In the continental USA, there were 137 high temperature type records versus 857 low temperature type records this past week , a 6-1 difference. Last week there were 1154 low temperature type records putting the two week total for October at 2011. There were also 24 new snowfall records set this week in the upper plains.
Once again, if this had been summer, and the numbers reversed, you’d see Seth Borenstein writing articles for AP telling us this is ‘what global warming looks like’. So far not a peep out of Seth on this cold wave and what it is supposed to mean.
(Added) Here’s all the October lows plotted by week 1 and week 2 and composited on the US map:
Here’s just the lows for the past week plotted on the map:
And here are the total record numbers for this week:
Total number of high temperature type records: 39+98= 137
Total number of low temperature type records: 345+512= 857
| Record Events for Mon Oct 8, 2012 through Sat Oct 13, 2012 | |
| Total Records: | 1221 |
| Rainfall: | 229 |
| Snowfall: | 12 |
| High Temperatures: | 33 |
| Low Temperatures: | 345 |
| Lowest Max Temperatures: | 512 |
| Highest Min Temperatures: | 90 |
And here are all the temperature records since last Monday plus snowfall records on the map:
Source: NOAA data via HW Records Center here
Mark S says:
“…Christmas on December 25th? Global Warming!”
You had to go and bring religion into it. You have to keep with the secular religion of no religion, you might offend someone religion by referencing a religion. Non religion believers who hold no religion as their religion could get upset…
/sarc
If you dig into those record high’s, particularly when they are surrounded by record lows, I have often spotted several incorrect reports. I remember a couple of years ago spotting a report of around 50F when no station around them exceeded 20F for the day.
Out of curiosity, I know that temperatures are often “adjusted” when trying to determine regional or global temperatures (for various reasons with varying degrees of legitimacy). But are the actual daily records adjusted? For example, the “average” temperature of the US in the 1930’s has been adjusted downward, when calculated based on adjusted temperatures.
But are the individual actual records adjusted? For example, if the record high somewhere was set in 1932 at 106 F, is that specific record changed (to say 104 F), so that a new temperature of 105 F recorded this year would now be the “record”? I suspect that the “record” would still be listed as 106 F in 1932, but I would be curious to know which way it actually works.
Tim Folkerts says:
“…YES! this IS what global warming would look like — occasional small small excursions below normal temps, with more frequent, larger excursions above normal temps.”
Show us the global warming.
John@EF,
Try to be consistent. This is not the same as this.
Tim Folkerts:
At October 14, 2012 at 11:18 am you say
Oh! Thankyou for that. Clearly, I have failed to keep up because – having read the most recent IPCC report – I thought global warming would look like this.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html
In the graph the orange line represents the “committed” temp increase the IPCC said would occur after 2000 if there were no additional CO2. Clearly, actual temps from 2000 until now are lower than the projected “committed” warming while CO2 levels have continued to rise.
But, of course, that projection was then, and it is now known that projection was plain wrong. You now say that projection is not what global warming would look like.
This week you say global warming would look like flat-lining global temperature with “occasional small small excursions below normal temps, with more frequent, larger excursions above normal temps”.
Are you willing to say what global warming would look like next week?
Richard
Ah — a testable hypothesis:
OK — here are numbers for July which ARE basically reversed (for 4 weeks, not just two) using the same source and methodology that Anthony used.
week; Highs; Lows; Ratio
WEEK 1: 3502; 215; 16:1
WEEK 2: 1197; 434; 3:1
WEEK 3: 1555; 314; 5:1
WEEK 4: 1534; 179; 9:1
hmmm … EVERY week in July was unusually hot in the the same way these past two weeks in October were unusually cool so we should be seeing articles every week. But Seth didn’t even bother writing about these — disproving Anthony’s hypothesis. After already writing one article about June, apparently records even more extreme than the one’s Anthony is hyping were not even worth a mention. So no, he did NOT write articles about similar weeks during the summer.
Once again, when October sets records at a rate seen in March, April, May, June, or July (let alone setting similar records for months on end) THEN I would expect articles about the unusual nature of widespread cooling in the US.
Yabut, it looks like 90% of the records are non-urban, therefore not subject to homogenization. I suspect these sites are not on the official Mann/Hansen list of qualifying sites.
Where’s that Lazy Teenager and his Kamikaze comments?
Come on Lazy…we need you to tell us how Warmists feel when 2000 individual low temperature records are broken.
We feel your pain.
Really.
TJFOLkerts
\
Still hasnt answered show us the global warming.
Whether weather is climate or whether it’s not,
depends on whether it’s cold or it’s hot.
If it’s cold it’s just weather, whether or not
it’s cold all the time and never gets hot.
If it’s hot it’s the climate, whether or not
it was cold yesterday and just now it got hot.
