Page 76 of 117 < 1 2 ... 74 75 76 77 78 ... 116 117 >
Topic Options
#1101385 - 26/04/2012 09:28 Re: Temperature trends [Re: GDL]
Coxy Offline
Weather Freak

Registered: 31/01/2011
Posts: 711
Loc: Jindalee, QLD
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queen...f-1226338286757

Quote:

A RECORD-breaking cold snap hit northwest Queensland yesterday, as the beef town of Camooweal in the far northwest recorded its lowest daytime temperature in 29 years.


Brrrrr... ;-)

Top
#1101399 - 26/04/2012 10:45 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Coxy]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 2973
Loc: Brisbane
They're clearly reporting on the unadjusted temperature Coxy. After BOM adjustments it was actually the warmest daytime temperature ever recorded.

/sarc off

Top
#1101400 - 26/04/2012 10:48 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Coxy]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2320
Death Valley's 113°: hottest April temperature on record in U.S.

An unprecedented April heat wave brought a second day of sizzling temperatures to the Western U.S. yesterday, where temperatures ranging 20 - 30 degrees above normal have toppled numerous all-time April heat records. Nearly every weather station in the Inter-mountain West has broken, tied, or come within 1 - 2 °F of their all-time record April heat record since Sunday. Most notably, the 113°F measured at Furnace Creek in Death Valley, California on Sunday, April 22 was tied for the hottest April temperature ever recorded in the U.S.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2079

Top
#1101404 - 26/04/2012 11:33 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 2973
Loc: Brisbane
Interesting. Doing some researchon Death Valley most of the temperature records date back over 50 years and some close to 100 years. After a century of warming temps (whether man-made or natural) its a little surprising that so many of the old records still stand.

I wonder if there is a "peer reviewed" study that analyses and predicts the frequency with which new temperature records will be set (both warm and cold) given a specific rate of global temperature increase.

Given a climate that has warmed even half a degree in the past century you would surely anticipate that substantially more "hot" records would go than "cold" ones.

I checked the US statistics last year and that was the case but in any given month there were still significant numbers of "cold" records being broken which perhaps illustrates that a hundred years or so of semi-reliable temperature data really is insufficient to fully understand the full range of extremes of climate.

Top
#1101406 - 26/04/2012 11:49 Re: Temperature trends [Re: Locke]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2320
And the records continue to tumble. Seems there's a trend of record temps of late in the US.

Record temperatures set in Wichita, Medicine Lodge and Garden City

At least three cities across Kansas set records for high temperature on April 25 today, according to the National Weather Service.

Wichita reached 93, easily topping the previous mark of 90 set in 1901.
Medicine Lodge reached 96, bettering the 95 also set in 1901.
Garden City, meanwhile, hit 91. That’s one degree warmer than the mark set in 1989.

http://blogs.kansas.com/weather/2012/04/.../#storylink=cpy

Record Texas Heat

LUBBOCK actually has set their all-time hottest temperature ever recorded in the month of April. Here is the statement from the NWS.

AS OF 435 PM…THE TEMPERATURE AT LUBBOCK INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT HAS REACHED 104 DEGREES. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS ALL-TIME HOTTEST APRIL HIGH TEMPERATURE OF 100 DEGREES SET ON APRIL 16 1925 AND APRIL 22 1989.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2012/04/25/record-texas-heat-and-very-windy-weather/

Denver sets new record high

The temperatures in Denver hit a new record high on Tuesday afternoon, reaching 88 degrees. Temperatures at Denver International Airport had tied the record high for April 24 at 85 degrees by noon. Tuesday's record breaks the mark set in 1949.

http://www.9news.com/news/article/264957/339/Record-heat-on-Tuesday-in-Denver-area

Salt Lake City breaks another hot weather record

Monday’s high of 88 degrees soars past 1934’s mark.

The high temperature at Salt Lake City International Airport on Monday hit 88 degrees. That broke the record of 85 set in 1934 and flirted with the all-time high of 89 for the entire month of April, set on April 28, 2007. The normal high and low temperatures for April 23 are 61 and 41 degrees, respectively.

The heat wave could continue into Tuesday.

"It is still going to be quite warm," said Eric Schoening, a forecaster for the National Weather Service office in Salt Lake City. "We could approach or exceed record highs again Tuesday. The [record] high for that day is 85, and we are forecasting 85 for a high."

Record high temperatures were set or tied in 12 locations throughout Utah.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/53971999-78/weather-lake-record-salt.html.csp

Top
#1101429 - 26/04/2012 15:26 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6415
I think what CeeBee is putting up use to be called weather before the alarmists predicted the end of the world due to us all frying in all that heat from the itty bitty CO2.

