Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

This AGW talk is wearing me out does anyone know of where a person could find a weather blog mixed with a little Theological discussion. I would never use the term argumentative.

Jedkin~ Agreed..theories will change.. This week the hot topic could be how much faster the oceans could rise than expected. Two new things out..

Climate change: Rising waters threaten North Carolina & national security

Must-read Hansen and Sato paper: We are at a climate tipping point that, once crossed, enables multi-meter sea level rise this century

Have you had college Chemistry for science majors yet? They wouldn't let me out of there til I knew what GHGs absorbed what wavelengths of IR photons & how long they lasted, the sorts of reactions to dismantle them, etc.. They are quite measurable & chemically explained. No big secret that WV is the most abundant GHG & without it our blue marble would be way too cold for us. I remember experiments..CO2 vs methane vs WV vs air vs vacuum in a double glass pane.. which heats up more & how much..use your volumes to workout nightmarish equations. That class started with some "deniers", didn't end with any. I was on a physics quest at the time. Does Met majors have to take the harder Chem for science majors?

THE official death toll from Brazil's mudslide disaster has risen to 803

TRMM is showing alot of unneeded rain.. click pic for large quicktime animation..

Though it is interesting that the current sea-level rise rate since 1992 sits at only 1/8th that which would be required on average for the next 87 years in order to get a meter of sea-level rise this century.

The overall trend in sea-level rise is also hinting at flattening out this decade. In fact, the La Ninas of 2007-2008 and now possibly 2010-2011 appear to succeed in flattening and even decreasing global sea level for a significant portion of time. At any rate, the curve so far doesn't look to be evolving towards exponential like it is advertised to become.

Anthony maybe ~60-65kts at landfall.

Looking at & comparing several sources of data on sea level rise..

good evening/morning fellow bloggers just dropping in to see whats happening here, and to say "holler player" lol

Also sea level rise doesn't happen evenly. It's actually going down a little in some areas and up much more in other areas as it responds to localized heat expansion, the way water piles up as the earth spins & etc.. Satelites like Jason & Grace have made things like the treat to NC much clearer. If you read the article it already happening with the older sewer systems being regularly inundated. They've already moved the lighthouse back & lost other buildings.


Sea level changes between 1993 and 2008 from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellite altimeters. The oceans are colour coded for changes in mean sea level. Yellow and red regions show rising sea level, while green and blue regions show falling sea level. White regions are missing data during parts of the year. On average the global sea level is rising, but complex regional variations are superimposed on this. Credit: Data products from Ssalto/Duacs, distributed by Aviso, with support from CNES.

Quoting Skyepony:
Looking at & comparing several sources of data on sea level rise..

Well the 2nd image looks similar to mine, showing a visible step down in the rate of increase around 2003, continuing through the present. The spike at the very end of the graph is deceiving, since it is only through December, 2009, and doesn't show the counter-dip that completely erased the effect of the spike during the course of 2010.

Also, while I can source my data from what is considered the most reliable sea-level record kept at the University of Colorado, your graphs are from a popular AGW website, which is not an official source. It would be nice to see the source data for global sea level measurements for the past 140 years and the methods of extrapolation from available data.

Also, isn't it kind of weird how the sea-level is supposed to have risen steadily from 1870 to 1920, when the temperature is believed to have been flat between 1880 and 1920?

Quoting gordydunnot:
This AGW talk is wearing me out does anyone know of where a person could find a weather blog mixed with a little Theological discussion. I would never use the term argumentative.

I'm highly interested in theology. I've made no attempt to hide that. Anytime you're seeking a conversation on the subject, shoot me a WU message.

In fact, global temperature was apparently pretty flat for at least 70 years prior to 1920.

Levi those are tide gauges & satellite data pulled from published papers. GRACE satellite has some really interesting stuff on how water piles up & sloshes around the world & measuring melt & the resulting lift of the continents once they shed some ice.. One of the most fascinating satellites up there.

Interesting melt season in Antarctica this summer on the southern side. They figured out this summer that isn't all frozen solid to bedrock on the bottom side & those ice sheets are buttresses holding much of the rest of it from quickly sliding off into the ocean. Check it out. I'm off to sleep.

Quoting Neapolitan:

Read the whole article to which I linked; the 160-day record was caused by the lack of a monsoonal trough and its attendant cooling that season.

Read it. Seems to have been a natural reason for that record (and the other record mentioned, the fact that the entire Australian continent was untouched by tropical cyclones throughout the season, a rare event in the 20th Century).

