UN climate panel based claims on student essay: report

Jan 31, 2010
A glacier in the Everest region, some 140 kms (87 miles) northeast of Kathmandu. The UN climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported Sunday.

The UN climate change panel based claims about ice disappearing from the world's mountain peaks on a student essay and an article in a mountaineering magazine, a British newspaper reported Sunday.

The claims risk causing fresh embarrassment for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to apologise this month over inaccurate forecasts about the melting of .

In a recent report, the IPCC stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the , and Africa was caused by global warming and it referred to two papers as the source of the information.

But The Sunday Telegraph said one of the sources quoted was actually an article published in a magazine for mountaineers which was based on anecdotal evidence about the changes they were witnessing during climbs.

The newspaper said the other source was a dissertation written by a geography student who was studying for a master's degree at the University of Bern in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.

The IPCC rejected as "baseless and misleading" a report this month from another British newspaper, The Sunday Times, raising doubts about the evidence behind its claim that is linked to worsening natural disasters.

Scientists have defended the IPCC since it admitted to errors over the Himalayan glacier claim, insisting its work is balanced and its conclusions are sound.

Explore further: Owner of ship that damaged reef to pay $840,000

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Glacier alarm 'regrettable error': UN climate head

Jan 23, 2010

The head of the UN's climate science panel said Saturday a doomsday prediction about the fate of Himalayan glaciers was "a regrettable error" but that he would not resign over the blunder.

Study: Next decade 'crucial' on warming

Jan 29, 2007

Climate effects from global warming will be irreversible in 10 years with "serious reductions in carbon emissions," British researchers have concluded.

Scientists expect increased melting of mountain glaciers

Jan 20, 2006

Sea level rise due to increased melting of mountain glaciers and polar ice caps will be much lower in the 21st Century than previously estimated. However, decay of mountain glaciers in due to global warming will be much more ...

Recommended for you

Owner of ship that damaged reef to pay $840,000

2 hours ago

The federal government and the state of Hawaii have reached an agreement for damages from the owner of a cargo ship that harmed more than 100,000 coral colonies several years ago when it ran aground off Oahu.

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

DachpyarviIe
1.9 / 5 (22) Jan 31, 2010
This is further proof of the great global conspiracy that is AGW!
So many times we ae old we are 'conspiracy theorists' but the truth is out there. I've looked at the raw data so I know it's true, Just as we know that there is a spacecraft at Roswell, just as we know Apollo missions never went to the Moon, he CIA caused 9-11...and lets not mention the grassy knoll :)
freethinking
2.4 / 5 (17) Jan 31, 2010
UFO belivers, 911 truthers, supernatural believers, fortune tellers, and AGW believers all claim to have science backing up their beliefs. The problem is when you look at their science, it's nothing but bunk. Then if you follow the money, many of their leaders get rich off of their believers.
Mercury_01
2.7 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2010
This article makes no claim of advanced global warming. Your straw man arguments make you look like fanatics. "freethinking", you have no proof to the contrary for any of those things you cited, therefore you operate on faith that they do not exist, making you a nothing but another believer.

Its climate change. its happening, and we don't know why. Get over it.
freethinking
2.3 / 5 (15) Jan 31, 2010
I find it funny and sad that AGW Believers and fanatics say the science is settled, that there is proof of AGW, and that the AGW Sceptics should show the science that there is no AGW. Then when we show their science is bad, faudlent, misleading, poor, madeup, source data deleted, etc. they say these are minor issues. The saying if you repeat a lie often enough people believe it comes to mind.
The fact are AGW is based on Bad Science, many of the proponents (Al Gore, etc) are now rich because of it. The big proponents if they believed in AGW sure don't live like they believe it. (Big homes, big parties, big private jets)
petedskier
3.8 / 5 (6) Jan 31, 2010
Although only a student student dissertation, would an accredited climatologist reach a contrary conclusion, that is the glaciers are not shrinking?

Although Newton may have formulated the law of universal gravitation, you needn't subscribe to this law to know of gravity's existence.
Mercury_01
3 / 5 (12) Jan 31, 2010
Some of you people need to take your meds. who cares about some AGW scientists and their personal gains? your argument has no impact on the fact that climate change is occurring, whatever the cause. Keep your emotional rantings to yourself so that the rest of us can get on with the real questions.
mklnk
Jan 31, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dachpyarvile
2.1 / 5 (12) Feb 01, 2010
This is the real dachpyarvile signing in. Ignore the above Dachpyarviie sockpuppet of MikeyK.

