PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

[Jonger]

http://maps.google.c...2125,-83.353333

Yeah?

So your telling me the heat island affect causes a 3-5F rise in Detroit temps give the airports location?

That is extremely unlikely.

Of the top 10 Warmest days in Detroit. Two have been in the last 34 years. So your telling me that Detroit has really only been. Those top ten are 102-104F.

That means taking your 3-5F Heat Island affect. Detroit gets to 93-98F anytime they are 96-101F it's heat Island?

Let me wait and see if Josh has an answer to this, he is the Detroit expert more so then myself. I do believe Detroit switched from city airport to metro airport in the 1960's. Let me get the facts on that first.

**UPDATE**

City records were moved from Detroit City airport to Detroit Metro Airport in 1966. Metro airport is far more rural and remote then city airport.

So I stick by my claims.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/dtx/dtxHistory2.pdf

[JoMo]

Your post above helps none because it's completely untrue, what are the extreme views? There is mainstream science that uses all of the available data to decipher this. Then there is the other half you give credence too.

What are you hoping to accomplish other than arguing? What's your 'plan'? How would you 'fix' the environment? How would you accomplish that?

[FPizz]

Same people, same arguments, different thread title.

[The_Global_Warmer]

What are you hoping to accomplish other than arguing? What's your 'plan'? How would you 'fix' the environment? How would you accomplish that?

I have learned more about meteorology following the climate daily for the last 9 months and looking at arctic weather everyday for the same period than I ever did before.

That is enough for me. I love to come here and discuss the science with others. It's no different then discussing the MJO, or some other meteorological phenomenon.

There is no fixing it now. I am not here for that.

[TerryM]

Back in Galt - still no snow!

I totally agree that I wouldn't be able to detect a few degrees of warming spread over a normal season, but things like rivers that don't stay frozen any more, ponds where we used to play hockey that now have year round waterfowl and I'm sure that as a kid I would have noticed if we didn't have a white Christmas, let alone no snow for New Years and now Ground Hog Day.

I know that Winsor set an all time record for precipitation within the last couple of years and assume that Detroit did the same. Aren't these the kind of things that we've been told to expect from AGW?

[michsnowfreak]

http://www.crh.noaa....=coldwinter.htm

I don't know it like the back of my hand. But in the top 20 coldest winters, The most recent in Detroit was 1985/86 at 20th.

Before that 1981/82 which was 30 years ago. So over a 29 year period, Detroit has one top 20 coldest winter.

That is the longest period on that list.

there are 4 of the top 20 since 1992.

http://www.crh.noaa....le=coldyear.htm

The last coldest year for Detroit was 1980 on the top 20, 31 years ago.

9 of the top 20 warmest in Detroit are since 1990.

I can see why you keep focusing on Snow in Detroit and not the rise in Temperature.

LOL you come into every thread on this subforum trying to twist facts and shove the SAME stuff into every thread instead of actually reading them. Perhaps I should repeat myself but bold it so you see it this time. I am focusing on snow because I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE, GLOBALLY OR LOCALLY....I am HONING IN ON ONE ASPECT that has NOTHING to do with the reality or lackthereof of climate change or AGW or whatever you want to call it. I am calling complete and utter BS on those (at least in the midwest/Lakes) who claim that they can remember just from experiencing them that winters were more harsh "back in their day". Its a misconception that is heard everywhere (in any place that sees winter weather) from the older generation to their grandchildren, and has been for centuries, and for the current generation moreso than any other its a bold-face LIE because winters of the 1930s-1960s CLEARLY were much LESS harsh than they are today not just in Detroit but in this entire region.

And since you want to post the top 20 temp stats....I have a new term for you you may have never heard but it definitely affects most major metro areas now unlike it did pre-1980. Its called the HEAT ISLAND EFFECT (affecting mainly low temps). It has been cited NUMEROUS times by DTX when DTW just misses the top 20 coldest list or when they place in a top 20 coldest list it is noted they would have ranked higher (per surrounding areas data) if not for heat island. 13 of the 20 warmest winters were pre-1960, just 4 post-1990. Numerous winters lately have had instances where they balance out to near normal only because the average high is below avg and the average low is above average, and in other cases, like 2002-03 or 2010-11, the heat island low temps is what just makes you miss out on the top 20 coldest list. Saginaw sees much less heat-island effect, and their records date to 1900 with just 3 of the top 20 warmest years since 1990. Look at Detroits HIGH temp rather than MEAN temp over the years and you will see a different picture).

