Check the data for the Black Hills and you'll see we were below normal temps for 2010 winter/spring. Minneapolis/St.Paul are 600 miles from us.

It has been an unusually warm spring, both globally and in the specific location for which you are claiming to it was not. This is empirical, verifiable data. You are wrong, a frequent occurrence when you just make stuff up.

Your full of it.
It's something that happens when you try to transpose data for one area to another specific area.

Ask anyone else from around here about our unusually warm winter/spring we had this year and they'll laugh in your face.

edit;
After looking at your maps you provided I have to ask, do you know where the Black Hills are?
You have two people that live in this area that are telling you it was a below normal temps this winter/ spring.
Keep looking macro instead of micro.

The winter temps. show colder than normal.
April shows colder. than normal.

They can laugh in my face all they want. I have what we in the science world call "data".

http://www.weather.gov/...tclimate.php?wfo=unr



Of course, this has nothing to do with the truth of climate change - local weather is important only insofar as it effects large scale metrics, and on this measure you seem to have conceded that global temperatures were abnormally high. What this does demonstrate, however, is that you're willing to repeat unsupported assertions because they support your political viewpoint.

And if you live in the Black Hills and still somehow think they're labeled as colder than usual in the April temperature anomaly map, you need more of a lesson on where they are than I do.

And for the kicker, it's "you're full of it", not "your full of it". I don't have any idea what you mean when you say "transpose data from one area to another specific area" - I think you're just trying to sound learned. It's not working.

April 2010 was the warmest on record, and the combined January-April was the warmest on record.

Sadly Joseph, your post is the one that reaks of zealotry. Then again, zealots are never deterred by facts ... please educate yourself rather than relying on faulty, pseudo-historic analogies.

"Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. Global surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F)during the last century.[1][A] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation are responsible for most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century.[1] The IPCC also concludes that natural phenomena such as solar variation and volcanoes produced most of the warming from pre-industrial times to 1950 and had a small cooling effect afterward.[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by more than 45 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

...

And you have what we in the real world call flawed and manipulated data.

You can't see the forest for the trees can you.

The ski is falling, the sky is falling.
Compared to what? Can I pick the years to compare them to?

Your empirical data is subjective, which in a nutshell means it is not empirical. Those temps from the data you have provided are subjected to be compared to the years 1961-1990. How do they stand up against are last ten years?, how about between 1930-1944? How about you compare this years winter/spring to 2002-2008.
Your link above to RC airport is broken so I can't tell in what context the data relates to.

The temps you are supplying also are an average between the high for the day and the low for the day, and then compared to a specific limited time in the past. If the temp was 10 degrees for 23 hours, then for one hour it raised to 30, the mean temp for that day they record is 20 degrees. Skewed data for an argument, not empirical.

You're also transposing those temps that are read at the RC regional airport (2 miles east of RC) to the Black Hills. In layman terms just for you, you can not take the temps that are recorded two miles out on to the prairie and pretend they are the same temps you would get miles away and at elevations in the hills. A misrepresentation, but that's what alarmist do.

While I have no doubt that world wide temps are on the rise to some extent, I can't say for fact if it's a matter of man made manipulation or if it just a 10 or 1000 year quirk in global weather patterns. You seem bent on using tidbits and gaps for truth.

Please take your empirically flawed data and white lab coat and go out into the real world once in a while.

Sorry if I'm coming off as a tool, I'm just reciprocating your tude dude.

April 2010 was the warmest on record, and the combined January-April was the warmest on record.

This all started off with a single statement ("February, March, April & May temps have been substantially lower than the historical average") which I have shown to be false.

Fair enough. At the same time, if the temperature was 30 for 23 hours, then dropped to 10 for an hour, the mean temp they record is 20 degrees.

So you're claiming that using the average of min and max provides a systematic bias, and also a bias that has grown more positive in recent years.

