Higher highs overwhelms Lower Low recorded temperatures, case for global warming

tmarket · Nov 13, 2009

If you study the latest data, there is no doubt that there are much more higher highs than lower lows in recorded temperatures across the world. If this was a study of price action, you would think there is a very bullish case for global temperature rises. The latest study showed the following in the US:

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.
...
The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s.

Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two.
More...

Record High Temperatures Far Outpace Record Lows Across U.S.

November 12, 2009

BOULDERâSpurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," says Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."

This graphic shows the ratio of record daily highs to record daily lows observed at about 1,800 weather stations in the 48 contiguous United States from January 1950 through September 2009. Each bar shows the proportion of record highs (red) to record lows (blue) for each decade. The 1960s and 1970s saw slightly more record daily lows than highs, but in the last 30 years record highs have increasingly predominated, with the ratio now about two-to-one for the 48 states as a whole. [ENLARGE] (Â©UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao.) News media terms of use*

The study, by authors at NCAR, Climate Central, The Weather Channel, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters. It was funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor, the Department of Energy, and Climate Central.

If temperatures were not warming, the number of record daily highs and lows being set each year would be approximately even. Instead, for the period from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2009, the continental United States set 291,237 record highs and 142,420 record lows, as the country experienced unusually mild winter weather and intense summer heat waves.

A record daily high means that temperatures were warmer on a given day than on that same date throughout a weather station's history. The authors used a quality control process to ensure the reliability of data from thousands of weather stations across the country, while looking at data over the past six decades to capture longer-term trends.

This decade's warming was more pronounced in the western United States, where the ratio was more than two to one, than in the eastern United States, where the ratio was about one-and-a-half to one.

The study also found that the two-to-one ratio across the country as a whole could be attributed more to a comparatively small number of record lows than to a large number of record highs. This indicates that much of the nation's warming is occurring at night, when temperatures are dipping less often to record lows. This finding is consistent with years of climate model research showing that higher overnight lows should be expected with climate change.

More records ahead

In addition to surveying actual temperatures in recent decades, Meehl and his co-authors turned to a sophisticated computer model of global climate to determine how record high and low temperatures are likely to change during the course of this century.

The modeling results indicate that if nations continue to increase their emissions of greenhouse gases in a "business as usual" scenario, the U.S. ratio of daily record high to record low temperatures would increase to about 20-to-1 by mid-century and 50-to-1 by 2100. The mid-century ratio could be much higher if emissions rose at an even greater pace, or it could be about 8-to-1 if emissions were reduced significantly, the model showed.

The authors caution that such predictions are, by their nature, inexact. Climate models are not designed to capture record daily highs and lows with precision, and it remains impossible to know future human actions that will determine the level of future greenhouse gas emissions. The model used for the study, the NCAR-based Community Climate System Model, correctly captured the trend toward warmer average temperatures and the greater warming in the West, but overstated the ratio of record highs to record lows in recent years.

However, the model results are important because they show that, in all likely scenarios of future greenhouse gas emissions, record daily highs should increasingly outpace record lows over time.

"If the climate weren't changing, you would expect the number of temperature records to diminish significantly over time," says Claudia Tebaldi, a statistician with Climate Central who is one of the paper's co-authors. "As you measure the high and low daily temperatures each year, it normally becomes more difficult to break a record after a number of years. But as the average temperatures continue to rise this century, we will keep setting more record highs."

Gerald Meeh [ENLARGE] (Â©UCAR, photo by Carlye Calvin.) News media terms of use*

An expanding ratio

The study team focused on weather stations that have been operating since 1950. They found that the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures slightly exceeded one to one in the 1950s, dipped below that level in the 1960s and 1970s, and has risen since the 1980s. The results reflect changes in U.S. average temperatures, which rose in the 1950s, stabilized in the 1960s, and then began a warming trend in the late 1970s.

Even in the first nine months of this year, when the United States cooled somewhat after a string of unusually warm years, the ratio of record daily high to record daily low temperatures was more than three to two.

Despite the increasing number of record highs, there will still be occasional periods of record cold, Meehl notes.