Busted! That makes what, three, rather serious problems for the IPCC and such?

Well, at least I and others who have warned for years now of the inaccuracies in the IPCC reports seem to be vindicated several times over. At least now the news is gaining ground and gaining more of a hearing. I look forward to more articles like the above.
joefarah
Feb 01, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (6) Feb 01, 2010
This is further proof of the great global conspiracy that is AGW!


You mean global stupidity? "Never suspect a conspiracy, when plain old incompetence will do". It is quite easy to prove the later. Take climate science: journalists love to use the term "leading scientists" but the sad reality is that most bright and capable students do not choose the field of climate science. Indeed, suppose you are a researcher of Gauss, Euler, or Feynman caliber, would you really bury your talent in climate field? So AGW is essentially a venue for those "would be scientists" to get their 5 minute of fame.
GrayMouser
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 01, 2010
Although only a student student dissertation, would an accredited climatologist reach a contrary conclusion, that is the glaciers are not shrinking?

Although Newton may have formulated the law of universal gravitation, you needn't subscribe to this law to know of gravity's existence.

The first problem is that the dissertation was based on anecdotal evidence instead of quantitative measurements.
The second problem is that the dissertation was not in a peer reviewed journal (sounds like glaciergate) which was a supposed requirement for inclusion in the IPCC study.
Here is a list of what has been uncovered, so far, in the 3rd and 4th ARs:
http://climatequo...tations/
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (8) Feb 02, 2010
This is further proof of the great global conspiracy that is AGW!


You mean global stupidity? "Never suspect a conspiracy, when plain old incompetence will do". ...


Careful. You are responding to an internet troll who takes it upon himself to impersonate legitimate posters by using a capital 'i' to replace the letter 'L'. It gives the false appearance of being a legitimate poster. He does this in the hope that it will lead to discrediting the legitimate poster so he does not have to deal with the poster.

It is much akin to what the UN Climate Panel has done and is doing. As to the comment above regarding whether or not the student report was actual scientific research, the answer is that it is not necessarily so. It was done by a geography student and much of it is anecdotal interviews rather than hard scientific data.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2010
As these events come to light all of Science suffers.

Why couldn't the research have been done properly? Now we're certain to endure decades more of creationists, perpetual motion machines, and cold fusion research just because everyone will lose faith in true science, and start playing with pseudo garbage.
Caliban
2 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2010
Again, rampant trollery. NO offering of Science with results to contradict GW, much less the anthropogenic hypothesis by way of counterargument.
And the disengenousness of claiming that these scientists and proponents of AGW theory are getting rich from it is the height of hypocrisy!
Are you trying to say that it is not ok for someone to make a living? Are you gnashing your teeth and pouring ashes on your head because EXXON and BP are STILL raking in TENS OF BILLIONS in windfall profits? Of course not=TROLLPUPPETS.
freethinking
1 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2010
Caliban,
If a scientist says the moon is made of cheese, I would ask for proof. If the UN would say the moon is made of cheese, again I would ask for proof. GW scientists say the earth is warming and man is doing it. Where is the proof? I actually don't need to prove anything (though there is ample proof that the earth is not warming). It is your side that needs to provide the proof.
So when your side deletes source data, moves weather stations, lies, presents false statments, have models that dont work and wont release the code of those models, then the main proponents get wealthy, fly private jets, live in energy inefficient massive homes, drive monster SUV's, have three + kids, then have the gall to tell me I need to downsize, not have more than 2 kids, walk everywhere, live in a small appartment lit by a single led, use only 1 sheet of TP.

