OHSnow Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 http://www.noaanews....newnormals.html Map showing changes in average maximum and minimum temperatures in each state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 -PDO/-NAO is going to mean a lot more negative departures now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 1, 2011 Share Posted July 1, 2011 Station ids: http://www1.ncdc.noa...allstations.txt Search via id: http://www1.ncdc.noa...oducts/station/ Example (DCA): http://www1.ncdc.noa...743.normals.txt .7" of snow stolen from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 2, 2011 Share Posted July 2, 2011 read me for interpreting everything: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/normals/1981-2010/readme.txt main page: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/normals/newnormals.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louwxman Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Station ids: http://www1.ncdc.noa...allstations.txt Search via id: http://www1.ncdc.noa...oducts/station/ Example (DCA): http://www1.ncdc.noa...743.normals.txt .7" of snow stolen from me. I have been researching this all morning trying to figure out where these ID's would be. I cam up here and found this. Bless you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 -PDO/-NAO is going to mean a lot more negative departures now. Exactly why I've always argued for, now that we have good records for most cities going back at least to the 1930's, is using longer periods than 30 year means? As 'ORH_wxman' correctly pointed out in another thread back on Eastern, a 30 year period can easily encompass a warm or cold decadal period. Next year, when they switch to 1981-2010 I expect New York City to be below-normal temperature-wise most winters and above-normal for snow. Global warming; problem solved. if the decadal cycles do indeed fluctuate between warm and cold measuring against the previous contrasting cycle always produces bizarre results. Thus throughout the late 1980's through at least the 1990's we were almost always above-normal (1993-4 aside). This coming decade we'll likely often always below normal. Why don't they use 50 or 60 year cycles? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Why don't they use 50 or 60 year cycles? It's already been discussed on this forum twice since we started back in November (in addition to past discussions on Eastern). In fact, you started the first one. Don't know why you have to keep asking the same question since you're just going to keep getting the same answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 It's already been discussed on this forum twice since we started back in November (in addition to past discussions on Eastern). In fact, you started the first one. Don't know why you have to keep asking the same question since you're just going to keep getting the same answers. http://www.americanw...-longer-period/ http://www.americanw...30-year-normal/ The reason I posted again on this topic is its timeliness. When we see that the change in base does create inaccuracies in comparison people may feel differently on the topic. Certainly some of the global warmistas will now try to explain away a likely string of "negative anomalies" that would not have been negative departures against a 1961-1990 base, or to a lesser extent a 1971-2000 base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 The reason I posted again on this topic is its timeliness. When we see that the change in base does create inaccuracies in comparison people may feel differently on the topic. Certainly some of the global warmistas will now try to explain away a likely string of "negative anomalies" that would not have been negative departures against a 1961-1990 base, or to a lesser extent a 1971-2000 base. OR people could use the same base in a consistent manner, 30 year or whatever, otherwise it's comparing apples to oranges. So long as the same base is used consistently throughout someone's entire argument/research, there's no need for concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamarack Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 One little spot in a small-medium size state, Farmington, Maine Records begin Jan. 1893. There are some numbers, particularly some tall summer minima, that make me suspect that the measurement location changed sometime in the 1950s to one farther from pavement, and thus a bit cooler. However, I think the overall trend - rise in the middle 20th centruy and fall in '60s-'70s followed by another rise - is well known. Decade....Mean temp 1890s......43.27 1900s......42.42 1910s......42.70 1920s......43.17 1930s......44.78 1940s......44.14 1950s......43.88 1960s......41.67 1970s......40.51 1980s......41.01 1990s......42.13 2000s......43.00 I'm guessing lots of other US locations show similar trends, though with a less exaggerated warming in the 30s-50s and cooler prior to those decades. However, it should be no surprise that 30-yr norms rise when one of the coolest decades of the century falls out of the measurement period. Barring some unexpectedly large cooling, I'd expect the same thing to happen 10 yr from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBG Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 OR people could use the same base in a consistent manner, 30 year or whatever, otherwise it's comparing apples to oranges. So long as the same base is used consistently throughout someone's entire argument/research, there's no need for concern. So your thinking is to pick a period such as 1961-1990, which included about equal portions of cold and warm phases, and keep using it? Maybe not a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 So your thinking is to pick a period such as 1961-1990, which included about equal portions of cold and warm phases, and keep using it? Maybe not a bad idea. No, I'm saying people can use whatever standard they want, so long as is scientifically and statistically sound and is used consistently throughout the discussion/argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew-Northern Italy Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 Exactly why I've always argued for, now that we have good records for most cities going back at least to the 1930's, is using longer periods than 30 year means? As 'ORH_wxman' correctly pointed out in another thread back on Eastern, a 30 year period can easily encompass a warm or cold decadal period. Next year, when they switch to 1981-2010 I expect New York City to be below-normal temperature-wise most winters and above-normal for snow. Global warming; problem solved. if the decadal cycles do indeed fluctuate between warm and cold measuring against the previous contrasting cycle always produces bizarre results. Thus throughout the late 1980's through at least the 1990's we were almost always above-normal (1993-4 aside). This coming decade we'll likely often always below normal. Why don't they use 50 or 60 year cycles? Fully agree with JBG. The argument is expecially important here in Europe where the warming since 1980 has been sharper than in U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.