Hottest january ever say climate experts

[iceaura]

And North Americans have shivered through one of their worst winters in a while,

In places outside of the big news media centers, say in the upper midwest, it hasn't been that cold - warmer than was common in past decades, for sure, and about average for the new regime (rained again in January in central Minnesota, for example).

I'm waiting for an actual overall temperature analysis of the recent NA winter - I can remember cold snaps in Florida damaging the orange crops many years ago, temperatures cold enough to snow not that rare over most of the State, just not so much actual snow cover. And snow does feed back and cool things over time in otherwise warming regions (reflection, heat absorption to melt, etc) - so, we'll see.

 

[Trippy]

In places outside of the big news media centers, say in the upper midwest, it hasn't been that cold - warmer than was common in past decades, for sure, and about average for the new regime (rained again in January in central Minnesota, for example).

I'm waiting for an actual overall temperature analysis of the recent NA winter - I can remember cold snaps in Florida damaging the orange crops many years ago, temperatures cold enough to snow not that rare over most of the State, just not so much actual snow cover. And snow does feed back and cool things over time in otherwise warming regions (reflection, heat absorption to melt, etc) - so, we'll see.

Yes, I'd gotten that impression from things some other people have been saying, that although the NA winter has been harsh, the harshness hasn't neccessarily been universal or even widespread - I believe I've even said as much to BR.

 

[StrawDog]

Thankyou, I appreciate the compliments.

You raise an interesting point regarding historical and prehistorical patterns, however consider this:
How does that actually disprove the notion that Humans are having an impact?
My answer is that it doesn't, the two events are not mutually exclusive.
Consider as a very very rough analog, a dam in a river.
The level of the water might vary naturally, it might even naturally vary to the height of the dam, but, no one would argue that the dam isn't having an anthropogenic effect right?

Yes, I admit, it's a very poor analogy, but I trust you understand my point?

Good on you Trippy. Yes, of course. No proof to the contrary, that is fair enough. Perhaps it just boils down to the actual amount of our (human) impact via the natural cycles? Which is of course what all the furore is about around old Phil`s hockey stick.

Suffice to say, and whatever the trends do or do not indicate, unquestionably, we have to stop treating this planet as a trash can, lest we get dumped in the landfill of the G_ds. :m:

 

[Trippy]

Good on you Trippy. Yes, of course. No proof to the contrary, that is fair enough. Perhaps it just boils down to the actual amount of our (human) impact via the natural cycles? Which is of course what all the furore is about around old Phil`s hockey stick.

Agreed. It occured to me that one could take the previously analogy even further and make the point that Dams occur naturally (consider land slides, and lava flows, or even beavers) and that larger dams, and larger effects occur naturally - consider for example Lake Agassiz, which was produced by damming caused by the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and may have covered as much as 440,000km[sup]2[/sup].

None of which changes the anthropogenic effects of man made dams.

One of the things I've been working on, on and off, is a spreadsheet model, to demonstrate the influence of CO[sub]2[/sub] or at least to demonstrate it's potential. I think I have most of the math, and most of the raw data that I need, it's just a case of pulling it all together.

Something else that I keep meaning to do, because it's something that I'm interested in, involves comparing previous rates of change with modern ones. Not something I've really had the time to do though.

Suffice to say, and whatever the trends do or do not indicate, unquestionably, we have to stop treating this planet as a trash can, lest we get dumped in the landfill of the G_ds. :m:

I absolutely agree, and can probably honestly say that whether it be through altruism or greed, I've done everything I can reasonably afford to do.

 

[Trippy]

From an Interview with Dr Gavin A Schmidt:

Many have noted that the winter has been particularly cold and snowy in some parts of the United States and elsewhere. Does this mean that climate change isn't happening?

No, it doesn't, though you can't dismiss people's concerns and questions about the fact that local temperatures have been cool. Just remember that there's always going to be variability. That's weather. As a result, some areas will still have occasionally cool temperatures — even record-breaking cool — as average temperatures are expected to continue to rise globally. Also keep in mind that that the contiguous United States represents just 1.5 percent of Earth's surface.

GISS has been accused by critics of manipulating data. Has this changed the way that it handles its temperature data?

