Coldest December since late 1800s?

www.worldnetdaily.c ^ | December 13, 2005

[Esther Ruth]

Coldest December since late 1800s? Meteorologist's claim comes on heels of climate-warming summit in Canada

Posted: December 13, 2005 9:42 p.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com A weather expert says December 2005 is on pace to become one of the 10 coldest in more than 100 years, despite claims at a global conference on climate change this week that the Earth is getting warmer.

Joe Bastardi, senior meteorologist with Accuweather.com, says present weather patterns across the country show below-normal temperatures in the single digits, with still colder air forecast in the coming weeks.

All told, he said, "the current look and pace may bring December 2005 in as a top 10 month for cold Decembers nationwide since the late 1800s."

Some examples of the abnormally cold temps include: Omaha, Neb., (17.5 degrees below normal); Indianapolis, Ind., (14.1 degrees below normal); Chicago, Ill., (13.9 degrees below normal); and Denver, Colo., (11.9 degrees below normal).

"The cold is widespread, with below-normal temperatures recorded from eastern Washington and Oregon south into Texas and into the Northeast," said the weather service.

And it could get worse. Accuweather.com "is forecasting another week of unseasonably cold weather, with the potential for another major snowstorm developing on Wednesday."

While the current weather pattern may be considered anecdotal by some, it is timely nonetheless, as it comes on the heels of a United Nations-sponsored event in which most of the more than 150 nations participating claimed the world is getting warmer – a phenomenon most blamed on the United States.

Washington was the most frequent target of criticism over the course of the two-week summit in Montreal, Canada, where participants blamed the U.S. for being the world's largest contributor of harmful atmospheric emissions some experts say are increasing, on average, global temperatures.

[al_c]

I agree, but it hasn't been down to the single digits officially.

Officially. But I'm in the 'burbs on the north end. Officially 7 here.

[stormer]

There really isn't much debate about whether or not temperatures on a global scale are rising. The questions are why, what will the result be, and is there anything we can do about it? What is the proper forum to discuss these questions? Congress? I think it pretty obvious nobody there can even balance a check book, let alone understand complex scientific data. By all means, get the politicians out of the debate. But as long as someone thinks they can either make money or feel that someone else has an unfair advantage, politicians will always be ready, willing, and able to step up to the plate and pontificate about issues they know nothing about.

[jpl]

This thread is not covering itself in glory. There's a difference between weather and climate, and between one cold month and several years of record warmth.

Correct.

I don't understand why people are in denial about this--the Earth is getting warmer. No one disagrees about that, no matter how cold it happens to be on a given day.

I'm afraid it's not exactly that simple. Saying "it's getting warmer" entirely depends on what time frame you're talking about. It's true that the last few years have seen a warming trend, but the second half of the 20th century was actually cooler than the first half of the 20th century, and the 20th century was significantly cooler than what's known as the "Medieval Optimum" period. The global temperature graph looks a lot like a seismograph or a brain scan, with the lines going dramatically up and down about every ten years or so.

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

You can find references to say just about anything; the question is whether those references have been peer-reviewed and not been superseded by more recent research.

That depends on the quality of the "peer review". I've been thru a lot of peer reviews during my career in engineering. Some were merely cheer leading sessions and some were reviews by the well informed and some by the less informed. The best ones were performed by smart "hostile" peers who have an approach/solution that differs from your own.

One of my last projects before my retirement was one such review. There were many millions of contract dollars as well as professional reputations on the line. I felt like Daniel in the lions den. The program manager even apologized for putting me thru this on such short notice. The hostile/critical experts gave it their best shot but I'm happy to say my project survived.

Science is subject to politics. Always has been, always will be. I don't automatically accept something just because someone claims it's been peer reviewed.

Someone who is a dilettante in a subject can not get the familiarity with the research to assess whether is cite is the most current and accepted wisdom on a subject or a maverick work that fails duplication tests.

That applies to most of us. That's why we depend on experts. But there are a lot of "experts" with appropriate credentials. So which one do we believe? Do we go with the consensus or the maverick? Science should IMO depend on facts and sound reasoning. Not on "consensus". The history of science is replete with "mavericks" who had the facts on their side and overthrew conventional wisdom.

