NASA thinks that increasing record high temperatures causes heavy snow.
Other than their obvious stupidity about snow, they are lying about the record high temperatures, which have been declining for 80 years.
As far as record low temperatures go, this year is blowing away all records for a non-volcano year, and is the second year in a row where record lows outnumber record highs.
Snowcover extent has also been rising for the last decade, and snow on the ground reflects solar energy back into space at wavelengths that CO2 cannot intercept and re-radiate. The “Missing Heat” mantra bandied about has not gone “into the deep oceans,” but simply off planet where it will not return from!!!
Thanks, Steven, for confronting NASA.
What percentage of the population would realize why using continuously operating stations would matter when discussing record highs and lows over time?
Even more importantly, after being told why, how many would understand? I’d guess 40% wouldn’t.
Question, what does HCN stand for?
Historical Climatology Network
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/hcn/
FYI; thought you would find this interesting as I thought you were in forest service once. Anyway given that Colorado legalized pot why aren’t environmentalists in Colorado trying to shut down the pot industry?
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/03/marijuana-weed-pot-farming-environmental-impacts
Because they are potheads?
Branwdo has what plants crave!
“NASA thinks that increasing record high temperatures causes heavy snow.”
Well think about this: NASA has been modifying/altering/falsifying/raising/increasing temperature records just as they’ve yelled about “increasing” CO2, and just as heavy snow has repeatedly occurred! It seems only logical for them to conclude there must be a relationship between those rising temperatures and CO2, and between rising CO2 and snow … so … the science is settled!
Rising temperatures –> SNOW!
This is NASA’s concise track record:
1. Analysis of lunar soil samples that NASA collected on the Moon in 1969 revealed severe mass fractionation in the Sun:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1983Data.htm
2. Analysis of gas samples collected and analyzed by the Jupiter probe in 1995 confirmed 1983 predictions of “strange xenon” in Jupiter and severely mass fractionated elements and isotopes in the Sun:
http://www.omatumr.com/Data/1998Data.htm
3. Here’s a report of Jupiter findings:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/metsoc98/pdf/5011.pdf
4. This CSPAN video shows NASA administrator ordering the release of incriminating data in 1998:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m3VIFmZpFco
Look at 1994. I will never forget that year. Everywhere broke their record by 10 degrees. We got -35 in Glens Falls, NY and -27 here in Saratoga. Never saw -20 in my life before but -27 is just nuts.
That’s a nonsense statistic (the top graph). In a stationary random series the probability of a record being broken at the n-th time step is 1/n so it is obvious that there will be more events of any type at the beginning of a record than later on. The waiting time for the next record increases exponentially. The second graph also has deficiencies – in particular 0.5 indicates the same imbalance as 2.0 so a linear axis is difficult to interpret.as the lower part is stretched relative to the upper.
The records listed in the graph are all-time records from 1895 to the present. In case of a tie, all tying years get counted.
You have no idea what you are talking about, which makes it safe to assume that you are a climate alarmist.
Does it look to you like every record was originally set in 1920? Use your brain, man.
If the graph is constructed from all-time highs then this should be made clear. A record breaking event is defined as one which exceeds all preceeding events so any given time series can produce several (typically about loge(n)) and, as I said, would tend to occur more thickly at tjhe start of the series. Indeed for a station commencing in 1920, 1920 will yield the first record breaking event of the series, 1921 has a 50:50 chance of being a record event and so on. That’s what statisticians think of as record breakers and there is a large literature on their properties. They have even been used as a trend detection tool but do not have the power of conventional trend tests if the entire data series is available. They come into their own when the data comprises just record breakers, for example historic flood marks.
You made a baseless assumption which wasn’t consistent with the shape of the graph from 1920-1930, and then declared the graph to be nonsense.
Well, not entirely baseless. I saw “record” and my tiny brain leapt to what I knew about records having studied and even written a paper in Weather magazine about them based on their definition in probability textbooks. I use that knowledge to call to task folk who quote an event breaking a long-standing record as evidence for a change. The reverse is the case, a trend would lead to shorter intervals between record-breaking events, not longer ones.
I guess from your other remarks that the data array must be rectangular, every series starting in 1920, not necessarily using total record lengths. But whatever the time base, the position of the all-time high would be uniformly distributed along the time axis with a random series and not, as I had supposed, concentrated towards the start.
