Scientists suggest 70% chance of strong El Nino 2014 (may be hottest year on record)

reply to post by the2ofusr1

I guess we could say it's colder because it's warmer lol

I'm surprised you still rely on Watt. I've showed you several times that he is full of crap.

Daily low records don't mean a lot. All time records (highest temperature ever recorded) are a bit more telling.

Globally, in the past 365 days, 200 all time high temperatures have been recorded as compared to 52 all time lows.

In the US, in the past 365 days, 77 all time high temperatures have been recorded as opposed to 34 all time lows.

4 times as many high temperature records as cold globally. Twice as many high temperature records as cold in the US. Yes, it would seem to be getting warmer.


www.ncdc.noaa.gov...

reply to post by defcon5

I find it amusing that every year now we have an “el nino”.

The last El Nino was in 2009.
ggweather.com...

reply to post by Phage


I am sure you are aware that most of the temperatures that show up in the records don't fall within the standards for accurately recording them .There was a study done on stations and most failed the standards .ie .in the middle of asphalt parking lots , too close to air conditioning units ,there was one for sure that was at a airport that was getting the wash from jet engines . Even when you look at the heat sinks that cities turn out to be it's not hard to see how the temperatures recorded don't really have a good value to them . You have not shown me several times that WUWT is crap either .I don't think that you have shown me even once . You have said many times that they were but so what .You are entitled to your opinion .

I have been around for 60 years and it is seldom that there is not a new low or new high . But we have to consider that we haven't been keeping records for that long . As well as putting new stations in different places so every new station will have a new set of data ....Building new suburbs with more roads and parking lots add to the heat too .

The way the AGW crowd talks is like we need to stop climate change . I would be very concerned if the climate stopped changing .We are where we are today because the climate changed in the past .Its still changing and I would bet it will change tomorrow weather we do anything to try and stop it or not .

reply to post by the2ofusr1

Even when you look at the heat sinks that cities turn out to be it's not hard to see how the temperatures recorded don't really have a good value to them.

The numbers are not definitive, true. But you start quoting daily records as if they contradict warming. The values are the values. If the values get higher it indicates something and it sure doesn't indicate that things are staying the same or cooling off.

I don't think that you have shown me even once .

I have, but you ignored it.

As well as putting new stations in different places so every new station will have a new set of data

For a station to be considered for any parameter, it must have a minimum of 30 years of data with more than 182 days complete each year.

The way the AGW crowd talks is like we need to stop climate change.

Can't stop it. It's too late for that. At best we may be able to slow it down to give us more time to adapt.

reply to post by Phage

"New paper finds “surprisingly, there are many US weather stations that show cooling” over the past century

A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds, contrary to popular belief, that US “monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing — perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling [over the past century]."

"Jaechoul Lee Department of Mathematics, Boise State University, Boise, IdahoShanghong Li and Robert Lund

Department of Mathematical Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina
Abstract
This paper develops trend estimation techniques for monthly maximum and minimum temperature time series observed in the conterminous 48 United States over the last century. While most scientists concur that this region has warmed on aggregate, there is no a priori reason to believe that temporal trends in extremes and averages will exhibit the same patterns. Indeed, under minor regularity conditions, the sample partial sum and maximum of stationary time series are asymptotically independent (statistically). Previous authors have suggested that minimum temperatures are warming faster than maximum temperatures in the United States; such an aspect can be investigated via our methods. Here, statistical models with extreme value and changepoint features are used to estimate trends and their standard errors. A spatial smoothing is then done to extract general structure. The results show that monthly maximum temperatures are not often greatly changing — perhaps surprisingly, there are many stations that show some cooling. In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

journals.ametsoc.org...


Oh and I got that off of the WUWT web site wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by Phage


"New paper finds that aging weather stations record much higher daytime temperatures, 1.63°C higher than new stations"
"“Weather equipment is very high-maintenance. The standard temperature shelter is painted white. If the paint wears or discolors, the shelter absorbs more of the sun’s heat and the thermometer inside will read artificially high. But keeping temperature stations well painted probably isn’t the highest priority in a poor country.”

"According to the authors, “During the comparison [of the new vs. 5 year old] and 1 to 3-year-old screens, significant temperature differences were recorded at different times of the day. The differences, wider than the uncertainty amplitude, demonstrate a systematic effect. The temperature measured with the older screen is larger, and the maximum instantaneous difference was 1.63 °C (for 0–5 years comparison) in daytime hours.