I think something is fishy. Dont you? Or are you so brainwashed by your prophets that you cant see the truth?
Caliban
2 / 5 (4) Feb 06, 2010
I think that you are so blinded by your own POV that you are incapable of any rational, analytical, independent thought. That's where the epithet knee-jerk trollpuppet comes from.
I have asked you numerous times to provide some SCIENCE in support of your claims against GW. In response, you supply rant-or should I say "cant", and links to other articles that claim to debunk or invalidate bits and pieces of research that SUPPORTS GW- not independent research that contradicts global warming.
Therefore, it becomes obvious that you have no interest in the relative merits of any of the science, and that you are motivated solely from your "Pole"itical position. You have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. You are merely generating noise. This begs the question: who assigned you your troll-residency here at physorg? And how are you rewarded? Are you paid by-the-post, or do you get a trip to Hawaii after your tour is done? Your agenda is merely and plainly to OBSTRUCT
Quantum_Conundrum
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2010
Caliban:

Explain why the record high for today and yesterday are each over 80 years old, while the record LOW for yesterday and today were each set within the past 14-20 years...the worst snowfall on record for Louisiana was last year, and two of the 13 worst snowfalls on record for Washington, D.C. are within the past 3 months...

This is exactly the opposite of global warming...
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Feb 06, 2010
Explain why the temperature here in Seattle has been above average or record high for the past 6 weeks in the dead of winter?
otto1923
1 / 5 (3) Feb 06, 2010
He does this in the hope that it will lead to discrediting the legitimate poster
Naw he does this because he is an imbecile with a screw loose. Why would anyone do that? Its like walking around with your dick hanging out, saying 'look how screwed up I am.' Trolls and imitaters should be put down. Theyre so... disturbing.
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 07, 2010
Explain why the temperature here in Seattle has been above average or record high for the past 6 weeks in the dead of winter?


Local weather is not climate. How many times does the AGW crowd repeat that mantra to skeptics? Now it applies to the Seattle area as it does anywhere. Seattle is not global climate. Thanks for playing. :)
dachpyarvile
3 / 5 (6) Feb 07, 2010
Oh, by the way, caliban, I took the liberty to pull up the temperature data for Seattle to see whether what you said had any truth to it.

You are quite mistaken. Over the last six weeks the previous record was not broken at all. Only on January 13, 2010 did your area actually reach and become equal to the previous record of 56 degrees F in 1986--but not breaking it.

If you are looking at localized data, however, such as a thermometer outside, consider that Seattle has increased its urbanization over the last five years. That actually can have quite an effect on local weather and temperatures where you live due to UHI effect.

Other than that, you were exaggerating just a bit. :)
MikeyK
1 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2010
The comments against the IPCC suggest it is a bad idea to use non-peer reviewed papers when discussing AGW, the deniers are always doing this, using some of the whackiest theories possible. They cannot use evidence tosupport their paranoia, they don't have any so they stick to the old conspiracy theory position, and now the papers realise that this paranoia sellspapers so they use it...even Physorg is starting to jump on this shoddy bandwagon. The climate is changing, and changing rapidly. There is more extreme weather related events virtually every month. Lower tropospheric temperatures have recorded the highest January temperatures yet recorded http://www.drroys..._10.jpg.
This is depsite a prolonged solar minimum, negative PDO etc etc.
Why is the anti-science movement using AGW this time, I don't know...but they will ultimately use it to get ID taught in school
thermodynamics
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 07, 2010
There has been fraud and misuse in every field that has ever existed (Wall Street comes to mind). In the case of science, there have been a number of high-profile cases in the past decade. Consider the Korean cloning expert. Also, consider the physicist that was considered the most promising experimentalist in the world, worked for Bell Labs, and dry-labed all of his experiments. They got by for years without being discovered. When they were they were discredited. Their funding was pulled, and one of them is in jail. However, that did not mean that the field of genetics was tossed out. Nor was physics set back. In this case, there are scientists (and I use that term meaning that is what they call themselves) who abused their positions. They should be discredited for what they did (FOI requests ignored, unsupported claims, etc...). However, the field of investigation should go on based on the good work of thousands of other investigators.
Skeptic_Heretic
1.5 / 5 (2) Feb 08, 2010
Thermo,

You have it right. The research should continue, but under greater scrutiny so that we may determine the reality of the situation. Less media, more science.
Caliban
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 08, 2010
Dachy,
While it is true, from the NOAA data- which I'm assuming is the data you looked at, too- that the temperature here in seattle has been less than record-breaking on a day-to-day basis, the fact remains that it has remained -for the most part- at the high end of average FOR WEEKS(caps for emphasis), so, while it may appear that all is hunky-dory from looking at the daily temp mapped over the average/record temp, you should understand that the daily temperature has remained largely at or above average(and averaged over decades) for about six weeks running now. While it isn't unusual for an area to experience a 2 or 3 day streak of above average temps during the winter months, it IS unusual for this anomaly to persist for such an extended period. For this reason, I held this example up to point out that record LOWS and snowfalls in the rest of the lower 48 cannot be used as proof to the contrary of GW, and still remain consistent with logic.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 09, 2010
at the high end of average FOR WEEKS


I think the key word there is "average", Caliban. Don't you think you're being a tad bit alarmist?
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 09, 2010
Um, no, Caliban. I did not refer to the NOAA dataset.