Drawing inferences in a formal fashion from those counts would need some expert consideration as it’s a zero sum sort of a problem – a surplus in one place means a deficiency in another so they are not independent pieces of information, Sort of thing that could be sorted by Monte Carlo simulation to see how often random data could throw up an apparent trend.
Anyway, obviously it’s an apology you want and I am sorry I called the statistic “nonsense”; I should have asked clarification of the basis for the count before venturing my opinion.
Max Beran, you are correct to a degree but you do not follow the logic all the way through.
In a series of data points where the yearly mean does not change, the high and low records will be set during the early years and fewer and fewer records get broken as time goes on.
However that is for the special case where there is no actual change in temperature over time and you are only looking at a random distribution around an unmoving mean.
This is obviously not the case. The temperature series is well over one hundred years old and if an unusual number of records are getting broken it means there has been a change. The change can be either the mean has changed OR the spread (standard deviation) has changed.
A change in the spread (more highs and more lows) could be indicative of a change in the ‘Loopyness’ of the jet stream (the degree of jet stream zonality / meridionality) allowing the polar vortex to be sucked down in to the USA or Europe or Asia or up into Australia causing record lows. It also means tropical air being sucked up into the higher latitudes causing record highs.
The degree of meridionality / zonality is a function of the interplay between the top down solar effect on atmospheric chemistry (ozone in the stratosphere) and the bottom up oceanic effect (atmospheric heat content).
The circulation changes are a negative system response to anything that seeks to disturb the radiative balance between surface and space.
Convection balances the system energy flows between conduction and radiation to ensure that at all times (despite variations around the mean) enough kinetic energy is delivered to the effective radiating height to balance energy in with energy out.
See: (wwwDOT)sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/04/990412075538.htm (but forget the climate model babble).
That is what causes the shift of the jet streams poleward and reverse during solar minima. With the current low maximum in solar activity, the jet streams didn’t shift that far poleward as in previous maxima, thus giving different weather patterns.
The jet stream position is extremely important, as it gives huge differences in clouds and rain patterns and river flows: From the Nile, Po (Italy – Venice) and Portuguese rivers around the Mediterranean to the Mississippi in the US and similar in South Africa. For the stratosphere-troposphere connection SEE:
onlinelibrary(DOT)wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2005GL024393/abstract
and for the river flows e.g.:
(wwwDOT)agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023787.shtml (Portugal)
ks(DOT)water.usgs.gov/Kansas/pubs/reports/paclim99.html (Mississippi delta)
The impact of North Atlantic storminess on western European coasts: A review
CO2Science: (wwwDOT)co2science.org/articles/V15/N36/C3.php
This discussion is very much worth the read because it uses several different methods to shows storminess ” is high during the LIA with a marked transition from reduced levels during the MCA [hereafter MWP]
LIA = Little Ice Age
MCA = MWP = Medieval Warm Period
Other papers:
Aeolian sand movement and relative sea-level rise in Ho Bugt, western Denmark, during the `Little Ice Age’
hol(DOT)sagepub.com/content/18/6/951.abstract
New Insights into North European and North Atlantic Surface Pressure Variability, Storminess, and Related Climatic Change since 1830
connection(DOT)ebscohost.com/c/articles/36003438/new-insights-north-european-north-atlantic-surface-pressure-variability-storminess-related-climatic-change-since-1830
MONSOONS
The Holocene Asian Monsoon: Links to Solar Changes and North Atlantic Climate (Links to more articles)
Paleotemperature variability in central China during the last 13 ka recorded by a novel microbial lipid proxy in the Dajiuhu peat deposit
hol(DOT)sagepub.com/content/23/8/1123.abstract
Atlantic Forcing of Persistent Drought in West Africa
(wwwDOT)sciencemag.org/content/324/5925/377.abstract
Multidecadal to multicentury scale collapses of Northern Hemisphere monsoons over the past millennium
(wwwDOT)pnas.org/content/110/24/9651.abstract
A 2,300-year-long annually resolved record of the South American summer monsoon from the Peruvian Andes
(wwwDOT)pnas.org/content/108/21/8583.abstract
A recent paper – September 2013
And a try at modeling:
Gail, this is not about records being broken in a particular year. This is about what year holds the CURRENT record. So if a record was set in 1934 and has not been broken since then…..
yes, “record” high, and “record” low.
That is how it is being understood here – the year in which the all-time high occurred.
