Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Recent and ongoing cold and snow records

Recommended Posts

jan colder by 0.3f in usa..hardly earth shattering? thts about 0.2c at most...so pretty much normal then!

Make that x 9/5. There's 1.8C per degree F. It's around 0.5C: like you say, only just outside "about average", and anything but staggeringly cold.

The big danger of this thread is that, like say plotting outbreaks of the flu, we get a picture that suggests the world is awash with something that is actually quite normal generally: i.e instances of cold and snow in the hemispheric winter. Without a baseline it's really all rather pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, that if you actually took the time to read what I wrote, as opposed to being entrenched in the view that anything that shows something slightly different to what you believe must be false you'd notice that I said such things as 'Business as usual' and did not mention 'earth shattering' ... merely stating what has been said and what is a fact. The previous max since 1966 was 47million sq KM, so this years 3million sq km extra is hardly a small area. But it is fairly 'normal'. As I said.

As for 'earth shattering' the 'average' temperature has apparently risen 1F over 100 years... wow. I suggest a sense of perspective is needed on here. Cleverness and common sense are poles apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Make that x 9/5. There's 1.8C per degree F. It's around 0.5C: like you say, only just outside "about average", and anything but staggeringly cold.

The big danger of this thread is that, like say plotting outbreaks of the flu, we get a picture that suggests the world is awash with something that is actually quite normal generally: i.e instances of cold and snow in the hemispheric winter. Without a baseline it's really all rather pointless.

in fact it is the other way round 1.8f = 1c therefore 0.3f = 0.16c

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in fact it is the other way round 1.8f = 1c therefore 0.3f = 0.16c

My brain is mush. That really was a schoolboy error! Yes: 5C = 9F and therefore the cold January really is trivial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People on this forum utterly baffle me. There is ONLY ONE WAY to determine the long term trend in global average temperature, and that is by using a long series of globally averaged temperature data.

If say the next 10 years showed a lower global average temperature than the last 10 years then that would indicate to me a cooling trend. If the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 it indicates further warming. You cannot say that the climate is cooling or warming by saying that "there was record snow in x" or "x recorded it's coldest season for x years". It's just not how it's done, it's not good statistics or science. It is just cherry picking and proves nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mycroft
People on this forum utterly baffle me. There is ONLY ONE WAY to determine the long term trend in global average temperature, and that is by using a long series of globally averaged temperature data.

If say the next 10 years showed a lower global average temperature than the last 10 years then that would indicate to me a cooling trend. If the next 10 years are warmer than the last 10 it indicates further warming. You cannot say that the climate is cooling or warming by saying that "there was record snow in x" or "x recorded it's coldest season for x years". It's just not how it's done, it's not good statistics or science. It is just cherry picking and proves nothing.

Sorry but i have not seen any one cherry picking.The title of the thread is "Recent and on going cold and snow records."

And as for showing cooling/warming trend and averages that clearly depends which set of data you believe,as we all know

one set shows that a warming trend that started in the early 80's ended in 1998 and that global temps have levelled out or have even dipped slightly.And i totally agree it's not how it's done x" snow here x" cold there.It's not good statistics or science, good science cannot lie, but good statistic's can and do get used to lie. statistics and science don't really make good bed partners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... statistics and science don't really make good bed partners.

That is one of the most ill informed comments I've ever seen posted on here. Science relies on the testing of hypotheses for valid proof, and when I last checked hypothesis testing was as much in the nucleus of statistics as our sun is at the nucleus of our solar system.

Without statistics there would be precious little scientific advancement.

...It is just cherry picking and proves nothing.

I agree, however if it keeps people happy. I think it's a bit like the toys they used to put in lunatic asylums; designed to keep people amused without really causing any harm. I shall take the view that it's keeping people off the metaphorical streets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest mycroft

That is one of the most ill informed comments I've ever seen posted on here. Science relies on the testing of hypotheses for valid proof, and when I last checked hypothesis testing was as much in the nucleus of statistics as our sun is at the nucleus of our solar system.

Without statistics there would be precious little scientific advancement.

So would you disagree that the statitstic's have been bent, warped,misquoted,on the temperature data from IPCC,and the fellow Hansen. :)

Hypothesis: a supposition: something assumed for the purpose of argument; a theory assumed to account for what is not understood

Statistics may help science but the way that some use or misuse them clearly statistics can and do fudge, cloud, the subject and argument of temperature rise/fall that was the point i was so clearly trying to make and obviously so ill informed to do so. I bow to your superior knowledge and wait with bated breath for a yet another pious reply. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is one of the most ill informed comments I've ever seen posted on here. Science relies on the testing of hypotheses for valid proof, and when I last checked hypothesis testing was as much in the nucleus of statistics as our sun is at the nucleus of our solar system.

