A new study has determined that the number of record high
temperatures over the last decade outpaces the number of record
lows by two to one. 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. (©UCAR, graphic by Mike Shibao.)
A new study from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) determined that the number of record high temperatures over the last decade was much greater than the number of record low temperatures. The study authors said that the results were evidence of climate change’s effect in our weather.
Analyzing millions of readings from surface stations across the country, the record highs outnumbered the lows by two to one. From January 1, 2000 to September 30, 2009, there were 291,237 record high temperatures set versus 142,420 record lows. If the climate were not warming the authors said, the number of record highs and lows would be roughly equal.
"Climate change is making itself felt in terms of day-to-day weather in the United States," Gerald Meehl, the lead author and a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) said in a press release. "The ways these records are being broken show how our climate is already shifting."
NCAR said that with fewer low temperature records being set, it indicates that much of the warming occurs during nighttime. "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."
The authors employed quality control processes to account for missing and inconsistent data, station locations and other factors. This however has done little to satisfy those who believe the United States’ climate record has been corrupted by station moves, the encroachment of development on the stations and poor quality control.
As an example, in Denver, NOAA moved the official monitoring station for the city 14 miles when Denver International Airport opened in 1995. Data analysis has shown that the new station continually reports warmer temperatures that stations closer to the old location. As a result, many believe the city’s climate record has been corrupted.
Further, problems with many of the 1,800 surface stations have been well documented. Stations located near buildings, large expanses of pavement or air conditioners will not report properly. Many of the stations fail to meet NOAA’s own standards.
The authors concede that using NCAR’s own Community Climate System Model, the number of record high temperatures was overstated compared to what was actually realized. This will further fuel the fire of doubters of manmade climate change who believe the models on which climate policy is made are faulty.
The authors however believe their study is accurate. "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."
Climate Change Examiner Facebook Page Climate Change Examiner on Twitter
Or be notified by email when a new article from the Climate Change Examiner is posted.
Click the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.
Comments
"The study authors said that the results were evidence of climate change’s effect in our weather."
Are we to believe that the climate we have become accustomed to is the climate that is "normal" for the planet?
Such a statement as quotes is fraught with errors of omission.
The planet has never been static. It can ONLY be in one of two states. Warming or cooling. The records we have from the ice cores only go back 400,000 years or so, a few minutes in geologic time.
I truly believe the gw/cc crown believe they are so important in the world that they must, by any means necessary, keep the globe just as it is now, in their short time on the planet.
I find that to be insane.
Look at what has happened when the planet COOLED by a handful of degrees. Thousands died of starvation and disease. Is this what they want?
Just what do they think the optimal temperature is? Is there one? Why?
Thank God it warmed 12000 years ago. We would not be here otherwise.
Rubbish complete rubbish. There have been scores of posts on here that provide the exact opposite results. People will pimp for anything given enough money. Right Al?
Heh Chilled,
Might wanna recheck your facts. H*mo sapiens have been around for about 200,000 years, the first proto-Neanderthals appeared in Europe 350,000 to 600,000 years ago, and the first H*mo genus species appeared about 2.5 million years ago.
We survived periods of both hot and cold in the past, and I suspect breeding pairs will survive the worst of any possible futures from AGW. However, civilization likely won't make it and we'll be back to clans and tribes.
[For whatever reason, the Examiner.com Language Nanny thinks the genus of we humans to be inappropriate language.]
Ken Grubb says: Heh Chilled, Might wanna recheck your facts.
Then goes into the age of modern man.
Where did I say anything about that? What facts did I have wrong?
When I said "Thank God it warmed 12000 years ago. We would not be here otherwise" I meant ACTUALLY here, in the north east US.
It was under miles of ice to southern Pennsylvania.
Your wacked!
Analyzing millions of readings from surface stations across the country....
We don't have to quibble about locations-
We have satellites these days- for the last 30 years in fact, that are far more accurate and don't have to be 'adjusted' for the well known and very large Urban Heat Island effect- they show no such warming-and quite a bit of cooling in the last decade. Actually that is one way we know conclusively that surface readings are warming biased.
As Chilled notes- this is unfortunate, as cooling is a very bad thing with actual negative effects. The optimum temp may be over 2C higher than today (according to the IPCC) and unfortunately our Co2 emissions alone are nowhere near powerful enough to achieve that, as it would require a quadrupling of Co2 levels.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!