Skip to comments.United States Is Getting Colder, Not Warmer
Posted on 11/08/2011 10:44:54 AM PST by QT3.14
At Watts Up With That, data from the National Climatic Data Center are reviewed. The results are quite startling. Every region of the continental United States has shown a cooling trend during the winter from 2001 to the present, and five of the nine regions have also had a cooling trend during the summer. With respect to annual mean temperature, only one of nine regionsthe Northeasthas gotten warmer; the other eight have gotten cooler.
(Excerpt) Read more at powerlineblog.com ...
I’d like to hear what Texans have to say about that.
I’d like to hear what Texans have to say about that.
Remember, it’s getting colder because of negative feedback loops caused by global warming. Meaning that if it were not so hot it would not be so cold.
Really, all changes in climate are caused by global warming. Everyone knows that! There’s a consensus!!!
United States getting normal, not un-normal.
Having just got over a 5 day power outage caused by a pre-Halloween snowstorm, after record snow the previous winter, I'd beg to differ with this statement.
And wetter or at least where I live...
It was in the low 70’s yesterday. 75 today. I love it here! Full moon makes the evenings a joy as well. I was working on my new shed by moonlight last night. Too cool.
Last winter, the Houston Texas area saw as many snowfalls as we often would get in a typical decade.
How realists view global warming:
Follow the money.
I’m a Texan! This summer was hot and dry, very hot, but lately winters have been cooler. I’d say summers are about the same in general, except last summer that was a hot one.
The problem is, there is always someone willing to provide whatever “information” is required to reinforce a particular viewpoint. And then that “information” provider will attempt to profit from the data, manufactured or real.
I’m highly skeptical of global warming, but not unwilling to examine real facts. Real, undistorted facts are difficult to find.
Very nice graph of 30 years. So what?
Show me a graph of the past 10,000, and I’ll be impressed. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. 14,000 years ago, Niagra Falls did not exist. Why? It’s plateau was covered with ICE. It was the suddenly fast melt of that mile of ice that carved the Niagra Falls and associated gorge. What caused that warming?
30 years out of 4,600,000,000. Sheesh.
Hmmm...I guess it is from the LIBERALS hot air there!!! the other eight have gotten cooler.
I guess I should go out and open a snowmobile shop in Florida!! (Maybe I can get the taxpayers to back this venture!! /s)
But then you had the very, very hot summer that I’m guessing made up for the winter.
Other than this record breaking summer, which was so hot because of the lack of soil moisture from the drought, our summers have been slightly above average. I would also say that over the past decade, the reminder of the years have been also slightly above normal. What we don’t seem to be having are the very sharp arctic outbreaks that last about a week and keep the high temperature below freezing for an extended period of time.
Is that 1.5 degree increase from 1973 the same as the 1.5 degree increase from 1950 and the same 1.5 degree increase from 1880?
...but not by the impact of natural solar fluctuations....
I grew up in Dallas, and one year in the early 80’s, the temperature did not get above freezing for 3 weeks. White Rock Lake was frozen and people were ice skating on it.
My mom still lives in Dallas, and I don’t think she’s been In a winter as bad as that one.
A couple of years ago they had a bad ice storm and my parents were without electricity for almost a week. We never personally lost electricity when I was growing up. I think that was the worst winter for my parents.
The latest effort by people seeking "real, undistorted facts" (the Berkeley Earth Project):
And even with your “real, undistorted facts” I find problems.
#1 - Berkeley? Red flag. Data from communists is often less than reliable. If they don’t flat out lie to fit their message, they more often then not will massage the data.
#2 - The rise seems to be significant, but warming doesn’t mean AGW. Climate changes. Weather is variable. Stuff happens.
#3 - And finally, 1800-2000, 200 years. So, for 200 years of data, they sound the alarm? How old is the planet? 4 billion years? How many warming/cooling cycles have been documented?
Here in NE Ohio, the weather people can’t get tomorrow’s weather correct. I’m being very literal, half the time they can’t get tomorrow’s weather correct. It’s amazing how the technology has made forecasters less accurate. I know climate isn’t weather, but they are related. If we are incapable of understanding one, how can we understand the other?
Mueller's statement was incorrect because of precisely the issue presented in that first "skeptics versus realists" graph I posted: 10 or 15 years is not long enough to achieve a statistically significant discrimination between short-term and long-term temperature trends (that requires around 30 years).
That's why by cherry picking the data (as in the skeptic example in that graph) you can demonstrate that for a decade or so there have been numerous periods when the temperature trend for that period was downwards - even though the longer term trend has clearly been upwards.
So Curry is correct: the recent downward trend absolutely cannot be used to indicate that "global warming has not stopped", just as the same data cannot be used to demonstrate that "global warming has stopped".