Be careful of some of the data as the goalposts have been moved for some of it. I have seen with my own eyes the 1979-2000 baseline dropped to 1959-1980 in some of it.

The real reason for that drop is bscause both 2008 and 2009 actually fell below the 1979-2000 baseline for the contiguous United States! AGW proponents won't tell you that, however.

This is why I avoided NOAA and went straight for MWO and NWA data as these are the data points recorded on the ground in your area. I chose not to use smoothed data and also looked over the daily maximums.

Now, given the fact that you are still within the averages should tell you something. It has not gotten warmer in Seattle except in urbanized areas.
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 10, 2010
Nice try, dachy.
Last time I checked, though, if you start with an average, and then factor in another set of data that resides already at the upper end of the original average, the new average will be higher than the old. Which was my point. If it was only a couple of days of above average temperature, you could probably safely dismiss them as outliers. For weeks on end of temperatures on the high end, or above average, it looks like a distinctly different animal. And equally as legitimate an antiproposition to the claim that record low temperature in other areas of the country represent a cooling climate. And when I say Seattle- my mistake- I meant the region. This weather isn't confined to just the municipal geographic limits of Seattle proper.
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 10, 2010
But, here is the thing: Seattle has not broken any records as of yet. This is especially the case the last six weeks. That area still is within historical averages. When Seattle actually breaks average temperature records, let us know. Until then, you still are exaggerating a bit. :)
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2010
Check it again- "above average" and "record" are two different descriptors. And I used those terms to specify that many of the recorded temperatures were at the high_end_ of average, or above_average, or near_record_. Are we clear? Or are you totally impervious to fact? Never mind on that last bit- a rhetorical question only.
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 11, 2010
It does not matter that you are at "the high end of average." You still are within the historical averages. In other words, it has not gotten warmer. Otherwise, your averages would be new records because the old records were broken. What part of that do you not understand?
Caliban
3 / 5 (6) Feb 11, 2010
Dear dachy-
please define the term "above average".
Then see if you are capable of determining what happens when above average values are added to the average, and a new average is calculated. Can you grasp the concept? Does it compute for ya? I can waste just as much of your time as you, mine, with this endless, nonsensical, recursive argumentation. That appears to be the strategy you are employing.
TegiriNenashi
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2010
West coast is warmer (and wetter) than average this year because of El Nino. Where have you been around 1998?
dachpyarvile
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 12, 2010
Exactly! TegiriNenashi has hit it squarely on the nose. It does not, however, seem to compute for Caliban.
Caliban
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 12, 2010
I am, in fact, aware of the current El Nino and its influence on the west coast. I'm also aware that it is probably responsible for the jetstream deflection that brought the cold air to the east. Apparently dachyparvile, you were not.
Since we were debating your use of the record cold weather back east as proof to the contrary of a warming climate, you'll have to head back to the drawing board. probably not, though- it's easier to just wing it with more nonsense.
dachpyarvile
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 12, 2010
No, we are not debating MY use of record cold out east of anything contrary of anything. You must be a sockpuppet of MikeyK. You talk like him, misread like him, and so forth.

What I have said is that you have not yet broken any records. Your region is within historical averages. I have also looked at historical maximums for the Seattle area for the last six weeks. Your area has met the previous record once but has not exceeded it.

Thus, there has been no warming in your neck of the woods--yet. I have said this several times already. You must have me confused with someone else. I am not surprised.
Caliban
3 / 5 (4) Feb 12, 2010
Dachyparvile,
Have a look at the link below:

http://www.beauti...hsum.asp

Perhaps this will settle the question regarding temperatures here.
Allow me to apologise for having conflated your posts with another user's here regarding the record lows back east being proof to the contrary of GW.
dachpyarvile
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2010
Thank you for admitting that and for the apology. I have looked at the charts and note that they say exactly what I said about temperatures in your area.