Just saying, that what with the increased global warming, that high temperature records would be easier to beat (or so we've been told).

10/4 Kman.Sounds like you also have the proper perspective.I did read most of your discussion the other night. Good for an occasional break but if we can't handle a scientific topic about weather ie. AGW without rancor, I know where that one's heading. MY bad, just being a stick I guess like the blog needs another one.

Quoting MichaelSTL:


The most notable thing that shows is the change in the PDO from its warm phase in the 1980s and 90s to the cool phase since about 2000, thus the reduced SLR in the eastern Pacific. That corresponds to a cooling trend in that same area:



But, the change hasn't had any impact on either SLR or temperatures, despite claims to the contrary (at the most, there is a slight slowing in the warming trend, as measured with a 10 year average, several years back, but the trend has resumed). Note too, that the Arctic has warmed by about 2 degrees in the past 20 years - and most of that warming has occurred in the past decade, with 2010 the warmest year by a good margin:



Interestingly, the mid-latitudes of the NH, the most populated part of the globe, shows no warming in the past decade (this is significant because of course most people extrapolate what they see out their window to the globe, regardless of whether that is actually correct).

Neither does the globe as a whole.

Quoting Jedkins01:
As much as I don't want to get back into the GW debate, (and I won't). It absolutely boggles my mind that some people people will have the arrogance call those who refuse to accept a hypothesis that has absolutely no way of proving the earth will continue to dramatically warm and the planet is in crisis because of human contribution of Green House Gasses.

Arrogance or hypocrisy? Arrogance or hypocrisy? Hmmm. I'm going to go with arrogant hypocrisy.

So let me see if I have your drift here. You're saying that, for about the past 150 years or so, that all climate science is not science.

Ok. I think we got that cleared up. We have your hypothesis. Now all you need to do is supply evidence to back up your hypothesis. And you will need to defend your thesis so make sure it is solid.

But I think some people might need some explanations. You see, there are a lot of industries and governments out there who have been making use of climatological research and models for some time. For example, insurance companies have been using climate models and research to determine rates for decades. Military logistics use climate related data and forecasting to help plan troop deployments and equipment. Fire departments in forest fire areas use climate research to plan out how to attack fires during different parts of the year. The DHS uses climate research to simulate possible airborne toxin dispersals. Agricultural industries use climate research to simulate possible flood scenarios. The list goes on and on. State and local governments more recently have been using regional downscaling models to simulate watershed behavior. Government groups use climate research to track and model the ozone hole. Power companies use climate projections to simulate power requirements of the grid. The CDC uses climate research to determine the potential spread of pathogens like malaria. The list goes on and on.

But that's not all. What you may or may not realize is that climate science is really more of a mixing of several scientific disciplines, such as chemistry, biology, meteorology, etc. . Since climate science is utilizing the research and results from multiple fields, this would imply that clearly some of the science in these fields are wrong as well. I'm sure they would all be very interested in hearing your arguments as to why their science is also incorrect.

That might be a little much for one paper, so you may need to write several and back those up with the appropriate research and data.

You and a lot of other people are under some weird impression that climate science only applies to global warming. That is incorrect. Climate science is used in real world applications and has been for a long time. It is very naive to think that the entire sum of climate research is just global warming, just as it is naive to dismiss an entire branch of science for a single result in one branch of study that you, personally, don't agree with.

You speak to fight for science, yet you deny the very thing that science is all about. How dare you people call yourselves honest speakers of true science. Shame on you.

Hypocrite. You're throwing out an entire branch of science because you don't happen to like one result. Science that is currently supported by observations and research. Science that has been built on the shoulders of several disciplines and decades worth of research and study.

And all you offer for your rejections of this science are emotional arguments and hypocritical rhetoric.

Cognitive dissonance doesn't begin to describe you.

Scientists that have any bit of honestly left in them to stick to real science, know that science is always changing. And honest scientists know that its just down right foolish to claim something as scientific fact, when we all know science is always learning more, and disproving old flawed theories.

Do you live in some sort of separate reality?

Seeing as we are talking about science, let's perform an experiment. Go to any nearby campus's library and search for peer reviewed research on climate related topics in science periodicals like Nature. There about 6,000 reputable science journals, so use the libraries computerized index to see which ones are available. Get back to me with how often new science and results are coming out.

In other words, you're making things up. The science is constantly changing, just like any other science in those periodicals.