During night-time the two AWS’s measure the same temperature (within the uncertainty amplitude). This behaviour, increasing with increasing solar radiation intensity and decreasing with increasing wind speed, is attributed to a radiative heating effect. The screen ageing has compromised the shield effectiveness introducing a significant change in the temperature evaluation.” onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

Oh and that was on the WUWT web site wattsupwiththat.com...

reply to post by the2ofusr1

The article is not about all time highs it's talking about monthly highs.

In any case

In contrast, the minimum temperatures show significant warming. Overall, the Southeastern United States shows the least warming (even some cooling), and the Western United States, Northern Midwest, and New England have experienced the most warming.

Minimums are getting warmer. Interesting.


Did you miss this part?

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data.

Yes, some stations show cooling but far more show warming. The result is an overall warming trend.

Oh and I got that off of the WUWT web site wattsupwiththat.com

And did Watt point out the fact that the data shows a warming trend? No? I wonder why not.

reply to post by Phage


Funny you should say the word "trend" because if I am not mistaken one of the big names in the AGW group , could be Hansen mentions that it takes years to constitute a trend ...I will go see if I can find it ...

It is worth pointing out that NOAA has been forecasting El Ninos almost every year since the last one and almost always forecasting super El Ninos at that.

At this point, I pretty much discount their El Nino/La Nina/La Nada forecast unless corroborated by plenty of other sources. Right now, it's still pretty early to determine just exactly how strong this El Nino may wind up being, but NOAA is more or less the boy who cried wolf.

the2ofusr1
reply to post by Phage

 

Funny you should say the word "trend" because if I am not mistaken one of the big names in the AGW group , could be Hansen mentions that it takes years to constitute a trend ...I will go see if I can find it ...

From the article:

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008...

That's some years.

And remember, this is an article that Watt wanted you to read. Actually, he didn't want you to read it. He just wanted to tell you what it says.

reply to post by Phage

I do read things myself but as is often in the climate debate there is sometimes many opinions that are worth considering .The debate has boiled down to AGW camp and the skeptic camp ...There are what we might consider main actors on both sides and a fair share of ad hominem attacks from both sides .You yourself have used them and I probably have too .If we consider 2 people from different sides like Steve McIntyre and Michael Mann and look at the issue that they both are personally intimate with . (the hockey stick) ..I can believe that Mann fabricated and twisted and did what ever he could to create it and that it is central to the AGW debate .Now Mike is a scientist and so he really doesn't or shouldn't have anything to hide but hide he does .Stephen McIntyre has shown to the scientific community that Mann's work can not stand and the IPCC no longer carries that graph ...

Al Gore also a Nobel like Mann or so it's believed by some created the Inconvenient truth .In the movie there were many predictions and so as time has passed we can look at those predictions to see if they held any water .To my knowledge there is a list of over 100 predictions made by the AGW camp but for some reason they just haven't happened .Now I am not a prophet but if I was and what I said was going to happen didn't I would think that my word might come into question in the future . The fact that co2 has kept rising while the temperatures have not is one of the biggest indicators that does not fit the picture we were lead to believe .

I am not saying that some of the science on climate and the processes are incorrect but I do believe that Global Warming is something the planet has been doing for a lot longer then man has been contributing to it .I believe that climate change has been going on for a lot longer then man has contributed to it . How long and how much is a question that cannot be answered by the science community and so both sides make guesses ....your guess is just as valid as anyone else .But science is not guess work or I was lead to believe that it wasn't . I think it was Einstein that said that he could give you a thousand reasons why he was correct but all you have to do is give one reason why he would not be and his theory falls apart . I guess it was a different attitude in the earlier days because now science just moves the goal posts when they are proved wrong instead of scraping their theory .

We are here and the climate is a changing .Our forefathers experienced climate changed and we are here .The past civilizations that are under the sea were there and we are here .Tomorrow I am guessing that someone will be there but we are here .It's too late to un-invent the Bomb ,the car , electricity and the plastic bag .No matter how correct either side of the debate could be it will not go back and the only option is with the IPCC and their agenda 21 .So we are darned if we do and darned if we don't .The crazy part id that they want us to pay them to tell us what to do no matter how detrimental it is because we must save the planet ...now how dumb is that .