Iceagenow Blog Complains that Record Lows Are Being Ignored

[donsutherland1]

In what is an implicit attack on the reality of a warming climate, the Iceagenow blog complained:

While the mainstream media screamed about the number of record highs during the last WEEK, they somehow forgot to mention the massive number of records lows.

If one takes time to look at the actual data, the big story was the extreme heat. Even on June 27, the date selected by Iceagenow, record highs outdueled record lows. When one got into monthly records, there was no contest whatsoever.

Below is the data for record-tying and record-breaking highs and lows (daily, monthly, and all-time) for the last 7 days of June:

Note: All-time records were posted, just to show the all-time record highs. As it's not winter, all-time record lows are not relevant.

In sum, the media's attention was properly focused on the record heat wave. If anything, the U.S. media did not provide much coverage of another record-setting heatwave that has been baking parts of Europe.

[cyclonebuster]

In what is an implicit attack on the reality of a warming climate, the Iceagenow blog complained:

While the mainstream media screamed about the number of record highs during the last WEEK, they somehow forgot to mention the massive number of records lows.

If one takes time to look at the actual data, the big story was the extreme heat. Even on June 27, the date selected by Iceagenow, record highs outdueled record lows. When one got into monthly records, there was no contest whatsoever.

Below is the data for record-tying and record-breaking highs and lows (daily, monthly, and all-time) for the last 7 days of June:

Note: All-time records were posted, just to show the all-time record highs. As it's not winter, all-time record lows are not relevant.

In sum, the media's attention was properly focused on the record heat wave. If anything, the U.S. media did not provide much coverage of another record-setting heatwave that has been baking parts of Europe.

Ignorance is bliss.................

[donsutherland1]

To put things into perspective, here's some additional data on record highs and record lows:

January 1-June 30, 2012 timeframe:

Daily Record Highs: 21,968

Daily Record Lows: 2,443

Ratio: 9.0 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 1,829

Monthly Record Lows: 75

Ratio: 24.4 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 165

All-Time Record Lows: 3

Ratio: 55.0 all-time highs for every all-time low

Last 365 Days:

Daily Record Highs: 35,246

Daily Record Lows: 6,271

Ratio: 5.7 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 2,530

Monthly Record Lows: 121

Ratio: 20.9 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 353

All-Time Record Lows: 5

Ratio: 70.6 all-time highs for every all-time low

[Jonger]

To put things into perspective, here's some additional data on record highs and record lows:

January 1-June 30, 2012 timeframe:

Daily Record Highs: 21,968

Daily Record Lows: 2,443

Ratio: 9.0 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 1,829

Monthly Record Lows: 75

Ratio: 24.4 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 165

All-Time Record Lows: 3

Ratio: 55.0 all-time highs for every all-time low

Last 365 Days:

Daily Record Highs: 35,246

Daily Record Lows: 6,271

Ratio: 5.7 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 2,530

Monthly Record Lows: 121

Ratio: 20.9 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 353

All-Time Record Lows: 5

Ratio: 70.6 all-time highs for every all-time low

What were those numbers like last year or 2010... To be fair, this has been a way above normal year in the lower 48. Teleconnections have had more to do with the heat then 0.8 degrees of global warming.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[donsutherland1]

What were those numbers like last year or 2010... To be fair, this has been a way above normal year in the lower 48. Teleconnections have had more to do with the heat then 0.8 degrees of global warming.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

I'll see if I can get those numbers for 2010 and 2011 and little later today. I agree that the synoptic pattern is mainly responsible for the outbreak. However, the role of the warming climate has increased the probability of such extreme heat. Hot patterns are somewhat warmer than they would be had the climate remained stable at an earlier cooler state and cold patterns are somewhat less cold.

[Jonger]

I'll see if I can get those numbers for 2010 and 2011 and little later today. I agree that the synoptic pattern is mainly responsible for the outbreak. However, the role of the warming climate has increased the probability of such extreme heat. Hot patterns are somewhat warmer than they would be had the climate remained stable at an earlier cooler state and cold patterns are somewhat less cold.

While that's possible, we don't know that for certain. Either way, I have always been in the "Better safe then sorry" camp and support carbon reduction and alternative energy.

[donsutherland1]

While that's possible, we don't know that for certain. Either way, I have always been in the "Better safe then sorry" camp and support carbon reduction and alternative energy.