"One of the messages of this study is that you still get cold days," Meehl says. "Winter still comes. Even in a much warmer climate, we're setting record low minimum temperatures on a few days each year. But the odds are shifting so there's a much better chance of daily record highs instead of lows."

Millions of readings from weather stations across the country

The study team analyzed several million daily high and low temperature readings taken over the span of six decades at about 1,800 weather stations across the country, thereby ensuring ample data for statistically significant results. The readings, collected at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center, undergo a quality control process at the data center that looks for such potential problems as missing data as well as inconsistent readings caused by changes in thermometers, station locations, or other factors.

Meehl and his colleagues then used temperature simulations from the Community Climate System Model to compute daily record highs and lows under current and future atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
About the article

Title: "The relative increase of record high maximum temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S."

Authors: Gerald A. Meehl, Claudia Tebaldi, Guy Walton, David Easterling, and Larry McDaniel

Publication: Geophysical Research Letters (in press)
More...

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp

drjekyllus · Nov 13, 2009

Quote from tmarket:

If you study the latest data, there is no doubt that there are much more higher highs than lower lows in recorded temperatures across the world. If this was a study of price action, you would think there is a very bullish case for global temperature rises. The latest study showed the following in the US:

[/size]

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/maxmin.jsp [/B]
More...

If our release of CO2 is causing it, then how come the 1950's is higher than the 1960's and 1970's?

drjekyllus · Nov 13, 2009

Quote from tmarket:

If this was a study of price action, you would think there is a very bullish case for global temperature rises.
More...

Based on this analysis I suspect you are one of many losers on ET. Why not use 420,000 years of data? Maybe the picture will become clearer.

From this graph it would appear that temp data is rather stationary. This one calls for a RTM strategy.

Ricter · Nov 14, 2009

Quote from drjekyllus:

Based on this analysis I suspect you are one of many losers on ET. Why not use 420,000 years of data? Maybe the picture will become clearer.

...

From this graph it would appear that temp data is rather stationary. This one calls for a RTM strategy.
More...

Long period. You must be an investor, buy and hold, huh?

Why not use a chart that includes our lava-ball past, or our burnt cinder future?

Index piker · Nov 14, 2009

Tell you what: common sense says that when you bozo's figure out how to limit the naturally occurring primary drivers of earth's temperature (ie the sun*, cosmic radiation) without destroying civilization I won't laugh at you anymore.

Until then I suggest we do what man does best :adapt and quit selling a useless neo-Luddite wealth redistribution plan.

*I don't get what is so hard to understand that the sun has variable output and it's own orbit does not guarantee constant cosmic radiation.

Ricter · Nov 14, 2009

Quote from Index piker:

Tell you what: common sense says that when you bozo's figure out how to limit the naturally occurring primary drivers of earth's temperature (ie the sun*, cosmic radiation) without destroying civilization I won't laugh at you anymore.

Until then I suggest we do what man does best :adapt and quit selling a useless neo-Luddite wealth redistribution plan.

*I don't get what is so hard to understand that the sun has variable output and it's own orbit does not guarantee constant cosmic radiation.
More...

You're a little off on that simple perspective. Venus, much farther from the sun than Mercury, is as hot and sometimes hotter. There are other factors at work, we do have an effect on them, and we have mitigated other problems by acting on those factors.

Index piker · Nov 14, 2009

Quote from Ricter:

You're a little off on that simple perspective. There are other factors at work, we do have an effect on them,
More...

Really that's too simple for you.

Well how about this: Since you agw folks have the hubris to think you can control long term global temperature changes.

How about demonstrating that you can control small localized phenomenon like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts,wildfires?

trendlover · Nov 14, 2009

Quote from Index piker:

How about demonstrating that you can control small localized phenomenon like hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts,wildfires? [/B]
More...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is for (prepare) more than control.

"Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live, how it supports life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so in the future is one of the greatest intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the most important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve prosperity, health, and sustainability.

The first question the NRC committee had to address was the national capabilities for Earth observations. We were troubled by the answer.