But in statistics or probability theory record breaking is a process, a string of events. The interest might be on the magnitude of those events, for example whether the increase over the previous record breaking event tends to grow or to diminish, or interest may focus on the times of the events and therefore treated as a stochastic process.
Most of the theory and available formulae of record breaking are based on source data from which the record breakers are drawn being stationary, i.e. samples from the same distribution. One big advantage they have is that the stochastic process is distribution free. The theory has been worked out for inter-event times of record breakers (sensu statistics) for the case of a linear trend in the base data. It shows that the interevent times tend to uniformity rather than exponential elongation. Which is why the common misconception that an event which breaks a long-standing record is eveidence of change is just that – a misconception. It’s obvious really when you think that in the limit every year will break the record of the previous year.
But drawing inferences from some statistic like the count of times a particular year is the one at which the all-time high occurs is going to be quite tricky and will certainly need simulation to develop a test of significance especially if you try to build in a pattern of non-stationarity as a further level of randomisation or the record periods differ.
As so often the same word means different things to different people depending on where they’re coming from in the subject.
Sorry I do not think linearly so I do not alway express my ideas in a manner others understand. (It is very frustrating.)
I tried to differentiate between:
1. One hundred plus years of no change in the temperature mean.
2. A temperature mean that has changed. Either cooled or warmed.
3. A change in the jet stream “loopyness” which will effect the Range in temperatures (Std Dev.) during a given year/decade/century.
This means different scenarios tell you different things about the climate trend:
A. If there is NO CHANGE in the temperature mean AND no change in the range around that mean then the majority of hot and cold records will be at the beginning of the recording period and taper off with time.
That is what Max Beran was talking about.
B. If the temperature mean is trending warmer (and there are no games played with the data) then you will see more record hot temperatures in the recent years than record cold temperatures.
In other words the RATIO of hot to cold record temperatures will change.
C. If the temperature mean is trending colder then you will see more record cold temperatures than record hot temperatures in the recent years.
D. If the temperature RANGE is trending WIDER (because the Jet Stream is no longer zonal) then you will see more record hot temperatures AND more record hot temperatures in the recent years. Note you are looking at the whole record and what it is telling you and not just one year.
……………..
So what are Steve’s graphs telling us?
First graph:
Except for 2012 record highs are tapering off. This indicates no or not much change in the mean towards warmer temperatures.
The second graph shows we had colder temperatures during the decades around 1970. since the ratio of hot to cold changed.
Since Steve does not show record colds per year as a separate graph you have to back that out. This is where it gets interesting.
The first graph shows 2012 had a lot of record high temperatures but the RATIO shows it is about normal so that means 2012 had a large number of record highs AND record colds! This means the RANGE (jet Streams) have changed. Blocking Highs (causing Russia to have high summer temperatures) and Polar vortex and all that.
Steve also says ” this year is blowing away all records for a non-volcano year, and is the second year in a row where record lows outnumber record highs.”
CONCLUSION
We are in the middle of a ‘climate system change’ Not surprising with the oceans switching from the warm phase to the cold phase while the sun is in slumber mode. The manifestation of the change is the Jets are going from zonal ===>meridional aka loopy.
Since the oceans act as a huge hot water bottle you will not see a drop in the global temperature so much as a rearrangement in the earth’s heat transport from the tropics to the poles. This change in the heat transport is what I was trying to get at.
Well Obama did task NASA with making Mohammedans feel good about their contribution to science which BTW has been almost nothing for the previous 700 years.
I think that Obama has given NASA not one but two missions too many.
This climate refugee is enjoying the warm temps of Phoenix boys!! 15 C below normal in southern alberta at my house….. the choice is clear!!!
That’s a nonsense statistic (the top graph). In a stationary random series the probability of a record being broken in the 1920’s through 1940’s would naturally be higher, because they switched to vinyl in 1949, which is unbreakable. In 1969 cassettes and 8 tracks were becoming common, and then CD’s in the 1980’s, decreasing the number of records that could be broken, so yes, it’s a bogus statistic.
Breaking a CD is hard work.
Now that was funny.
CD’s are made of polycarbonate. Enough said.
That was not funny.
polycarbonates are great plastics!!!
I’m waiting for them to say –
“Hi, we’re here from NASA, we’re here to warm you”
…cause their darn globalls warming ain’t doin’ it!
Reblogged this on Climatism.