Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Despite the recent/current cold snap, a report just released states that Canadian winters are not as cold as they once were, back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Could it be that while the US and western Europe are cooling, places at higher latitudes such as Canada and Russia are warming. Thoughts? http://montreal.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110124/mtl_coldhot_110124/20110124/?hub=MontrealHome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smith Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 Variations around a very irregular trend curve, yes. Warmer now than in the past, dubious. The timing of this op-ed piece is suspicious to me -- feed the sheeple their monthly quota of abstract statistics to keep the theme of "AGW" alive in their minds so they won't mind paying the higher taxes, hydro-electric bills, and civil service salaries. I challenge D.P. or any of the other paid spokesmen for the wind farm lobby to go outside and make their pronouncements. Last Sunday morning in Timmins would have been ideal. These people are basically lying about climate change. It is nowhere near as great an increase as they are trying to say, they are confusing urban heat islands with real regional or hemispheric change. The reason they are lying is because they don't want to do the harder work involved in real research. This is easy, you just keep saying it's getting warmer, find a few anecdotal statistics to back it up, and hope the media remain docile and stupid (a safe bet). If you can blacklist a quality guy in the process, so much the better -- no point in departing from the real long-term trend which is mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 Variations around a very irregular trend curve, yes. Warmer now than in the past, dubious. The timing of this op-ed piece is suspicious to me -- feed the sheeple their monthly quota of abstract statistics to keep the theme of "AGW" alive in their minds so they won't mind paying the higher taxes, hydro-electric bills, and civil service salaries. I challenge D.P. or any of the other paid spokesmen for the wind farm lobby to go outside and make their pronouncements. Last Sunday morning in Timmins would have been ideal. These people are basically lying about climate change. It is nowhere near as great an increase as they are trying to say, they are confusing urban heat islands with real regional or hemispheric change. The reason they are lying is because they don't want to do the harder work involved in real research. This is easy, you just keep saying it's getting warmer, find a few anecdotal statistics to back it up, and hope the media remain docile and stupid (a safe bet). If you can blacklist a quality guy in the process, so much the better -- no point in departing from the real long-term trend which is mediocrity. But Roger, just to play devil's advocate, you cannot deny that January and February have both warmed in Ottawa since the 1960s and 70s. Are you saying that they are warmer now because the city is encroaching on the Ottawa airport (which is still rural compared to Pearson or Trudeau airport)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormguy80 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think the truth is in the middle. Both extremes are too rigid in their stance on the issue. I do not believe the whole AGW thing is one big left wing conspiracy as you would have it. Many well meaning scientists have put blood, sweat and tears into their work and have good evidence to support AGW. I do think though, that natural variation such as the PDO, sunspots, likely also played a role in our recent warming and that these factors aren’t getting the credit they probably deserve. In other words, “the truth” on the matter is probably far more complex and messy than either side would have it. Different climate cycles with different time scales and forcing are all superimposed over each other so this makes assessing cause and effect quite difficult just to figure out exactly how we got to where we are and more importantly where we are heading. But try explaining this to the public and most people will just yawn and go back to doing “business as usual”. In terms of getting people to support an actual solution for something that may be a big problem it may be necessary to emphasize the worst case scenarios since by the time we know for sure if they are real threats it may already be too late… Variations around a very irregular trend curve, yes. Warmer now than in the past, dubious. The timing of this op-ed piece is suspicious to me -- feed the sheeple their monthly quota of abstract statistics to keep the theme of "AGW" alive in their minds so they won't mind paying the higher taxes, hydro-electric bills, and civil service salaries. I challenge D.P. or any of the other paid spokesmen for the wind farm lobby to go outside and make their pronouncements. Last Sunday morning in Timmins would have been ideal. These people are basically lying about climate change. It is nowhere near as great an increase as they are trying to say, they are confusing urban heat islands with real regional or hemispheric change. The reason they are lying is because they don't want to do the harder work involved in real research. This is easy, you just keep saying it's getting warmer, find a few anecdotal statistics to back it up, and hope the media remain docile and stupid (a safe bet). If you can blacklist