Indeed, there are people who believe that GISS uses its own private data or somehow massages the data to get the answer we want. That's completely inaccurate. We do an analysis of the publicly available data that’s collected by other groups. All of the data is available to the public for download, as are the computer programs used to analyze it. One of the reasons the GISS numbers are used and quoted so widely by scientists is that the process is completely open to outside scrutiny

GISS Software and Documentation (as in the stuff mentioned above).

GISS raw data

 

[Buffalo Roam]

From an Interview with Dr Gavin A Schmidt:

GISS Software and Documentation (as in the stuff mentioned above).

GISS raw data

GISS data has been broken just like the hockey stick.

http://climateaudit.org/2007/08/03/hansens-y2k-whopper/


« Unthreaded #17Peterson's "Urban" Sites »Hansen's Y2K Error
Eli Rabett and Tamino have both advocated faith-based climate science in respect to USHCN and GISS adjustments. They say that the climate “professionals” know what they’re doing; yes, there are problems with siting and many sites do not meet even minimal compliance standards, but Hansen’s software is able to “fix” the defects in the surface sites. “Faith-based” because they do not believe that Hansen has any obligation to provide anything other than a cursory description of his software or, for that matter, the software itself. But if they are working with data that includes known bad data, then critical examination of the adjustment software becomes integral to the integrity of the record – as there is obviously little integrity in much of the raw data.

Eli Rabett has recently discussed the Detroit Lakes MN series as an example where the GISS adjusted software has supposedly triumphed over adversity and recovered signal from noise. And yet this same series displays a Hansen adjustment that will should leave anyone “gobsmacked”.

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/08/its-not-watt-you-think-tony-watts.html

Tony Watt's surface station watchers have landed a whopper, Detroit Lakes, Mn, a rural station in western Minnesota (ID: 212142)

According to Don Kostuch, the AC unit was moved from the roof of the building 5/99 and the chart from GISS (uncorrected USHCN data) shows ~ 4C jump about 1999

This has everyone (well isn't Climate Audit everyone) jumping up and down and has even made it over to Germany

Much speculation.
Knashing of Hansen
We codda done it better

Ah, but little bunnies, if we actually go and get the data from GISS or from CDIAC (sadly in F) we see that the jump

Year GISS CDIAC Mo.
Miss.
1990 3.92 39.71

1991 3.75 39.46 1
1992 999.9 38.81 7
1993 999.9 37.46 12
1994 999.9 38.94 6
1995 3.68 37.81

1996 1.59 34.94

1997 999.9 38.57 4
1998 6.4 43.52

1999 6.93 44.72

2000 7.58 42.73

2001 6.54 43.71

2002 5.7 40.71

2003 5.42 40.36

2004 5.52 40.21

2005 6.37 42.04


really comes in 1997/1998. The lab bunnies, who do RTFR also noted that there were a whole bunch of months missing in 1997 and earlier in the decade, (USHCN fills in even long stretches, GISS 999.99s them out) so they went to the historical record for Detroit Lakes and they saw that the station moved from one side of the lake to the other August 30, 2002. The satellite picture shows no building near the old site. Thus the jump happened two years before the station moved to its current location near the air conditioner.

 

[Trippy]

GISS data has been broken just like the hockey stick..

More whining - it's right there, in black and - the software appears to be open source, and those blog-spots are three years old, and predate the most recent update by about a month, which included some changes to clarify and simplify some of the procedures.

Better yet, it appears that if you don't like the station used in the 'official' GHS data set, you can always substitute their station for one that you know to be better, so no, far from broken.

Please. Stop embarrassing yourself with this faith-based hot air.

Incidentally, there's at least one 'citizens project' out there that I've come across (no, I don't have the link on hand) that's encouraging people to get out there, find their local met stations and rate them based on things such as their location, and clear sky view.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Summary of previous post:

The basic science says it is possible, I've seen some compelling evidence that it is probable, but I don't think it's neccessarily something there's a straight forward 'yes or no' answer to.

Ok then. Given the uncertainty regarding this issue, why should we spend trillions of dollars trying to decrease carbon output? I certainly support research into alternative energy sources and measures to use energy more efficiently, but crippliing the economy trying to meet some arbitrary level of CO2 reduction seems just stupid.

 

[Trippy]

Ok then. Given the uncertainty regarding this issue, why should we spend trillions of dollars trying to decrease carbon output?

