Since we are having what now seems to be a record cold, I thought I’d take a look at record temperatures in Boston as reported by the Weather Channel. The earliest record temperatures they report are for 1872. In that year, there were seven days with record lows. On March 5, 1872 , it went down to -4 and on March 6, 1872 to -8.
More record highs than lows. I chewed up the data and looked at record temperatures since 2000. Since 2000, there have been 7 days with record lows. On the other hand, since 2000, there have been 45 days with record highs.
If we take the decade 1930-1939, on the other hand, there are 31 days with record lows and 37 days with record highs. For the decade 1910-1919, we get 22 record highs and 25 record lows.
This is what we’d expect to see with accelerating global warming. We don’t expect record lows to disappear entirely, but we do expect there to be more record highs than lows. At this point, we’re getting over six times as many record highs as record lows.
Why we might not remember record highs. Take the most recent year that shows up: 2012. In 2012, there were no record lows but the following days had record highs:
March 8 68°
March 12 71°
March 18 74°
March 19 74°
March 22 83°
April 16 87°
June 21 96°
Record cold temperatures in the winter are very easy to remember, but the very warm spring in 2012 likely does not stick in people’s minds. For example, a day in March where the temperature reaches 74° simply feels “pleasant”.
The highs are higher and the lows less severe. Likewise, over this period, the record high averages 23.5° higher than the average high, but the record lows average only 19.7° lower than the average low. If you look at years after 1995, this disparity also gets warmer. The record highs grow to being 25.3° warmer than the average highs for the days, but the record lows shrink to being only 18° lower.
Christopher says
..especially in the Midwest.
Meanwhile, Lowell will hit the forties in the next couple of days.
danfromwaltham says
I described the whole global warming/climate change as hype, drama, and overrated. I found two articles, on by MIT Professor Richard Lindzen. IMO, he is the “Alpha Dawg” on this subject. The other link explains logarithmic regime, which I never heard of until now and wanted to run it by everyone here.
We all agree the has been an increase in global temps, less than 1 degree Celsius over past 200 years. And most agree climate is always changing. Some say a warming of 1 degree is beneficial.
According to Prof. Lindzen, “There is agreement that CO{-2} in the atmosphere is increasing, and that current levels are about 35 percent greater than pre-industrial levels; there is agreement that much of this increase is probably the result of industrial emissions.
There is agreement that, when combined with other increasing greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.), the total man-made greenhouse forcing is about 80 percent of what one expects from a doubling of CO{-2}. That is to say, we are effectively pretty close to a doubling of CO{-2} in terms of greenhouse impact.
While there is significant disagreement as to whether feedbacks will diminish or amplify the effect of CO{-2}, there is virtually no disagreement that the impact of each added amount of CO{-2} diminishes relative to earlier amounts. This is referred to as the logarithmic regime.”
That’s critical, no? If I understand Prof. Lindzen, we can double our CO2 output, yet the impact on global temps is much much less, due to logarithmic regime. Basically if you have have a pair of sunglasses, each block 50% of the UV rays, if you put both of them on, you don’t block 100%. Same thing applies with CO2 output.
I ask those that are open-minded, to read the links provided. I would then go on YouTube and search Richard Lindzen. He is a brilliant man who is even keeled. He points out Kyoto would have no discernible impact. He further adds regarding extreme climate control initiatives that “All such measures would have negative impacts on income, development, the environment and food availability and cost — especially for the poor. That these measures are endorsed by the environmental movement is hardly reassuring. The movement has racked up an impressive record of endorsing measures that have led to the death and debilitation of millions of the world’s most vulnerable. The complete banning of DDT, leaving millions vulnerable to deadly malaria, is a notable but not unique example.
http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/commentary/20131011-richard-lindzen-science-agrees-on-warming-not-alarm.ece
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/co2-is-logarithmic-explained-3/
Mark L. Bail says
Dan, it’s not who’s the “alpha dawg,” it’s the science that matters. Lindzen is a rarity in that he’s a climate scientist who actually denies global warming. He may be the alpha dog denier, but that’s it. Read a little about him.
And then read the debunking of the logorithmic relationship.
Despite the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and surface temperatures, atmospheric CO2 levels are rising so fast that unless we dramatically decrease our emissions, global warming will accelerate over the 21st Century.
Christopher says
…but I’ve also long thought that even if the deniers about the warming trend were, for the sake of argument, correct some of us would still like to breathe. I don’t need to look at global temperature trends to know that air pollution is bad for all of us, of whatever species we are.
Mark L. Bail says
two weeks, I’ve had time. I also prefer to not let Dan’s bullshit unchallenged.
kbusch says
The comment, ” IMO, he is the “Alpha Dawg” on this subject,” comes from someone who has rotted his mind with too much television. We learn that Professor Lindzen, whatever he asserts, is a compelling TV character and as such, people should listen. Why he is a modern day Chuck Norris of science!
kbusch says
Who here believes that DFW even understands what a logarithm is?
So debating him is going to accomplish what exactly?
John Tehan says
When he tuns out of coal, he uses firewood, which requires him to throw logs into the stove at regular intervals – log-a-rhythm!
SomervilleTom says
Dr. Lindzen hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science in a very long time — screeds such as you quote are easier to get published and collect more money (from right-wing sources).
This argument, like all others you offer here, has been rebutted over and over.
This is just more denier rubbish.
kirth says
when he says “and collect more money” –
THE KOCH BROTHERS: FUNDING $67,042,064 TO GROUPS DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE SINCE 1997
petr says
Lindzens’ argument (such as it is) is a little more subtle than “we’re all good” and relies more on your favorite sport, high moral dudgeon, than sound science. It’s actually a lesson to us all.