a quality guy in the process, so much the better -- no point in departing from the real long-term trend which is mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 I think the truth is in the middle. Both extremes are too rigid in their stance on the issue. I do not believe the whole AGW thing is one big left wing conspiracy as you would have it. Many well meaning scientists have put blood, sweat and tears into their work and have good evidence to support AGW. I do think though, that natural variation such as the PDO, sunspots, likely also played a role in our recent warming and that these factors aren’t getting the credit they probably deserve. In other words, “the truth” on the matter is probably far more complex and messy than either side would have it. Different climate cycles with different time scales and forcing are all superimposed over each other so this makes assessing cause and effect quite difficult just to figure out exactly how we got to where we are and more importantly where we are heading. But try explaining this to the public and most people will just yawn and go back to doing “business as usual”. In terms of getting people to support an actual solution for something that may be a big problem it may be necessary to emphasize the worst case scenarios since by the time we know for sure if they are real threats it may already be too late… Good point. I continue to do research into Ottawa's winters and have noticed an undeniable warming trend in both January and February since 1960 (and perhaps further back). The data is there for all to see and it cannot be simply brushed aside. Granted, 50 years is a short period of time when you consider the age of the earth, and Canada is just one country. As for David Phillips, I must come to his defense. He is a genuine great guy and had the priviledge of speaking to him one-on-one a few times when I was interning at a newspaper. I clearly recall him saying once that he always felt uneasy with reporters as they would take some of your words and shape into a story which said what they wanted it to say. I can tell you that he isn't 100% in the AGW camp, but has noticed the warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smith Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 A "really great guy" would not go around trashing somebody else's work and organize a vicious blacklisting campaign behind their back. By "really great guy" I imagine you just mean Liberal. There is quite a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 A "really great guy" would not go around trashing somebody else's work and organize a vicious blacklisting campaign behind their back. By "really great guy" I imagine you just mean Liberal. There is quite a difference. he trashed your work and organized a blacklisting campaign behind your back or do you just mean others in general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormguy80 Posted January 25, 2011 Share Posted January 25, 2011 I have to disagree with your points on David Phillips. He’s a huge phony. He does not have a meteorology degree and as a result his knowledge of the science is not very deep at all. You say he is not totally in the AGW camp? He is the poster boy for AGW hysteria! He's Canada’s own Chicken Little since he’s always going off about how the sky is falling. He doesn’t know anything more about weather than I did when I was a 14 year old child weather enthusiast. He skipped the hard work of getting a met degree and only got his job by happening to meet the right people at the right time and place who he impressed with his speaking skills and his “story telling” ability. Good point. I continue to do research into Ottawa's winters and have noticed an undeniable warming trend in both January and February since 1960 (and perhaps further back). The data is there for all to see and it cannot be simply brushed aside. Granted, 50 years is a short period of time when you consider the age of the earth, and Canada is just one country. As for David Phillips, I must come to his defense. He is a genuine great guy and had the priviledge of speaking to him one-on-one a few times when I was interning at a newspaper. I clearly recall him saying once that he always felt uneasy with reporters as they would take some of your words and shape into a story which said what they wanted it to say. I can tell you that he isn't 100% in the AGW camp, but has noticed the warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 25, 2011 Author Share Posted January 25, 2011 I have to disagree with your points on David Phillips. He’s a huge phony. He does not have a meteorology degree and as a result his knowledge of the science is not very deep at all. You say he is not totally in the AGW camp? He is the poster boy for AGW hysteria! He's Canada’s own Chicken Little since he’s always going off about how the sky is falling. He doesn’t know anything more about weather than I did when I was a 14 year old child weather enthusiast. He skipped the hard work of getting a met degree and only got his job by happening to meet the right people at the right time and place who he impressed with his speaking skills and his “story telling” ability. What is your opinion of AGW then, as well as the fact that winters have most deffinately warmed in Canada over the past 50 years at least? Urban heat island? Not being sarcastic here, just interested in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormguy80 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Qualitatively