[michsnowfreak]

Let me wait and see if Josh has an answer to this, he is the Detroit expert more so then myself. I do believe Detroit switched from city airport to metro airport in the 1960's. Let me get the facts on that first.

**UPDATE**

City records were moved from Detroit City airport to Detroit Metro Airport in 1966. Metro airport is far more rural and remote then city airport.

So I stick by my claims.

http://www.crh.noaa....dtxHistory2.pdf

Heat island affects mostly overnight lows. There is absolutely ZERO way to deny this. Yes you are right the obs moved from Detroit City to Detroit Metro in 1966, and DTW was more rural in 1966 than it is today, with heat island really taking off in the 1990s. UHI has been cited (as I said above) numerous times by DTX. In the 1960s/1970s it didnt exist at DTW, so the lows would get much colder. You want a perfect example of this? Take a cold winters night or a cool summers night with similar conditions, 850s, etc in 1968 or 1978, then do one in 1998 and 2008. Look at the spread of low temperatures between DET and DTW. The spread would be huge in the 1970s and very minor today between, maybe a degree or two colder at DTW ON AVERAGE but I have seen some mornings where DET comes in a degree or two colder than DTW. That would never, ever, EVER happen in the 1970s. NEVER. DTW would be 5-10F colder than DET. The UHI affects mainly overnight lows on clear nights (any time of year), with a relatively minor (but still somewhat existent) affect on cloudy nights or daytime temps (sky conditions irrelevant). Like I said, all you have to do is look at AVG HIGH temps from 1870 to now and see how little things have changed, versus looking at avg MEAN temps.

[michsnowfreak]

Back in Galt - still no snow!

I totally agree that I wouldn't be able to detect a few degrees of warming spread over a normal season, but things like rivers that don't stay frozen any more, ponds where we used to play hockey that now have year round waterfowl and I'm sure that as a kid I would have noticed if we didn't have a white Christmas, let alone no snow for New Years and now Ground Hog Day.

I know that Winsor set an all time record for precipitation within the last couple of years and assume that Detroit did the same. Aren't these the kind of things that we've been told to expect from AGW?

But in addition to Windsor seeing record precip, so too they have seen record snow. See 2008 and 2010. That has obviously not been the case near Toronto. Youd really have to ask some Toronto posters (originally I thought you were closer to Detroit not Toronto, lol I was wrong with that)....as to frequency of White Christmases, but here in Detroit the odds are 50/50 and have always been that way. Unfortunately Im not an expert on Toronto snowfall, all I can tell you is that Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee, and others have been seeing much more snow than is normal in recent years, Toronto much less. So I dont know whats going on over there. As for lakes freezing, this is a very mild winter, and yes they did happen in the past...Im sure that explains the present conditions in Galt. But as for the overall climate and declining Toronto snowfall, one of the TO posters would better be able to explain!

[TerryM]

Not going anywhere in particular with this but...

Detroit is the poster child for the rust belt's loss of industry (and I'd assume loss of particulate matter spewing from factories). Could this distort/enhance a heat island effect?

Would an area that had for years been protected by a cover of soot and smog find itself heating as the air above it cleared, and would this effect be more pronounced in winter or summer?

[Jonger]

Back in Galt - still no snow!

I totally agree that I wouldn't be able to detect a few degrees of warming spread over a normal season, but things like rivers that don't stay frozen any more, ponds where we used to play hockey that now have year round waterfowl and I'm sure that as a kid I would have noticed if we didn't have a white Christmas, let alone no snow for New Years and now Ground Hog Day.

I know that Winsor set an all time record for precipitation within the last couple of years and assume that Detroit did the same. Aren't these the kind of things that we've been told to expect from AGW?

What year did you move back to Ontario? The 2000's have been incredibly snowy in this region. I average around 50-55 inches a season and this is probably my 2nd year since 1999 to not exceed 50 inches... In fact I have exceeded 70+ inches a few of those years.

Since 2000 I have had about 3 Christmas days without snow. We have about a 70% chance at a white christmas here tradionally and that lines up well. This is the first year without hard frozen lakes before Jan 15th.

[Jonger]

Not going anywhere in particular with this but...

Detroit is the poster child for the rust belt's loss of industry (and I'd assume loss of particulate matter spewing from factories). Could this distort/enhance a heat island effect?

Would an area that had for years been protected by a cover of soot and smog find itself heating as the air above it cleared, and would this effect be more pronounced in winter or summer?

No.