Even if the climate were warming solely due to natural causes, the probability of severe heat would be increasing. I'll be posting the 2010 and 2011 numbers shortly.

[donsutherland1]

The 2010 and 2011 data for record highs and record lows:

2010:

Daily Record Highs: 19,899

Daily Record Lows: 8,946

Ratio: 2.2 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 681

Monthly Record Lows: 267

Ratio: 2.6 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 65

All-Time Record Lows: 10

Ratio: 6.5 all-time highs for every all-time low

2011:

Daily Record Highs: 26,674

Daily Record Lows: 9,668

Ratio: 2.8 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 1,161

Monthly Record Lows: 377

Ratio: 3.1 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 239

All-Time Record Lows: 62

Ratio: 3.9 all-time highs for every all-time low

[PhillipS]

The 2010 and 2011 data for record highs and record lows:

2010:

Daily Record Highs: 19,899

Daily Record Lows: 8,946

Ratio: 2.2 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 681

Monthly Record Lows: 267

Ratio: 2.6 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 65

All-Time Record Lows: 10

Ratio: 6.5 all-time highs for every all-time low

2011:

Daily Record Highs: 26,674

Daily Record Lows: 9,668

Ratio: 2.8 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 1,161

Monthly Record Lows: 377

Ratio: 3.1 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 239

All-Time Record Lows: 62

Ratio: 3.9 all-time highs for every all-time low

Thank you for looking up and reporting those figures. I find them very sobering. How anybody could look at those numbers and claim we're cooling is beyond my understanding.

Has anyone done a compliation of those ratios for longer periods of time - say, 1979 - 2012 to cover the satellite period?

[SVT450R]

Thank you for looking up and reporting those figures. I find them very sobering. How anybody could look at those numbers and claim we're cooling is beyond my understanding.

Has anyone done a compliation of those ratios for longer periods of time - say, 1979 - 2012 to cover the satellite period?

These stats are only for the US not the globe in less don can correct me.

[PhillipS]

These stats are only for the US not the globe in less don can correct me.

You're right, of course, those numbers are for the US only - and perhaps I was completely off-base to extrapolate regional numbers to global significance - but I don't know of any comparably sized regions that have have that etent of record cooling - do you? Unless someone has solid data indicating otherwise, my opinion is that the US ratios are probably representative of Northern Hemisphere and possibly global changes.

[cyclonebuster]

You're right, of course, those numbers are for the US only - and perhaps I was completely off-base to extrapolate regional numbers to global significance - but I don't know of any comparably sized regions that have have that etent of record cooling - do you? Unless someone has solid data indicating otherwise, my opinion is that the US ratios are probably representative of Northern Hemisphere and possibly global changes.

One only needs to look at the global dot maps to get a sense of what the ratio will between high and low temperatures globally. Although this won't give us the ratio between the highs and the lows you can notice how much more numerous and massive the red dots are over the blue dots for May. January - April are just as bad...

[dizzy9479]

Don, great stuff as always. Are the numbers you posted for just the continental 48 states or all 50 states? I was just curious if they included the numbers from Alaska, as I believe they had quite a cold 2011-12 winter.

[SVT450R]

You're right, of course, those numbers are for the US only - and perhaps I was completely off-base to extrapolate regional numbers to global significance - but I don't know of any comparably sized regions that have have that etent of record cooling - do you? Unless someone has solid data indicating otherwise, my opinion is that the US ratios are probably representative of Northern Hemisphere and possibly global changes.

That's the problem outside of the US i personally don't know where to get stats like don posted for other countries etc or if there is anything like it.

[donsutherland1]

Don, great stuff as always. Are the numbers you posted for just the continental 48 states or all 50 states? I was just curious if they included the numbers from Alaska, as I believe they had quite a cold 2011-12 winter.

Dizzy,

They include all of the U.S., including Alaska.

[donsutherland1]

Thank you for looking up and reporting those figures. I find them very sobering. How anybody could look at those numbers and claim we're cooling is beyond my understanding.

Has anyone done a compliation of those ratios for longer periods of time - say, 1979 - 2012 to cover the satellite period?

