US record lows outpace record highs 127 to 4 this weekend

@- Smokey says:
“izen’s belief system convinces him that he actually knows the weather patterns from a thousand years ago…”
Not quite.
my ‘belief’ system convinces me that the physics that explains the climate of the past is the same as the physics that operates to generate the climate of the present.
I do not know what the weather patterns were like a thousand years ago.
But I expect them to be similar if the physical conditions, such as Arctic temperatures and ice cover are similar.
@- “This has all happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater extent. ”
Yes, I agree. The past climate shows a high degree of variability. Quite small changes in the energy balance seem to cause quite large changes in the climate. Solar input, volcanoes and CO2 levels can alter the climate quite dramatically, as if it was quite sensitive….
@- “We are now in a “Goldilocks climate”, where temperatures have been unusually flat for the past century and a half.”
I agree with you again, with the proviso that it was true for the century and a half before ~1950. The LIA was noteworthy for the stability of its climate. the variation was small compared to warmer times. The MWP perhaps (of uncertain extent and synchronisation) but more obviously the post-melt Holocene optimum ~8000 years ago were similar on global temperatures to now and show the much greater variation that is expected.
As Hansen recently demonstrated from observations, as the average temperature rises the width of the variance increases. Kurtosis is the inevitable process that brings more extremes as surface temperatures rise.
@- “The alarmist crowd never did have any scientific evidence on their side, only their misguided belief system. Religious belief in CAGW seems to be enough for most of them. Crazy, no?”
Not sure about CAGW which seems to be a rejectionist meme, but AGW is a crazy religion in that it is the only one that has changed its doctrine in the light of empirical evidence. In the 50s when Revelle discovered that the oceans would not absorb all anthropogenic CO2 emissions and they would accumulate in the atmosphere, in the 60s when Plass et al calculated the radiative transfer of energy in the atmosphere and showed that there was a significant energy imbalance caused by rising CO2.
The converts really flocked in when simple models made in the 80s were validated by further direct measurement of upwelling and downwelling LWR. Such was the power of theory validated by observation that ‘believers’ now include every scientific institution of any credible reputation ascribing to the ‘belief’, more commonly called an understanding of the physics.
I can’t think of another ‘religion’ that has gathered so many followers with scientific theory supported by empirical measurement – can you?
{Grin}

I have found this website pretty useful for quckly finding a tally of U.S. temperature records, and it allows you to filter that search by state or time frame:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/
I am no fan of how the media reports on climate issues, but the data from that site do seem to show that record highs for the year to date have far outnumbered record lows.

Bob Berwyn says:
August 20, 2012 at 12:27 pm
if someone shows that global warming is NOT happening, it will get all sorts of media attention.
Exactly what time period are we talking about? RSS is now at 15 years and 8 months with no warming. See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

It would be REALLY interesting to find out the CRN designations of these 127 stations. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the majority were CRN 3 or CRN 4?

The BEST project has shown that one-third of weather stations in the U.S. have shown net cooling over their record(at least 70 years).So it is surely not surprising that we had many record lows last weekend. But the really important issue is why we have both warming and cooling stations (see figure 4 and accompanying comments in their paper “Influence of Urban Heating…”)
I have not seen any discussion of this paradox. Is it claimed that there is a complex pattern of micro- (and mini-) climates? If so, it would be helpful to see some carefully analyzed examples. Or does this behavior suggest that there are significant bias errors in the temperature measurement systems? As someone who has been actively engaged in all aspects of temperature measurement for many years, my present disposition is to favor the second explanation. Any comments?

Werner Brozek, you wrote:

However when you consider that there has been natural warming since the LIA, the new low records are doubly bad for warmists. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg

1. Do you care to share the scientific reference from which the picture under the link was taken?
2. I also don’t understand the logic in your statement. What is the link between “natural warming since the LIA” and the “new record lows” supposed to be?
2. Why would the occurrence of some record lows be “doubly bad for warmists”? Is the occurrence of record lows in the daily data at some stations supposed to be in contradiction to anything that has been published in the scientific literature by “warmists”? Or to what?

