In article , "James" wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
roups.com...
"I imagine the data is such that even if Dec. is not the warmest,
the year will still be." --- Lloyd Parker

You're right, Lloyd. The data are he
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt


GLOBAL COOLING?
Coldest December
since late 1800s?
Meteorologist's claim comes on heels of climate-warming summit in Canada

Posted: December 13, 2005
9:42 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A weather expert says December 2005 is on pace to become one of the 10
coldest in more than 100 years, despite claims at a global conference on
climate change this week that the Earth is getting warmer.

Joe *******i, senior meteorologist with Accuweather.com, says present
weather patterns across the country show below-normal temperatures in the
single digits, with still colder air forecast in the coming weeks.


All told, he said, "the current look and pace may bring December 2005 in as
a top 10 month for cold Decembers nationwide since the late 1800s."

Some examples of the abnormally cold temps include: Omaha, Neb., (17.5
degrees below normal); Indianapolis, Ind., (14.1 degrees below normal);
Chicago, Ill., (13.9 degrees below normal); and Denver, Colo., (11.9 degrees
below normal).

Hmmm... another person who doesn't know the meaning of "global" obviously.


"The cold is widespread, with below-normal temperatures recorded from
eastern Washington and Oregon south into Texas and into the Northeast," said
the weather service.

And that's the globe, I guess.


And it could get worse. Accuweather.com "is forecasting another week of
unseasonably cold weather, with the potential for another major snowstorm
developing on Wednesday."

While the current weather pattern may be considered anecdotal by some, it is
timely nonetheless, as it comes on the heels of a United Nations-sponsored
event in which most of the more than 150 nations participating claimed the
world is getting warmer - a phenomenon most blamed on the United States.

Washington was the most frequent target of criticism over the course of the
two-week summit in Montreal, Canada, where participants blamed the U.S. for
being the world's largest contributor of harmful atmospheric emissions some
experts say are increasing, on average, global temperatures.

One such critic is former President Bill Clinton, who called the Bush
administration "flat wrong" for saying enforcement of a global
emissions-reduction treaty - the so-called Kyoto Protocols, after the city
in Japan where they were negotiated - would harm the U.S. economy.

Clinton said global warming has been proven by mounting evidence of
melting ice caps, retreating glaciers and rising carbon dioxide levels in
the atmosphere.

"We are uncertain about how deep and the time of arrival of the
consequences, but we are quite clear that they will not be good," he said in
a speech that reportedly upset U.S. delegates to the conference.

Others aren't so sure.

State climatologist George Taylor of Oregon told the Washington Post recent
data suggesting the Earth could warm from 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100
are "mighty preliminary."

It's already warming.


"I just don't trust it," he said.



"That pesky data. Can't trust it. Why look what happened when Bush trusted
data that Iraq had WMD!"

"Lloyd Parker" wrote in message
...
In article , "James"
wrote:

"Roger Coppock" wrote in message
roups.com...
"I imagine the data is such that even if Dec. is not the warmest,
the year will still be." --- Lloyd Parker

You're right, Lloyd. The data are he
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt


GLOBAL COOLING?
Coldest December
since late 1800s?
Meteorologist's claim comes on heels of climate-warming summit in Canada

Posted: December 13, 2005
9:42 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A weather expert says December 2005 is on pace to become one of the 10
coldest in more than 100 years, despite claims at a global conference on
climate change this week that the Earth is getting warmer.

Joe *******i, senior meteorologist with Accuweather.com, says present
weather patterns across the country show below-normal temperatures in the
single digits, with still colder air forecast in the coming weeks.


All told, he said, "the current look and pace may bring December 2005 in
as
a top 10 month for cold Decembers nationwide since the late 1800s."

Some examples of the abnormally cold temps include: Omaha, Neb., (17.5
degrees below normal); Indianapolis, Ind., (14.1 degrees below normal);
Chicago, Ill., (13.9 degrees below normal); and Denver, Colo., (11.9
degrees
below normal).

Hmmm... another person who doesn't know the meaning of "global" obviously.


Hmmm, that's what I thought when you people were posting all those heat
stories.

Actually, it's traditional in meteorological statistics to start the
year on December 1, so that the winter season (traditionally DJF) isn't
split across two years.

They might have waited with the press release another couple of weeks
to keep this confusion out of the foreground, but there's nothing
underhanded about it. The data for 1998, the previous record holder
also ran from Dec 1 of the prior year to Nov 30.

See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/1998/

"A meteorological year runs from the beginning of winter to the end of
autumn, and so the 1998 meteorological year started on Dec. 1, 1997,
and ended on Nov. 30, 1998".

mt

Michael Tobis wrote:
Actually, it's traditional in meteorological statistics to start the
year on December 1, so that the winter season (traditionally DJF) isn't
split across two years.

They might have waited with the press release another couple of weeks
to keep this confusion out of the foreground, but there's nothing
underhanded about it. The data for 1998, the previous record holder
also ran from Dec 1 of the prior year to Nov 30.

See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/1998/

"A meteorological year runs from the beginning of winter to the end of
autumn, and so the 1998 meteorological year started on Dec. 1, 1997,
and ended on Nov. 30, 1998".

mt


One thing it is is bad reporting. A person putting
out a press release should define terms. And the
scientist behind the work should make sure the
terms are defined.


Scott

"Scott" wrote in message
...

See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/1998/

"A meteorological year runs from the beginning of winter to the end of
autumn, and so the 1998 meteorological year started on Dec. 1, 1997,
and ended on Nov. 30, 1998".

One thing it is is bad reporting. A person putting
out a press release should define terms.

I agree.

And the
scientist behind the work should make sure the
terms are defined.

They should try, and I'm positive in 90+% of the cases they do, but once the
reporter hangs up the phone it is a bit out of the interviewee's control,
don't you think?

--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck wrote:
"Scott" wrote in message
...


See http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/1998/

"A meteorological year runs from the beginning of winter to the end of
autumn, and so the 1998 meteorological year started on Dec. 1, 1997,
and ended on Nov. 30, 1998".

One thing it is is bad reporting. A person putting
out a press release should define terms.


I agree.


And the
scientist behind the work should make sure the
terms are defined.


They should try, and I'm positive in 90+% of the cases they do, but once the
reporter hangs up the phone it is a bit out of the interviewee's control,
don't you think?


True enough. So the scientist should be pretty
insistent on their inclusion.


Scott

More than once during my career as a scientist, I was
only half-quoted in the press, and it was always words
of qualification that the press removed.

Roger Coppock wrote:

More than once during my career as a scientist, I was
only half-quoted in the press, and it was always words
of qualification that the press removed.

Half-quoted? You were lucky they quoted that much!

Graham