The current results from that science shows that the Earth is retaining more heat. The results show an increase in CO2. The results show the beginning effects of climate change. The results are in good agreement with projections.

But that's just for climate research in regards to global warming. I'm sure you'll stumble across plenty of climate research articles that are not related directly to global warming as well.

Of course unlike some, I am not brainwashed and neither do I rely on biased sources to tell me that all scientists support Global Warming. I am actually aware of the fact that thousand of scientists still stay honest and aren't so darn arrogant to think they are exceedingly smart to where they think an unproven scientific theory reigns supreme and all who disagree are "deniers".

The AGU conference is one of the largest gathering of climate scientists in the world. It happens every years and the attendance is usually between about 15,000 to 20,000 scientists (with a lot of other attendees)from fields as diverse as computational science to marine biologists. If anyone wanted a pulpit from which to say all climate science is wrong and they had proof, that would be the place to do it.

I'm sure you'd say at this point that it's just an exclusive club that you need to pay thousands of dollars to get into. And you would be wrong. It costs $60 to get in, $80 bucks if you want to have a poster for the poster session.

These thousands of "honest" climate scientists you know, do they have names? Are they climate scientists? Do they attend these conferences? Because I've never seen them. Or is this yet another allusion to the great climate science conspiracy?

Keep clinging stubbornly all you want, but Global Warming theories will change, and science will continue to evolve

Is there any particular reason why the science shouldn't change? It's changing on at least a monthly basis.

I track climate research pretty closely. To my knowledge there has not been a single peer reviewed science paper that has discredited the current climate science in regards to warming. Not one. Nor has there been any other papers that discredit the science upon which climate science is built. I'm sure you'll just fall back on the tired old conspiracy excuse, but these science journals are responsible for the publishing of just about every single scientifically significant finding planet wide. If there was a conspiracy, then ALL scientific results would be suspect, wouldn't they. You can't trust a peer reviewed science journal that has been compromised.

Unlike you, I am not an arrogant hypocrite who's willing to throw out a branch of science just because my truthiness doesn't like what just one of its results says. That is the very definition of a denier.

The science is solid and has a lot backing it up. When I start seeing REAL science showing up in REAL peer reviewed journals that shows it is wrong, I will be on here saying so and how we were all misguided by the results we previously got. Until then, I will continue to help dispel misinformation, debunk myths, and expose lies generated from the psuedo-science propogandized through emotional arguments and logical fallacies by hypocritical zealots such as yourself.

Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Brisbane
Tropical Cyclone Bulletin
TROPICAL CYCLONE ANTHONY (11U)
5:00 PM EST January 24 2011
=========================================

At 4:00 PM EST, Tropical Cyclone Anthony, Category One (995 hPa) located 18.5S 158.4E, or 1010 km east northeast of Mackay has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots with gusts of 50 knots. The cyclone is reported as moving east southeast at 19 knots.

Gale Force Winds
=================
30 NM in northern quadrant
120 NM in southern quadrant

Dvorak Intensity: T2.5/3.0/S0.0/24HRS

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 19.2S 160.1E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 19.3S 160.1E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 18.5S 157.5E - 35 knots (CAT 1)
72 HRS: 17.3S 154.1E - 35 knots (CAT 1)

Additional Information
=======================

Shear pattern with approximately 0.75 of a degree separation between the low level centre and the deep convection located to the south of the system, giving DT of 2.5. MT 2.5 and PT 2.0. FT based on DT. CI maintained at 0.5 greater than the FT.

Deep convection weakened out significantly early Monday morning prior to redeveloping to the south of the system during the day. Moderate to strong northwesterly shear is persisting across Tropical Cyclone Anthony with an upper trough extending across the western Coral Sea.

The next tropical cyclone bulletin will be issued at 13:00 PM UTC..

Tropical Cyclone Warning Center Perth
Tropical Cyclone Advice #2
TROPICAL LOW 12U
3:00 PM WST January 24 2011
=======================================

At 2:00 pm WST, Tropical Low (998 hPa) located at 14.4S 126.4E (over land), or 30 kms west southwest of Kalumburu and 600 kms northeast of Broome has 10 minute sustained winds of 25 knots with gusts of 45 knots. The low is reported as moving west at 8 knots.

