|
Post by trbixler on Jul 1, 2009 4:09:45 GMT
Cooler than normal in L.A. www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=90045Statement as of 6:00 PM PDT on June 30, 2009 ... Daily maximum temperatures were below normal on every day in June at downtown Los Angeles and at Los Angeles International Airport... Daily high temperatures at both downtown Los Angeles and at Los Angeles International Airport were below normal on every single day in the month of June. In fact... high temperatures at each location have been below normal since may 22nd... a stretch of 40 days in a row and counting. While records for consecutive days with below normal temperatures are not typically maintained... this is a fairly noteworthy stretch of cool weather... the result of a persistent upper level trough lingering across Southern California. At downtown Los Angeles... daily mean temperatures... the average of the maximum and minimum temperature on each day... have not been above normal since may 22nd. However... during that stretch... mean temperatures have been exactly normal on 5 days... including 3 days during the month of June. Also at downtown Los Angeles... high temperatures reached or exceeded 80 degrees on just two days during the month of June... the lowest number of such occurrences since June 1982... which had only one such day. The average daily high temperature for June 2009 was 74.5 degrees... 5 degrees below the normal of 79.5 degrees. Interestingly... the average high for June was just slightly warmer than the average maximum for this past January... when the daily high averaged 74.2 degrees. Of course... that was about 6 degrees above normal for January. At Los Angeles International Airport... the high temperature for the month of June was just 71 degrees... the lowest monthly maximum for any June since records began there in 1944. Daily high temperatures varied by just 5 degrees during the month of June at Los Angeles Airport... from a low of 66 on the 3rd... to a high of 71 degrees on ten separate days... most recently on the 27th. The average high temperature for June 2009 at Los Angeles Airport was 69.3 degrees... 3.4 degrees below normal... and the lowest average June maximum since 1982. It was also lower than the average high temperature during this past January which was 69.5 degrees.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 1, 2009 8:20:12 GMT
The warmth is all subject and the met office is using rather short term means. One should use the 100 year mean, as that would be a climate mean. Those short 30 year means are really only weather means, rather than climate means.
Suit yourself, but the 1901-2000 (100 year) mean is cooler than the 1971-2000 mean so just makes the current period look even warmer.
Here, in the UK the run of warm (very warm) years is unprecedented in ~350 years. This year (2009) may not be warm by recent standards, but with the exceptions of 1949 and 1959, it will probably be warmer than every other in the 90 year period between 1901-1990.
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Jul 1, 2009 10:37:54 GMT
But at the moment, today is the first day I've had to turn a fan on. In previous years, usually well before this point (it is July this week, after all, hot spells are to be expected. Its called weather....). And thats mainly because its very humid today, rather than just warm. Ok - but a few months back when we had a bit of snow and temperatures were a bit below normal, I though some were saying it was a clear sign that a grand solar minimum had arrived and it was downhill from here on. However I notice that every month since January has had a positive anomaly. As far as their summer prediction is concerned it looks as thoough the met office could be right and this summer may well end up 1-2 deg warmer than average (2008 was average). Europe as a whole is warm. India had been baking. Central Asia has been very hot. I'm just wondering how this solar/climate link works. What is your baseline for "normal" in the UK? It is much more telling to see what direction your local climate is going if you use 30 year or less averages. Much of the U.S. has been markedly cooler the last couple years than the ten year average before that...this could easily be used to argue a link between solar/climate, at least in the U.S. Here in Denver, we failed to hit 90 this month, only the second June since 1972 to do so. Its always difficult for trends in the UK, as our weather is a lot more variable from year to year than most places - its verry dependant on what the jetstream and the high pressure zones nearby do. The UK was certainly warm (here in the south) from around 1999-2006, based on my empirical evidence of when I had to use central heating and air conditioner! (ok, subjective I know, but reasonably reliable for me...) However the last 2 years have been much cooler, and this year, while nice, has only been hot this last few days (a nice spring and early summer, but very cool at night) I now always wonder at the met office figures that seem to indicate it just keeps getting warmer, since if quite simply isnt doing that here. But I have noticed much more eggageration of warm days and ignorhnig of cool weather on the Beeb - it seems that anythnig that 'confirms' their AGW agenda is pushed to the front, whicl anything involving cooling doesnt appear at all - the difference beteen them and the non-MSM on this issue is getting very blatant indeed. What I have noticed, the last 3 years, is the weather patterns returning to what I remember from around 30-40 years ago. Its almost amusing (or it would be if it wasnt serious0 to see the meeja kiddies the beeb likes to employ going on about everything being different. It isn't , they are just too young to remember - and cant be bothered to do any investigation.
|
|
|
Post by astrodragon on Jul 1, 2009 10:41:02 GMT
What is it about Oxford? Every time I'm there the availability of parking is inverse in ratio to the temperature. Good grief, you aren't suppposed to be able to PARK in Oxford!!!! The Oxford city council hates cars, and is only interested in tourists - locals who actually want to do things like shop or visit are clearly abberant recidivists who must not be encouraged....
