donsutherland1

For June-August 2012: EWR: 25 NYC: 19

An amazing record. March 2012's mean temperature of 56.8° demolished the old record of 55.5° set in 1921 and tied in 1945. It was also almost 3.9 standard deviations above the 1981-2010 mean temperature for March. 3.9 standard deviation events have a statistical probability of occurring once every nearly 850 years (for any month).

Very well said. I don't believe there is empirical evidence that one approach is qualitatively better than another. There is evidence that GISS's extrapolations produce a reasonable outcome (remarkably small error) when it comes to estimating Arctic temperatures.

All estimates have uncertainty/error. I could not find any peer-reviewed papers indicating that UAH is qualitatively superior to GISS when it comes to estimating Arctic temperatures. Also, GISS's extrapolations are reviewed against satellite, infrared, and other data. The extrapolations are very good--perhaps as good as science can get at this time (0.05°C error at a 95% confidence level). The bottom line is that GISS provides a reasonable idea of Arctic temperatures.

Perhaps in the future. However, issues also exist with satellite measurements e.g., lower troposphere figures have been documented to be partially tainted by stratospheric readings in the past leading to cooler figures relative to the instrument record than might otherwise have been the case. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2005/nature02524-UW-MSU.pdf

You're welcome. GISS is a very robust dataset. Errors can, as you noted, understate temperatures at times, but the estimates are probably as close to accurate as is possible at present.

Given a lack of stations, ships, buoys, etc., it is useful to extrapolate, if extrapolation can be performed skillfully. Fortunately, it can. The estimated error, largely due to lack of spatial coverage, is 0.05°C (95% confidence limit). http://demeterdesign.net/gistemp2010_draft0319.pdf Regarding Arctic temperatures, here's what the GISS website states: There are several reasons for the small discrepancies that exist between the three records. Most important, subtleties in the way the scientists from each institution handle regions of the world where temperature-monitoring stations are scarce produce differences. While developed areas have a dense network of weather stations, temperature monitoring equipment is sparse in some parts of the Amazon, Africa, Antarctica, and Arctic. In the Arctic, particularly, the absence of solid land means there are large areas without weather stations. The Met Office and the NCDC leave areas of the Arctic Ocean without stations out of their analyses, while GISS approaches the problem by filling in the gaps with data from the nearest land stations, up to a distance of 1200 kilometers (746 miles) away. In this way, the GISS analysis achieves near total coverage in the Arctic. Both approaches pose problems. By not inferring data, the Met Office assumes that areas without stations have a warming equal to that experienced by the entire Northern Hemisphere, a value that satellite and field measurements suggest is too low given the rate of Arctic sea ice loss. On the other hand, GISS's approach may either overestimate or underestimate Arctic warming. "There's no doubt that estimates of Arctic warming are uncertain, and should be regarded with caution," Hansen said. "Still, the rapid pace of Arctic ice retreat leaves little question that temperatures in the region are rising fast, perhaps faster than we assume in our analysis." http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/

Unfortunately, as far as I know, the recent data only shows the existence of methane "fountains." The existence of such fountains, if they are the result of the observed warming in the region, might provide some insight into the resumption of increases in atmospheric methane. More data on the fountains, particularly trends in methane emissions, is needed. It will be interesting to see what the scientists reveal down the road. IPCC might also have additional data when its ongoing work is completed.

This situation could provide insight into why atmospheric methane has again begun to rise after a period of stabilization. From the WMO: Methane (CH4) contributes about 18% to the overall global increase in radiative forcing since 1750 and is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide. Before the start of the industrial era, atmospheric methane was about 700 parts per billion (number of molecules of the gas per billion molecules of dry air) Since 1750, it has increased 158%, mostly because of activities such as cattle-rearing, rice planting, fossil fuel exploitation and landfills. Human activities now account for 60% of methane emissions, with the remaining 40% being from natural sources such as wetlands. After a period of temporary relative stabilization from 1999 to 2006, atmospheric methane has again risen. Scientists are conducting research into the reasons for this, including the potential role of the thawing of the methane-rich Northern permafrost and increased emissions from tropical wetlands. http://www.wmo.int/p.../pr_934_en.html

That's just terrible. He's the worst kind of boss one could have--one who is both unreasonable and also expects others to do what he won't do.