Take a look at the tables from January and February below.

January 2010:
http://www.wrh.no...perature

February 2010:
http://www.wrh.no...perature

There is nothing that has gone above historical data. Hence, although it is warmer than their idea of "normal" temperatures it still shows that the Seattle area is within historical data and has not as of yet exceeded it--which, is, exactly what I have been saying all along. Things have not, as of yet, gotten warmer than at a previous time.
Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Feb 13, 2010
Impervious! Average temperature for January 2010 was 6.1 degrees above normal(Average). WTF is wrong with you? Again- rhetorical question.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (1) Feb 13, 2010
Impervious! Average temperature for January 2010 was 6.1 degrees above normal(Average). WTF is wrong with you? Again- rhetorical question.

You need to reread that graph.

6.17 is the amount of precipitation in inches. With the standard yearly average clocking in at 5.13. The temp swing above average is 5.7, well within reason for an El Nino cycle when compared to a decade of La Nina.

So what is wrong with you?
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 13, 2010
Impervious! Average temperature for January 2010 was 6.1 degrees above normal(Average). WTF is wrong with you? Again- rhetorical question.


Heheh. You should ask yourself that question. Thanks for misreading the data--again. Can you not tell the difference between precipitation and temperature data?

As Skeptic_Heretic pointed out, your area still is well within the historical range. This means that there has not been a warming trend in your area. Rather, given that most all the data points are below the historical maximums it would indicate instead a cooling trend overall.

In addition, we are currently in the El Nino phase of the ENSO so it is not to be unexpected that the temps will often stand above their idea of "normal" in the data. But, notice also very carefully that a number of the ranged data points actually fell into the normal range during this last six weeks.

But, it still does not change the fact that the rise in temps above normal are due to El Nino.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2010
Rather, this is proof of your inability to accept that you are wrong. Have another look :

http://www.beauti...hsum.asp
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2010
Your above comment is proof you cannot read data properly. The page to which you referred, for February 2010, contains the following text:
Temperatures for February 1 - 11 are averaging 3.3 degrees above normal --- the mean average temperature is 46.0 degrees compared to the normal 42.7 degrees. The average daily high is running 3.0 degrees above normal at 51.5 degrees compared to the normal 48.5 degrees.


Did you catch that? 3.3 and 3.0 degrees, respectively.

Now, even if you actually refered us to January, one finds a contradiction in the text. The January statistics page also contains the following:
The average daily high was 5.7 degrees above normal at 51.5 degrees compared to the normal 45.8 degrees.


Did you catch that? 5.7 degrees above normal for the daily high.

You still misread the data and the charts. Again, please ask yourself your 'rhetorical' questions.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2010
My bad- I thought that you might go to the trouble of selecting the January data from the drop-down. How thoughtless of me. For January- 6.1 degrees ABOVE normal average. February 5.7 degrees ABOVE normal average(so far). Either way, or both ways- still significantly ABOVE average, and, by the way, the historical average includes previous El Nino events. I'll skip the rhetorical question this time.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2010
Go here:
http://www.wrh.no...perature

Take a look at the figures from the National Weather Service. They also show that current average highs are 5.7 degrees higher than "normal" here.

Then, take the lowest number and highest number in the Record High column and notice the range of temperatures warmer than normal in said column.

These temperatures range between 8.2 and 15.2 degrees warmer than the "normal" Average High.

Thus, even if the temps were 6.1 (did you ever consider the possibility of math error?) degrees higher than normal, it still is cooler currently than in the historical records.

Please try again. :)
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 13, 2010
My bad- I thought that you might go to the trouble of selecting the January data from the drop-down. How thoughtless of me. For January- 6.1 degrees ABOVE normal average. February 5.7 degrees ABOVE normal average(so far)....


Nope. The February page says for the temperatures so far:
Temperatures for February 1 - 11 are averaging 3.3 degrees above normal --- the mean average temperature is 46.0 degrees compared to the normal 42.7 degrees. The average daily high is running 3.0 degrees above normal at 51.5 degrees compared to the normal 48.5 degrees.


