|
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2009 6:53:10 GMT
Joseph D'aleo on WUWT report that "The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K–this the latest date in fifty years of record keeping that this has happened." wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-0%C2%B0c-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/I think it is a major foul-up by D'Aleo. Take a close look at the various plots in the following. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpI looked at the early years, and noticed that the temperatures were mostly quite close to the norm - unnaturally so I thought. Eg. 1970  The reason is that this is not real data. It is data from weather models. The older data derives from the ERA40 reanalysis and would have been based on sparse weather observations. In areas where there were few observations a "reanalysis" would have averaged things out to climatology. More recently, we have better satellite data, so the analyses more accurately reflect natural variability. Based on, say, 2004 (which for much of the year up to now was cooler than 2009) I would say that the headline of the WUWT article is wrong. Or at least, it is very optimistic to draw the conclusion D'Aleo has when one out of the other seven post-ERA40 years almost beats 2009.  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jun 29, 2009 14:16:33 GMT
I looked at the early years, and noticed that the temperatures were mostly quite close to the norm - unnaturally so I thought. Eg. 1970 The reason is that this is not real data. It is data from weather models. Yeck! Climate models do suck!! |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 29, 2009 16:26:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2009 16:48:15 GMT
That's really important stevie. If you are right, it pretty much proves the hysterical catastrophic AGW theology. But I don't see in the charts you posted that the temp has been below the blue line (32F) on June 23rd in fifty years of record keeping. I'm sorry it's above your head. I do try to be inclusive most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2009 16:52:40 GMT
I looked at the early years, and noticed that the temperatures were mostly quite close to the norm - unnaturally so I thought. Eg. 1970 The reason is that this is not real data. It is data from weather models. Yeck! Climate models do suck!! As I've always said, you've got to know how to interpret the information you get from the model. D'Aleo ought to know. Either he made a mistake or he just doesn't care. I've read his site and I bet the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 29, 2009 18:54:04 GMT
Based on, say, 2004 (which for much of the year up to now was cooler than 2009) I would say that the headline of the WUWT article is wrong.
You “would say” that it is wrong. Based on 2004, which for “much of the year” was cooler than 2009. In other words, that’s just your opinion. You haven’t shown any data to prove that the daily mean temperature for +80N on June 23, 2004 was lower than 32F. Why did you start a new thread for this bullcrap stevie? Is this little piece of nit more important than the “adjustments” to the temperature record made by the hysterical catastrophic AGW Theocracy? Why don’t you tell us what you “would say” about the presentations in the links I posted above, provided that you have a &*%$#@g clue.
You are really tedious.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 29, 2009 19:21:57 GMT
Please. No trolling. This is a serious discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by dmapel on Jun 29, 2009 19:44:08 GMT
This is a ridiculous discussion, and I will leave you alone to continue it with yourself. Let's see how long you can keep this thread going, clownboy.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jun 29, 2009 23:48:05 GMT
We're supposed to be in an era of ever rising temperatures with Greenland the Arctic being the 'canary in the coalmine'.
Warmers just can't bring themselves to even acknowledge something is wrong with their hypothesis, and must search with a microscope for every last bit of warming.
Since there is no raw data that I could find, there's no good way to completely prove one way or the other, however even the moderate observer can see 2009 is a departure from other years, and unless an upward swing develops soon, there can be no argument.