There are papers analyzing the errors associated with different methods of mean temperature estimation (eg Weiss & Hays, Calculating daily mean air temperatures by different methods: implications from a non-linear algorithm, Agricultural and Forest Meteology 128:1-2, 2005);

Really? This is your argument? "I don't understand it so no one should try?" No, you can't say if it's a matter of man made manipulation or if it just a 10 or 1000 year quirk in global weather patterns. Good thing there are people who have empirical data

Ugh.

You mean to say:

April 2010 was the warmest on record, and the combined January-April was the warmest on record.

"I wore a sweater yesterday" is not data.

ETA: linky:http://www.startribune.com/...DaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU

If you'll look back, you'll see that my statement was a direct response to an assertion that February, March and April had been 'substantially' cooler than historical. This was my first response to this thread, and when I made it the Black Hills had never even been brought up. Am I to assume that all statements refer to the Black Hills unless someone specifies otherwise? Should I travel back in time and tell my former self that all replies should reference only western South Dakota?


Note that there's nothing in the original about the Black Hills - that was something you added - and I just realized that you weren't implying that the first statement was about the Black Hills (i.e. Feb - April), sorry about that. Had I read it right I just would have said "that doesn't mean squat," because it doesn't.

But my statement, which was always meant to refer to the global case, remains absolutely true. And my larger point, that what happens in the Black Hills has nothing to do with anything, is also true.

[image]http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=map-blended-mntp&byear=2009&bmonth=1&year=2009&month=12&ext=gif[/image]

2009 was, globally, the 5th hottest year on record. Of the 10 hottest years on record, 9 are from the 2000's.

You're not going to be convinced, and I'm bored. But when people throw around things like "February, March, April & May temps have been substantially lower than the historical average" as proof that climate change is false, I'm going to challenge it. And when you say things like "April shows colder than normal," in this case referring explicitly to the Black Hills, I'm going to challenge it, because it's demonstrably not true.

Come at me with some statements that are simultaneously true and relevant, and we can talk; otherwise I'm out.

and the combined January-April was the warmest on record.

Check the data for the Black Hills and you'll see we were below normal temps for 2010 winter/spring.

both globally and in the specific location for which you are claiming to it was not.

the combined January-April was the warmest on record.

You're not going to be convinced, and I'm bored. But when people throw around things like "February, March, April & May temps have been substantially lower than the historical average" as proof that climate change is false, I'm going to challenge it. And when you say things like "April shows colder than normal," in this case referring explicitly to the Black Hills, I'm going to challenge it, because it's demonstrably not true.

Come at me with some statements that are simultaneously true and relevant, and we can talk; otherwise I'm out.

In his claim he mentioned "the hills", which is where Mt. Rushmore is and this thread was about.

I thought you were talking about Feb-April, when you brought up the Black Hills. That was a misreading on my part.

I never once challenged that you hadn't had a cold winter, except by not clarifying that I was still working off the February-April statement that started it all.

Black Hills? Or globally?

The world warms, the world cools. Life goes on. Don't believe the hype. Lots of good reasons to not use so much fossil fuel, GW hysteria isn't one of them. As recently as the 1700's we had a mini ice age. The world didn't end.

So you were just making a completely unrelated comment that had nothing to do with my reply to WyoCrackLover's, nor to his original comment, but just happened to quote both of us in it. You don't support his original statement, even though you reference him later ("two people that live in this area that are telling you it was a below normal temps this winter/ spring" - really? when did WyoCrackLover say it was below normal temps for the aggregated winter/spring).

And of course, you weren't referring to my defense of climate change science when you said

"The ski is falling, the sky is falling. "
"A misrepresentation, but that's what alarmist do. "

You were simply suggesting that I'm an alarmist about the fact that, um, something else. But not climate change; you don't question that.

Got it.

You're the one who told me I was "full of it" when the statements I was making were 100% true. Go ahead, point out a statement I made that was not verifiability true.

"The ski is falling, the sky is falling. "
"A misrepresentation, but that's what alarmist do. "

There's a bunch of really smart people here. So tell me... any advice with the Y2K problem?

There's a bunch of really smart people here. So tell me... any advice with the Y2K problem?