Without statistics there would be precious little scientific advancement.

It's only the "fuzzy" sciences (usually those that end with "-ology") that need recourse to statistics. Good old solid sciences get by with good old symbolic equations for the most part, and don't need probabilities. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, I was labouring under the impression that this particualar thread was named 'Recent and ongoing cold and snow records', clearly my inability to read led me down this path and therefore when I replied to that particular topic I was wrong.... oh wait, no... that would be you two (Magpie, SF). I merely stated that this years SNOW RECORD is higher than the norm and that the USA's cold was COLDER than the norm. I think that meets all requirements, hardly cherry picking. Damn my stupidity :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see a big football club* lost at the weekend, is it a start of a trend? Does one match mean anything? Would starting a thread entitled 'Matchs club X loose' give a good impression of the form of club X? How would one know if it were a bad patch or more significant? Answer, buy the passage of time, by the trend?

*the club doesn't matter really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see a big football club* lost at the weekend, is it a start of a trend? Does one match mean anything? Would starting a thread entitled 'Matchs club X loose' give a good impression of the form of club X? How would one know if it were a bad patch or more significant? Answer, buy the passage of time, by the trend?

*the club doesn't matter really.

To use your anology I would say yes.

If Chelsea were beat by Derby at Stamford Bridge I would think to myself. Whats happening here. Have Chelsea gone of the boil. I will keep an eye on how they perform as this to me shows signs that they are not the force I thought they were.

No it is not a trend but when does a trend start? After one match, 5 matches or 10 matches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To use your anology I would say yes.

If Chelsea were beat by Derby at Stamford Bridge I would think to myself. Whats happening here. Have Chelsea gone of the boil. I will keep an eye on how they perform as this to me shows signs that they are not the force I thought they were.

No it is not a trend but when does a trend start? After one match, 5 matches or 10 matches?

The point is you can't show a trend before it's a trend - not without time travel :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely the point is that this thread isn't about 'trends' its about new records... thus with an increase in the snow cover in the northern hemisphere to the largest area since 1966 we have a 'record' whether in years to come this becomes a 'trend' is yet to be seen. To merely keep repeating the same point seems a bit of a waste of time for everyone... and certainly a 'trend'. Me thinks thou doth protest too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is you can't show a trend before it's a trend - not without time travel :)

Very true. But you can take note of things which happen which seem to be bucking a previous trend. We have had a warming trend for some time, but over the past 10 years that trend looks like it may be on the wane, going by the global temperatures. Add to this the many recent cold and snow events, the likes of which have not been seen for 20, 50 even 100 years and it seems to me that the old warming trend may well be on it's way out. As I have said elsewhere, it will be interesting to see how this year pans out on a global scale.

Add to this a growing number of scientists who are predicting a cooldown (that word again) and I think it's looking increasingly likely that the warming cycle may well be at an end.

Can I just say that the reason I started this thread (albeit elsewhere ;) ) ) is because some people were asking for evidence of record cold/snow events. Someone even said that without supplying details of these events, my argument (for an end to the warming trend/start of a cooling trend) was invalid. Hence the thread and I shall continue to report notable/record cold stuff.

I want this to be a useful thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To use your anology I would say yes.

If Chelsea were beat by Derby at Stamford Bridge I would think to myself. Whats happening here. Have Chelsea gone of the boil. I will keep an eye on how they perform as this to me shows signs that they are not the force I thought they were.

No it is not a trend but when does a trend start? After one match, 5 matches or 10 matches?

Well, last year was the 2nd warmest year globally ever according to NASA, so it's the equivalent of Chelsea being in 2nd place after just winning the title. Does it mean they're about to be relegated? I think not.

Ok, the thread itself is not about climate change, but people here are clearly using these events to make statements about the climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080212/ap_on_re_us/cold_weather

As I mentioned earlier, I have been unable to link to anything re the USA as a whole......presumably as they are so big they work on an individual state basis.

Anyway, above is a link re record cold in Minneapolis. So cold that it has broken the previous record which was set in 1967.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted the link above in the Media section :) Shame it's so warm here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So as not to clog up other threads, I thought of starting another, just to keep some records "on board".

As I am very slow, it will be one link at a time! There will probably be time for a quick nap between each one.

Just to add a touch of analysis to this timely thread:

http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart...&ui_month=1

anom_nhland.gif

nhland01.png

2008042.png

Any explanations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I posted the link above in the Media section :D Shame it's so warm here.

