2007’s Weird and Wacky Weather
Everything else aside, 2007 was one for the weird weather. The moment that the ball dropped in New York’s Times Square, everything went to hell in a handbasket. Thanks to the Associated Press, let’s take a look at some of the stats and stories that made this year depressingly weird; weather and environment wise.
It was definitely a year for records, and not necessarily the good kind. January was the our warmest ever first month on record, topping in at 1.53 degrees above normal. It was the first time since record keeping began back in 1880 that a months average temperature was so far above the norm.
According to an AP analysis of U.S. weather data, a total of 263 all-time high temperature records were broken or tied in 2007. In August alone, 8,000 new heat records were broken or tied in the US alone. In addition that same month saw more than a hundred all time records broken, regardless of month. Either for the highest temperature or the warmest low temperature by night, it was definitely a weird August for America.
What’s a little more disheartening about that is that only 14 all time low temperature records were set or tied all year along, as of the beginning of December, according to records kept by the National Climatic Data Center.
For an example of what seemed to be an overall trend across the country, on August 10 the town of Portland, Tennessee, reached 102 degrees. This tied the record for the hottest it had ever been for them. However only 6 days later and it hit 103 and a new record was set, only to be broken the next day when the mercury climbed up to 105.
Plentiful triple digit temperatures definitely took their toll, according to public safety director George West, who pointed to the states 15 heat-related deaths in August. But Portland definitely wasn’t alone in their suffering, with weather stations in 35 states setting or tying all time heat records in 2007.
Weird weather was the theme though across the entire planet. A tornado touched down in New York City in August, prompting the banner headline “This ain’t Kansas!” The Middle East copped it too with an unlikely cyclone spinning up in June to hit Oman and Iran. Australia suffered through its worst drought in a hundred years, allowing for environment to become an election issue which seemed to be a major factor in the ousting of now-ex-Prime Minister John Howard.
But water was just as much a problem across the planet in either quantities that were too large or too small.
Atlanta only just missed out on having its driest year on record thanks to a late year rainfall, coupled with its main water source, Lake Lanier, shrinking to an all time low. Lake Okeechobee, crucial to south Florida, dropped to its lowest level in recorded history in May while Lake Superior, the largest of the Great Lakes, dropped to its lowest August and September levels.
But record rains were also a problem in some areas, with Reunion Island, 400 miles east of Africa, suffering from a world record rainfall. In 72 hours, it maxed out with 155 inches of rainfall, breaking the world record for that amount of rainfall in that time period. Other locations, like China, England and Wales, all saw record rainfalls this year as well.
But when you put all of that up on the wall, it still pales into insignificance against what happened in the Arctic this year. I won’t harp on it, because we’ve already covered it, but the simple fact is that we saw for the first time in human history an unfrozen Northwest Passage. The Arctic sea-ice diminished to record levels, and still hasn’t recovered in the current winter.
I’ve been accused of lying by several readers who don’t like what I write here amongst the Green Options network of blogs. The darker shade of marsupial definitely doesn’t like what I have to say, and requires I make amends for everything seen as incorrect. I don’t report anything other than the truth, and always from respected scientists in their respected fields.
So as I finish, let’s turn to Europe’s top climate expert, Phil Jones, director of the climate research unit at the University of East Anglia in England. He says that while individual weather extremes can’t be attributed to global warming, “it’s the run of them and the different locations” that have the mark of man-made climate change plastered all over them.
Enough said!
Stats courtesy of AP via MSNBC - 2007 a year of climate surprises
Hi Joshua
You Wrote: “I’ve been accused of lying by several readers who don’t like what I write here amongst the Green Options network of blogs. The darker shade of marsupial definitely doesn’t like what I have to say, and requires I make amends for everything seen as incorrect. I don’t report anything other than the truth, and always from respected scientists in their respected fields.”
I’m unaware of anyone accusing you of lying, but some of us rationalists have a problem with you selecting say a press release and hyping it in your own way, maybe to try and hone your skills in journalism. The biggest problem is that you tend to report things in isolation, and some of us have asked questions like: Are you aware of this “other report”? A case in point is your article:
“Small Coalition of US Scientists Still Believe Global Warming Not Man-Made”
You discuss a yet unpublished report, naming three scientist authors. (BTW, have you read it yet?). The spin was: “there are a still a few hold outs”, i.e. these three scientists belong to a nearly extinct species. However, what about the recent letter to the UN Secretary General by about 100 concerned scientists, and in 2006 the 60 concerned scientists who wrote to the Canadian Prime Minister, all along the same lines as the three scorned authors?
When you say; “I don’t report anything other than the truth, and always from respected scientists in their respected fields;” you are also assuming that your sources are the truth, but how can you know that? What do you do when report a) contradicts report b)? Pick the one you like best, and assume that the other is untrue? I could for instance quote you a NASA release that you would probably respect as a journalist, but to a scientist it is risible!
Why don’t you respond to comments by rationalists?
Black Wallaby, and anyone else who ends up reading this… I first of all want to thank each of you for continually keeping me honest. Though I may not respond to each of your criticisms, notes or arguments, I do take each on board. As for you personally being unaware of someone calling me a liar, thankfully, you do not have access to my email (right?)…
However a common thread in the comments that make themselves my way, is someone pointing me towards this or that report.