Nowhere, not once on this forum, or any other forum (at least to the best of my recollection) have I advocated this approach, beyond reducing pollution in general, and acheiving a level of sustainability. The only thing I have ever explicitly advocated is doing that which you can reasonably afford to do, some of which will be of direct benefit to the individual (for example, buying the smallest, most efficient vehicle you can reasonably afford, and that reasonably meets your needs has a direct benefit to you in terms of your monthly gas bill, or replacing your incandessant bulbs with CFL bulbs as they expire has a direct benefit to your powerbill).

This is a point that has often been missed by posters such as Buffalo Roam and Pasta in their emotional appeals against what they think I have said.

It could even be argued that New Zealand, being such a remote country that is so heavily reliant on its export industry has much to loose by initiatives that are being put in place in (for example) the UK with extra taxes imposed based on distance travelled, and transport method.

Although, I will say this, don't mistake my 'uncertainty' on the issue as being representative in general.

I certainly support research into alternative energy sources and measures to use energy more efficiently, but crippliing the economy trying to meet some arbitrary level of CO2 reduction seems just stupid.

Good to hear, and I've asked BR two or three times now if he would vote for the party/group/senator/president that was proposing raising taxes to fund more research into climate change research, in order to get more reliable models, and more consistent predictions.

However, this is yet another question that he has thus far chosen not to give a straight answer to.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Nowhere, not once on this forum, or any other forum (at least to the best of my recollection) have I advocated this approach, beyond reducing pollution in general, and acheiving a level of sustainability. The only thing I have ever explicitly advocated is doing that which you can reasonably afford to do, some of which will be of direct benefit to the individual (for example, buying the smallest, most efficient vehicle you can reasonably afford, and that reasonably meets your needs has a direct benefit to you in terms of your monthly gas bill, or replacing your incandessant bulbs with CFL bulbs as they expire has a direct benefit to your powerbill).

Guess what, I've done pretty much all of that. It would seem that we're largely in agreement. Although my motivation is simply to prevent waste, not to influence the global climate.

Although, I will say this, don't mistake my 'uncertainty' on the issue as being representative in general.

Meaning?

 

[Trippy]

Meaning?

Meaning I don't think that there's as much uncertainty among those that know more than I do on the topic as it might seem :shrug:

 

[Read-Only]

Meaning I don't think that there's as much uncertainty among those that know more than I do on the topic as it might seem :shrug:

And I agree. Certainly not meaning that you don't know much about it - while in fact, I know considerably less than you do.

What I'm saying here is that the TRUE professionals in any field know considerably more that the rest of us. They have, for one thing, greater access to data from MANY sources while the best we can get is extracts of reports. Not a single one of us - or even several of us combined - can even come close to having enough hard drive space to contain all the data that's been generated. And take that to the next logical step - we couldn't even process that data into something meaningful even if we DID have access to it.

The climatologist professionals are a much maligned bunch. And a great deal of that criticism originated from sources with VERY vested interests in seeing their work on climate change fail or remain in doubt. Everyone from industrial oil and coal giants down to the smallest electrical power generator companies. All of those have big investments in physical plant and therefore in continuing to do conventional "business as usual." And the more confusion they can inject into the debate, the better off they are.

At this point I need to make it clear that I'm still uncertain as to how much human activity is contributing to the problem. But I do think it's clear that our burning of so much carbon that's been securely locked away for millions of years surely must be having SOME effect.

And yes, greater energy efficiency in *everything* is certainly beneficial for all of us. I'm doing my own part and would urge everyone else to do the same.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/160556

What do you all make of this claim by the experts? If its true I don't think I can stand normal temp. winters ever again.

probably a little warmer. noticed all the thousands of houses that have been burnt to the ground in the usa & spain ?

on the up side with rising sea levels, people dont have soo far to walk to the beach. the beach is walking to them.

 

[billvon]

Ok then. Given the uncertainty regarding this issue, why should we spend trillions of dollars trying to decrease carbon output?

Given a choice between spending trillions of dollars to decrease carbon output, and spending trillions of dollars to increase carbon output, we would be better off spending trillions to decrease carbon output.

However, a much better strategy is to spend far less to decrease carbon output.

I certainly support research into alternative energy sources and measures to use energy more efficiently, but crippliing the economy trying to meet some arbitrary level of CO2 reduction seems just stupid.

Crippling the economy by destroying coastal cities, farms and fisheries is pretty stupid too.

 

[spidergoat]

Look at the dates people.