People making claimsHadCRUT temperatures for 37N 122.5W since 1850.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Election Results
- “Glaciers, Icebergs Melt As World Gets Warmer”
- “falsely labeling”
- Vote For Change By Electing The Incumbent
- Protesting Too Much Snow
- Glaciers Vs. The Hockey Stick
- CNN : Unvaccinated Should Not Be Allowed To Leave Their Homes
- IPCC : Himalayan Glaciers Gone By 2035
- Deadly Cyclones And Arctic Sea Ice
- What About The Middle Part?
- “filled with racist remarks”
- Defacing Art Can Prevent Floods
- The Worst Disaster Year In History
- Harris Wins Pennsylvania
- “politicians & shills bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry”
- UN : CO2 Killing Babies
- Patriotic Clapper Misspoke
- New York Times Headlines
- Settled Science At The New York Times
- “Teasing Out” Junk Science
- Moving From 0% to 100% In Six Years
- “Only 3.4% of Journalists Are Republican”
- “Something we are doing is clearly not working”
- October 26, 1921
- Hillary To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
Recent Comments
- Jack the Insider on Election Results
- Caleb Shaw on Election Results
- Caleb Shaw on Election Results
- Mac on Election Results
- Disillusioned on Election Results
- Francis Barnett on Election Results
- Robertvd on Election Results
- Disillusioned on Election Results
- arn on Election Results
- William on Election Results
Coastal states tend to have this trend. Interior states tend to have a warming trend. So?
Most interior states show little change over this period. Which ones have you got in mind?
Read the article below this one.
Daniel Packman:
Are you making stuff up or are you actually reading this junk somewhere? I would do a peak to peak comparison over a period of a few thousand years to determine a trend in climate as the 140 year used is variable weather patterns in a few climate regions when talking about an area the size of California. Just the California coast has more than 4 distinct weather regions that I have visited.
The original post referred to a small geographic region changing since 1850, roughly the period of interest for the modern problem of climate change. My question was what was the point of isolating this particular time period and place? If you want to examine global temperatures over that period, any single location is only a noisy part of the total signal. We expect some places to cool and others to warm during that period. Similarly, if you are interested in the temperature trend over the past 150 years or so, considering different time scales (eg, thousands of years) will give no useful information. Or rather, it will give different information. Different time scales have different physical processes dominating. You don’t learn more about the daily temperature changes on earth by studying a year long trend.
Yes, but six weeks of hot weather in Moscow last summer was all the proof needed.
Most US states show little or no increase over this time period.
The same applies to Australia, New Zealand and the UK.
Is it just a coincidence that countries with reliable temperature records tend to share this pattern?
150 years should be plenty of time to determine whether AGW is real. Remember, the alarmists are saying a big catastrophe will occur in a short time frame, not over several thousand years. So if there is no trend toward warming the last 150 years in several places, it is extremely doubtful that a huge warming catastrophe is looming.
If there is no trend in several places, you have found several places with no trend. Proper global averages are hard to do, but consistently show warming over this period.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html
The context of this article was a claim that California would heat 5-7 degrees.
So wait a century and see if temperatures rise 5-7 degrees.
Dan,
Do you think that there have been droughts in the past?
Obviously, but since that has been an assumed part of this discussion from the onset I’m puzzled as to why you would even ask this.
I just posted an article where the author blamed the Texas drought on CO2, when in fact there is a strong correlation between Texas drought and La NIna.
Given that temperatures in California have not increased despite a 40% increase in CO2, I don’t see any basis for a claim that there will be a huge increase in CA temperatures with more CO2.
Expected global temperature changes of a few degrees over a century don’t translate to uniform increases in any specific region. In fact, we can expect some regions to get cooler if their climate is dominated by currents that change appropriately. Climate change is an enormously complex problem in its details and armchair conclusions based on what seems obvious are often wrong.
I can see that it is a very complex problem, given how far off the mark Hansen’s 1988 predictions were.
The 2C temp drop in California is more than made up by Hansen with his application of increases in temp throughout regions of the Arctic where there is no monitoring equipment.
Paint that circle pink!
Dan:
Climate is CHANGE! That means that Climate is not changing as long as CHANGE occurs. The Global temperature ranges from -70C to + 50C on any given day somewhere on the globe so there is no global temperature and no global climate.
The regional weather patterns that are being discussed are following the same trends as has been seen before over similar 150 year periods. Some have changed faster and some have changed slower.
What Climate Change are you concerned about?
The Chicken Little Claims the Globe is warming at some extreme rate that will end life as we know it are a fantasy with no relation to the real world and there is equal chance that regional temperatures will cool as they will warm. Equal chance of drought as excess rain and weather extremes are the norm rather than the exception. Mild weather is the exception. Somewhere extreme weather conditions are happening at any time and that is also seen in historic records.
The post was related to claims that a state would warm by X degrees over a given period and it has not.
Also regional weather patterns are the signal that describes climate. Calling them noise and filtering them out allows you to lose the complete signal. It also makes you a climatologist that does not understand weather!
The claim was 5-7 degrees by the end of the century. I certainly hope you are correct, but we will be absolutely sure within just 80 or 90 years.
What evidence were they basing that ridiculous claim on? Was there some imaginary trend they made up to support that? The historic surface temperature records are so out of touch with reality the globe could as well have been cooling for the last 70 years from the record warmth of the 30s.