Record CA Cold Snap

[tripp]

So if the crop is trashed could the remains be used in bio-refineries to make fuel?

[hyo silver]

Records are being set all over the world - heat, cold, wind, and rain. Why is the recent short-term weather so different from the expected long-term climatic norm?

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jan 16 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]377013[/snapback]</div>

Records are being set all over the world - heat, cold, wind, and rain. Why is the recent short-term weather so different from the expected long-term climatic norm?
[/b]

Not sure I understand your question. Regardless, how long have weather "records" been reliably kept? A century, or maybe as little as a few decades in most parts of the world. So when you see a record high or a record low, you are looking at a "record" within a tiny, tiny window of time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Jan 16 2007, 10:47 PM) [snapback]377011[/snapback]</div>

So if the crop is trashed could the remains be used in bio-refineries to make fuel?
[/b]

I predict the price of "citrus based de-greaser" is due for a fall...

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 17 2007, 02:58 AM) [snapback]377017[/snapback]</div>

...how long have weather "records" been reliably kept? A century, or maybe as little as a few decades in most parts of the world. So when you see a record high or a record low, you are looking at a "record" within a tiny, tiny window of time.
[/b]

Yes, paper and electronic records are relatively recent. There are many other indicators of past climate in the fossil record and in ice sheets, which go back a very long time.

[chogan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 17 2007, 03:51 PM) [snapback]377006[/snapback]</div>

If blooming winter tulips on the east coast are a sure sign of global warming - as was posted previously - then what are we to make of this record setting CA cold snap? A sure sign there is no such thing as global warming? My opinion - there is nothing to make of either case - relative to "global warming" (climate change). Short-lived local observations are WEATHER, people, not CLIMATE. Please remember that.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../n135145S71.DTL
[/b]

My post began:

"Fully realizing that weather is not climate, I'd like to say that this year is topping the charts for confusing the plants in my yard, here in Northern Virginia. " It was an interesting observation of what was occurring in my yard.

Upon reflection, I'm no longer going to read your posts. Not because you presented a snarky dig at my prior post, in effect, saying that I was stupid. But because this seems to be systematic.

In particular, for my post on the NOAA announcement of 2006 US mean temperature, you went way out of your way to present me with evidence that, upon inspection, turned out to be a ludicrously biased summary of recent NOAA research. Which I then had to track down in order to get the straight story. I said nothing at the time except to point out what NOAA actually said, as opposed to what you posted, but for the benefit of other readers, I'll briefly recap here.

A few days back, I posted a brief innocuous message, to point people to the NOAA webpage, where NOAA stated that 2006 was the hottest year in the US on record. By a small margin. I thought that got relatively little press, yet was noteworthy.

You then came back with a laundry list of record cold events. Goodness, I thought, what does this guy know that I don't. And, being fair-minded, I tracked those back to the source. Which was -- a NOAA summary of record weather events for the year, from which you had a) cherry-picked just events dealing with cold, and B) somehow failed to mention NOAAs overarching conclusion, printed in big letters at the bottom of their main graphic, which was that this was the 6th warmest year on record for the earth as a whole.

So I hope you can see the reasonableness of my position. I posted a notice of an accurate and unbiased NOAA measurement of US land temperatures. I was unaware the NOAA in fact also declared this the 6th warmest year ever for the globe as a whole. But you took the NOAA data source that said that, cherry picked the cold events, and used it to argue that NOAAs finding meant nothing in the context of truly global assessment. Whether you did the cherry-picking, or the source from which you get your information did the cherrypicking, is irrelevant from my standpoint. NOAA went to great effort to do an accurate and unbiased assessment of mean global temperature, but had I relied on your information, I would have gotten a completely warped and incorrect conclusion, one that was in fact the opposite of NOAA's own conclusion.

[F8L]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 17 2007, 12:51 PM) [snapback]377006[/snapback]</div>

Short-lived local observations are WEATHER, people, not CLIMATE. Please remember that.

[/b]

That is the general consensus among most climate scientists I have read.