I have no doubt that there are dozens if not hundreds of reports out there that will challenge everything from global warming to the health value of cucumbers. But the fact is that an overwhelmingly large portion of scientists back global warming.
You mention that opinions do not matter, and I agree. This is all about the scientific fact, and there is nothing but observational evidence, nothing hard that we humans prefer to get our hands on.
But once again, the simple fact is that the majority of scientists have provided evidence to back up man-made global warming. A couple of hundred scientists coming out and declaring their opposition to man-made global warming is worth of all our attention, but in the greater scheme of things, what percentage is that?
Once again I thank you for your comments, and I promise that I will always report only on the facts. As for when reports contradict, I usually mention both. I do not pick the one I like best, and your continued insinuations that my journalistic integrity comes above the truth is insulting at best.
As for calling yourself a rationalist? Is it rational to put yourself up against overwhelming proof? I should think not…
Josh
Jason Leggett has an interesting post up yesterday at Celsias looking at one case of scientific opposition to the consensus on climate change. Don’t know if this directly addresses the reports you mention, BW, but it does provide some good criteria for judging the opposition.
Hi Josh,
I’m surprised that when you wrote about the 3 scientists, implying that they were the sole surviving sceptics, that you were unaware of the hundreds of others that basically share their view. Unfortunately, it can give a wrong impression to your readers. BTW, I did not include the Inhofe 400 report of a later date
Two sides of a complex argument can be rational, regardless of the numbers on each side.
When you say there is overwhelming proof of AGW, you seem to be misinformed and to be inadvertently passing-on the same misinformation. This claim can only be made when there is some evidence not relying on very dubious computer models. These models are based on an array of assumptions, for some of which the IPCC admits having a low level of understanding. Take in comparison the much simpler and less assumptive meteorological models which frequently fail a far less challenging task.
Have you also noticed that the IPCC admits that their OPINION of significant human cause carries a 10% uncertainty? There is actually no PROOF of significant human cause, but a lot of people have faith or stated opinions that there is.
You probably misunderstand why some sceptics get involved. I have several reasons for questioning the influence of a relatively tiny amount of CO2; (Measured in PARTS PER MILLION).
1) The money should be spent on real issues where many millions of lives ARE AFFECTED, especially in Africa…. you know…. things like clean water, disease and starvation etc.
2) I HATE seeing so-called scientists lying or exaggerating to achieve their political agenda.
3) Such a crime was the “deletion” of the Middle Age Warm Period in the 2001 IPCC report!
Regards, Black Wallaby
Hi Jeff, Reur Jan 3:
Thanks for the advice about Jason’s new blog at Celsias. It’s a bit stale though, because I’m already following the same topic, (The Inhofe 400) at three other sites from way-back December 21, so am not all that interested.
Also, Jason appears to abandoning blogs if he is eventually cornered with a question that he cannot answer without conceding.
Your own blog “Greenland” which eventually got up to 515 comments, and Jason’s, global temperatures at Celsias were two examples. He also deserted the debate under similar circumstances at his Reasic a long time before closing the site down. Consequently, there does not seem to be much value in joining a new debate with him.
Regards, Black Wallaby (BobFJ)
Joshua Hill has an uncanny talent for getting it wrong every time.
Wow! How does he do it?
He mentions to Black Wallaby that “this is all about the scientific fact, and there is nothing but observational evidence”.
In his blog where he is promising us “that he will always report only on the facts”, he is attempting to demonstrate to us that 2007 was a year of unusual heat.
Was it? Let’s check “the facts”.
In January 2007 the UK Meteorological Office predicted that 2007 would be “the hottest year on record”.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/01/04/phew_what_a_scorcher/
Met office scientist Katie Hopkins said: “This new information represents another warning that climate change is happening around the world.”
The article went on to say, “The long-term prognosis is alarming. As Reuters puts it: ‘Most scientists agree that temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius this century due mainly to carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels for power and transport.’”
It’s great to be able to predict a whole year’s average temperature, and even to predict that it will be a “record hot year”.
Let’s move to “the observational evidence” (as Joshua calls it) to see how well the UK’s Meteorological Office really did.
Under the eye-catching headline, “2007 ’second warmest year’ in UK”, BBC tells us what really happened on a global scale.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7169690.stm
Turns out the top 10 were (from hottest to coolest): 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2001, 1997 and 1995.
OOPS! So, despite the eye-catching headline, the “observational evidence” shows us that 2007 was number seven out of ten and not the “record hot year” at all. If you only take the years in the 21st century, 2007 ranked only number six out of seven, so it was kind of a “blooper”.
Latest projections by the UK Met tell us that 2008 will be a “super blooper” and even colder. Break out the woolies, Joshua.
So much for “overwhelming proof” of global warming, as Joshua puts it, and for predicting temperature for a whole YEAR in advance.
But cheer up, Joshua, as the article said IPCC’s scientists can predict (or project, as they prefer to call it) that “temperatures will rise by between two and six degrees Celsius” a whole CENTURY in advance.
They can’t get it right one year in advance, but they will be spot on 100 years in advance?
Too bad none of us (including Joshua) will be around in 2100 to see how well (or poorly) they actually did.
Max