So you did! Great minds think alike, eh? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any explanations?

Great map and graphs, Chris. In particular, the map conveys the extent of the snow so much better than I could hope to with my one-link-at-a-time effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to add a touch of analysis to this timely thread:

Any explanations?

Chris thanks for digging out the graphs.

1. Since about 2000 there has been a clear increase in January snow cover with only 2 negative anomalies (one of which was highly marginal) thus reversing the pattern of largely negative anomalies in the previous 15 years.

2. The January anomalies during 1995-200 (when the annual anomalies were falling and negative) were clearly overall negative whereas from 2003-2008 (when again annual anomalies were falling and negative) the January anomalies were largely positive.

3. Annual snow cover continues to show a declining trend starting in 2003 after the temporary upward blip of 2001-2002 with negative anomalies trending towards the notable negative anomalies of 1989-1991.

4. During the 1995-2000 downward trend seasons with positive anomalies were: 1 summers, 2 springs, 2 autumns and 6 winters whereas in the 2003-2008 downward trend seasons with positive anomalies were confined to winter and autumn with 6 each.

5. The preponderance of winter positive anomalies in both periods of annual declines sits uneasily at first sight with the fact that January anomalies in the first period were decidedly negative whilst in the second they were clearly positive.

6. A possible explanation may be that either late autumn (November)/early winter (December) were snowier in the second period but mid to late winter (January/February) was snowier in the first period. Obviously one would need to see monthly anomalies to see if that is right.

7. Trying to draw implications for average temperatures from snow cover anomalies is difficult (I assume that for the great part of the North American and Eurasian landmasses snow cover in winter, at least, is more a function of greater precipitation often associated with wetter milder incursion than cold e.g last winter's heavy snowfall in the Canadian Rockies was accompanied by milder than average temperatures). The fact that January (the coldest month of the winter and over large swathes of the 2 landmasses generally cold enough for snow in the mildest winters) was snowier than normal in both periods would suggest that the January anomalies resulted from incursions of milder and wetter air masses.

8. Transitional seasons (spring and autumn) are characterised in the great continental land masses by a rapid decline from early autumn warmth to late autumn cold (vice versa in spring). Thus in respect of the first period of annual declines there may either have been some anomalously cold springs/autumns leading to overall snowy entire springs/autumns or those springs/autumns were not colder than average but there was greater precipitation (possibly due to relatively mild wet air masses) in late autumn/early spring (November/March) when one would normally expect snow cover. I suspect that the second possible explanation would be more likely to be true of March than November when both mean temperatures would be lower than November and snow cover would reflect more the snowiness of the preceding winter (when snowfall would be overall a function of precipitation than cold) than temperatures in March. In the second period those 2 possible explanations apply to the autumn anomalies alone with the second possible explanation weaker than when applied to spring. Again monthly snow cover data for all spring/autumn months, monthly precipitation data for all winter months/November/March and monthly temperature data for all 3 seasons are necessary to test the 2 possible explanations.

regards

ACB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chris thanks for digging out the graphs.

1. Since about 2000 there has been a clear increase in January snow cover with only 2 negative anomalies (one of which was highly marginal) thus reversing the pattern of largely negative anomalies in the previous 15 years.

2. The January anomalies during 1995-200 (when the annual anomalies were falling and negative) were clearly overall negative whereas from 2003-2008 (when again annual anomalies were falling and negative) the January anomalies were largely positive.

3. Annual snow cover continues to show a declining trend starting in 2003 after the temporary upward blip of 2001-2002 with negative anomalies trending towards the notable negative anomalies of 1989-1991.

4. During the 1995-2000 downward trend seasons with positive anomalies were: 1 summers, 2 springs, 2 autumns and 6 winters whereas in the 2003-2008 downward trend seasons with positive anomalies were confined to winter and autumn with 6 each.

5. The preponderance of winter positive anomalies in both periods of annual declines sits uneasily at first sight with the fact that January anomalies in the first period were decidedly negative whilst in the second they were clearly positive.

6. A possible explanation may be that either late autumn (November)/early winter (December) were snowier in the second period but mid to late winter (January/February) was snowier in the first period. Obviously one would need to see monthly anomalies to see if that is right.

7. Trying to draw implications for average temperatures from snow cover anomalies is difficult (I assume that for the great part of the North American and Eurasian landmasses snow cover in winter, at least, is more a function of greater precipitation often associated with wetter milder incursion than cold e.g last winter's heavy snowfall in the Canadian Rockies was accompanied by milder than average temperatures). The fact that January (the coldest month of the winter and over large swathes of the 2 landmasses generally cold enough for snow in the mildest winters) was snowier than normal in both periods would suggest that the January anomalies resulted from incursions of milder and wetter air masses.