This region hasnt had a notable smog/soot problem in my lifetime. We have quick moving air and with a western wind being prevailing our "smog" tends to drift to Ontario. I have never witnessed a smoggy sky even once in my life here. I do live 50+ miles NW of Detroit, but I grew up there and vaguely remember the pre-catalytic converter era.

[TerryM]

But in addition to Windsor seeing record precip, so too they have seen record snow. See 2008 and 2010. That has obviously not been the case near Toronto. Youd really have to ask some Toronto posters (originally I thought you were closer to Detroit not Toronto, lol I was wrong with that)....as to frequency of White Christmases, but here in Detroit the odds are 50/50 and have always been that way. Unfortunately Im not an expert on Toronto snowfall, all I can tell you is that Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Milwaukee, and others have been seeing much more snow than is normal in recent years, Toronto much less. So I dont know whats going on over there. As for lakes freezing, this is a very mild winter, and yes they did happen in the past...Im sure that explains the present conditions in Galt. But as for the overall climate and declining Toronto snowfall, one of the TO posters would better be able to explain!

Could the additional snow be due to an enhanced lake effect? Galt, and Toronto to a lesser degree are located such that prevailing winds don't cross major waterways en route. If this were the case greater snowfall downwind of the lakes could well be a symptom of warmer weather.

[Jonger]

Galt climate is very hard to find.. Toronto is much easier, but they are going to have a heat island.

[Jonger]

Could the additional snow be due to an enhanced lake effect? Galt, and Toronto to a lesser degree are located such that prevailing winds don't cross major waterways en route. If this were the case greater snowfall downwind of the lakes could well be a symptom of warmer weather.

It takes cold air to get lake effect, but Detroit itself probably averages 5 inches a year of lake effect. Probably 15 inches where I live.

[Jonger]

There was a study done by the NWS to determine if warm summers had any affect of LES and the results were no. It only takes one cold night to drop lake temps quite a bit... I was disapointed to hear the results... I was hoping the opposite to be true.

[michsnowfreak]

Could the additional snow be due to an enhanced lake effect? Galt, and Toronto to a lesser degree are located such that prevailing winds don't cross major waterways en route. If this were the case greater snowfall downwind of the lakes could well be a symptom of warmer weather.

It seems we are seeing slightly more LES and lake enhanced snow than we used to, but mostly its been synoptic snow. Detroit has records to 1880, and 5 of the top 13 snowiest winters have been in the last 10 years!!! Meanwhile Torontos records go to I believe 1840 and their entire top 10 snowiest winters list is pre-1900. So again, I dont know whats going on there. Windsor snow increasing, Toronto decreasing, and while lake effect in snowbelts has been REALLY increasing lately it seems, both Windsor and Toronto see a relatively small amount of LES.

[ORH_wxman]

It seems we are seeing slightly more LES and lake enhanced snow than we used to, but mostly its been synoptic snow. Detroit has records to 1880, and 5 of the top 13 snowiest winters have been in the last 10 years!!! Meanwhile Torontos records go to I believe 1840 and their entire top 10 snowiest winters list is pre-1900. So again, I dont know whats going on there. Windsor snow increasing, Toronto decreasing, and while lake effect in snowbelts has been REALLY increasing lately it seems, both Windsor and Toronto see a relatively small amount of LES.

You can have increasing and decreasing snowfall over fairly short distances that mean absolutely nothing other than variance....though the media and even some scientists will try to blame AGW on any change at all. Boston, MA has seen its average annual snowfall rocket over the past 20 years while Portland, ME just up the coast 90 minutes has seen it plummet.

[Jonger]

It seems we are seeing slightly more LES and lake enhanced snow than we used to, but mostly its been synoptic snow. Detroit has records to 1880, and 5 of the top 13 snowiest winters have been in the last 10 years!!! Meanwhile Torontos records go to I believe 1840 and their entire top 10 snowiest winters list is pre-1900. So again, I dont know whats going on there. Windsor snow increasing, Toronto decreasing, and while lake effect in snowbelts has been REALLY increasing lately it seems, both Windsor and Toronto see a relatively small amount of LES.

All of Torontos top 10 snow seasons were pre-1900? Thats suspicious.

[WeatherRusty]

You can have increasing and decreasing snowfall over fairly short distances that mean absolutely nothing other than variance....though the media and even some scientists will try to blame AGW on any change at all. Boston, MA has seen its average annual snowfall rocket over the past 20 years while Portland, ME just up the coast 90 minutes has seen it plummet.