speaking, it is very likely we have contributed to the warming that has occurred since 1850. Co2 is a greenhouse gas that helps trap heat and we have produced plenty of it through our industrial activities. However, quantitatively it is extremely difficult to know just how much this contribution has been. It’s almost analogous to saying, “there is a storm coming, we know it will snow tomorrow but the question is how much”. I think the anthropogenic contribution to the roughly 2 F we have warmed since 1850 could range anywhere from about 20% all the way up to 80 or 90%. If it’s 20% or even up to 50% we probably don’t have anything to worry about. If we are 50% responsible then that means the other 50% was likely a combination of the warm PDO of the past 30 years as well as the ending of the little ice age - meaning that sustained additional warming from natural causes isn’t too likely and that the AGW component may be only another 1-2 F by 2100 if the 20th century trend (the AGW component that is) holds. The big question though is the “what if?” I believe there is a reasonable chance, probably less than 50% but likely not small, that AGW has been the main cause of warming and also that future warming could lead to positive feedback mechanisms kicking in if we warm by more than 3-4 degrees which is possible. This would be quite bad. Again, I think the chances of this are less than 50% but likely not all that small…like Russian roulette maybe. The question is, do we feel lucky enough to take the gamble and do nothing? What is your opinion of AGW then, as well as the fact that winters have most deffinately warmed in Canada over the past 50 years at least? Urban heat island? Not being sarcastic here, just interested in your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Variations around a very irregular trend curve, yes. Warmer now than in the past, dubious. The timing of this op-ed piece is suspicious to me -- feed the sheeple their monthly quota of abstract statistics to keep the theme of "AGW" alive in their minds so they won't mind paying the higher taxes, hydro-electric bills, and civil service salaries. I challenge D.P. or any of the other paid spokesmen for the wind farm lobby to go outside and make their pronouncements. Last Sunday morning in Timmins would have been ideal. These people are basically lying about climate change. It is nowhere near as great an increase as they are trying to say, they are confusing urban heat islands with real regional or hemispheric change. The reason they are lying is because they don't want to do the harder work involved in real research. This is easy, you just keep saying it's getting warmer, find a few anecdotal statistics to back it up, and hope the media remain docile and stupid (a safe bet). If you can blacklist a quality guy in the process, so much the better -- no point in departing from the real long-term trend which is mediocrity. Sorry Roger but the amount of warming has been pretty well documented and UHI effects have been removed. ~.8C over the last century.. not a whole lot of debate over this any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormguy80 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 these are not intelligent arguments you are making. I'm sure there are indeed people who stand to win out with AGW (researchers, etc). But the same argument could be made from the other side. i.e. oil companies, etc who stand to gain wealth by denying AGW. it works both ways. Try using facts and sensible reasoning. Variations around a very irregular trend curve, yes. Warmer now than in the past, dubious. The timing of this op-ed piece is suspicious to me -- feed the sheeple their monthly quota of abstract statistics to keep the theme of "AGW" alive in their minds so they won't mind paying the higher taxes, hydro-electric bills, and civil service salaries. I challenge D.P. or any of the other paid spokesmen for the wind farm lobby to go outside and make their pronouncements. Last Sunday morning in Timmins would have been ideal. These people are basically lying about climate change. It is nowhere near as great an increase as they are trying to say, they are confusing urban heat islands with real regional or hemispheric change. The reason they are lying is because they don't want to do the harder work involved in real research. This is easy, you just keep saying it's getting warmer, find a few anecdotal statistics to back it up, and hope the media remain docile and stupid (a safe bet). If you can blacklist a quality guy in the process, so much the better -- no point in departing from the real long-term trend which is mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 Regardless of what the cause is, the facts are that we are warming. Here, for example are the February mean temperatures in Ottawa since 1960: February 1960: -6.7C February 1961: -6.9C February 1962: -12.3C February 1963: -13.2C February 1964: -8.8C February 1965: -10.3C February 1966: -8.4C February 1967: -13.7C February 1968: -11.7C February 1969: -6.7C February 1970: -10.7C February 1971: -8.8C February 1972: -11.7C February 1973: -10.9C February 1974: -11.0C February 1975: -7.5C February 1976: -7.0C February 1977: -8.1C February 1978: -11.3C February 1979: -14.4C February 1980:-10.0C February 1981: -2.7C February 1982: -9.4C February 1983: -6.7C February 1984: -4.0C February 1985: -7.6C February 1986: -9.7C February 1987: -9.6C February 1988: -9.3C February 1989: -9.6C (note how