim
“For example, NOAA says “The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html
Why switch from the afternoon to the morning anyway ?
Why switch to the morning and then add FAKE numbers to approximate the afternoon temperature ?
How can those possibly be accurate or represent reality ?
Seems utterly moronic to me.
harry says:
December 17, 2010 at 4:05 pm
Perhaps some people here aren’t familiar with max/min thermometers. These have iron rods in the measuring tubes that get pushed by mercury but don’t get pulled back. An “observation” record entails recording the max and min, then using a magnet to reset the iron rods for the next 24 hours.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_minimum_thermometer describes a type that I have, the “professional” variants are individual thermometers, one for max, one for min. and mounted at an angle. I think rotating them vertical would reset them.
At 0900 you can tell what the highest and lowest temperatures were since the last time the thermometer was reset.
None of their 2010 climate events compare well to the past severe weather events that took place prior to AGW fears.
See top severe weather events in past here at this page:
http://www.c3headlines.com/severe-weather-chartsgraphs.html
Jimash says: December 17, 2010 at 4:30 pm
“Why switch from the afternoon to the morning anyway ?”
I don’t know. But Ric Werme gave some good info a few posts back.
“Why switch to the morning and then add FAKE numbers to approximate the afternoon temperature ?”
Why do you call these “fake”? Are prices that are adjusted for inflation “fake”? If I know my speedometer reads 5% high, is it “fake” data to say my speed is 57 mph when the speedometer reads 60 mph? When it is known that the readings are not similar, it would seem “fake” if they DIDN’T take into account problems that have been identified.
“How can those possibly be accurate or represent reality?”
That seems a perfectly reasonable question. One worth looking into and understanding. But that will take considerable effort. The reference that Ric gave earlier states “In short, the time of observation bias adjustments in HCN appear to be robust.” So this paper suggests that the temperature corrections are reasonable. I would suggest if you are truly interested, you read the paper (and perhaps the papers that they cite and papers that cite this paper) and then tell us specifically what is utterly moronic about their methods and conclusions.
“At 0900 you can tell what the highest and lowest temperatures were since the last time the thermometer was reset. ”
Well… that sounds great Ric, but it isn’t what they say they are doing.
” This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.””
Just how many corrections and fudges and extrapolations can you do to what is ultimately a pretty simple measurement before it becomes corrupt ?
How can all these far flung temperatures be corrected and adjusted by multiple degrees and then claim an accuracy representing the real world to within tenths and hundredths of a degree ?
This does not stand to reason.
Tim
““In short, the time of observation bias adjustments in HCN appear to be robust.””
Compared to what ? The afternoon readings that they didn’t take ?
This is not a speedometer, every day and every place are different, while the speedo
is consistent in its offset.
The adjustment itself imparts a bias, that cannot be correct or representative however robust it may seem.
Robust is an oft used “fudge” word, that means it looks good on paper.
I mean we are talking a about a well established instrument.
A reading ( observation) of a simple, usually 3 digit number with a darn decimal point.
IF this is “the most important thing in the world”, uh.. don’t you want the real numbers ?
I would much rather see a graph with the real numbers and a note that says ” here at this point we switched to the morning, so it looks lower “.
The whole routine seems to be statistical overkill.
“A possible teleconnective link between Indian monsoon flood and Canadian Prairie drought has been speculated by Khandekar (2004).”
“Teleconnective link”? Really? Sounds like Edgar Cayce. Where can I read about the physical properties of “teleconnection”?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate
“The difference between climate and weather is usefully summarized by the popular phrase “Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.”” and “The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).”
Now if climate is what I expect, then why is a period of 30 years chosen? The reason I ask is that the PDO has a cycle of about 60 years and the sunspot cycle is about 11 years. If I wanted to go to Los Angeles next March 1, the average temperature over the last 30 years for March 1 would not be as useful as other things. For example, IF I assumed the PDO was the most important thing in determining the temperature next March 1, and assuming a cycle of exactly 60 years, I would would want to know what happened between 58 and 62 years ago. As well, I may want to know the La Nina, El Nino and sunspot situation at that time. Then if I believed the sunspots were also a factor, I may add or subtract a degree or two. If I assumed El Ninos and La Ninas were also a factor, I would add or subtract a few more degrees, depending on the situation.
So in relation to this article, if “Climate is what you expect”, which of these ten things were specifically expected before they occurred? Would the MET office be prepared to make ten specific predictions for 2011 that we can check next December?