On the otherhand, when you see trends it can lend itself to a possible hypothesis so they should not be ignored altogether.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Jan 16 2007, 11:53 PM) [snapback]377029[/snapback]</div>

Yes, paper and electronic records are relatively recent. There are many other indicators of past climate in the fossil record and in ice sheets, which go back a very long time.
[/b]

Again - mixing up WEATHER and CLIMATE. There are any number of climate proxies that go back very far, some more reliable than others. But they are not meant to infer daily, weekly, or annual weather events / "records". So when you are talking WEATHER records, those are only available for the past hundred years or so - at best - insomuch as humans have recorded such events.

[TimBikes]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Jan 17 2007, 12:13 AM) [snapback]377034[/snapback]</div>

My post began:

"Fully realizing that weather is not climate, I'd like to say that this year is topping the charts for confusing the plants in my yard, here in Northern Virginia. " It was an interesting observation of what was occurring in my yard.

Upon reflection, I'm no longer going to read your posts. Not because you presented a snarky dig at my prior post, in effect, saying that I was stupid. But because this seems to be systematic.

In particular, for my post on the NOAA announcement of 2006 US mean temperature, you went way out of your way to present me with evidence that, upon inspection, turned out to be a ludicrously biased summary of recent NOAA research. Which I then had to track down in order to get the straight story. I said nothing at the time except to point out what NOAA actually said, as opposed to what you posted, but for the benefit of other readers, I'll briefly recap here.

A few days back, I posted a brief innocuous message, to point people to the NOAA webpage, where NOAA stated that 2006 was the hottest year in the US on record. By a small margin. I thought that got relatively little press, yet was noteworthy.

You then came back with a laundry list of record cold events. Goodness, I thought, what does this guy know that I don't. And, being fair-minded, I tracked those back to the source. Which was -- a NOAA summary of record weather events for the year, from which you had a) cherry-picked just events dealing with cold, and somehow failed to mention NOAAs overarching conclusion, printed in big letters at the bottom of their main graphic, which was that this was the 6th warmest year on record for the earth as a whole.

So I hope you can see the reasonableness of my position. I posted a notice of an accurate and unbiased NOAA measurement of US land temperatures. I was unaware the NOAA in fact also declared this the 6th warmest year ever for the globe as a whole. But you took the NOAA data source that said that, cherry picked the cold events, and used it to argue that NOAAs finding meant nothing in the context of truly global assessment. Whether you did the cherry-picking, or the source from which you get your information did the cherrypicking, is irrelevant from my standpoint. NOAA went to great effort to do an accurate and unbiased assessment of mean global temperature, but had I relied on your information, I would have gotten a completely warped and incorrect conclusion, one that was in fact the opposite of NOAA's own conclusion.
[/b]

Your post was titled "Late Fall Tulips - just another global warming observation".

So to me, the "gist" of your post - despite any disclaimers within - was that your tulip blooms are evidence of global warming. If this was not your intent, my apologies. I certainly did not intend to offend, but I take issue with this assertion.

As for the NOAA data - I was using available data to point out that if you want to cherry pick, you can "prove" anything (i.e., using short term local data I could easily demonstrate the earth is cooling just as well as I could show it is warming). Data should not be used in that manner, and that is my point. So I hope you too can see the reasonableness of my position.

I agree with your statement that NOAA says this is the 6th warmest year "on record". Also, IMO, there has been a general warming trend overall since the Little Ice Age. However, I remain unconvinced that this is only - or even mostly - the result of anthropogenic causes. Some of it is, some of it is not.

[TimBikes]

If blooming winter tulips on the east coast are a sure sign of global warming - as was posted previously - then what are we to make of this record setting CA cold snap? A sure sign there is no such thing as global warming? My opinion - there is nothing to make of either case - relative to "global warming" (climate change). Short-lived local observations are WEATHER, people, not CLIMATE. Please remember that.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../n135145S71.DTL

[hyo silver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Jan 17 2007, 07:34 AM) [snapback]377082[/snapback]</div>

Again - mixing up WEATHER and CLIMATE...
[/b]

We don't seem to be speaking the same language here. Would you define climate as the long term average weather?