Dvorak Intensity: OVERLAND

The low is forecast to take a turn towards the southwest tonight and if it remains over land during the next 12 to 18 hours it is unlikely to develop into a tropical cyclone until Wednesday. However the low has moved steadily westwards during the day and is close to the west Kimberley coast. If the low moves over the ocean tonight it may develop into a tropical cyclone by Tuesday evening and bring gales to the Kimberley coast. The communities most at risk of gales within 24 hours are those between Kuri Bay and Cape Leveque including the communities of Beagle Bay, Cape Leveque, Cockatoo Island and Kuri Bay.

By Wednesday evening the system is expected to be north of Broome and moving steadily towards the southwest, parallel to the Pilbara coast. Gales may develop in coastal areas of the Pilbara on Wednesday.

Heavy rain is expected in coastal parts of the Kimberley between Kalumburu and Broome during Monday and Tuesday. Localised stream rises are likely but extensive flooding is not expected. During Wednesday and Thursday there is likely to be heavy rainfall along parts of the Pilbara coast but again, extensive flooding is not expected.

Tropical Cyclone Warnings/Watch
================================
A Cyclone WARNING has been declared for coastal and island communities from Kuri Bay to Wallal.

A Cyclone WATCH is current for coastal communities from Wallal to Exmouth.

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 15.1S 124.9E - 30 knots (Tropical Low)
24 HRS: 16.2S 123.1E - 40 knots (CAT 1)
48 HRS: 18.5S 118.1E - 50 knots (CAT 2)
72 HRS: 20.3S 113.1E - 70 knots (CAT 3)

Additional Information
========================
Despite still being overland the system is showing improved organisation. 24 hour pressure falls in the vicinity of the low are of the order 3hPa. Wind speeds over land are around 15 knots. Troughton Isalnd is recording 25 to 30 knots. The system has moved steadily westwards during the day and the warning policy has been modified to reflect the risk that the system may go over water earlier than the unshifted model consensus would indicate.

Vertical shear has continued to ease with the CIMSS analysis now showing less than 20 knots across the LLCC. Shear is likely to further reduce and by Wednesday only moderate shear is expected. The dry air that has been evident over the last couple of days no longer appears to be having an influence and with significant ocean heat content off the Pilbara coast the system is expected to develop at close to the climatological rate during Wednesday and into Thursday.

The system is expected to be steered steadily southwest by a strong mid-level ridge until Friday when an amplifying trough will weaken the ridge and the system will take a more southwards track.

The next tropical cyclone advice on Tropical Low 12U will be at 9:00 AM UTC..

Fiji Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory #11
TROPICAL CYCLONE WILMA (06F)
18:00 PM FST January 24 2011
===================================

Warnings for Tonga
======================

Hurricane Warning is now in force for Vavau group and nearby smaller islands

Storm Warning is now in force for Ha'apai group and nearby smaller islands

Gale Warning remains in force for Niuatoputapu and nearby smaller islands

A Tropical Cyclone Alert remains in force for the rest of Tonga

Tropical Cyclone Warnings for Fiji
====================================

A Strong Wind Warning is now in force for southern Lau Group

A Tropical Cyclone Alert is now in force for southern Lau Group.

At 6:00 AM UTC, Tropical Cyclone Wilma, Category Two (985 hPa) located at 15.9S 171.1W has 10 minute winds of 50 knots and is reported as moving south southwest at 11 knots. Position FAIR based on hourly GOES visible/enhanced infrared radar imagery and peripheral surface observations.

Storm Force Winds
=================
50 NM from the center

Gale Force Winds
================
210 NM from the center in the eastern semicircle, within 90 NM of the center elsewhere

Additional Information
=========================

Organization remains good, cyclone has intensified in the last 12 hours with convection increasing near the low level circulation center. Primary band wrapping around low level circulation center from the south. Outflow good to north and south but developing elsewhere. MJO analysis shows and equatorial Rossby wave over the system. System lies under an upper diffluent region. CIMMS indicates a moderately sheared environment. Sea surface temperature is around 28C.

Dvorak analysis based on 0.90 LOG10 spiral yielding DT=3.5 MET=3.5 PT=3.5. Final Dvorak T number based on DT.

Dvorak Intensity: T3.5/3.5/D1.0/24HRS

Most global models move cyclone WILMA southwest with some intensification.

Forecast and Intensity
============================
12 HRS: 17.6S 172.8W - 60 knots (CAT 2)
24 HRS: 19.2S 175.2W - 70 knots (CAT 3)
48 HRS: 21.6S 180.0E - 75 knots (CAT 3)

The next Tropical Disturbance Advisory from Fiji Meteorological Services will be issued at around 14:30 PM UTC..