Even as those figures are just for the U.S., I agree that the data is sobering. Unfortunately, global daily, monthly, and all-time records are not available. Nevertheless, the global temperature anomalies continue to show a warming world. At the same time, even as the U.S. has been baking, a number of monthly and all-time record high temperatures have been set in parts of Europe (especially in the area running from Italy to Serbia and parts of Spain).

[donsutherland1]

That's the problem outside of the US i personally don't know where to get stats like don posted for other countries etc or if there is anything like it.

Unfortunately, WMO doesn't make that data public. Greater transparency of data would be helpful, IMO, not just for the general public, but for researchers, too.

[Carvers Gap]

In what is an implicit attack on the reality of a warming climate, the Iceagenow blog complained:

While the mainstream media screamed about the number of record highs during the last WEEK, they somehow forgot to mention the massive number of records lows.

If one takes time to look at the actual data, the big story was the extreme heat. Even on June 27, the date selected by Iceagenow, record highs outdueled record lows. When one got into monthly records, there was no contest whatsoever.

Below is the data for record-tying and record-breaking highs and lows (daily, monthly, and all-time) for the last 7 days of June:

Note: All-time records were posted, just to show the all-time record highs. As it's not winter, all-time record lows are not relevant.

In sum, the media's attention was properly focused on the record heat wave. If anything, the U.S. media did not provide much coverage of another record-setting heatwave that has been baking parts of Europe.

Those numbers speak for themselves. Last week was brutally hot here at TRI. And not that my city makes for a trend, but those numbers put things in perspective. Yes, it was cold somewhere as it usually is. However, it was above normal in many more locations.

[Carvers Gap]

Unfortunately, WMO doesn't make that data public. Greater transparency of data would be helpful, IMO, not just for the general public, but for researchers, too.

My point exactly. The numbers are what they are. Just put all of it on the table.

[Vergent]

The 2010 and 2011 data for record highs and record lows:

2010:

Daily Record Highs: 19,899

Daily Record Lows: 8,946

Ratio: 2.2 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 681

Monthly Record Lows: 267

Ratio: 2.6 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 65

All-Time Record Lows: 10

Ratio: 6.5 all-time highs for every all-time low

2011:

Daily Record Highs: 26,674

Daily Record Lows: 9,668

Ratio: 2.8 daily record highs for every daily record low

Monthly Record Highs: 1,161

Monthly Record Lows: 377

Ratio: 3.1 monthly record highs for every monthly record low

All-Time Record Highs: 239

All-Time Record Lows: 62

Ratio: 3.9 all-time highs for every all-time low

That was not your granddad's La Nina.

[hooralph]

I am in a camp that is intellectually curious enough to welcome some contrarian viewpoints on global warming, and there is disconcerting evidence of unethical behavior on the part of climate scientists in an effort to shut down debate. I want genuine debate.

However, as much as I want to learn about PDO cycles and decadal shifts, I had to stop following Joe Bastardi on Twitter because I simply couldn't stomach the sheer intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking pockets of cold and shrieking conspiracy that the media was ignoring it. He carried on like that all winter while the entire lower 48 just roasted. Having stopped following him, I can't imagine the windmill-tilting going on right now while the country blazes. They scream data, data, data! yet cherry pick it to death and provide it out of context. A particular favorite of mine are temperature graphs with no data labels on the X time scale access (look! it's cooling).

[SVT450R]

I am in a camp that is intellectually curious enough to welcome some contrarian viewpoints on global warming, and there is disconcerting evidence of unethical behavior on the part of climate scientists in an effort to shut down debate. I want genuine debate.

However, as much as I want to learn about PDO cycles and decadal shifts, I had to stop following Joe Bastardi on Twitter because I simply couldn't stomach the sheer intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking pockets of cold and shrieking conspiracy that the media was ignoring it. He carried on like that all winter while the entire lower 48 just roasted. Having stopped following him, I can't imagine the windmill-tilting going on right now while the country blazes. They scream data, data, data! yet cherry pick it to death and provide it out of context. A particular favorite of mine are temperature graphs with no data labels on the X time scale access (look! it's cooling).

Sorry but the AGW group will consider you a denier/skeptic it's GHG or the highway.

[donsutherland1]

Sorry but the AGW group will consider you a denier/skeptic it's GHG or the highway.

I don't believe an open-minded intellectual curiousity automatically makes one a skeptic, much less a denier. I believe an unwillingness to consider the facts is the requisite criteria.