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 1, 2009 12:23:32 GMT
The warmth is all subject and the met office is using rather short term means. One should use the 100 year mean, as that would be a climate mean. Those short 30 year means are really only weather means, rather than climate means.Suit yourself, but the 1901-2000 (100 year) mean is cooler than the 1971-2000 mean so just makes the current period look even warmer. Here, in the UK the run of warm (very warm) years is unprecedented in ~350 years. This year (2009) may not be warm by recent standards, but with the exceptions of 1949 and 1959, it will probably be warmer than every other in the 90 year period between 1901-1990. For glc and others using cities and regiional areas as evidence for "unprecedented" warming for the last 350 years blah blah blah, the same type of argument for "global warming" using local or regional temperatures is fallacious. Heat Waves in Southern California: Are They Becoming More Frequent and Longer Lasting?climate.jpl.nasa.gov/files/LAHeatWaves-JournalArticle.pdfIt's like warmers using cherry trees in various locations that blossom earlier as evidence for CO2 AGW, when in fact it is UHI largely responsible. arnoldia.arboretum.harvard.edu/pdf/articles/1893.pdfTrust me, I've got dozens of similar studies; pretty hard to debunk. What makes you think other areas of the world aren't experiencing the same artifact? The truth is, the temperature record particularly in modern times (30-40 years) is highly contaminated. If you'd bother doing some open ended research, it would be obvious, but since you've got blinders on, the MO is to defend the indefensible. BTW, have you seen this? wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdfHow about the various recent threads at WUWT and ClimateAudit. on NOAA/GISS etc. on their game playing with data "adjustments"? ;D
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 1, 2009 14:22:56 GMT
Here, in the UK the run of warm (very warm) years is unprecedented in ~350 years. This year (2009) may not be warm by recent standards, but with the exceptions of 1949 and 1959, it will probably be warmer than every other in the 90 year period between 1901-1990. You are making it sound like its the coldest in 20 years. Am I getting the correct gist here?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 1, 2009 19:45:14 GMT
You are making it sound like its the coldest in 20 years. Am I getting the correct gist here?
No you're not. It's the coldest first 6 months (Jan to Jul) since 2006 and it's probably a bit below the average for the the last 10 years. But it's still about ~0.7 deg warmer than the 20th century average.
Remember that solar activity peaked in 1990 since when it's been declining. Solar Cycle 23 wasn't a particularly strong cycle and we're now in a protracted minimum yet global (and UK) temperatures appear totally unaffected.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 2, 2009 2:06:37 GMT
You are making it sound like its the coldest in 20 years. Am I getting the correct gist here?No you're not. It's the coldest first 6 months (Jan to Jul) since 2006 and it's probably a bit below the average for the the last 10 years. But it's still about ~0.7 deg warmer than the 20th century average. Remember that solar activity peaked in 1990 since when it's been declining. Solar Cycle 23 wasn't a particularly strong cycle and we're now in a protracted minimum yet global (and UK) temperatures appear totally unaffected. Sounds rather tame! Hadcrut average anomaly for the 20th century was -.135 with 2008 registering a .325 that works out to a .46C rise over the 20th century average. .7 as a regional variation seems well within expected variations and the fact you can get more than a .7 variation just off of ocean oscillations alone. I think we will need to sit back and see if your super El Nino arrives or if it peters out like very other prediction over the past decade. I would not put much stock in getting a lot cooler from a minimum that at this point in time decidedly average over the 23 cycles that have been observed. I think you might be confusing talk of the cycles progression perhaps indicating a protracted minimum but it has to go for at least another 18 months before it gets in that range. lsvalgaard keeps cautioning folks from getting to caught up in the unusualness of this cycle saying its progressing quite normally. Only time will tell. Same deal with the intensity of cycle 23. Slightly above average. One should not expect much from that even if solar is the controller and if sunspots corrolate to the intensity. Mean cycle intensity has been 113.2. And if you look at cycles through cycle 16 the average drops to under 100. The cycles of most robust warming 17-23 have averaged 147. A 121 cycle could be very much a normal global temperature cycle. . . .and with heat/cold in the pipeline from ocean moderation who knows how far that might get pushed out. Your noting that it took 8 years for that average cycle to even start a flattening 1990-1997; March 2008 would be 8 years out for the year that you would first notice a cooling from a coming pronounced low cycle. Hmmmmm! It would be interesting if temperature changes 8 years into a new cycle (counting from the top) turned out to be and indicator of the strength of the peak of a solar cycle wouldn't it? Yep you have good theories alright GLC!!! LOL! You might be right dead center on the mark!! We will have to wait and see over the next. . . .uh. . . .maybe 12 years or more considering how much this minimum has added to the previous cycle length and how strong that cycle turns out to be.