From Ryan Maue's ; (Unofficial) Record-breaking temperature across the Globe

These daily temps are updated right through the day



On the web site, placing your mouse pointer on a coloured spot will give a small box with a few details about the record.

And the animation of the USA temps shows that there were some pretty cold outbreaks in the NE before the highs of the SW got fired up for the day so all is not necessarily as promoted.
It's not always what is revealed that tells the story but what also is not revealed is where the real story may lay.

And if you really want to get your teeth into some data; NOAA's Global Surface Summary of Day

Top
#1101440 - 26/04/2012 16:24 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2320
I'll be keeping an eye on that website ROM. I did notice the guy is a sceptic and his site is called coolwx.com so it may be biased towards showing cool weather records over hot ones.

This map shows the US temp records for March 2012. It'll be interesting to see how April looks seeing as how there's been so many hot weather records broken.



http://sciencenotes.wordpress.com/2012/0...uch-of-the-u-s/

Top
#1101454 - 26/04/2012 17:36 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 5416
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Yer, well, big deal CB...it's hotter in some parts of the world than normal for the past 3 months and cooler than normal in other parts of the world!
Pretty well another day(3 months) at the office as normal for the earth!(Note due to the projection of the map, the higher temps areas near the poles are much smaller than they appear)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/rnl/sfctmpmer_90b.rnl.gif

Top
#1101550 - 27/04/2012 10:43 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
CeeBee Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 25/02/2012
Posts: 2320
Many hot records broken across the US.



Unofficially, there are currently 7 stations that have broken their daily high record, 0 that are tying it, and 20 that are near it.

Unofficially, there are currently 0 stations that have broken their daily low record, 0 that are tying it, and 6 that are near it.

http://coolwx.com/record/

Top
#1101666 - 27/04/2012 19:57 Re: Temperature trends [Re: CeeBee]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6415
Can't resist this!

From; http://coolwx.com/record/

A few hours later!

Last updated at Fri Apr 27 08:44:12 UTC 2012 using 1855 observations from 08UTC

Unofficially, there is currently 1 station that has broken their daily high record, 3 that are tying it, and 13 that are near it.
Unofficially, there are currently 2 stations that have broken their daily low record, 2 that are tying it, and 12 that are near it.

All of which goes to show how silly it is to play these childish games of one-up-manship to supposedly prove that temperatures are increasing due to CAGW and the catastrophic tipping point is apparently just around the corner.

It's weather!

Top
#1101682 - 27/04/2012 20:56 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6415
How Natural is the Recent Centennial Warming? An Analysis of 2249 Surface Temperature Records

Horst-Joachim L ̈udecke, Rainer Link, and Friedrich-Karl Ewert
EIKE, European Institute for Climate and Energy,
PO.Box 11011, 07722 Jena, GERMANY

[ my bolding ]

Abstract;
Quote:
Abstract. We evaluate to what extent the temperature rise in the past 100 years was a trend or a natural fluctuation and analyze 2249 world wide monthly temperature records from GISS (NASA) with the 100-year period covering 1906-2005 and the two 50-year periods from 1906 to 1955 and 1956 to 2005. No global records are applied.
The data document a strong urban heat island effect (UHI) and a warming with increasing station elevation. For the period 1906-2005, we evaluate a global warming of 0.58 0 C as the mean for all records.
This decreases to 0.41 0 C if restricted to stations with a population of less than 1000 and below 800 meter above sea level. About a quarter of all the records for the 100-year period show a fall in temperatures.
Our hypothesis for the analysis is - as generally in the papers concerned with long-term persistence of temperature records that the observed temperature records are a combination of long-term correlated records with an additional trend, which is caused
for instance by anthropogenic CO2 , the UHI or other forcings. We apply the detrended fluctuation analysis (DFA) and evaluate Hurst exponents between 0.6 and 0.65 for the ma jority of stations, which is in excellent agreement with the literature and use a method only recently published, which is based on DFA, synthetic records and Monte Carlo simulation.
As a result, the probabilities that the observed temperature series are natural have values roughly between 40% and 90%, depending on the stations characteristics and the periods considered.
’Natural’ means that we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution can not be excluded.