The facts to date are:

1. The global climate is continuing to warm on a long-term basis (30-year moving average, 30-year trend line, etc.).

2. A combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings is responsible.

3. A decoupling of global temperatures from the natural forcings suggests that anthropogenic factors are playing a growing role with regard to recent climate change. The scientific consensus is that the anthropogenic factors explain most of the recent observed warming.

Having said that, uncertainties remain, especially as they relate to complex negative and positive feedbacks. Those uncertainties do not automatically undermine the scientific understanding of climate change. Their resolution can, however, refine it. All serious scientific work should be considered with an open mind.

Mainly blogosphere-driven commentary that (1) attempts to claim cooling is underway or discount the magnitude of recent historic events e.g., outbreaks of heat, (2) advances conspiracy theories to rationalize a refusal to subject one's work to rigorous scrutiny by peers, (3) tries to dismiss an anthropogenic role for climate change on the basis that man's contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is relatively small (missing the reality that it is the marginal contribution that matters) or (4) attempts to delegitimize the scientific consensus by mischaracterizing the the consensus as political or attacking the scientists on grounds that they aren't paid to forecast (implying that they are not subject to accountability) is not serious scientific work.Those are merely attempts to avoid the effort to address the issues via the scientific method.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am in a camp that is intellectually curious enough to welcome some contrarian viewpoints on global warming, and there is disconcerting evidence of unethical behavior on the part of climate scientists in an effort to shut down debate. I want genuine debate.

However, as much as I want to learn about PDO cycles and decadal shifts, I had to stop following Joe Bastardi on Twitter because I simply couldn't stomach the sheer intellectual dishonesty of cherry picking pockets of cold and shrieking conspiracy that the media was ignoring it. He carried on like that all winter while the entire lower 48 just roasted. Having stopped following him, I can't imagine the windmill-tilting going on right now while the country blazes. They scream data, data, data! yet cherry pick it to death and provide it out of context. A particular favorite of mine are temperature graphs with no data labels on the X time scale access (look! it's cooling).

Reality is GHG's continue to warm the Earth and put more positive feedback's in play.

Going by ice melt, sea level rise, rain rates, global temperatures, global ssts, OHC, ect.

We can see that the Sun, ENSO, PDO has had a strong impact on the whole thing the last decade.

But, Ice Mass loss has accelerated downward in that time, OHC has continued to go up, global temperatures have continued to rise, peak in 2010, but the overall period has shown no signs of cooling whatsoever.

Based on what we are trying to be sold by some the Sun by now should be cooling us off. The -PDO should have cooled us off as well, add in the La Ninas and we should not be sitting where we are.

We can have great conversations on how much more warming is coming, but there is not a conversation left of what is causing it.

[Roger Smith]

I am currently working on a table of daily record highs and lows for the 240-year daily CET period (1772-present) and this is trending in the same direction. The general indication is that record highs are outnumbering record lows about 3 or 4 to 1 since about 1987. I will report in more detail when the study is finished.

The frequency of record highs is not increasing very much (if at all) against earlier decades, it's more of a case of very infrequent record lows. This would be expected in a climate so moderated by ocean temperatures.

I would agree with Don that recent trends are best understood as an upward drift that combines natural and anthropogenic signals. I don't see any really strong signs of developing glaciation although we have to keep in mind that large amounts of open water in the high arctic are not necessarily a contra-indication of glacial episodes to follow.

It's my strong if subjective opinion that what has changed most about climate since the 1960s and 1970s is the reduced frequency of long spells of cold weather, we can still see some cold outbreaks from time to time but they always seem to be modified and then blown away fairly quickly by the warmer background climate. However, the exceptional cold of last winter in parts of Europe, and the previous winter in the British Isles (thinking mainly of December 2010) show that severe cold can still happen.

I was reading another thread here about a tipping point, I tend to look at all this as quantum steps and it is possible to go backwards as well as forwards, but it seems to be a case of two steps warm and one step cold.

[Jonger]

I am currently working on a table of daily record highs and lows for the 240-year daily CET period (1772-present) and this is trending in the same direction. The general indication is that record highs are outnumbering record lows about 3 or 4 to 1 since about 1987. I will report in more detail when the study is finished.