Lindzen does not say climate change isn’t a problem. In fact he’s saying, and to an extent I agree, that knee jerk efforts to mitigate the problem are possibly either ineffectual or actually more harmful in the short term. He’s saying that in the short term alarm is a bigger problem.
If I think that short term thinking got us into this problem in the first place, I actually, if I’m honest, must agree.
Where he goes wrong, IMHO, is that he has concocted mathematics that tries to tell us that the short term isn’t as short as we think. He has done this in response to the alarm and not in response to the science.
kirth says
Climate change is not the only thing he’s in denial about:
geoffm33 says
On the road, haven’t had time to read all of this, but here is a collection of articles on Lindzen. From my very brief search he appears to be well known for relying on flawed data to deny the impact of climate change.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Richard_Lindzen_link.htm
John Tehan says
…that his research isn’t funded by the fossil fuel industry. While technically true, the complete truth is that his fossil fuel advocacy is funded by the fossil fuel industry – in other words, he’s a lying hack.
Mark L. Bail says
That’s what I linked to on the logorithm schtick.
kbusch says
1872 1872 1872 1872 1872 1872 1872 1873 1873 1873 1873 1873 1874 1874 1874 1874
1874 1874 1874 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875 1875
1875 1875 1876 1876 1876 1876 1876 1876 1876 1876 1878 1878 1879 1879 1879 1879
1879 1879 1879 1879 1879 1879 1880 1880 1880 1880 1880 1880 1880 1881 1881 1881
1881 1881 1881 1881 1881 1881 1881 1882 1882 1882 1882 1882 1882 1882 1882 1882
1882 1882 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1883 1884 1884 1884
1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1884 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1885 1886 1886 1886
1886 1886 1886 1886 1887 1887 1888 1888 1888 1888 1888 1888 1888 1888 1888 1890
1890 1890 1890 1890 1890 1891 1891 1892 1892 1893 1893 1893 1894 1894 1894 1894
1894 1895 1895 1895 1896 1896 1896 1896 1896 1897 1898 1898 1899 1899 1899 1899
1899 1900 1900 1900 1900 1901 1901 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902 1902 1903 1903
1904 1904 1904 1904 1904 1905 1905 1906 1906 1907 1907 1907 1907 1907 1908 1909
1909 1909 1911 1913 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1914 1915 1915 1916 1917 1917
1917 1918 1918 1918 1918 1918 1919 1919 1919 1919 1919 1920 1920 1920 1920 1920
1921 1922 1923 1923 1923 1923 1924 1924 1926 1926 1926 1927 1928 1928 1929 1929
1929 1930 1932 1932 1932 1932 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1934 1934 1934
1934 1934 1935 1935 1935 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1936 1938 1938 1938 1939 1939
1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1940 1942 1942 1942 1943 1943 1943 1943 1943 1945
1945 1945 1946 1946 1947 1947 1947 1947 1947 1950 1950 1950 1950 1950 1954 1954
1956 1957 1958 1960 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1964 1965 1965 1965 1965 1967 1967
1967 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1974 1974 1974 1974 1977 1978 1979 1979 1979
1980 1980 1981 1981 1982 1982 1984 1984 1985 1985 1986 1986 1988 1988 1988 1992
1992 1992 1993 1993 1997 1999 2000 2002 2004 2004 2004 2007 2007
kbusch says
1876 1878 1879 1879 1879 1880 1880 1880 1880 1880 1880 1881 1881 1881 1881 1881
1881 1882 1882 1885 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1892 1894 1894 1894 1895 1895 1895
1895 1896 1896 1897 1897 1899 1899 1900 1900 1906 1906 1906 1907 1908 1909 1909
1910 1911 1911 1911 1911 1911 1913 1913 1914 1914 1915 1915 1916 1916 1916 1917
1918 1918 1918 1919 1919 1919 1920 1920 1921 1921 1922 1922 1922 1922 1923 1923
1924 1925 1925 1925 1926 1927 1927 1927 1928 1928 1928 1928 1929 1929 1929 1930
1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1930 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931 1931
1932 1932 1932 1932 1932 1933 1933 1933 1933 1933 1936 1937 1937 1937 1938 1938
1938 1939 1939 1939 1941 1941 1942 1943 1944 1944 1944 1944 1944 1944 1944 1945
1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1945 1946 1946 1946 1946 1946 1947 1947 1947 1947 1947
1948 1948 1948 1949 1949 1949 1949 1949 1950 1950 1950 1951 1951 1951 1952 1952
1952 1953 1953 1953 1953 1953 1954 1954 1955 1955 1955 1955 1955 1957 1957 1957
1957 1957 1957 1959 1959 1959 1959 1961 1961 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963 1963
1964 1964 1964 1966 1967 1969 1971 1971 1973 1973 1973 1974 1974 1974 1974 1975
1975 1975 1975 1975 1976 1976 1976 1976 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1977 1979 1979
1979 1979 1979 1981 1981 1981 1981 1982 1982 1982 1982 1982 1983 1983 1983 1983
1983 1983 1983 1983 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1984 1985 1986 1986 1987 1988
1988 1989 1989 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990
1990 1990 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1993 1993 1993 1993 1994
1995 1995 1995 1995 1996 1996 1997 1998 1998 1998 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999 1999
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002
2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2007 2008 2009 2009 2009
2009 2009 2010 2010 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012 2012
kbusch says
There are many more unsurpassed record lows from the nineteenth century than record highs.
Charley on the MTA says
That is all.
Christopher says
…has a good article about what’s going on, and yes, it addresses the temptation some might have to question global warming on its account.