|
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 30, 2009 1:18:46 GMT
Joseph D'aleo on WUWT report that "The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K–this the latest date in fifty years of record keeping that this has happened." wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/arctic-temperature-is-still-not-above-0%C2%B0c-the-latest-date-in-fifty-years-of-record-keeping%E2%80%A6%E2%80%9D/I think it is a major foul-up by D'Aleo. Take a close look at the various plots in the following. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpI looked at the early years, and noticed that the temperatures were mostly quite close to the norm - unnaturally so I thought. Eg. 1970 The reason is that this is not real data. It is data from weather models. The older data derives from the ERA40 reanalysis and would have been based on sparse weather observations. In areas where there were few observations a "reanalysis" would have averaged things out to climatology. More recently, we have better satellite data, so the analyses more accurately reflect natural variability. Based on, say, 2004 (which for much of the year up to now was cooler than 2009) I would say that the headline of the WUWT article is wrong. Or at least, it is very optimistic to draw the conclusion D'Aleo has when one out of the other seven post-ERA40 years almost beats 2009. Steve: You are obfuscating. Specifically, you are trying to turn attention away from the cooling in the Arctic that is under way. The 1970 plot is not nefarious. Neither are any of the others. They resemble the mean during the summer months because the atmospheric conditions near the pole produce very stable temperatures year after year. The effect of relatively warm water below the sea ice, ongoing melting above and below, and the 24 hours of Sun create the smooth temperature line that you see in the Danish data. If there is in-filling performed by a "model," and you haven't demonstrated that there is, it would certainly be less bizarre than the far more extensive Arctic in-filling of gistemp. Are you arguing that the Danish data for 2009 are bad? Again, the news is not that station coverage for the Arctic is less than ideal. The news is that the Arctic is not on an ever-accelerating warming.  |
|
|
|
Post by william on Jun 30, 2009 2:01:58 GMT
How the temperature is changing (cooling) provides some indication of mechanisms. This would be an interesting problem and a life experience if it were purely a scientific problem. Based on what has happened before the interglacial period is over. The benign global warming is over. Based on current observations and what has happened before, this will be a global problem. There are record low temperatures being set, both hemispheres. The earth’s ionosphere has shrunk by 35% in the night time and 16% in the day time. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081215121601.htmI am not sure whether the change in the earth’s ionosphere is in response to the cold night time temperatures and cooler daytime temperatures or the change in the earth’s ionosphere is to due the recent solar changes. Changes in the earth’s ionosphere seem to indicate that something is changing. Sea ice both poles has started to increase. The Greenland ice sheet surge has stopped. (All 14 separate surges in different areas of the ice sheet.) What we are observing seems to be a Heinrich event. (There is a surge of glacial flows all over the Northern Hemisphere, physically unconnected ice sheets during a Heinrich event.) The surge in ice sheet flow is followed by an abrupt drop in planetary temperature. In addition there is a massive change in the geomagnetic field intensity. The geomagnetic field intensity drops by a factor of 4 to 5. The key to understanding the mechanism, is to explain what could cause the geomagnetic field to drop in intensity by a factor of 4 to 5. (Note this is a cyclic event. The geomagnetic field intensity is 4 to 5 times greater during the interglacial period.) A significant amount of energy is required to abruptly change the geomagnetic field. The energy transfer based on the mechanism would appear to primitive people to be a God like death ray, burning specific locations in one hemisphere. Interesting that the researchers that have found the burn marks (which have been dated to correlate in time with the abrupt drop in temperature), appear to have not connect the burn marks with the geomagnetic field changes or the cyclic cosmogenic isotope changes. The geomagnetic field researchers that have found the evidence of abrupt geomagnetic changes but have no explanation as to an internal geological based cause, as there is no internal mechanism that can cyclical abruptly change the geomagnetic field. (It is analogous to solving a serial murder. What is capable of serially abruptly changing the geomagnetic field? The question to ask is what causes/creates the solar and geomagnetic field? A better question perhaps is what restarts the solar and geomagnetic field if they have been interrupted. A hint is laboratory experiments with liquid sodium were not able to create a magnetic field.) A less obvious hint is the planet's oceans increase and decrease by approximately 10 to 15 meters cyclically. (The change in sea level is large to be due to temperature changes and to rapid to be to ice sheets melting or growing.) From a mechanism standpoint when the geomagnetic field is less intense the GCR affects lower latitudes. (More clouds at lower latitudes. The tropics cool.) As noted there is in addition to abrupt cooling, an abrupt change in cosmogenic isotopes during the Heinrich event. The Younger Dryas is Heinrich event 0. The 8200 BP cooling event is Heinrich event -1. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jun 30, 2009 2:19:58 GMT
Very good read William.