after 1980 mean temperatures in the double digets celcius don't occur) February 1990: -6.9C February 1991: -6.1C February 1992: -9.6C February 1993 -13.6C February 1994 -11.8C February 1995: -10.4C February 1996: -9.0C February 1997: -8.3C February 1998: -3.8C February 1999: -6.0C (note the "Mount Pinatubo effect" in 1993,1994,1995 before the means warm right back up to single digets celcius) February 2000 -7.1C February 2001: -8.7C February 2002: -5.9C February 2003 -12.1C February 2004: -7.9C February 2005: -7.0C February 2006: -7.7C February 2007: -11.3C February 2008: -8.7C February 2009: -7.4C (note how it continues to warm, with the notable exceptions of 2003 and 2007) February 2010: -5.4C (very warm February in Ottawa last year) It cannot be denied that February has warmed in Ottawa over the past 50 years, as has January. Dave Phillips is right. Yes, Ottawa is just one city, but it is a northern city known as the second coldest national capital in the world (after Ulan Batar, Mongolia). Means in the double digets celcius are the exception rather than the rule now when back in the 60s and 70s they were quite common. I will paste the January means since 1980, which I posted in another thread last week, below. If anything, the rise in January means is even more pronounced, particularly since 2006. January 1980: -9.2C January 1981: -14.5C January 1982: -15.9C January 1983: -8.6C January 1984: -12.7C January 1985: -13.5C January 1986: -9.8C January 1987: -9.1C January 1988: -9.1C January 1989: -7.9C January 1990: -4.6C January 1991: -10.6C January 1992: -11.6C January 1993: -9.2C January 1994: -18.0C (!) January 1995: -7.0C January 1996: -11.7C January 1997: -11.8C January 1998: -7.9C January 1999: -10.2C January 2000: -10.2C January 2001: -9.4C January 2002: -4.9C January 2003: -13.5C January 2004: -15.7C January 2005: -11.7C January 2006: -5.7C January 2007: -7.7C January 2008: -6.3C January 2009: -13.6C January 2010: -7.5C Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nzucker Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Sorry Roger but the amount of warming has been pretty well documented and UHI effects have been removed. ~.8C over the last century.. not a whole lot of debate over this any more. He didn't say there was no warming of the climate, just that it wasn't as great a warming as some people claim given the UHI effect and natural variation from year to year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 He didn't say there was no warming of the climate, just that it wasn't as great a warming as some people claim given the UHI effect and natural variation from year to year. Which is wrong. Nobody claims the warming has been more than ~.8C globaly (maybe 1C if you do peak to trough without smoothing). No global temperature index fails to account for UHI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 Sorry Roger but the amount of warming has been pretty well documented and UHI effects have been removed. ~.8C over the last century.. not a whole lot of debate over this any more. The cause of the warming is very much up for debate. Canada has not warmed .8C in the past 150yrs (lol).... & its .72C globally FYI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 I took Ottawa's January data provided by Ottawa Blizzard and ran a trend analysis. The trend has been higher (about 0.04°C per year since 1980). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 I took Ottawa's January data provided by Ottawa Blizzard and ran a trend analysis. The trend has been higher (about 0.04°C per year since 1980). Thanks Don. This shows that, whetehr it be man made or seasonal variation, the warming trend has been noticable in Canada. The older generation is thus correct in saying that winters were colder when they were younger. The type of cold that we had this past weekend would sometimes last for three weeks non stop at a time, never mind three days. Of course there were mild winters, but they were the exception rather than the rule while now, for whatever reason, it seems to be the other way round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 26, 2011 Share Posted January 26, 2011 The cause of the warming is very much up for debate. Canada has not warmed .8C in the past 150yrs (lol).... & its .72C globally FYI. You are right. Canada has warmed much more than .8C. 1.6C in the last 63 years according to Environment Canada (their version of NOAA). http://www.ec.gc.ca/...n=77842065-1#a1 Even more impressive is the rate of warming in winter... 2.3C over the last 63 years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 26, 2011 Author Share Posted January 26, 2011 You are right. Canada has warmed much more than .8C. 1.6C in the last 63 years according to Environment Canada (their version of NOAA). http://www.ec.gc.ca/...n=77842065-1#a1 Even more impressive is the rate of warming in winter... 