Don't you need to grant those scientists a bit more credit for what they do? They are not looking to blame any change at all on AGW, that would be ridiculous. There is always a longer term trend, either rising or falling to some degree in which the high amplitude variation is embedded in. Or a trend which encompasses a larger region in general, made of a different set of local variation.

[bobbutts]

This isn't any surprise.. but again the denier crowd has derailed the thread with semantic nonsense.

Regardless of any semantic argument over the definition of 'normal' and whether the human impacts are normal or natural, the fact of the matter is that our actions have consequences. The question is whether we will benefit or be harmed by these consequences. You can try and twist it into a semantic argument to avoid talking about these consequences, but we will all face these consequences eventually.

The fact is AGW will have dire consequences for humanity and most of our surrounding natural environment. But obviously most people here will avoid learning about real science and opt to play silly semantic games which make them feel smart.

This is not a fact in any sense of the word. This is a well formed prediction based on facts. Big difference.

You cannot be so loose with words like "fact" and expect to be taken seriously.

[TerryM]

Just returned from London, which is in the LES area here - no snow on the ground today

Toronto and Galt are both located such that the prevailing winds travel long distances over land before arriving so LES is not an issue. London, about 100km west of here picks up lots of LES when the lakes are open.

I got back to Canada in late 2004, and I've found the locals less noticing of the changes than I. Probably has something to do with slowly experiencing change and suddenly confronting them.

Hamilton, not far east of here say they are experiencing winter changes of 1.7C over the last 30 years, but that it's the additional precipitation that's causing problems for them.

Toronto and to a much lesser extent Hamilton may be experiencing enhanced heat island effect, but Galt just hasn't changed demographically that much in the last 50 years.

[The_Global_Warmer]

LOL you come into every thread on this subforum trying to twist facts and shove the SAME stuff into every thread instead of actually reading them. Perhaps I should repeat myself but bold it so you see it this time. I am focusing on snow because I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RISE IN TEMPERATURE, GLOBALLY OR LOCALLY....I am HONING IN ON ONE ASPECT that has NOTHING to do with the reality or lackthereof of climate change or AGW or whatever you want to call it. I am calling complete and utter BS on those (at least in the midwest/Lakes) who claim that they can remember just from experiencing them that winters were more harsh "back in their day". Its a misconception that is heard everywhere (in any place that sees winter weather) from the older generation to their grandchildren, and has been for centuries, and for the current generation moreso than any other its a bold-face LIE because winters of the 1930s-1960s CLEARLY were much LESS harsh than they are today not just in Detroit but in this entire region.

And since you want to post the top 20 temp stats....I have a new term for you you may have never heard but it definitely affects most major metro areas now unlike it did pre-1980. Its called the HEAT ISLAND EFFECT (affecting mainly low temps). It has been cited NUMEROUS times by DTX when DTW just misses the top 20 coldest list or when they place in a top 20 coldest list it is noted they would have ranked higher (per surrounding areas data) if not for heat island. 13 of the 20 warmest winters were pre-1960, just 4 post-1990. Numerous winters lately have had instances where they balance out to near normal only because the average high is below avg and the average low is above average, and in other cases, like 2002-03 or 2010-11, the heat island low temps is what just makes you miss out on the top 20 coldest list. Saginaw sees much less heat-island effect, and their records date to 1900 with just 3 of the top 20 warmest years since 1990. Look at Detroits HIGH temp rather than MEAN temp over the years and you will see a different picture).

Does the Heat Island affect Saginaw and Flint Bishop as well? They have 6 & 7 of the top 20 warmest years the last 20 years as well.

[Vergent]

This is not a fact in any sense of the word. This is a well formed prediction based on facts. Big difference.

You cannot be so loose with words like "fact" and expect to be taken seriously.

Fact; We are having more than triple the floods per year as in my youth(1950s).

Fact we are having 50% more tropical storms and hurricanes.

The fact of human caused damage to the planets ecosystem is objective and deniable only by self deception.

[LithiaWx]

Fact; We are having more than triple the floods per year as in my youth(1950s).

Fact we are having 50% more tropical storms and hurricanes.

The fact of human caused damage to the planets ecosystem is objective and deniable only by self deception.

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody to see it does it still make a sound?

As for your last point, I agree humans are responsible for many extinctions, many of them are from rainforest deforestation and pollution. A small percentage are caused by climate change but that can't be proven to be directly linked to humans.

[ORH_wxman]

Fact; We are having more than triple the floods per year as in my youth(1950s).