Morning all, from crispy and cool Nassau.... Looks like it's going to be a typical winter day here.... So far so good, anyway.

Interesting to observe that Low over NW OZ.... losing none of its character as it crosses land, and seeming to strengthen... Will be interesting to see if this develops into a serious problem for that part of the NW coast...

For tomorrow:



DAY 2 CONVECTIVE OUTLOOK
NWS STORM PREDICTION CENTER NORMAN OK
1213 AM CST MON JAN 24 2011
VALID 251200Z - 261200Z

...THERE IS A SLGT RISK OF SVR TSTMS ACROSS FL AND SRN GA...

...FLORIDA/SRN GA/FAR SRN SC...
A VIGOROUS UPPER-LEVEL TROUGH OVER THE SRN PLAINS TUESDAY MORNING
WILL MOVE EWD INTO THE WRN GULF OF MEXICO TUESDAY AFTERNOON. AHEAD
OF THE UPPER-LEVEL TROUGH...A LOW-LEVEL JET IN THE CNTRL GULF OF
MEXICO IS FORECAST TO MOVE QUICKLY NEWD APPROACHING CNTRL FLORIDA
TUESDAY AFTERNOON. A COMPLEX OF THUNDERSTORMS WILL LIKELY DEVELOP
ALONG THE AXIS OF THE LOW-LEVEL JET DURING THE DAY WITH CONVECTION
GRADUALLY SPREADING ACROSS THE FL PENINSULA. AS THE LOW-LEVEL JET
MOVES TOWARD CNTRL FL LATE TUESDAY AFTERNOON...THE AIRMASS ACROSS
THE FL PENINSULA WILL MOISTEN AND DEEP LAYER SHEAR WILL BECOME MORE
FAVORABLE FOR SEVERE STORMS. ETA-KF CONTROL RUN OF THE SREF FORECAST
SOUNDINGS IN CNTRL FL BY LATE AFTERNOON INCREASE SFC DEWPOINTS INTO
THE LOWER TO MID 60S F WITH MUCAPE VALUES APPROACHING 1000 J/KG. IN
ADDITION TO ABOUT 50 KT OF 0-6 KM SHEAR...FORECAST SOUNDINGS SHOW
0-3 KM STORM RELATIVE HELICITIES AROUND 400 M2/S2. THE WIND SHEAR
ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE QUITE IMPRESSIVE...DEFINITELY SUPPORTIVE OF
SUPERCELLS AND POSSIBLY STRONG TORNADOES. A LOT WILL DEPEND ON THE
QUALITY OF THE WARM SECTOR AND ON WHETHER STORMS REMAIN DISCRETE. IF
THE STORMS TEND BE LINEAR...THEN WIND DAMAGE COULD BE THE PRIMARY
THREAT. THE SCENARIO DEFINITELY LOOKS APPROPRIATE FOR AN UPGRADE TO
SLIGHT RISK.

FURTHER TO THE NORTHEAST ALONG THE GA AND SC COAST...THE POTENTIAL
FOR THUNDERSTORMS WILL INCREASE TUESDAY NIGHT AS A SFC LOW
APPROACHES FROM THE SOUTHWEST. MODEL FORECASTS SEEM TO HAVE A BETTER
HANDLE ON THE UPPER-LEVEL TROUGH MOVING THE SYSTEM SLOWER AND
FURTHER TO THE SOUTH. THIS WOULD KEEP THE WARM SECTOR OFF THE COAST
OF SC SUGGESTING ANY SEVERE THREAT WILL PROBABLY REMAIN OFFSHORE.
FOR THIS REASON...THE LOW-END PROBABILITIES EXTEND ACROSS SRN GA BUT
NOT INTO ERN SC.

..BROYLES.. 01/24/2011

wiki leaks is going to release the names of the rich usa tax cheaters. get the cells ready

So far, eight stations are reporting record highs in the past 24 hours, while 12 are reporting record lows. As has been the pattern for much of the winter, the record warm temps are mostly in the West, while the cool is in the central and eastern parts of the country. For a further example of that, note that in the past week, there have been 154 record lows or low maximums--almost all in the Midwest and East--and 349 record highs or high minimums.

There'll be a warm-up for most of the western and central parts of the country throughout the week, with possibly record highs in the upper Midwest and Great Plains, in advance of another Arctic blast next weekend which should bring some record lows.