2.3C over the last 63 years: I'm deffinately in the middle when it comes to the debate about what is causing the warming, but there can be no doubt that Canada has warmed significantly, especially in the winter, over the past 60 years. Why does this matter? The communities in the high arctic and Labrador actually rely on extreme cold to stay connected with one another. If it doesn't get cold, ice roads can't be built. It is hard to emphasize enough just how much NE canada and labrador torched last year and the first half of this winter. For people in the MA and Ohio valley, as well as western Europe (where it has been cold and snowy these past two years) snow and cold are a novelty for hobbyists to enjoy. Further north it is a necessity of life. While I respect mets like Joe Bastardi, I think he's forgetting to mention just how warm the arctic has been in order to provide his cleints and subscribers with the snow and cold they so crave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 I think the truth is in the middle. Both extremes are too rigid in their stance on the issue. I do not believe the whole AGW thing is one big left wing conspiracy as you would have it. Many well meaning scientists have put blood, sweat and tears into their work and have good evidence to support AGW.I don't think that the funders of the "scientists" are any more well-meaning than Maurice Strong, Power Corp. or Jean Chretien. I think the evidence that much if not all climate change is not cyclical is practically nil.Further, even turning to Canadian novelistic literature, Farley Mowat's early novels featured winter warm spells in the high tundra. Unless that had no basis in reality why should now be any different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted January 27, 2011 Share Posted January 27, 2011 Regardless of what the cause is, the facts are that we are warming. Here, for example are the February mean temperatures in Ottawa since 1960: Chart omitted It cannot be denied that February has warmed in Ottawa over the past 50 years, as has January. Dave Phillips is right. Yes, Ottawa is just one city, but it is a northern city known as the second coldest national capital in the world (after Ulan Batar, Mongolia). Means in the double digets celcius are the exception rather than the rule now when back in the 60s and 70s they were quite common. I will paste the January means since 1980, which I posted in another thread last week, below. If anything, the rise in January means is even more pronounced, particularly since 2006. Chart omitted Actually, that looks almost trendless to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ottawa Blizzard Posted January 28, 2011 Author Share Posted January 28, 2011 Actually, that looks almost trendless to me. How can you come to that conclusion? Clearly Februaries are warmer than they were in the 60s. Getting a February with a minus double diget celcius mean is almost unheard of now. 2003 was the exception to that rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 You are right. Canada has warmed much more than .8C. 1.6C in the last 63 years according to Environment Canada (their version of NOAA). http://www.ec.gc.ca/...n=77842065-1#a1 Even more impressive is the rate of warming in winter... 2.3C over the last 63 years: It makes a lot of sense that Canadian winters would show a stronger warming signal than the global average. This is because of the relative absence of radiation coming from short wave (sunlight) and from water vapor (cold temps). We are thus left with CO2 and other GHGs having a larger role to play in regulating the temperature, and therefore a larger temperature signal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted January 29, 2011 Share Posted January 29, 2011 You are right. Canada has warmed much more than .8C. 1.6C in the last 63 years according to Environment Canada (their version of NOAA). http://www.ec.gc.ca/...n=77842065-1#a1 Even more impressive is the rate of warming in winter... 2.3C over the last 63 years: It makes a lot of sense that Canadian winters would show a stronger warming signal (2.5C in 63 years) compared with the global average. This is because of the relative absence of radiation coming from short wave (sunlight) and from water vapor (due to cold temps). We are thus left with CO2 and other GHGs having a larger role to play in regulating the temperature (via longwave radiation), and therefore a larger temperature signal. While there might be less water vapor feedback in cold climates, there is also less oceanic heat transfer to slow the trend in a continental location. Kind of off-topic, but I heard rumors about one of the forecast models mistakenly turning off all CO2 by setting it to zero. This had caused the forecasts to look cold, preferentially in the polar regions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 The problem with all of this is that if you look at any major Metropolitan area, there is an extreme confounding of the "Urban Effect". And, it seems to be slowly increasing for all urban centers, and has been doing so in excess of a century. Ottawa was brought up earlier, so I'll use it as an example. For some reason NASA has lots of data gaps, perhaps because of a movement from land based stations to satellite stations. But, looking at stations near Ottawa: http://data.giss.nas...temp&data_set=1 Ottawa (1880-1990) (sorry that is where the data ended, but it does seem to have a bit of an upward slope, but it is listed as having a population of 717,000 so one would expect some urban effect warming. Ogdensburg, pop 14K (largest town I'm reporting here) (1895-2010) looks very flat. It does peak around 1960, then drops again around 1960 (the beginning of the NOAA baseline period). A couple of the readings only in the last decade look high, but nothing appears to be remarkable. Also a few higher readings in the late 80's, but not significantly higher than the 40's and 50's. Canton4SE (1895-2010) also looks similar. Somewhat of an increase to a peak of 1950, then decreasing again to 1960 (again the NOAA baseline). There is a slight rise again only in