I'm old enough to remember when the "conventional wisdom" accepted the "Steady State" theory of the universe. Conventional wisdom now says that was false. Replaced by the "Big Bang" theory.

What we as nonexperts must do, is apply our own critical faculties to the arguments of the "experts". Are they being honest or are they just shoveling BS. Or are they honestly mistaken?

See the following link to help in detecting BS> What is bullsh*t?

[HamiltonJay]

Cold here in Pittsburgh, but warmer than yesterday, calling for 37 tommorrow... I think.

[trisham]

It's been very cold here in Massachusetts. We're expecting a low of 8 degrees tonight.

[HungarianGypsy]

It's not cold enough in Arizona. When it snows in Phoenix, then I will think it's one of the coldest. I don't even think Northern Arizona has snow yet.

[Esther Ruth]

Didn't you guys come close to it in Phoenix a week or so ago? I thought saw 40s?

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

Science constantly hedges its bets; no body finishes a paper with "I found the holy grail!", but with "the data indicates" or "the evidence supports the hypothesis".

You're describing honest science. That's the ideal. Science also attracts fools, incompetents, parasites and hustlers. And many have PHD after their name.

Science is many times wrong. Read "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn.

[HungarianGypsy]

40s in Phoenix is a low. It's normal this time of year. 60s during the day and 40s to just about freezing at night.

[wireman]

Let me see. It's December and it's getting cold.

I predict that in late March it will begin to warm up.

I should write an article about it.

[SuziQ]

Heh, guess I'm just in a 'warm' band. ;o)

[Esther Ruth]

We have had a bit of local global warming in Chicago land in the last few days. The 4-6 inches of snow cover we have had has melted suddenly and their is much alarm. The snow men the local village children made are quickly disappearing and their is much panic, but the children are still gathering around their indoor trees playing with new toys and many have not notices the melting yet, but when they do counselors will be standing by to help them through these drastic times, especially hardest for those with new sleds.

[socialismisinsidious]

I heard a lib on the radio say just that...according to them any extreme (defined by a few degrees) shift in weather patterns is caused by global warming. I'm betting that they will begin to change the term from 'global warming' to 'climate shifts' or some other such nonsense so that they can cover their butts and continue to scream that the sky is falling (send money).

[TN4Liberty]

Bzzt, nope. The statistics are for GLOBAL mean temperature.

One of the most fundamental mistakes in statistical process control is the lack of control of a measuring system. The measuring system is the equipment and procedures that generate, collect, and report the results from the process. If you go from using a ruler to measure something to using calipers, it will likely change the results and look like a change in the size of the object you are producing. Similarly, if you go from 100 reporting stations to 1000 reporting stations, or from mercury thermometers to infrared satellite images, you can expect different results.

I am confident that there are more areas used in measuring global climate than were used 100, 80, 60, 40 years ago. I am confident than the technology we use is different and may be more or less sensitive in interferences. I am confident that calibration methods have changed over the past 100 years.

There is no real solution to this over a 100 year process, other than putting a caveat on any analysis that notes what changes occurred in the measuring system and noting that they could be responsible for perceived trends. But statisticians who grab up this data and make pronouncements without understanding the underlying measuring system are what W. E. Deming used to call "hacks."

[Hemingway's Ghost]

This is bravo sierra. On Christmas Eve, it was warm enough for people in my neighborhood to ride motorcycles, and all this week it's been in the 40s!

[TN4Liberty]

The warmer the earth becomes, the colder it gets (sarcacsm).

Kinda like the earth saying, "I was warming before I was cooling."

[M Kehoe]

Ping.

5.56mm

[Trust but Verify]

I wondered if anyone was going to point out that after a very cold start to the month, the dire predictions of the coldest December ever have melted away almost as quickly as the snowmen in our yards.

I'm up in Wisconsin, and while I appreciate the warmer temps (think heating bill), this damp fog and drizzle we've had is the pits.