Fact we are having 50% more tropical storms and hurricanes.

You should probably rephrase this to "more observed TCs"...it is likely that better detection networks nowadays allow us to find storms that were not detectable even a couple decades ago and certainly before that. There's been no trend in the number of major hurricanes and no trend in the number of landfalling hurricanes which are the type of storms least likely to be overlooked in a more primitive detection system.

[turtlehurricane]

Fact; We are having more than triple the floods per year as in my youth(1950s).

Fact we are having 50% more tropical storms and hurricanes.

The fact of human caused damage to the planets ecosystem is objective and deniable only by self deception.

Fact: you like to post bull**** exponential charts.

[FPizz]

If a tree falls in the woods and there is nobody to see it does it still make a sound?

As for your last point, I agree humans are responsible for many extinctions, many of them are from rainforest deforestation and pollution. A small percentage are caused by climate change but that can't be proven to be directly linked to humans.

Back in the 50s, most of what they classify now as hurricanes and storms would have come and gone and not be named or even noticed.

Where have they built housing and developments most since the 50s? Around bodies of water, hence more flooding. Dementia must be a b**ch.

[Vergent]

Back in the 50s, most of what they classify now as hurricanes and storms would have come and gone and not be named or even noticed.

Where have they built housing and developments most since the 50s? Around bodies of water, hence more flooding. Dementia must be a b**ch.

The flooding data comes from satellite altimetry, and has nothing to do with population or land use. The definition of tropical storm and hurricane has not changed, and we have had continuous weather satellite coverage since 1960.

http://science.nasa.gov/missions/tiros/

The storms are named when they reach tropical storm strength, far out in the tropical Atlantic. While it is true that before 1960, we relied on ship and aircraft for storm detection, barometric storm detection is long range, so it is unlikely that significant storms were missed.

Data back to 1958 can be found here.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastall.shtml#tcr

Here is the archive for tropical storm Becky in 1958.

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/storm_wallets/atlantic/atl1958/becky/

Storm tracks back to 1862 can be found here;

http://www.stormpulse.com/1862-hurricane-season

http://www.sailwx.info/shiptrack/shiplocations.phtml

We have accurate weather histories from ships at sea going back to the Civil War. Here is a track from a storm in 1880.

http://www.stormpulse.com/hurricane-eight-1880

It never got close to land.

You must be very blissful.

[turtlehurricane]

The flooding data comes from satellite altimetry, and has nothing to do with population or land use. The definition of tropical storm and hurricane has not changed, and we have had continuous weather satellite coverage since 1960.

http://science.nasa....missions/tiros/

The storms are named when they reach tropical storm strength, far out in the tropical Atlantic. While it is true that before 1960, we relied on ship and aircraft for storm detection, barometric storm detection is long range, so it is unlikely that significant storms were missed.

No, this is a completely false statement!

[The_Global_Warmer]

The flooding data comes from satellite altimetry, and has nothing to do with population or land use. The definition of tropical storm and hurricane has not changed, and we have had continuous weather satellite coverage since 1960.

http://science.nasa....missions/tiros/

The storms are named when they reach tropical storm strength, far out in the tropical Atlantic. While it is true that before 1960, we relied on ship and aircraft for storm detection, barometric storm detection is long range, so it is unlikely that significant storms were missed.

Data back to 1958 can be found here.

http://www.nhc.noaa....stall.shtml#tcr

Here is the archive for tropical storm Becky in 1958.

http://www.nhc.noaa..../atl1958/becky/

Storm tracks back to 1862 can be found here;

http://www.stormpuls...urricane-season

http://www.sailwx.in...locations.phtml

We have accurate weather histories from ships at sea going back to the Civil War. Here is a track from a storm in 1880.

http://www.stormpuls...cane-eight-1880

It never got close to land.

You must be very blissful.

I can't speak much for the rest of it.

But doing a lot of arctic sea ice research the most BS thing is the Satellite record.

1. It goes back to 1961. That is 50+ years now of data. Just because we don't have algorithms giving us multi-channel measurements. Do not mean we do not have a reliable visible satellite record of ice. The same folks who ignore it completely accept the historical snow record based on theses images as well.

2. There was a couple world wars and globalization going on far before the satellite era. There has been global trade for centuries. The Russians have tried to exploit the NE Passage since the 1920s and have had ice stations since the 1930s. the way our incredible technologies over the years gets drummed down from this stuff to the magnificent buoys we have now in the arctic tracking anything want. We have a damn good grasp on these things.