Conclusion;
Quote:
In this paper, we have used 2249 unadjusted monthly temperature records of 100 and 50 years in length and evaluated the temperature changes for the periods 1906-2005, 1906-1955, and 1956-2005. Our analysis was based exclusively on local
records and applied DFA, Monte Carlo methods and synthetic records. The main results and conclusions are the following.

a) The mean of all stations shows 0.58 0 C global warming from 1906 to 2005. If we consider only those stations with a population of under 1000 and below 800 meter above sea level this figure drops to 0.41 0 C and would probably decrease even further if we were to take into account the warm biases caused by the worldwide reduction in rural stations during the 1990s, by changes to the screens and their environments, and by the appearance of automatic observing systems.

b) From 1906 to 2005, about a quarter of all records show falling temperatures.
This in itself is an indication that the observed temperature series are predominantly natural fluctuations. ’Natural’ means that we do not have within a defined confidence interval a definitely positive anthropogenic contribution and, therefore, only a marginal anthropogenic contribution can not be excluded.
We evaluated - with a confidence interval of 95% - the probability that the observed global warming from 1906 to 2005 was a natural fluctuation as lying between 40% and 70%, depending on the station’s characteristics.
For the period of 1906 to 1955 the probabilities are arranged between 80% and 90% and for 1956 to 2005 between 60% and 70%.


c) By separating stations into specific station groups, such as those with a defined minimum population, a strong UHI and elevation warming can be identified.
d) The vast majority of temperature stations are found on land and in the northern hemisphere, and have Hurst exponent of α
≈ 0.63 in such locations. However, two thirds of the Earth are covered with water, and the relatively few stations on islands or near oceans have higher Hurst exponent of α ≈ 0.7.
Therefore, a real exponent for the entire Earth could be somewhat higher than α ≈ 0.63.
Records with higher exponents embody even higher probabilities for natural fluctuations.

Top
#1101908 - 29/04/2012 09:05 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
GrizzlyBear Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2011
Posts: 2101
Loc: Yetholme [1180m] Central Table...
Anyone must admit that this is a bit of a worry...

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/records/daily/maxt/2012/04/00?sts[]=US#records_look_up

Until now I have not taken that much notice of the warm temps in the USA in March and the rather mild winter and the rather early spring, but April continues to amaze.
And now in fact this year 2012 so far the main continuous USA states, this year so far is clearly running the hottest on record from the start of the year to this date, that is quite incredible considering we are talking about the whole of the USA.

At first I thought its only the USA, but many parts of central Asia, including western Siberia in the Ural region temps have also level pegging daily records week after week. Ekaterinburg has also had the earliest hottest temps on record this spring.

Seems the balance of warmer to cooler clearly is in favor of warmer. Silly records like low max temps in isolated places do not have the same importance in my mind.

Top
#1101912 - 29/04/2012 10:24 Re: Temperature trends [Re: GrizzlyBear]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 5416
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
If you have a look at the global temp anomolies they always have warmer than normal and cooler than normal areas, it is no different than the usual. It is just that ocean temps cause them to be in different areas of the globe at any time, and USA is an area that a lot of news comes from readily, so it is in the news at the moment.


Edited by bd bucketingdown (29/04/2012 10:25)

Top
#1101915 - 29/04/2012 10:30 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 5416
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA

Top
#1101917 - 29/04/2012 10:51 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
GrizzlyBear Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2011
Posts: 2101
Loc: Yetholme [1180m] Central Table...
The USA certainly has the overwhelming majority and certainly the highest density of weather stations in the world, maybe more than 1/2 just in the USA alone. So that can throw some bias towards the USA data relative to the rest of the world.

In order to really once and for all solve the temperature trend riddle for the world you would need an equal density of weather stations as a minimum as in the USA covering the rest of the world.

Ideally We should be using a network of weather stations with at least one every 100 sq km (10x10km) carefully placed in well exposed locations covering the whole world. I believe that even 5 years of data from such a network would decisively conclude how much world temperatures are falling or rising. I also believe that this is achievable because of the low cost of equipment now. If the desire was there it could be done.

Top
#1101922 - 29/04/2012 11:37 Re: Temperature trends [Re: GrizzlyBear]
bd bucketingdown Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2008
Posts: 5416
Loc: Eastern A/Hills SA
Well that would be the ideal Peter, but you might have trouble setting them up in Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Columbia, Antarctic, Arctic, etc for reasons of wars and isolation, and who is going to maintain them all and calibrate them all?! An extremely accurate satellite coverage is the only way to go, even there it is hard to achieve the desired accuracy for tenths of a degree measurement. No one really disagrees that the world has warmed since 1900 or so till now, it is the degree of warming from all the measurements & adjustments made to try and work that out, that is quite uncertain, and leads to varying opinions and varying measurements shown from various groups and individuals.