|
|
|
Post by aj1983 on Jul 2, 2009 10:16:54 GMT
In the Netherlands, after a cool December and beginning of January, temperatures have begun rising again, and the average spring temperature of 2009 was 10.8 C, with 8.9 C the mean between 1971 and 2000. This has been the warmest spring since 2007. Although the heat seemed to be a little less extreme in the last 2 years, I don't see any signs of real cooling here yet. Currently we are having temperatures in the upper 20s (lower 80s F) which have been in place for a week now, but after this weekend temperatures will drop again.
Ps: observational series in the Netherlands go back to 1706.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Jul 2, 2009 14:45:46 GMT
We might also add in addition to a cool summer, a wet summer. I see the UK summer 2007 and summer 2008 had the highest rainfall amounts since 1914. Australia is now experience exceptionally high rainfall. Cold and cloudy. The tropics 2007 and 2008 had the highest rainfall in 20 years. From a mechanism standpoint high GCR appears to also affect the jet stream. Locations that are not experience a wet summer, such as Western Canada, are experiencing a dry summer due to the change in the jet stream. The area where I live, Calgary, Alberta, has been exceptionally cold, cloudy, however, there has not been above average rainfall in this area. Surrounding areas are experiencing drought without hot summer temperatures. Is there any chance you could send some of that rain to California? We've been very dry the last years, and it has continued through this year. I was hoping for a little el Nino this year so we would get some rain ... it hasn't happened for us.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 2, 2009 23:25:27 GMT
You are making it sound like its the coldest in 20 years. Am I getting the correct gist here?No you're not. It's the coldest first 6 months (Jan to Jul) since 2006 and it's probably a bit below the average for the the last 10 years. But it's still about ~0.7 deg warmer than the 20th century average. Remember that solar activity peaked in 1990 since when it's been declining. Solar Cycle 23 wasn't a particularly strong cycle and we're now in a protracted minimum yet global (and UK) temperatures appear totally unaffected. The U.S., which is of course much larger than the UK, has been markedly cooler the past couple years, compared with the ten years prior. And SC 23, while slightly weaker than the two cycles that preceded it, was still a large cycle.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 3, 2009 8:01:08 GMT
The U.S., which is of course much larger than the UK, has been markedly cooler the past couple years, compared with the ten years prior.
But the US is not larger than Russia. South America is also still warming - as is China.
And SC 23, while slightly weaker than the two cycles that preceded it, was still a large cycle.
If you go by the now out of data solar reconstructions SC23 makes it into the top third. Svalgaard's latest reconstructions are now becoming much more widely accepted. Here SC23 is no more than an average cycle.
Incidentally if we equate SC23 with SC4 (the pre-Dalton cycle) global temperatures should have already fallen by now. There was actually very little change during the DM, the temperature decline happened between ~1780 and ~1800.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 3, 2009 15:23:37 GMT
Incidentally if we equate SC23 with SC4 (the pre-Dalton cycle) global temperatures should have already fallen by now. There was actually very little change during the DM, the temperature decline happened between ~1780 and ~1800. What is your source on that? All the reconstructions of the DM I have seen have 1800 (12 years past the cycle 4 maximum or about 2012 for cycle 23) as about the mid-point in temperature decline.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 3, 2009 15:52:39 GMT
What is your source on that? All the reconstructions of the DM I have seen have 1800 (12 years past the cycle 4 maximum or about 2012 for cycle 23) as about the mid-point in temperature decline
What do you mean by "reconstructions". I'm talking about actual data. CET, Uppsala etc show a drop before the DM. There is no temperature decline in the DM.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 3, 2009 17:57:07 GMT
What is your source on that? All the reconstructions of the DM I have seen have 1800 (12 years past the cycle 4 maximum or about 2012 for cycle 23) as about the mid-point in temperature declineWhat do you mean by "reconstructions". I'm talking about actual data. CET, Uppsala etc show a drop before the DM. There is no temperature decline in the DM. Those are of limited usefulness since both are European series that could easily both be affected by the same regional ocean current oscillation.
|
|