.....

[FreeRain]

There is a difference between a long term trend and short term variation. This thread dealt with

with the rarity of the record cold this February against the long term warming trend at Central Park

since the late 1800's. How would an argument about a long term cooling trend developing in the

60's and 70's after the mild 50's worked out when we saw the milder 80's and 90's?

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

 

One of the most common misunderstandings amongst climate contrarians is the difference between short-term noise and long-term signal.  This animation shows how the same temperature data (green) that is used to determine the long-term global surface air warming trend of 0.16°C per decade (red) can be used inappropriately to "cherrypick" short time periods that show a cooling trend simply because the endpoints are carefully chosen and the trend is dominated by short-term noise in the data (blue steps).  Isn't it strange how six periods of cooling can add up to a clear warming trend over the last 4 decades?  Several factors can have a large impact on short-term temperatures, such as oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the 11-year solar cycle.  These short-term cycles don't have long-term effects on the Earth's temperature, unlike the continuing upward trend caused by global warming from human greenhouse gas emissions.

The data (green) are NASA GISS monthly global surface temperature anomaly data from January 1970 through December 2014, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970–Oct 1977, Apr 1977–Dec 1986, Apr 1987–Oct 1996, Aug 1997–Dec 2002, Jan 2003–Jun 2012, and Jul 2012–Feb 2014 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).

 

This is not a man made global warming thread.

 

You should really take this argument, or this linked article to the appropriate thread.

 

Back to the subject at hand, the "cherry picking" (your words) problem  works both ways. For example choosing 1900 as a starting point, which was a point in time where we were coming out of a cold period, with two relatively inactive solar cycles, is also cherry picking. 

 

Finally, calling a temperature trend that goes from 1900 to 1997 a "long term trend", from a geologists point of view, isn't right.

[ILoveWinter]

Yet another single digit low, currently 8.4 in Armonk. 

[FreeRain]

Your lack of understanding about what constitutes a long term trend was the reason that 

the conversation veered off topic in the first place. I was content to discuss the differences between

the 1901-1930 climate period vs 1981-2010. You seemed to have the problem with me pointing that

out. So when the discussion moved to global warming, that was all on you.

 

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earth’s-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade

 

The long-term trend—change over the course of a century or more—is what defines “global warming,” not the change from year to year or even decade to decade. 

 

Again, you initiate another round of "global warming" comments on this thread which is against the rules.

 

And you fail to understand what was my point.

 

Back to topic which was this cold snap and recent trends...

 

A graph was posted on this thread using a cherry picked starting point, a misleading linear plot and an incorrect conclusion about recent trends. I simply responded, and documented how the graph was misleading by similarly cherry picking 1981 as a starting point, describing what a linear regression would look like from the 1981 starting point, and how this linear regression would also be misleading.

 

Of course there was NO cooling trend that began in 1981.

 

And at no time did I say that the cooling trend that began in ~~1997 is a "long term trend". 

 

And of course, non linear analysis is best for such short term trends.

[FreeRain]

Again, you initiated the line of discussion with your post. And why are you using an avatar that could be intrepeted

as political in a weather forum? That starting point was not cherry picked since it constitutes a long term trend

which is common practice. The 1981-2010 climate period was significantly warmer than the 1901-1930

or the 1871-1900 period. Your participation in this thread has been of a trolling nature which is also

against the rules.

 

No political sigs, avatars or member titles

No excessive trolling of other members

 

So now offering my comment 

 

Again, you initiated the line of discussion with your post. And why are you using an avatar that could be intrepeted

as political in a weather forum? That starting point was not cherry picked since it constitutes a long term trend

which is common practice. The 1981-2010 climate period was significantly warmer than the 1901-1930

or the 1871-1900 period. Your participation in this thread has been of a trolling nature which is also

against the rules.

 

No political sigs, avatars or member titles

No excessive trolling of other members

 

I did not initiate the line of discussion. All one has to do is go back and see the line of discussion in the thread.

 

Another poster posted a graph and gave their opinion about a short term trend of unspecified cause, which is fine.

 

I responded to that graph and poster's opinion by giving my opinion on the short term trend or trends of unspecified cause.

 

That's when you joined in, linked to an article and highlighted the paragraph about "man made",  "global warming".

 

And now you accuse me of trolling. I certainly hope that it doesn't become difficult around here to respond to differing points of view without being personally attacked.

[Guest Pamela]

And why are you using an avatar that could be intrepeted as political

 

 

How is a picture of a football player political?

[Guest Pamela]

Again, you initiate another round of "global warming" comments on this thread which is against the rules.

 

 

 

Agree entirely. 

[Guest Pamela]

Again, you initiate another round of "global warming" comments on this thread which is against the rules.

 

And you fail to understand what was my point.

 

Back to topic which was this cold snap and recent trends...

 

A graph was posted on this thread using a cherry picked starting point, a misleading linear plot and an incorrect conclusion about recent trends. I simply responded, and documented how the graph was misleading by similarly cherry picking 1981 as a starting point, describing what a linear regression would look like from the 1981 starting point, and how this linear regression would also be misleading.