Thus Curry's comment that Murry's comment "detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.
So where does that leave us?
What the latest "skeptical" analysis does do is increase our confidence that previous global temperature reconstructions were reasonably accurate - that even when she bring more powerful statistical tools and careful reanalysis to questions such as siting induced errors there has been a substantial increase in global temperatures, prior to 1990.
WHY this happened is a separate question.
"....and Leon is getting laaaaarger."
You can even - if you wish to - consider human climate drivers just another "natural phenomena" - we are part of nature, after all.
We just happen to be a natural phenomena which is raising CO2 concentrations pretty quickly on the time frame in which we have been operating.
And there is nothing about this observation which implies that on a longer time frame there might be other natural phenomena which would act as more significant drivers of climate, or that over shorter time frames there may not be other natural phenomena (such as volcanic activity) that might be even more influential.
So what often strikes me as odd about this debate is the conviction that human activities are somehow so "different" that we are reluctant to apply quite well understood aspects of physics and chemistry to evaluating their likely results.
I disagree that the modeling of the complex systems that comprise earth are well known enough to be accurately simulated.
How about going back 160 years and using data which has not been " adjusted". A couple of rather interesting graphs from New Zealand which of all places one would suppose would need very little adjustment as it's surrounded by the Pacific Ocean and has little atmospheric pollution to speak of yet still has the same CO2 density as the rest of the planet.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/09/new-zealands-niwa-temperature-train-wreck/,/a>
I prefer Warming and I am in South Texas
You’re doing a good job presenting some of the data. There are problems with the data though. Now that the data is out in public, people are going to plow through it and as it is filtered by common scientific sense (and not just by people looking for global warming), the average will become valuable.
Well, that's petty much what the Berkeley Earth Project did: started from scratch on the the data, took a fresh look at the statistical methods (and even managed to extend their data set back a bit further than had been done previously - which was a useful contribution)... and came up with almost exactly the same result as previous methods.
So you have to ask "How many bits of the apple is it reasonable to take", and expect to get a different result?
The Northeast has gotten slightly warmer during the summer, but significantly colder during the winter. That is what the data stated. It is probably easy to see that by just observing how short spring and fall have become in your area the past few years. During an Ice Age, you have two seasons.
The cooling has occurred during the last 10 years, so your graph is not even related to this story. Everyone agrees that the 1998 El Nino caused an upward spike in atmospheric temps. That is what strong El Ninos do. So everyone assumes a temperature increase from 1980’s leading up to 1998. Not stepped like you insinuate.
Whenever you have record snow pack in the western US mountains, you might want to assume that summer time in Texas will be a barn burner. Watched the weather all summer long and the dominant air flow in your area was up from Mexico into Texas and out toward the east. The western mountains were cold due to record snow pack and may have formed a blocking pattern. The warm weather coming up from Mexico helped to develop the high pressure over Texas.
Not when all these studies source the same data set. All you have done is confirm that they analyzed the data correctly. Not that the data was valid in the first place. And any data that does not show the 1970's as cold, is highly suspect.
It is not the differences that matter. All that matters is the magnitude of the influence. And you cannot warm the Earth with increased CO2 significantly at this point without a positive water vapor feedback. And to get that positive feedback in your models, you have to ignore clouds and rain.
Perhaps you should try eating something else for a change. Land temps are horribly corrupted and significantly limited. This is primarily a water planet. Best to use sat temps of atmosphere and sea temps across depth. What apes think the temperature might be in their trees, is immaterial to the energy budget of the planet sun biosphere.
I still don’t believe.
The BEST project made the data public. Skeptics have not had the chance to plow through the data.
Click on image for WUWT story. Was pretty much dealt with right after it was released. Even BEST data confirms a stalling of temps. So they got half way to the truth. Not bad for government apes.
I feel like we here in Texas took the rough end of the stick for all those who had a cooler/wetter Summer.
We broke every damn record there was....seems.
So what we have is 1 degree of warming per century with no sign of positive feedback from water vapor increases. That makes sense, CO2 is well mixed and warms evenly, that is the 1 degree per century. Water vapor is all over the place, controlled by weather which is mostly controlled by the sun (blocking patterns starting in the stratosphere modulated by solar ultraviolet). The ocean cycles are another form of weather that will control temperatures mostly regionally, also globally, with no effects from CO2. Some of the 80's and 90's warming is from decreased longwave radiation to space from the effects of those long term weather patterns.
The BEST analysis is a "skeptical" analysis of the new aggregate data set, and it agrees pretty closely with previous findings.
IMO, it's very unlikely that additional analysis is going to much alter that finding.
Aggregated from the same data set. They just applied additional filters to the same data set. If does not show significant cooling from the 60's to the 70's, which is impossible. Any accurate data set must show that cooling because the world knows it happened. Later.