Just be fore I head out, I had 62 outside my North windows this morning about 6:25.... not too bad for a winter morning.... lol

Ya'll have a good one... granted it's Monday, but it can't help being that.... :o)

A large amount of moisture and thunderstorms in the Eastern Atlantic for this time of year...

yaaay finally a slight risk of severe weather on a day 2 outlook for florida. ::crosses fingers::

For West Palm Beach...

Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Report says two suns possible as early as 2012

i read that article and had to have a field day against it. such crap is being touted as news and science regarding betelguese. while yes it will be a very spectacular event of the likes man hasnt seen in nearly 1k years. but to play t off as some sort of 2012 crap, or that it will be bright as the sun does nothing but irritate me..... i need counseling lol

Woke up this morning about 6AM with a temp of -2F here in Cambridge, MA. Can't remember the last time temps were below zero in the Boston area. Seems like it has been a long time, maybe 5-10 years? Thought the local news articles might say, but no joy. All I can find is "lowest temps in years".

Not a weather geek. Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to research that question: "When was the last time Boston saw an official airport temp below zero?"

Tomorrow's Severe Weather threat should look something like this:

Tornado: 5% or 10% (Tornado threat impressively high)

Damaging Winds: 15% (Could go up to 30%)

Hail: 15%

*Judging by this statement, " THE SCENARIO DEFINITELY LOOKS APPROPRIATE FOR AN UPGRADE TO
SLIGHT RISK."

It could get upgraded to a MDT risk.

Quoting EstherD:
Woke up this morning about 6AM with a temp of -2F here in Cambridge, MA. Can't remember the last time temps were below zero in the Boston area. Seems like it has been a long time, maybe 5-10 years? Thought the local news articles might say, but no joy. All I can find is "lowest temps in years".

Not a weather geek. Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to research that question: "When was the last time Boston saw an official airport temp below zero?"

I heard the weather guy on MSNBC say at least twice that this was the first below zero day in Boston in six years.

http://hubbub.wbur.org/2011/01/24/monday-roundup-18

And here's a good search to try.

Quoting EstherD:
Woke up this morning about 6AM with a temp of -2F here in Cambridge, MA. Can't remember the last time temps were below zero in the Boston area. Seems like it has been a long time, maybe 5-10 years? Thought the local news articles might say, but no joy. All I can find is "lowest temps in years".

Not a weather geek. Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to research that question: "When was the last time Boston saw an official airport temp below zero?"

Go to the top of the blog, type your city of choice. There is an almanac and weather history link there...:)

Speaking of which: Boston's low this morning was -2. Meanwhile, the Russian city of Murmansk--the largest city within the Arctic Circle--only dropped to 6 above zero.

http://www.boston.com/news/source/2011/01/boston_colder_t.html

Quoting EstherD:
Woke up this morning about 6AM with a temp of -2F here in Cambridge, MA. Can't remember the last time temps were below zero in the Boston area. Seems like it has been a long time, maybe 5-10 years? Thought the local news articles might say, but no joy. All I can find is "lowest temps in years".

Not a weather geek. Can anyone tell me if there is an easy way to research that question: "When was the last time Boston saw an official airport temp below zero?"

This cold air was brought to you by Global Warming.

Quoting MichaelSTL:


The most notable thing that shows is the change in the PDO from its warm phase in the 1980s and 90s to the cool phase since about 2000, thus the reduced SLR in the eastern Pacific. That corresponds to a cooling trend in that same area:



But, the change hasn't had any impact on either SLR or temperatures, despite claims to the contrary (at the most, there is a slight slowing in the warming trend, as measured with a 10 year average, several years back, but the trend has resumed). Note too, that the Arctic has warmed by about 2 degrees in the past 20 years - and most of that warming has occurred in the past decade, with 2010 the warmest year by a good margin:



Interestingly, the mid-latitudes of the NH, the most populated part of the globe, shows no warming in the past decade (this is significant because of course most people extrapolate what they see out their window to the globe, regardless of whether that is actually correct).

Which is where the most man-made CO2 originates, so why isn't it warmer where the CO2 is?

Quoting Levi32:


Neither does the globe as a whole.

You're going to have to do better than that. Zoom in and GISS, UAH and RSS are all positive trends for the decade.

Quoting oracle28:


Which is where the most man-made CO2 originates, so why isn't it warmer where the CO2 is?

It's called "wind".

Quoting Neapolitan:

It's called "wind".

Ah, ok so CO2 is evenly distributed, due to wind.