 

Of course there was NO cooling trend that began in 1981.

 

And at no time did I say that the cooling trend that began in ~~1997 is a "long term trend". 

 

And of course, non linear analysis is best for such short term trends.

 

Your participation in this thread has been of a trolling nature which is also

against the rules.

 

 

 

FreeRain was not engaged in trolling; he was replying to your commentary which quite honestly had no place in this thread.  If you felt that he was actively engaged in trolling, you could have reported the posts in question and had the moderator determine if they were not appropriate. 

[doncat]

How is a picture of a football player political?

Is that a young Reagan?

[jm1220]

WTF? Can't anybody find the Climate Change forum?

[Guest Pamela]

That is a famous political figure in his youth which matches the posters political opinions expressed in the other forum. So I can see that the nature of his question was politically rather than scientifically motivated

since 1981-2010 was warmer than 1871-1900 and 1901-1930 by a wide margin.

 

I'm glad you recognize this political figure...I most assuredly do not...and I gravely doubt that one out of a thousand people off the street could either...and that's being charitable.  Moreover, FreeRain has been a member of this board for several years...if the avatar were in fact inappropriate, do you not think that some moderator at some point in time over the last several years would have told FreeRain that this avatar was inappropriate?  Since that is not the case; your critique is the only thing out of place here.   

[Guest Pamela]

That is a famous political figure in his youth which matches the posters political opinions expressed in the other forum. So I can see that the nature of his question was politically rather than scientifically motivated

since 1981-2010 was warmer than 1871-1900 and 1901-1930 by a wide margin.

 

FreeRain's posts in other forums are not germane to the topic at hand; this is the second time you have gone off on a tangent to question personal motivations for people's commentary...you are not the arbiter of good taste...or bad taste...that is the job of the moderator. 

[Guest Pamela]

That is a famous political figure in his youth which matches the posters political opinions expressed in the other forum. So I can see that the nature of his question was politically rather than scientifically motivated

 

 

To be candid; this constitutes being a busybody, no more & no less.

[Guest Pamela]

I am very sorry that you are not  content with acknowledging that the planet has been warming .

But that is the reality that you need to embrace so you can stop derailing all this threads where temperature

trends are posted.

 

This board was not created to serve as your platform to promulgate everything Bluewave believes...to the absolute and complete exclusion of all contrasting views.  If you seek such a situation; you certainly can start your own blog or comment board...but here, a variety of viewpoints are welcome.  As for your assertion that I "derail threads that deal with temperature trends"...the best I can do is go "lol".  

[Guest Pamela]

Is that a young Reagan?

 

Assuming arguendo that it was that individual; I'm not sure that would fall under the ambit of political commentary.  The individual is no longer with us, so he no longer can run for political office...nor can he influence public policy.  If we were to follow your argument to its logical extreme, someone with an avatar of Abe Lincoln or George Washington or Thomas Jefferson would likewise be engaged in inappropriate political speech.  Or perhaps someone just tangentially involved in government...like Betsy Ross who worked on the American flag...would likewise constitute an impermissible avatar.  If we adopt the limitations you suggest...well, all I can say is that the moderators will be very busy indeed trying to ferret out questionable avatars. 

[Guest Pamela]

If you have such an aversion to science, then maybe you need a new hobby that isn't rooted in science.

 

 

At this juncture in time, I would like to request that the moderator please restrain you from making any additional posts that have no bearing on this discussion or commentary that seeks to defame me.  Saying that I have an "aversion to science" because we are not in agreement on a particular point or series of points is extremely discourteous behavior...and I would not have expected it of you. 

[donsutherland1]

Did I miss something? I don't see much issue with noting that the severely cold February occurred within the context of a longer-term warming. If one wants to discuss the reason for that warming, then one can go to the climate change forum. However, simply stating that NYC has been warming and that the recent February occurred in the midst of that warming (as reflected by the record temperature anomaly despite February's having been the 3rd coldest February and 9th coldest month) isn't really a climate change discussion piece.

[NycStormChaser]

Did I miss something? I don't see much issue with noting that the severely cold February occurred within the context of a longer-term warming. If one wants to discuss the reason for that warming, then one can go to the climate change forum. However, simply stating that NYC has been warming and that the recent February occurred in the midst of that warming (as reflected by the record temperature anomaly despite February's having been the 3rd coldest February and 9th coldest month) isn't really a climate change discussion piece.

Exactly

[Guest Pamela]

If you have such an aversion to science, then maybe you need a new hobby that isn't rooted in science.

Your words highlighted below.