Thanks, Terpeast. All is well with me. Have a great holiday season.

Terpeast, I very much didn't want to create the impression that it is easy to move from school into the workforce for meteorology majors and apologize if I have created such an impression. I do remember the challenges you faced a few years back, as the job market was rapidly deteriorating. I believed then and still do that you deserved better and that any employer would be fortunate to have you on board. I hope all is going well for you.

I agree, at least to some extent. One of my friends works at a college career services office. She told me that many students skip the workshops/events that are offered beginning sophomore year and afterward and only show up during their senior year (sometimes spring semester!). At the risk of being overly blunt, if that situation is representative across many campuses, it shows a lack of urgency and foresight on the part of students to explore/develop career options at a time when extra preperation is essential. Waiting until the last year simply won't cut it. Others will already have made contacts, developed professional networks (and alumni can be helpful in that respect), had concrete internship/volunterr/parttime experience, etc., and will be at an advantage. Companies will tend to choose a candidate with somewhat of a proven track record than another applicant simply based on first or second-impressions from interviews. In the current climate where companies are even more risk averse than average and many are relying more on temporary workers, concrete experience and relationships are of paramount importance. Ultimately, a student who has demonstrated a capacity to work well at an organization e.g., via an internship, is at a qualitative advantage over another who lacks similar experience. Such experience is probably the best predictor as to how well that student will perform once employed, hence the risk of employing him/her is less than doing so for a student who lacks such experience. Finally, as noted previously, I don't minimize the challenges facing today's generation of college students. The difficulties getting into the workforce are deeply worrying. Nonetheless, an engaged student can increase his/her opportunities, and those increased opportunities can raise the prospects as to whether that student will be employed immediately upon graduation.

Tough competition in the meteorology field is not an exception, but the norm experienced in many fields (especially those susceptible to global competition). Moreover, unlike the meteorology industry (and one can broaden it to the physical sciences category, which includes even more opportunities and having the flexibility to capitalize on opportunities in that broader segment would be a wise approach) which is projected to enjoy moderate growth, there are actually industries where the absolute number of jobs is projected to decline. http://www.bls.gov/oco/oco2003.htm The reality of the post-recession environment is that many fields have stiff or stiffening competition. There is a structural component to unemployment in a number of industries meaning that not every industry will recover to its pre-recession status and some of the job losses will likely be permanent. At the same time, the U.S. fiscal imbalances suggest that the spurt in the number of government jobs created in recent years is likely a temporary phenomenon. In fact, as fiscal consolidation ultimately has to be pursued (by choice or by financial/debt market realities in the medium-term and beyond), slow or negative growth in all categories of government jobs could become a reality. Hence, the private sector will likely account for a larger share of Met jobs than it presently does. Academia, might also, but public higher education institutions face immediate financial challenges that mirror those plaguing their state governments. What all that means is that today's college students will need to do everything possible to make themselves relevant/attractive, as entry into the job force immediately subsequent to graduation is no longer as seamless or assured as it was in the past, even for graduates from top-tier schools. This challenge confronting the current generation of college students is deeply worrying, as there is empirical evidence that graduates who have difficulty entering the labor force suffer from adverse long-term impacts (future opportunities are fewer, wage growth is less robust, etc.). Some older workers will need to make difficult choices, especially if they were/are participants in industries that are either declining or won't recover fully to their past extent. Highly educated people, in general, have greater latitude to adapt to job market challenges than those with lesser skills/credentials. Meteorologists/meteorology graduates fall into that category of highly educated people and they are eminently qualified for numerous related fields in the physical sciences that have strong job growth prospects. That doesn't mean things will be easy by any stretch of the imagination nor that their won't be frustration/heartbreak at times, but it does mean that things are not as bleak as they are in some other fields, notably the low-skilled, declining areas from which dislocated workers have little career mobility.

For another perspective, one can read the Department of Labor's Occupational Outlook Handbook (2010-11 edition): http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos051.htm