Edited by bd bucketingdown (29/04/2012 11:38)

Top
#1101930 - 29/04/2012 13:00 Re: Temperature trends [Re: bd bucketingdown]
ROM Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 29/01/2007
Posts: 6415
And I wonder what our real priorities as human beings really are and where they lay.
Do we really need the massive expense and on going expenditure to try and define some supposed still in the future problem down to the N'th degree and for what ultimate purpose?

Is global warming / Climate change, the apparent scourge of the western alarmists so utterly important to the human race or is it something more mundane like this?

Mankind needs four things to survive;
1 / water

2 / Food; We have in plentiful quantities and with our modern and highly integrated system of transport and communications across the globe we can move food from regions with an excess to areas of shortage very quickly.

3 / Shelter; Including items such as clothing is also cheap and readily available just about anywhere one likes to look

4 / Energy ; The key to our entire civilisation is around us in abundance if we ever overcome the crazies who refuse to countenance any sources of energy that does not meet their quasi religious beliefs, beliefs which are simply rooted in their perceived and supposed dangers of nearly every source of reliable and cheap energy on this planet.
Only extremely expensive, extremely unreliable and completely unpredictable sources of energy seem to meet the criteria of these anti-progress, anti-energy crazies.

Water is number one on mankind's list of absolute essentials to survive.
So how are we doing?

The UN costs some $15 billion a year to run and considering their record it is money nearly all wasted.

The USA alone has spent some $79 billion on global warming climate change research and programs from 1989 to 2009, a period of 20 years. $32 billion of this went just on climate related research so any one can seethe colossal amounts of money financing the global warming gravy train
And this was the USA alone.
Close to doubling this would approximate the amounts spent on the so called global warming / climate change research around the world and nearly all of this has gone exclusively to the GW / CC researchers and only a pittance to the "skeptical" climate researchers.

And despite this immense tax payer funded expenditure on just one area of [ climate related ] research there still is no Earth covering system of quality controlled weather stations which PD has suggested should be set up.

USA expenditure on Global warming related research and mitigation



And Water?

From the; Blue Planet network

The Facts About The Global Drinking Water Crisis

One-in-six people in the world lack safe drinking water.

Water-related illnesses are the leading cause of human sickness and death.

In many countries, the water problem is the primary reason people are unable to rise out of poverty. Women and children bear the burdens disproportionately, often spending six hours or more each day fetching water for their families and communities.

But there is hope. Proven solutions to the water problem currently exist, such as digging wells and rainwater harvesting. Proper funding and a collective will can make universal safe drinking water a reality.

[Edit; like most such following statistics I would like to see the actual source of a lot of these figures and the data to back them! Call me skeptical about some figures here! ]

• 1.1 billion people in the world do not have access to safe drinking water, roughly one-sixth of the world's population.

• 2.2 million people in developing countries, most of them children, die every year from diseases associated with lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene.

• Half of the world's hospital beds are filled with people suffering from water related illnesses.

• In the past 10 years, diarrhea has killed more children than all the people lost to armed conflict since World War II.

• Despite the size of the problem, we have made little progress against it. There were only 181 million fewer people living without safe drinking water in rural settings in 2004 (899 million) vs. 1990 (1.08 billion)*1.

• 50 percent of people on earth lack adequate sanitation. Another way to look at it: Nearly half of the world's population fails to receive the level of water services available 2,000 years ago to the citizens of ancient Rome.

• Lack of sufficient funding.
It is estimated that, in 2004, only US$4b in overseas development assistance was provided to meet the UN’s Millennium Development Goal (MDG) around water*2, versus a projected need of approximately US$10b annually for basic water and sanitation services and an additional US$15b to US$20b annually to provide a higher level of service and to maintain existing services.*
Note that the MDG goal, reducing the number of people living without safe drinking water and sanitation by half by 2015, still leaves hundreds of millions of people without water and sanitation.

Women and Children

• Some 6,000 children die every day from disease associated with lack of access to safe drinking water, inadequate sanitation and poor hygiene - equivalent to 20 jumbo jets crashing every day.

• The average distance that women in Africa and Asia walk to collect water is six kilometers.

• Tens of millions of children cannot go to school as they must fetch water every day.

• 80 percent of diseases in the developing world are caused by contaminated water

• If we did nothing other than provide access to clean water, without any other medical intervention, we could save 2 million lives a year.

• The water and sanitation crisis claims more lives through disease than any war claims through guns.
-- www.water.org

The UN estimates it would cost an additional $30 billion to provide access to safe water to the entire planet. That’s a third of what the world spends in a year on bottled water.

So what is more important?