8. Transitional seasons (spring and autumn) are characterised in the great continental land masses by a rapid decline from early autumn warmth to late autumn cold (vice versa in spring). Thus in respect of the first period of annual declines there may either have been some anomalously cold springs/autumns leading to overall snowy entire springs/autumns or those springs/autumns were not colder than average but there was greater precipitation (possibly due to relatively mild wet air masses) in late autumn/early spring (November/March) when one would normally expect snow cover. I suspect that the second possible explanation would be more likely to be true of March than November when both mean temperatures would be lower than November and snow cover would reflect more the snowiness of the preceding winter (when snowfall would be overall a function of precipitation than cold) than temperatures in March. In the second period those 2 possible explanations apply to the autumn anomalies alone with the second possible explanation weaker than when applied to spring. Again monthly snow cover data for all spring/autumn months, monthly precipitation data for all winter months/November/March and monthly temperature data for all 3 seasons are necessary to test the 2 possible explanations.

regards

ACB

That strikes me as a very sensible piece of analysis Andrew.

...Can I just say that the reason I started this thread (albeit elsewhere :D ) ) is because some people were asking for evidence of record cold/snow events. Someone even said that without supplying details of these events, my argument (for an end to the warming trend/start of a cooling trend) was invalid. Hence the thread and I shall continue to report notable/record cold stuff.

I want this to be a useful thread.

Noggin, I think it's hugely useful as a repository of records and clearly fills a N-W void re cold records. It might not be up there with, say, the National Portrait Gallery, or the British Museum, but as a document of record I'm sure it will be very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

News reports indicate that eastern North American cities are running low on salt and sand supplies for routine highway clearing operations. Apparently they didn't hear the rather widely publicized long-range forecasts saying that we were in for a colder and snowier winter than in recent years, or they hoped they were wrong. Now everyone has been re-ordering and the suppliers are scrambling because every customer wants delivery soon, but the system is not quite that flexible.

My impression of the North American winter, and this is by no means my first rodeo, is that it is on the whole a fairly impressive winter by most standards I could apply, especially the most recent 30-year averages, but not the most extreme winter for cold or snow. What seems to make it a little unusual is that everyone has been treated to some winter on an almost equal footing (relative to local normals, of course), the cold is probably more extreme in central regions than western or eastern but everywhere seems to be running a bit below normal.

I realize that the AGW lobby are getting very impatient to have their theory accepted by all, in fact here in Canada, the noted proponent of the theory David Suzuki recently suggested (to applause) at a university lecture that people who disagree with the theory should be thrown in jail. And I thought this was a tough crowd !

The fact that he is making these pronouncements in possibly the coldest winter in about fourteen years is probably a mixture of bad timing and bad manners. Canada is still technically a democracy with freedom of speech, although this is becoming somewhat debatable too. Anyway, probably the point of this thread has not really escaped either side in this argument, and no amount of exasperation is going to make this inconvenient fact disappear, if the public are continually lectured that the climate is changing towards something warmer, and it turns super-cold all over the place, well the natives are going to become restless because this would not be the first time that experts have been wrong, and I've got to say that there is probably now a real split in public opinion between Europe and North America, not to mention Asia where clearly the governments would love to have any excuse to continue using the atmosphere as a dumping ground. To my mind, this indicates that perhaps the approach is dangerous to tie change to predictions of climate change that may backfire as natural cycles could easily overwhelm the rather delicate nature of the postulated effects at present. There is always this spectre of huge changes "ahead" but I am sure I was being told in the 1980s that ski resorts would go out of business and palm trees would start growing in New York City by about this time.

It seems that in Europe, a regional pattern change has been accepted as a global change that is not really occurring and in fact the real story here may be that the world's climate patterns are shifting around, not all towards the warmer end of the spectrum. Anyway, sorry to take up so much time here, but I never know when there will be that knock on the door. There is a mad scramble by the thought police to catch up with me, so numerous are my transgressions against political correctness; it is lucky that I don't publish a newspaper or I wouild spend my whole life in court.

You have to admit, there is a certain amount of humour involved in the notion that a Canadian citizen could go to jail for thinking it wasn't warming up. B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Roger. 'Global shift', yes, i like the sound

of that concept and looking around the globe seems/appears evident now.

Perhaps 'Global shift' is on going and maybe continues to shift around ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...