3.3 and 3.0 respectively, not 5.7 so far, for February. 5.7 is for January.

The average high for January was 5.7 degrees higher than the observed average for this year. The 6.1 figure appears at present to be a potential math error. Irrespective of the problems with the data in the link you provided, current average highs still are a range of 2.5 - 12.5 degrees cooler than the range of historical averages overall.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 13, 2010
Record highs for a single day do not equate to average daily temperature. 6.1 or 5.7 above daily average temp-either way- this is still well above the normal average for this time of year, and at least for January, establishes a new record for the average temperature for the month.

At this point- if not earlier- the only thing being demonstrated here is that we, both of us, are stubborn. I suggest that we disengage over this issue. I'm sure that there will be many more opportunities to debate in future. Agreed?
VeIanarris
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2010
Well pointed out Caliban. It's a waste of time discussing anything with the knob-end dachpy. He will only try and make sure he has the last word even though his points are erroneous, innacurate or just plain lies. It's his fantasy world, let him cook in it on his own.
dachpyarvile
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 14, 2010
Record highs for a single day do not equate to average daily temperature. 6.1 or 5.7 above daily average temp-either way- this is still well above the normal average for this time of year, and at least for January, establishes a new record for the average temperature for the month.
...


It is true that record highs for a day do not translate out to average daily temperatures. But, then, I never said that they did, now did I?

This is why I gave a range rather than averaging out all the record highs. But, once again, the rise here is not unexpected with El Nino conditions after a strong La Nina. I expect that it may well get rather warm this year but there were a lot of data plots that actually sat rather close to normal as well as residing within normal ranges for both January and February--as was shown in the charts I linked.

It's too bad that KSEA station does not have charts from 1997-1998 publically available for comparison. It would have been instructive to all.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 14, 2010
On second thought, it would have been of more considerable interest to compare data from 1934 as well 1998.

According to NASA--and depending upon which data (corrected or uncorrected) are used--1934 and 1998 were the hottest years on record.

I tried to pull charted data from KSEA for 1934 from another web site and got "DATA NOT AVAILABLE."

Oh well...maybe I can find something elsewhere of interest.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Feb 14, 2010
Rather, this is proof of your inability to accept that you are wrong. Have another look :

http://www.beauti...hsum.asp

You might want to take a look at the historical data on that site for the month of February.

I started back at 98 and worked forward. It appears the area mentioned varies from 2 degrees above to 2 degrees below average almost every 2 or three years. I don't really see any sort of a trend, just the noise of seasonal variance.

The interesting piece is that Seattle seems to always have a very wet January, and the wetter the following February the warmer the measurement is.
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 14, 2010
I made two statements relevant to the substance of the debate here:

1. That temperatures here in Seattle(and the area) were well above average/record for the first few weeks of 2010.
2. That while remaining logically consistent, citing record cold in one part of the country as evidence contrary(I understood this may have been sarcasm) to GW isn't valid if another part is at the same time experiencing record warm.

Both assertions are true.

I leave you with that. Feel free to have the last word. Indeed -be my guest.
dachpyarvile
2 / 5 (4) Feb 15, 2010
I have no desire to have the last word, per se, but I would like to add the following information to the discussion before closing.

This is not the first time that observed mean temperature data has exceeded the normals in the Seattle-Tacoma area and outlying areas. Take a look at the following charted data, dated January 1934 (also branded the hottest year in US temperature records, closely followed by 1998):

http://docs.lib.n...1-c1.pdf

Take a quick look as to where temperatures were above normal in your area, ranging from +6 to +8 degrees above normal at close proximity.

I once again would like to thank the NOAA Central Library Data Imaging Project for making this information available.

Well above record? At 5.7 degrees above normal compared to 6-8 degrees above normal in the same region in 1934, I think not. Any further thoughts you would like to add to support your position?

I told you I would find something else interesting. :)
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 15, 2010
1. That temperatures here in Seattle(and the area) were well above average/record for the first few weeks of 2010.
First, that's weather, not climate. Second, that's not true according to your own dataset.

2. That while remaining logically consistent, citing record cold in one part of the country as evidence contrary(I understood this may have been sarcasm) to GW isn't valid if another part is at the same time experiencing record warm.
Again this is a weather statement, not a climate statement, and you're not being logically consistent.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.