The frequency of record highs is not increasing very much (if at all) against earlier decades, it's more of a case of very infrequent record lows. This would be expected in a climate so moderated by ocean temperatures.

I would agree with Don that recent trends are best understood as an upward drift that combines natural and anthropogenic signals. I don't see any really strong signs of developing glaciation although we have to keep in mind that large amounts of open water in the high arctic are not necessarily a contra-indication of glacial episodes to follow.

It's my strong if subjective opinion that what has changed most about climate since the 1960s and 1970s is the reduced frequency of long spells of cold weather, we can still see some cold outbreaks from time to time but they always seem to be modified and then blown away fairly quickly by the warmer background climate. However, the exceptional cold of last winter in parts of Europe, and the previous winter in the British Isles (thinking mainly of December 2010) show that severe cold can still happen.

I was reading another thread here about a tipping point, I tend to look at all this as quantum steps and it is possible to go backwards as well as forwards, but it seems to be a case of two steps warm and one step cold.

Most of what I have read lately is that a warmer arctic means more cold in mid latitudes, less geopotential height? We had one of our best snow coverage and overal snowiest decades between 2000-2010 in lower Michigan, this winter actually broke a very consistant pattern for us.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[cyclonebuster]

I am currently working on a table of daily record highs and lows for the 240-year daily CET period (1772-present) and this is trending in the same direction. The general indication is that record highs are outnumbering record lows about 3 or 4 to 1 since about 1987. I will report in more detail when the study is finished.

The frequency of record highs is not increasing very much (if at all) against earlier decades, it's more of a case of very infrequent record lows. This would be expected in a climate so moderated by ocean temperatures.

I would agree with Don that recent trends are best understood as an upward drift that combines natural and anthropogenic signals. I don't see any really strong signs of developing glaciation although we have to keep in mind that large amounts of open water in the high arctic are not necessarily a contra-indication of glacial episodes to follow.

It's my strong if subjective opinion that what has changed most about climate since the 1960s and 1970s is the reduced frequency of long spells of cold weather, we can still see some cold outbreaks from time to time but they always seem to be modified and then blown away fairly quickly by the warmer background climate. However, the exceptional cold of last winter in parts of Europe, and the previous winter in the British Isles (thinking mainly of December 2010) show that severe cold can still happen.

I was reading another thread here about a tipping point, I tend to look at all this as quantum steps and it is possible to go backwards as well as forwards, but it seems to be a case of two steps warm and one step cold.

You can bet the ocean has a huge effect on climate. Water warms up more slowly than air but can hold more heat, water needs 4 times as much energy to raise its temperature by 1ºC as the same mass of air does – so the ocean plays an important part in taking up energy from the Sun and stopping the Earth from getting too hot.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't believe an open-minded intellectual curiousity automatically makes one a skeptic, much less a denier. I believe an unwillingness to consider the facts is the requisite criteria.

The facts to date are:

1. The global climate is continuing to warm on a long-term basis (30-year moving average, 30-year trend line, etc.).

2. A combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings is responsible.

3. A decoupling of global temperatures from the natural forcings suggests that anthropogenic factors are playing a growing role with regard to recent climate change. The scientific consensus is that the anthropogenic factors explain most of the recent observed warming.

Having said that, uncertainties remain, especially as they relate to complex negative and positive feedbacks. Those uncertainties do not automatically undermine the scientific understanding of climate change. Their resolution can, however, refine it. All serious scientific work should be considered with an open mind.

Mainly blogosphere-driven commentary that (1) attempts to claim cooling is underway or discount the magnitude of recent historic events e.g., outbreaks of heat, (2) advances conspiracy theories to rationalize a refusal to subject one's work to rigorous scrutiny by peers, (3) tries to dismiss an anthropogenic role for climate change on the basis that man's contribution of greenhouse gas emissions is relatively small (missing the reality that it is the marginal contribution that matters) or (4) attempts to delegitimize the scientific consensus by mischaracterizing the the consensus as political or attacking the scientists on grounds that they aren't paid to forecast (implying that they are not subject to accountability) is not serious scientific work.Those are merely attempts to avoid the effort to address the issues via the scientific method.

You make some very good points and I agree with most of them.