 

 

The quote you managed to find in the archives...I'm not quite sure how that evinces an "aversion to science" on my part.  I simply correctly reasoned that the source of the article was a place in which the theory is very well received.  Consequently, there is a likelihood that the affinity for the concept present at that locale could potentially influence the impartiality of the authors.  If a person is an opponent of say nuclear power plants, for example...I hardly think they would be churning out articles that highlight how safe and effective it might be...quite the contrary...their commentary and position papers would likely highlight everything wrong with it and the potential dangers associated with it...in order to better convince those who influence public policy of the correctness of their position.*

 

*That's a hypothetical...I'm not offering any views for or against nuclear power. 

[cjr231]

The impressive streak of lows below 32 should end today I think. 

[uncle W]

The impressive streak of lows below 32 should end today I think. 

if the temperature remains above freezing by midnight it will end 38 consecutive days with a minimum 32 or lower...It was 33 on 1/24/15...This is one of the longest consecutive day streaks with a minimum on record...It helped keep the snow on the ground...

consecutive days with a 32 or lower minimum...

56 in 1880-81

51 in 1976-77

47 in 1915-16

45 in 1969-70

45 in 1887-88

44 in 1917-18

43 in 1878-79

41 in 1894-95

38 in 2014-15

37 in 1900-01

36 in 1933-34

36 in 2006-07

36 in 1944-45

[NorthShoreWx]

Continuing the February theme into March, the low temperature here this morning was 6.  That is the second coldest March temperature in the 20 years since I have been recording weather at this location.  The coldest was 5 on March 10, 1996.

 

Today is also the 20th day this winter with a low temperature of single digits or lower.

[doncat]

Continuing the February theme into March, the low temperature here this morning was 6.  That is the second coldest March temperature in the 20 years since I have been recording weather at this location.  The coldest was 5 on March 10, 1996.

 

Today is also the 20th day this winter with a low temperature of single digits or lower.

Made it down to 6 here on Friday morning which tied my record march low.

[Morris]

KFOK this morning was amazing. What a surge of 19 degrees in one hour!

[NorthShoreWx]

Speaking of the colder February back in 1934, this is Main Street (corner of Bellemeade where the florist is today) in Smithtown from 2/2/1934.  The nearest coop (Setauket) reported 8" from that storm.  Looks like a lot more if you ask me:

 

[LongBeachSurfFreak]

Speaking of the colder February back in 1934, this is Main Street (corner of Bellemeade where the florist is today) in Smithtown from 2/2/1934. The nearest coop (Setauket) reported 8" from that storm. Looks like a lot more if you ask me:

On the ground for sure more then 8". I would assume allot of it is old snow. Personally I would rather have experienced the hurricane of 38 then feb 1934 as my all time weather event I would have wanted to experience.

[NorthShoreWx]

On the ground for sure more then 8". I would assume allot of it is old snow. Personally I would rather have experienced the hurricane of 38 then feb 1934 as my all time weather event I would have wanted to experience.

 

That's not it as they reported no snow at all for the entire month of Janaury 1934.  Perhaps the photo was mislabeled and should have been 2/20?  Here is the Setauket snowfall record for that entire winter:

 

 

Also, some more pictures with interesting, if somewhat embellished tales of bygone winters in Smithtown (scroll down the page a wee bit to the second blog post):

 

http://www.smithtownmatters.com/smithtown-history/

[Guest Pamela]

We don’t get the snowfall that we used to experience not so long ago, and now we sometimes go through the winter without much snow at all.

George Arns remembers that in the 1930’s, snow “came early and stayed all winter long.  We always had snow in October, and by Thanksgiving, we would have two to three feet of snow on the ground. Real hard storms and blizzards would hit and dump lots of snow.  There was a storm in 1934 and another in 1936.  I believe the storm in 1936 dumped four feet of snow in Smithtown.”

 

 

OK Georgie...lol.

[NorthShoreWx]

We don’t get the snowfall that we used to experience not so long ago, and now we sometimes go through the winter without much snow at all.

George Arns remembers that in the 1930’s, snow “came early and stayed all winter long.  We always had snow in October, and by Thanksgiving, we would have two to three feet of snow on the ground. Real hard storms and blizzards would hit and dump lots of snow.  There was a storm in 1934 and another in 1936.  I believe the storm in 1936 dumped four feet of snow in Smithtown.”

 

 

OK Georgie...lol.

 

That definitely comes under the category of "somewhat embellished tales of bygone winters".  At least he didn't mention anything about barefoot and uphill both ways.

[Guest Pamela]

We don’t get the snowfall that we used to experience not so long ago, and now we sometimes go through the winter without much snow at all.

George Arns remembers that in the 1930’s, snow “came early and stayed all winter long.  We always had snow in October, and by Thanksgiving, we would have two to three feet of snow on the ground. Real hard storms and blizzards would hit and dump lots of snow.  There was a storm in 1934 and another in 1936.  I believe the storm in 1936 dumped four feet of snow in Smithtown.”

 

 

OK Georgie...lol.

 

To think, we just had someone post an article about how they undermeasured in the old days...lol.

[Guest Pamela]

Props on finding the Setauket data; perhaps the only month in the century plus record there where snow was actually measured properly.