We found that the current investment strategies had led to a system at risk of collapse. That assessment was based on the observed decline in funding for Earth-observation missions in NASA and the consequent cancellation, downsizing, and delay of a number of critical missions and instruments in both agencies. There are many potential consequences.
Some examples are:

Weather forecasts and warnings may become less accurate, putting more people at risk and diminishing the proven economic value of accurate forecasts â this is particularly important to this country since we must cope with many forms of extreme weather, be it in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, floods or winter storms.

Climate variability and the rate of change need to be better quantified. Earth is warming because of a small imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from Earth. Without the recommended measurements, we will not be able to quantify how this net energy imbalance is changing, or when or if the planet will stop warming.

Climate models have improved steadily over the years, but are far from perfect and must be improved if we are to intelligently cope with climate change. Satellites provide unique observations of the Earth system and validate and improve these models.

Sea level is rising and glaciers and ice fields around the world are melting, but we just donât know how fast these are occurring. Without continuing quantitative observations, we canât know how these rates change or the implications for coastal communities.

The bottom line is: Earth science is based fundamentally on observations. While it is impossible to predict what scientific advances will not occur without the observations, or what surprises we will miss, we can be sure the rate of scientific progress will be greatly slowed â perhaps even undone to some degree.

Climate variability and natural disasters are taking a significant toll on our economy, our environment, and our well being. And, that is why we must sustain the Earth observations that underpin national preparedness and response. Implementing these missions will not only greatly reduce the risk of natural disasters of all kinds to the people of our country and the world, they will also support more efficient management of natural resources including water, energy, fisheries, and ecosystems, and support the economy. Thus, the cost of the program is repaid many times over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/info/soundings/2007/03/

Index piker · Nov 14, 2009

Quote from trendlover:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is for (prepare) more than control.

"Understanding the complex, changing planet on which we live, how it supports life, and how human activities affect its ability to do so in the future is one of the greatest intellectual challenges facing humanity. It is also one of the most important challenges for society as it seeks to achieve prosperity, health, and sustainability.

The first question the NRC committee had to address was the national capabilities for Earth observations. We were troubled by the answer.

We found that the current investment strategies had led to a system at risk of collapse. That assessment was based on the observed decline in funding for Earth-observation missions in NASA and the consequent cancellation, downsizing, and delay of a number of critical missions and instruments in both agencies. There are many potential consequences.
Some examples are:

Weather forecasts and warnings may become less accurate, putting more people at risk and diminishing the proven economic value of accurate forecasts â this is particularly important to this country since we must cope with many forms of extreme weather, be it in the form of hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, floods or winter storms.

Climate variability and the rate of change need to be better quantified. Earth is warming because of a small imbalance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing radiation from Earth. Without the recommended measurements, we will not be able to quantify how this net energy imbalance is changing, or when or if the planet will stop warming.

Climate models have improved steadily over the years, but are far from perfect and must be improved if we are to intelligently cope with climate change. Satellites provide unique observations of the Earth system and validate and improve these models.

Sea level is rising and glaciers and ice fields around the world are melting, but we just donât know how fast these are occurring. Without continuing quantitative observations, we canât know how these rates change or the implications for coastal communities.

The bottom line is: Earth science is based fundamentally on observations. While it is impossible to predict what scientific advances will not occur without the observations, or what surprises we will miss, we can be sure the rate of scientific progress will be greatly slowed â perhaps even undone to some degree.

Climate variability and natural disasters are taking a significant toll on our economy, our environment, and our well being. And, that is why we must sustain the Earth observations that underpin national preparedness and response. Implementing these missions will not only greatly reduce the risk of natural disasters of all kinds to the people of our country and the world, they will also support more efficient management of natural resources including water, energy, fisheries, and ecosystems, and support the economy. Thus, the cost of the program is repaid many times over.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/info/soundings/2007/03/
More...

What's the difference between prepare and adapt(as I advocate)?

trendlover · Nov 14, 2009

Quote from Index piker:

What's the difference between prepare and adapt(as I advocate)?
More...

Adapt would be do nothing (like no warning for storms) then see who survive.
Prepare is to observe (satelite image) then do what is possible to have the most survive.

If people can take away some of the cause of the warming, they should.