Perhaps a hundred million dollars spent on chasing the elusive rainbow of proving global warming is all due to a minor greenhouse gas and then continue spending further immense sums on still trying, even after nearly three decades of trying without success, to prove this same unverified, unproven, supposedly catastrophic climate warming is under way and secondly, to continue to try and prove it is due to a minor greenhouse gas, a supposed global warming that is the object of some well off westerner's paranoiac fears.

Or just getting to and spending far less money on supplying good clean drinkable water, an absolute basic necessity for the survival of any human being, to every citizen of this planet?

Top
#1101952 - 29/04/2012 14:53 Re: Temperature trends [Re: ROM]
GrizzlyBear Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 23/06/2011
Posts: 2101
Loc: Yetholme [1180m] Central Table...
ROM, did you mention number five...
5/ Warmth so we do not freeze.

Despite not liking too much warmth I have to agree that too little could be even worse since warmth=energy.

I am unsure if the satellite measurements are able to achieve the same accuracy as actual surface measurements. Does it matter?, to me as someone who is obsessed with wanting to know the truth yes, because I want to know for sure in my lifetime. But sooner or latter the centuries and millennia will reveal the truth anyway.

Yes there are a lot of obstacles to getting weather stations everywhere, but I disagree that it could not be done. If all you are interested in is temperature then there is in fact very little cost as well as very little maintenance. Its only rain/wind and other things that need the maintenance.

For Australia you would only need 76,920 stations, each station can be just a 2m pole poked into the ground in one action with a tiny temperature sensor clipped on top. The data could be transmitted from the sensor to satellite like a satellite mobile phone. But you only need a tiny fraction of the data of a phone call because you only need to transmit one integer every few min. All the stations together would only be transmitting about as much data as one ongoing satellite phone call. Power for this could be supplied by the top 30cm of the pole being wrapped in solar absorbing material to charge a small battery at the top of the pole. To do this would in fact be less costly than a few 100km of gas pipeline. All you need to do is to repeat this world wide and you are done, the budget would be no greater than that for all the AGW conferences going on around the world today. Sure there would be some losses in the system, but as long as it works about 99% then the results would be pretty good.

Top
#1101965 - 29/04/2012 18:07 Re: Temperature trends [Re: GrizzlyBear]
Locke Offline
Weatherzone Addict

Registered: 27/12/2007
Posts: 2973
Loc: Brisbane
I would very surprised if we weren't seeing more warm records broken than cool records. It stands to reason that since the climate has been gradually warming since the little ice age.

Oh and if you really want to see a US heatwave go back a decade to July 2002. During that month 199 all time max temp records were broken and 219 tied (out of a possible 187,615 records)

This however pales in comparison with July 1934. During that month 311 all time max temp records were broken and 277 tied (out of a possible 49,127 records).

Now that is what I call a heatwave.

Top
#1101968 - 29/04/2012 18:19 Re: Temperature trends [Re: GrizzlyBear]
SBT Offline
Meteorological Motor Mouth

Registered: 07/02/2007
Posts: 12670
Loc: Townsville Dry Tropics
Of course that would be lovely but who would make sure that they are correctly placed? You know. Not stuck directly behind where a jet taxis and holds before take off, over a concrete pad, surrounded by bare rocks, stuck in a hollow or surronded by buildings, set up next to incenerators, or exhaust vents from air cons etc. Which is how 54% of the US governments 'offical' sensors where located nand only exposed because of a bunch of weather nuts armed with a camera.

Only 76,920 stations, only?
How will the data be collected?
What program will be run to filter the outliers?
Who supervises those running the program and who audits the supervisors?
Do you think you would need to run several different programs and the average the results?
Who maintains them?
Who calibrates and repairs them?
And just how exactly are you going to measure above seas and oceans? Floating sensors?
What colour will the hockey stick be this time?
And who is going to pay for them? Not this little black duck tax payer.

Sat obs have been used for the last 10 years for temprature observations I can't see the issue with using them now. Do some research and put your mind at rest about their accuracy.
It isn't the raw data or how it is collected to I object to, it's the fiddling with it after it is recieved that is the problem.

Famines do not happen in real democracies.

The only reasons that they occur anywhere on the planet is because of some bastard with a firm grip on an AK47 is stopping the aid from being delivered because it is either against his doctrine or he hasn't been paid enough graft.
_________________________
lexDyscis luRe!!
Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths. Prof David Deming

Top
Page 76 of 117 < 1 2 ... 74 75 76 77 78 ... 116 117 >


Who's Online
0 registered (), 103 Guests and 47 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Today's Birthdays
Firefighter 22, Oz_*#, Paul Jones
Forum Stats
27415 Members
32 Forums
21903 Topics
1225249 Posts

Max Online: 2925 @ 02/02/2011 22:23
Satellite Image
Advertisement