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
izen:
Your post at October 15, 2012 at 10:28 pm is another example of your usual practice of armwaving excuses when asked to justify a silly assertion you have made. It says of WUWT
Firstly, you clearly have no idea what variance is. WP gives a definition for you at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance
with a formula at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_formula_for_the_variance
If you look at the formula then you will see the expected variance depends on the sample size. And each day the sample size of “weather” events increases because an additional day’s measurements are obtained. Therefore, you need to provide data for variance if you want to show it is changing in a manner that it is “widening” with time.
Secondly, an increased number of observed “extreme” weather events can be expected with passage of time.
Weather data has not been obtained for long: a few places (e.g. CET and Armagh) have been recording weather data for centuries but generally only for about a century. On the first day of measurements then each measurement was a record. As time passed the frequency of newly achieved records would have reduced. But new records would still be observed.
Now, thousands of places obtain measurements of temperature, precipitation and wind speed each day. It would be very, very surprising if any day, any month or any year did not provide a record weather datum somewhere.
Your assertion of “clear evidence of the increasing records set by the widening variance” is a falsehood. And your armwaving is not sufficient replacement for the data of changing variance which you have failed to provide in support of your assertion.
Thirdly, the expected observation of additional record weather values is not – as you assert – a “finding of more extreme weather as a result of AGW”. It is merely the result of continuing to obtain additional weather data in many places.
However, if global temperature is increasing then the rate of obtaining new record high temperatures should be increasing while the rate of obtaining new record low temperatures should be decreasing. And there is no evidence of that: perhaps you can provide some?
Richard
izen:
At October 16, 2012 at 1:06 am you ask
O dear! Such appalling ignorance.
There is only one null hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity empirically obtained by Idso, by Lindzen&Choi, etc..
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
Therefore, the man-made global warming from man’s emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) could be much smaller than natural fluctuations in global temperature so it would be physically impossible to detect the man-made global warming.
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
Richard
@- Richard
You seem to be claiming that the rate of hot and cold extremes or records is entirely in line with statistical predictions for a system in which the mean and the spread are unchanging. Like two dice the average remains 6.5 and the number of double sixes and double ones are continuing to appear at the expected frequency of 1:32. If so your argument is less with me than with the author of this thread article who clearly is claiming some significance or exceptionalism for the cold records as a means of offsetting the exceptional run of hot records so far this year.
Direct observation confirms the prediction from climate science that AGW would alter the mean and the distribution. Perhaps the error made by the author is the same as the mistake you make when you claim –
@- “However, if global temperature is increasing then the rate of obtaining new record high temperatures should be increasing while the rate of obtaining new record low temperatures should be decreasing. And there is no evidence of that: perhaps you can provide some?”
The prediction from climate science is that BOTH the number of high and low records will increase, the effect of changing kurtosis. In terms of the dice analogy the mean increases, but the number of double sixes AND double ones also increases.
Yes of course the is evidence that the rate of extreme events at both the warm and cold end are increasing, the tail of the distribution is getting larger as the mean increases. Try these links –
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/08/extreme-metrics/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/08/13/hansen-et-al-2012/
These observations rather put paid to your silly claim that to date there are no observable effects of AGW.
As does the massive loss of Arctic ice over the last few decades.
izen:
As desperate excuses go, your post at October 16, 2012 at 7:21 am deserves a prize.
You claimed the variance of weather data was increasing.
I explained why you needed to provide variance data to show that.
You have not.
I said that if global temperature is rising then extreme record highs should be occurring more frequently than extreme record lows.
You posted to links to two extremely unreliable sources. The RC source refers to data from Hansen for the period 1931-1980 when everybody agrees temperature was rising, and it confirms what I said. The other is from an anonymous twerp who posts under the alias of Tamino and whose post disputes Hansen’s assertions.
And you think that refutes what I said or shows there has been no warming over the last 16 years!!?
Then you claim of those links
I fell off my chair laughing at that!
Then, in attempt to outdo that stupidity, you add
Well, if that were true then the increase to Antarctic ice which provided the recent record Antarctic ice would be evidence that AGW does not exist.
Even by your poor standards, your post I am answering is pathetic.
Richard
Surely such a limited snapshot of the weather in one region of the world has no place in a debate centered around global climate change? You are right to criticize any scientist who equates high temperature over a short period to global warming, especially without further analysis on the synoptic conditions at the time but then you go on to just that by given a hugely biased picture of local temperature over an extremely short time frame and claim it as a victory for skepticism. This entire article seems a tad hypocritical. The climate change debate should be concerned with critical analysis of trends, not snapshots!