However, I am of the belief that politicization of the debate between AGW (most notably CAGW) vs "skeptic" thinking has put a black mark on the science involved. I think the blogs and forums tend to now focus on the extremes rather than the middle ground where most of the relevant scientific debate should lie. Many so-called "skeptics" would fall into the "97% consensus" as it was defined. I am considered a skeptic on here but I believe that we have warmed since the instrumental record began and also believe that man has had a significant contribution to it. My skepticism lies in just how much man has contributed (as significant can mean a wide variety of numbers) and also the mean sensitivity of the forcing going forward. (i.e the sensitivity put forth by the IPCC in the current scenario would mean 3.6C of warming by 2100) CO2 forcing alone cannot do this, it must have that extra boost of feedback/sensitivity to achieve those types of numbers and many of the feedback variables are still not well understood...clouds probably being the top variable.

Many blogs and debates on the forums tend to focus on tangential points that boost their argument with little scientific evidence such as tornado/hurricane increase for CAGW believers and poor temperature readings or conspiracy theories for the ultra skeptic crowd. The common denominator in these arguments is that there is little or no peer reviewed evidence to support their claims. Unfortunately it has seemed to seep into the scientists themselves as we have gotten further immersed in a political flavor to the debate. Scientists on both sides making ill-advised remarks to the media or even in official reports that makes one question the motivation for such remarks.

I still think the science will prevail in the end, but it probably didn't have to get this messy. Hopefully it doesn't get worse before it gets better, but that might be wishful thinking.

I do cringe a little bit when the media makes a lot of claims, but I suppose there is really nothing we can do about that. They like to claim a lot of things. Its when very intelligent people make some of those claims when interviewed by the media that hurts the science IMHO. I read a piece this winter about how the warm CONUS winter was do to mostly to global warming and a couple of known meteorologists/climatologists made comments that seemed to agree with them. I wondered if they even knew that CONUS winters have cooled notably since 2000 compared to the previous 20 years since we are very highly affected by the multi-decadal cycle of the North Pacific. (and Asia is extremely affected by it) That fact certainlty doesn't disprove global warming (that's the type of cherry pick you might see on a blog) as other areas like the Arctic have warmed significantly in that time frame, but since it was focusing on the CONUS, it seemed to be a complete lack of awareness. In fairness, I did see several articles that showed why it was so warm which was due to the persistent Alaska trough/vortex.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I am currently working on a table of daily record highs and lows for the 240-year daily CET period (1772-present) and this is trending in the same direction. The general indication is that record highs are outnumbering record lows about 3 or 4 to 1 since about 1987. I will report in more detail when the study is finished.

The frequency of record highs is not increasing very much (if at all) against earlier decades, it's more of a case of very infrequent record lows. This would be expected in a climate so moderated by ocean temperatures.

I would agree with Don that recent trends are best understood as an upward drift that combines natural and anthropogenic signals. I don't see any really strong signs of developing glaciation although we have to keep in mind that large amounts of open water in the high arctic are not necessarily a contra-indication of glacial episodes to follow.

It's my strong if subjective opinion that what has changed most about climate since the 1960s and 1970s is the reduced frequency of long spells of cold weather, we can still see some cold outbreaks from time to time but they always seem to be modified and then blown away fairly quickly by the warmer background climate. However, the exceptional cold of last winter in parts of Europe, and the previous winter in the British Isles (thinking mainly of December 2010) show that severe cold can still happen.

I was reading another thread here about a tipping point, I tend to look at all this as quantum steps and it is possible to go backwards as well as forwards, but it seems to be a case of two steps warm and one step cold.

Greenland is quickly getting to a point where every melt season after the snow melts a liw albedo layer is appearing.

This is most responsible for the recent explosion in ice melt along the Greenland ice sheet.

Now regions further North are under going the same process the lower elevations did.

we have already seen incredible changes in the glaciers the last 3 years out to a decade that are major red flags.

To me this is a tipping point or close.

[bluewave]

That's the problem outside of the US i personally don't know where to get stats like don posted for other countries etc or if there is anything like it.

The pattern is global though I don't have international data as detailed as Don provided for the US.

http://sciences.blog...climatiques.pdf

The number of observed local monthly heat records around the globe is now more than three times as high as expected in a stationary climate13 (Fig. 2). This observed increase is consistent with that expected from a simple stochastic model including the warming trend.