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Jun 30, 2009 5:56:08 GMT
You were going great until the burn marks. The sun has demonstrated a capability to do most of those things without any radical, damage inducing (other than the change in climate) affects. The earth's magnetic field is partly (largely?) dependent on the sun's. The sun probably just goes into some sort of super-minimum.
Seriously, always try to keep things as simple as possible until you have some good, solid data. That's REALLY where the AGW people went wrong. Rather than give up on CO2's forcing, they took it as a given, then decided the ludicrous idea of strong positive feedbacks was a good one...and since they found f*ckall evidence of said super-warming...decided to toss in aerosol cooling for good measure. There are just so many places they could have gone wrong...and they're probably wrong or way off on every single aspect of their hypothesis.
If you're going to go for burn marks...go for an asteroid or comet passing through at an inopportune time, breaking up as it comes in and hastening the onset of one of the ice ages that was likely to start anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 30, 2009 6:53:35 GMT
Joseph D'aleo on WUWT report that "The average arctic temperature is still not above (take your pick) 32°F 0°C 273.15°K–this the latest date in fifty years of record keeping that this has happened." I think it is a major foul-up by D'Aleo. Take a close look at the various plots in the following. ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.phpI looked at the early years, and noticed that the temperatures were mostly quite close to the norm - unnaturally so I thought. Eg. 1970 The reason is that this is not real data. It is data from weather models. The older data derives from the ERA40 reanalysis and would have been based on sparse weather observations. In areas where there were few observations a "reanalysis" would have averaged things out to climatology. More recently, we have better satellite data, so the analyses more accurately reflect natural variability. Based on, say, 2004 (which for much of the year up to now was cooler than 2009) I would say that the headline of the WUWT article is wrong. Or at least, it is very optimistic to draw the conclusion D'Aleo has when one out of the other seven post-ERA40 years almost beats 2009. Steve: You are obfuscating. Specifically, you are trying to turn attention away from the cooling in the Arctic that is under way. The 1970 plot is not nefarious. Neither are any of the others. They resemble the mean during the summer months because the atmospheric conditions near the pole produce very stable temperatures year after year. The effect of relatively warm water below the sea ice, ongoing melting above and below, and the 24 hours of Sun create the smooth temperature line that you see in the Danish data. No the plot is not nefarious. But it is a reanalysis, and one done before the era (geddit!!) of detailed satellite observations. The reason I pointed to 2004 wasn't to try and show that it was colder than 2009, but to illustrate that the more recent plots demonstrate more variability around the mean than the older plots. It doesn't seem likely that the Arctic had a more stable climate during the ERA40 years. Here's a description of ERA40. There must have been infilling as it doesn't use any satellites till 1972. www.ecmwf.int/research/era/do/get/era-40No. The more recent information is likely to be more accurate than the old data. What makes you say that? Summer temperatures appear to be capped to close to freezing for perhaps obvious reasons. Have you analysed the mean temperatures over the season? |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 30, 2009 7:03:47 GMT
We're supposed to be in an era of ever rising temperatures with Greenland the Arctic being the 'canary in the coalmine'. Warmers just can't bring themselves to even acknowledge something is wrong with their hypothesis, and must search with a microscope for every last bit of warming. Since there is no raw data that I could find, there's no good way to completely prove one way or the other, however even the moderate observer can see 2009 is a departure from other years, and unless an upward swing develops soon, there can be no argument. We are in an era of warming, and the Arctic is chirping (or is it cheeping - I don't know what sound canaries make) away. "Coolers" can't accept it and look with a microscope for a hint of cooling. Just one day of cooling will do for a forum post. A month is enough for a blog post. A year or two guarantees column-inches in the Telegraph and WSJ. After last year's late acceleration in the melt, I'll reserve judgement on 2009 till the middle of August. |
|