Werner Brozek, you wrote:

Exactly what time period are we talking about? RSS is now at 15 years and 8 months with no warming. See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1996.9/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend

And why exactly did you specifically choose the RSS data set, but none of the other data sets? Because it fits your narrative best about “no warming” for “15 years and 8 months”? All the trend calculations for the global temperature anomaly, which start at or not many years before 1998 are strongly affected by the very strong El Nino in 1998. Your statements that there hadn’t been any (with probability x% statistically significant) temperature increase at the surface or in the troposphere for a time period, where the global temperature series is still dominated by modes of natural variability like ENSO may be technically correct, insofar a (with probability x% statistically significant) trend can’t be detected in the data series, but such a result does not allow any scientifically valid conclusion about whether global warming is an ongoing physical process or not. The non-detectability of a trend in a time series does not logically allow the conclusion that a longer-term trend is absent, because it can’t be logically excluded that the chosen time period was just too short and the trend was only masked by noise for the chosen period.
REPLY: I think it has to do with the fact that few people trust GISS anymore. After all, why would anyone trust data published by a scientist who has a criminal arrest record for advocacy of said data/results such as Dr. James Hansen does? I sure don’t. – Anthony

As I mouse over the record night warmth I see airports, a fire station, a fish hatchery, Burbank Vally Pump Plant(looks to be a sewage treatment plant).
More siting issues!!
mouse over the yellow dots
http://mapcenter.hamweather.com/records/2day/us.html?c=maxtemp,mintemp,lowmax,highmin

Jan P Perlwitz
Speaking of fitting a narrative, why is GISTemp like this?
Does GISTemp change? part 1

Does GISTemp change? part 2

climatetruthinitiative says:
August 20, 2012 at 7:30 am
…I am very interested in temperature measurements and would very much like to quote this information because it is so important. Where can I find information on “Smith” and these results?…
______________________________
At WUWT it was : http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/on-the-march-of-the-thermometers/
E.M. Smith is ChiefIO and he wrote a series of articles on the dropping of the thermometers. A lot of links are in this article Assume A Spherical Cow – therefore all steaks are round and in this article http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/temperatures-now-compared-to-maintained-ghcn/
He starts with this 2009 article: NCDC GHCN – Airports by Year by Latitude http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/12/08/ncdc-ghcn-airports-by-year-by-latitude/
The compendium report is http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/

@ur momisugly Gail Combs
Thanks for the references. I am well aware of ChiefIO (E.M. Smith, but wasn’t sure that you were referring to him.
Now to read all your references.
IanM

@- RiHo08 says:
“With global warming there is to be more water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor, being a greenhouse gas, in a warming world ,will accumulate in the atmosphere by increased evaporation retarding the flow of photons from surface to space, increasing the heat energy of the atmosphere, warming the surface atmosphere.”
Yes, that is right, and confirmed by direct observation.
@-“Now the hard part. With an increased moist atmosphere; i.e., greater specific humidity, the low temperatures will be less cold, and the high temperatures will be less high. Do I have that right?”
Not quite.
That is true for global medium to long term averages, not for local short term weather.
@-“You have said that the physics of CO2 will inextricably push global atmospheric moisture content higher, which… to my understanding will lead to less extremes, not more….Have I got that right? What have I missed? I have heard that the global atmospheric specific humidity has decreased over the past 60 years. Your physics & position are vexing to me.”
Your vexation is the result of assuming that the increased humidity will have a dominant effect at all spatial and temporal scales of reducing the extremes. But the greater variance with higher temperatures can override that.
If you have heard that global atmospheric specific humidity has decreased over the last 60 years you must have been listening to Monckton.
As usual he is wrong. direct measurement from satellites confirm the rising moisture content.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/310/5749/841.abstract
Longer term records are problematic because consistent measuring methods were not used in past, pre-satellite, data, but even with that caveat they show increasing humidity.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010JD014192.shtml
Local extremes of weather will still occur, in fact become more probable, with rising temperatures caused by rising humidity. This is because the rise in temperature can disrupt previously stable weather patterns.
The obvious explanation for the spate of extreme lows referenced in this thread is the position of the jet stream pulling Arctic air down over the US central/eastern landmass.
And the probable cause of that is this –
https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