Mark and Merejen Borders says:
December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
Oh and, what will happen to the weather and climate if the Gulf Stream is stopped and no warm water enters the Atlantic Current?
That current is caused by the rotation of the earth. Why would you think it will stop?
Global warming ‘science’ makes unfeasible claims.
Did you read things on some alarming blog somewhere and then post what you read here in your numerous comments?
Wow…cool comments (sorry, no pun intended)
After reading some of these, I’m feel comfortable with my views, and they haven’t changed.
Then again, I visit this site often.
# 10
I suppose the period between 800AD and 1300AD aren’t included in their time period of “ever”, when global average temps were about 5 degrees warming than they are now. This would be the period in which the Vikings dicovered Greenland and flourished there, up until the arrival of the “Little Ice Age” at about 1300AD, that drove them out.
Oh BTW, all this association between heat waves and droughts doesn’t wash. Antarcticas’ average annual percipitaion is around 3 inches (approx. 1 inch of rain = 1 ft of snow). It’s never warm enough in Antarctica for it to rain.
If you want to cherry-pick “record temperatures in someplace-or-other”, you can have record highs (and lows) pretty much every year as far back as we have been keeping records. So Lake Mead was at an all-time low – what about the other hundred million or so lakes in the world, how are they doing? So Russia had record highs this summer – Britain is poised to set record lows for the month of December. It’s all cherry-picking.
You cannot pick any one new record and say “this is because of global warming”; you need to accept that there are a zillion other instances that weren’t records and therefore weren’t noticed. This top ten list is useful for impressing those who are easily distracted by bits of string and shiny baubles, but not much more than that.
Jeff Alberts says: teleconnection?
Try searching, please. — weather teleconnections –
94,000 hits; the fourth is:
http://library.thinkquest.org/20901/teleconnections.htm
A simple concept: Consider a large tub of water, calm, smooth. Take a 3 liter pail and carefully lift that much water from one end. The 3 liter hole is immediately filled, the water adjusts and become smooth again.
Now, think of a low pressure system. What does it do? From how far away might air be flowing (X km.) toward the center of the low? (Discount Earth’s rotation.) What happens when the low dissipates? Does the air that was X km. away and moving toward the low stop or continue toward the place where the low was?
Hope that helps.
Tim Folkerts says:
“Smokey says: December 17, 2010 at 2:37 pm
You do know that NOAA “adjusts” the temperature record, right? And their adjustments always show hotter temps. Just like GISS.
You can’t trust them.”
Yes, I have heard that. But simply because they adjust the values, that does not a priori mean they cannot be trusted. The question is how and why did they adjust the temperatures.
Good questions, Tim. You continue:
“And no, I do not have personal knowledge of the details or of the other potential biases that they may have been adjusting for. But if you want to claim the adjustment are in some way suspect, then please provide your specific evidence of how specific adjustments are incorrect so I can learn what those problems are.”
OK, I’m glad to help out:
Here’s the daily sea ice concentration: click. [Courtesy of the esteemed and peer-reviewed Willis Eschenbach]. You will notice that the temperature bias claiming global warming is non-existent.
Next, NOAA itself shows declining temperatures: click
And GISS & NOAA show sharp temperature rises, while others do not: click
Although GISS, like NOAA, sometimes shows steeply rising temperatures – after they “adjust” the temperature record. What are the odds of always showing rising temperatures, eh?
And GISS shows lousy correllation with CO2: click
More bogus GISS adjustments: click
Like NOAA, GISS “adjusts” the temperature record to always show increased warming. You asked for evidence. There it is.
GISS and NOAA are lying for continued grant money. Can there be any doubt?
John F. Hultquist says:
December 17, 2010 at 8:54 pm
The way it’s being described in the paragraph I quoted makes it seem like a DROUGHT in one hemisphere is causing a FLOOD in another. Perhaps opposing pressure systems may correlate somehow, but the word “teleconnect” just sounds like so much mumbo jumbo.
Why no mention of the very cold winter in parts of South America this year?
Folks play fast & loose with all sorts of definitions! I constantly see “ocean acidification” lumped under the “climate” rubric, when it should properly be considered under atmospheric chemistry, unrelated to anything to do with climate.
Other atmospheric chemistry issues include acid deposition (acid rain) from sulfur dioxide emissions.
Repeat after me, “carbon dioxide is the root of all evil.”
Mark and Merejen Borders says:
December 17, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I checked the 3 links I provided and they are not broken. Try again.
Why are you asking me about events you think should appear in NOAAs list? THEY ARE NOAAs LIST. Did you miss my line about “Trivial Pursuit”?