the most recent decade. Chasm Falls (1926-2010). Again the only apparent warming is in the most recent decade. In fact, that is getting a little repetitive to say that for every rural station, the only apparent warming occurred in 1998 and continued more or less to the present. This has also hit other stations that I've looked at, particularly in the North, to the extent that I would start asking whether there have been changes in the temperature recording methods. Look at Jan Mayen Island. The last 9 years (2001 to 2010) have been the closest clustered together temperature readings in the 90 years of recording the temperatures. And, also happen to be the hottest 9 years. As well as the only 9 year stretch that could be considered any kind of a "trend". Coincidence? I don't know. I suppose I kind of believe that something is changing in our environment. But, I'm just not that impressed with the magnitude of the "changes", especially when looking at the small town and rural weather stations, and comparing them to past history including the 40's and 50's. I am expecting a cooling trend from the current weak solar cycle-24. But we really don't have a good baseline to know if we're back to "normal" whatever that is. If we see warming not otherwise explained by things like the urban effect throughout solar cycle-24, then we could have some serious issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 First of all, the plural of anecdotes is not data. Canton actually shows rapid warming even faster than Ottawa's, I don't know how you managed to interpret that as little or no warming. Several of the others show moderate warming. Two of the others doesn't go back before 1920 which isn't very helpful since much of the warming in Ottawa was relative to the very cold 1900-1920 period. Second of all, the urban heat effect is accounted for in the temperature indexes. Urban stations in the GISS record are calibrated to the surrounding rural stations. They are not just taking contaminated urban data and using it to formulate temperature indexes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 First of all, the plural of anecdotes is not data. Canton actually shows rapid warming even faster than Ottawa's, I don't know how you managed to interpret that as little or no warming. Several of the others show moderate warming. Two of the others doesn't go back before 1920 which isn't very helpful since much of the warming in Ottawa was relative to the very cold 1900-1920 period. Second of all, the urban heat effect is accounted for in the temperature indexes. Urban stations in the GISS record are calibrated to the surrounding rural stations. They are not just taking contaminated urban data and using it to formulate temperature indexes. A snapshot of the most recent 20 years is obviously inadequate to determine any long-term trends. Likewise, 60-70 years will snag the two high points, and a dip in the middle. I agree. More effort needs to be made to track down pre-1900 data from all sources. Somebody had to be keeping daily records back into the 1600's and 1700's???? Somewhere???? Although the problem is that it could be confounded by changing recording methods (as we are likely seeing even now as records change from land-based to satellite based, from single high/lows to minute-by-minute recordings, and as old satellites become obsolete and are replaced by new satellites). I don't believe you can "normalize" out the Urban Effect. The Urban data is so corrupt that the only reason to use it would be if one could extend the records back into the 1400's through mid 1800's. And even so, it would be suspect. One even runs the risk of corrupting the Satellite data with the Urban Effect. The oceans, of course, have minimal urbanization (except on the Islands). However, they have strong currents and a heat-sink that is several miles deep. Our shipping & water usage has also changed over the centuries so some of the smaller seas might not be immune (including the Mediterranean & Black Sea). With Canton. As I mentioned above. If you dropped the data from 1998 to 2010, then you would not conclude there was any warming. You could still draw short lines showing brief warming and cooling periods. "Warming" from 1895 to 1950 (with some fluctuations). "Cooling" from 1950 to 1970. "Warming" from 1970 to 1990. "Cool again" from 1992-1994 (or 1996). "Warming" from 1992 to 1998 (only if you consider the previously mentioned cool period & the high in 1998). NO TREND from 1998 to present. The highs in the 1920's and 1950's don't appear significantly different than the highs now, although that might require more data analysis. The lows do appear to trend upwards. However... The lowest monthly mean is January 1994 at -17.2°C, followed by January 1920 at -16.4°C, and 1912 at -16.1°C, 1970 at -15.6°C, and 1945 at -15°C The highest monthly mean was in July 1921 (the year following the second lowest) at 24.4°C, followed by 1955 at 23.5°C, and 1897 at 22.6°C Did I say 1897 as the #3 highest? I will admit that July 2006 does hit the #5 highest monthly mean at 22.3°C. The big question is whether there is any real difference between what we're seeing now and what we saw in 1950. The other question is whether there were any fundamental changes in data collection during the most recent decade. (Data sets referred to here are from NASA, above). For Canton: http://data.giss.nas...num_neighbors=1 http://data.giss.nas...1.1/station.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.