Jan P Perlwitz says:
August 20, 2012 at 4:58 pm
And why exactly did you specifically choose the RSS data set, but none of the other data sets?….The non-detectability of a trend in a time series does not logically allow the conclusion that a longer-term trend is absent, because it can’t be logically excluded that the chosen time period was just too short and the trend was only masked by noise for the chosen period.
While RSS has the longest time of zero slope, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 are right behind and are also over 15 years of no warming. Even GISS has no warming for 11 years and 5 months. And yes, there is noise. But note that RSS is 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years and Hadsst2 is 91.7% of the way there. As for Hadcrut3, I really wish it would get updated past March. I do know the later values, but they are not on WFT however I believe Hadcrut3 would show 15 years and 5 months of no warming if updated. This puts it at 90.7% of the way to Santer’s 17 years. As well, it was predicted that Hadcrut3 would break the 1998 record in half the years from 2010 to 2015. It has not happened yet and there is no way Hadcrut3 nor any other set will break any record this year. Further details on 5 sets follow.
2012 in Perspective so far on Five Data Sets
2012 started off rather cold but has warmed up since then. So the present rank is not the most meaningful number. Therefore I will also give what the ranking would be assuming the latest month’s anomaly will continue for the rest of the year. I will also indicate what is required for the rest of the year in each case to set a new record.
Note the bolded numbers for each data set where the lower bolded number is the highest anomaly recorded so far in 2012 and the higher one is the all time record so far. There is no comparison.
With the UAH anomaly for July at 0.28, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.089 -0.111 + 0.111 + 0.299 + 0.289 + 0.369 + 0.28)/7 = 0.164. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 9th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.153 to rank it 9th for that year. On the other hand, if the rest of the year averaged the July value, which is more likely if the El Nino gets stronger, then 2012 would come in at 0.212 and it would rank 5th. 1998 was the warmest at 0.428. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in February and April of 1998 when it reached 0.66. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.80. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the GISS anomaly for July at 0.47, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.34 + 0.40 + 0.47 + 0.55 + 0.66 + 0.56 + 0.47)/7 = 0.493. This is about the same as in 2011 when it was 0.514 and ranked 9th for that year. 2010 was the warmest at 0.63. The highest ever monthly anomalies were in March of 2002 and January of 2007 when it reached 0.88. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.82. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the Hadcrut3 anomaly for June at 0.477, the average for the first six months of the year is (0.217 + 0.194 + 0.305 + 0.481 + 0.475 + 0.477)/6 = 0.358. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. This is slightly above the anomaly in 2011 which was at 0.34 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.548. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in February of 1998 when it reached 0.756. If the June anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 9th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 6 months of the year would need to be 0.738. Since this is close to the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record. One has to back to the 1940s to find the previous time that a Hadcrut3 record was not beaten in 10 years or less.
With the sea surface anomaly for July at 0.386, the average for the first seven months of the year is (0.203 + 0.230 + 0.241 + 0.292 + 0.339 + 0.351 + 0.386)/7 = 0.292. This would rank it 11th compared to 2011 when it was 0.273 and ranked 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.451. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 1998 when it reached 0.555. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 0.67. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
With the RSS anomaly for July at 0.292, the average for the first seven months of the year is (-0.058 -0.121 + 0.073 + 0.332 + 0.232 + 0.339 + 0.292)/7 = 0.156. If the average stayed this way for the rest of the year, its ranking would be 12th. This compares with the anomaly in 2011 at 0.147 to rank it 12th for that year. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. If the July anomaly continued for the rest of the year, 2012 would end up 10th. In order for a new record to be set in 2012, the average for the last 5 months of the year would need to be 1.10. Since this is above the highest monthly anomaly ever recorded, it is virtually impossible for 2012 to set a new record.
So on all five of the above data sets, for their latest anomaly average, the 2012 average so far is close to that of 2011. If present trends continue, 2012 will be warmer than 2011, but a record is out of reach on all sets. My projection for the five sets above is that 2012 will come in either 9th or 10th on 4 of the sets, but 5th on UAH.
On all data sets, the different times for a slope that is flat for all practical purposes range from 10 years and 10 months to 15 years and 8 months. Following is the longest period of time (above 10 years) where each of the data sets is more or less flat. (*No slope is positive except UAH which is +0.0022 per year or +0.22/century up to July. So while it is not flat, the slope is not statistically significant either.)
1. UAH: since October 2001 or 10 years, 10 months (goes to July, but note * above)
2. GISS: since March 2001 or 11 years, 5 months (goes to July)
3. Combination of the above 4: since October 2000 or 11 years, 6 months (goes to March) (Hadcrut3 is SLOW!!)
4. HadCrut3: since January 1997 or 15 years, 3 months (goes to March)
5. Sea surface temperatures: since January 1997 or 15 years, 7 months (goes to July)
6. RSS: since December 1996 or 15 years, 8 months (goes to July)
RSS is 188/204 or 92.2% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.
7. Hadcrut4: since December 2000 or 11 years, 8 months (goes to July using GISS. See below.)
See the graph below to show it all for #1 to #6.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2001.16/trend/plot/rss/from:1996.9/trend/plot/wti/from:2000.75/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:2001.75/trend
For #7: Hadcrut4 only goes to December 2010 so what I did was get the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the end of December 2010. Then I got the slope of GISS from December 2000 to the present. The DIFFERENCE in slope was that the slope was 0.0049 lower for the total period. The positive slope for Hadcrut4 was 0.0041 from December 2000. So IF Hadcrut4 were totally up to date, and IF it then were to trend like GISS, I conclude it would show no slope for at least 11 years and 8 months going back to December 2000. (By the way, doing the same thing with Hadcrut3 gives the same end result, but GISS comes out much sooner each month.) See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000.9/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/to:2011/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000.9/trend
P.S. Thank you for your comment Anthony!