So, weather is climate whenever it’s hot,
but climate’s just weather whenever it’s not.
GeoLurking wrote:
“You had to go and bring religion into it.”
I thought Christmas was a commercial holiday. Buy! Buy! Buy!
TJFolkerts asks “But are the individual actual records adjusted? For example, if the record high somewhere was set in 1932 at 106 F, is that specific record changed (to say 104 F), so that a new temperature of 105 F recorded this year would now be the “record”? I suspect that the “record” would still be listed as 106 F in 1932, but I would be curious to know which way it actually works.”
No, there is no adjustment. That’s one reason why the number of high records keeps rising because urbanization and local site heating (concrete, etc) raise overnight mins creating new high min records. Urbanization also raises highs, but not as much as it raises lows.
Perhaps a more accurate measurement would be to count the number of record anomalies if in fact accurate adjusmtents are made for these anomalies in respect to UHI.
As Eric has stated with UHI being a huge factor it would be almost impossible to see more low records than high.
Nah. That’s the modern term for “manic-depressive”. Not pertinent.
All we’re seeing is the continued demonstration that no falsification of AGW is acknowledged, permitted, or offered.
ferd berple says:
October 14, 2012 at 6:33 am
AGW is old news. It is Climate Change that is the problem. Every fall human CO2 emissions cause the climate to change. In the Northern hemisphere is gets cold, in the southern hemisphere it gets hot. Every spring human CO2 causes it to change again in the reverse direction. This disrupts climate, thus it is called Climate Disruption. This process has been going on for as long as there have been humans on the planet, thus humans are the cause. We know this to be true because the US government has spent $100 billion paying scientists to say it is true.
There’s more. Every working day, the CO2 emissions from industry make the atmosphere more transparent, making it look lighter. Then after 5pm it all stops, CO2 falls and the sky darkens. Before there were humans, there was no artificial pollutant-artefact of “night and day” – just an unending Edenic twilight.
These lows are just weather, whereas a warm Oct would surely indicate AGW. We should either wait for the proper adjustments made to make the numbers reasonable (… see umployement rate), or look up for sth sophisticated explaining that cooling is caused by warming…
Matt
Kurtosis is the key factor.
AGW predicts that as varience increases with a temperature increase there WILL be more high AND low records set.
It is what is meant by increasing extremes in the weather record because of climate change.
It requires a particularly naive grasp of climate science to view a bout of extreme clod weather as a refutation of AGW when it is precisely the opposite.
D Böehm says:
October 14, 2012 at 11:46 am
John@EF,
=====
Well, D, thanks for your response to my post, which listed stats pointing to the fundamental silliness of the original post and its basis for a discussion thread, generally. You’ll note that that post was “disappeared”. Great site.
izen, what exactly is “varience” and how does AGW increase “varience”?
@- eric1skeptic
“izen, what exactly is “varience” and how does AGW increase “varience”? ”
Varience is the same as variance for those who do not obsess about spelling trivia that has no effect on the meaning.
AGW increases varience because as the average temperature increases the distribution of the magnitude of events widens, the effect of changing kurtosis.
Izen says:
“It requires a particularly naive grasp of climate science to view a bout of extreme clod weather as a refutation of AGW when it is precisely the opposite.”
Translation: “Cooling = warming.”
Your cherry-picking of selected weather events is a lame attempt to get around the null hypothesis, which has never been falsified.
izen, thanks for spelling kurtosis correctly. Please be specific as to what you are claiming. When you claim that AGW widens the distribution of the “magnitude of events”, what is the event and what is the magnitude? Are you saying the distribution of temperatures for any station widens? Or the distribution of all temperatures for all stations? I doubt the latter is true, the former might be true for some stations but not others.
@- eric1skeptic
“Are you saying the distribution of temperatures for any station widens? Or the distribution of all temperatures for all stations? I doubt the latter is true, the former might be true for some stations but not others.”
This post highlights the MANY stations that have set both high and low records this year. I would doubt that all stations show this, but it is clear that most do.
It seems odd that a site that has been rejecting the finding of more extreme weather as a result of AGW in post after post this summer should identify and publicise the clear evidence of the increasing records set by the widening varience.
@- D Böehm
“Your cherry-picking of selected weather events is a lame attempt to get around the null hypothesis, which has never been falsified.”
Which null hypothesis is that ?
The null hypothesis that the rising CO2 has no effect on the change in climate has been comprehensively refuted by direct observation of the changes in the energy spectra of the outgoing and downwelling LWR, The continuing increase in ocean heat content and the exceptional nature of the recent century long trend in temperatures and ice melt.
It is not I who cherry-picked these records, they are being hyped by this thread. Just as the summer records were being minimised by this site.