|
Post by woodstove on Jul 1, 2009 16:56:24 GMT
Of course, courage is relative. This thread began with a broad critique of Joe D'Aleo, in which you suggested that he was wrong to point out that Arctic temperatures above 80 degrees north latitude are the coldest that they have been in decades. You have that exactly the wrong way around! The original post was a *narrow* critique of something that D'Aleo *said*: he was wrong to claim that the information he was using demonstrated that Arctic temperatures above 80 degrees north latitude were notably cold. The specific statistic (below 0 days in 50 years) he used was completely unprovable and probably wrong. The statistic may be correct for the last 10 years or so, but that's not such a good story. Denmark's relationship to Greenland (still officially part of the Danish kingdom) is one reason the country has maintained better climate records of the Arctic than any other. For you to call into question Danish climate records of the Arctic (as well as anyone who points to them as authoritative) does not increase your reliability with me.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2009 17:36:55 GMT
You have that exactly the wrong way around! The original post was a *narrow* critique of something that D'Aleo *said*: he was wrong to claim that the information he was using demonstrated that Arctic temperatures above 80 degrees north latitude were notably cold. The specific statistic (below 0 days in 50 years) he used was completely unprovable and probably wrong. The statistic may be correct for the last 10 years or so, but that's not such a good story. Denmark's relationship to Greenland (still officially part of the Danish kingdom) is one reason the country has maintained better climate records of the Arctic than any other. For you to call into question Danish climate records of the Arctic (as well as anyone who points to them as authoritative) does not increase your reliability with me. ERA40 is a product of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts. From ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php(my bold) Am I allowed not to like Carlsberg?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 1, 2009 19:43:29 GMT
Denmark's relationship to Greenland (still officially part of the Danish kingdom) is one reason the country has maintained better climate records of the Arctic than any other. For you to call into question Danish climate records of the Arctic (as well as anyone who points to them as authoritative) does not increase your reliability with me. ERA40 is a product of the European Centre for Medium-range Weather Forecasts. From ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php(my bold) Am I allowed not to like Carlsberg? Funny you should ask. Due to AGW prejudice, Henrik Svensmark has struggled to obtain proper funding for his work and has had to rely, for years at a time, on the Carlsberg Foundation for support (which supports much science in Denmark, btw). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_FoundationSo, no, in my book, you are not allowed.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 1, 2009 21:30:30 GMT
There was a new record in 2007 in GISTEMP. 1998 is already beaten in that record. In Hadcrut3 if it wasn't for the 1997-1998 el nino, 2001 then 2002 then 2003 then 2005 would have been successive record years. The 97-98 el nino peaked in a new annual temperature record about 0.3C higher than the previous record. That of course makes it understandable how it might take longer than 10 years to beat if temp is rising about 0.2C/decade. As for the El Nino being weak this year, well a weak el nino is about to bring temperatures up to 2003 levels - 2003 which had both a strong el nino and was influenced by a solar maximum. If we are in a solar minimum, with negative PDO and we are still getting temperatures comparative to 2003, then that suggests it's getting easier to reach warmer temperatures rather than harder. This has all been addressed before. In 1998, all four major temp sources unanimously agreed it was a record. In 2002 and 2003, they all had those years runners up, fairly close. However, ONLY GISS had 2005 or 2007 warmer than 1998...none of the three other sources were close (especially with 2007). When the majority of sources agree that 1998 was easily warmest, and neither 2005 or 2007 were close, then GISS must be viewed as an outlier...the record still stands. HadCrut 2005 was only 0.07C cooler than 1998. Compare that with HadCrut years in the 90s which were about 0.3C cooler than 1998. The 0.3C jump in 1998 was higher than the per decade warming trend, so it's not suprising it will take more than a decade to break it. UAH and RSS saw 1998 jump almost 0.4C, so it could take 2 decades of 0.2C/decade warming to break that record. Even if Pinatubo cooled the 1990s about .1C, that still makes the 2000s about 0.2C warmer than the 1990s. Additionally if you push the 90s up you increase the trend from the 80s to the 90s. Overall (1970s-2000s) the trend is about 0.17C/decade June will be higher than May. Notice hadcrut May is virtually identical to 2003 May anyway. Monthly anomolies in 2003 included: April 0.414 May 0.435 Last two months 2009 have been: April 0.398 May 0.400 Sea surface temperature in May is already near 2003: www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1990and it will go up some more in June We are years into a deep solar minimum and with only what some people on this board are calling a weak el nino we are touching 2003 temperature levels. RSS and UAH will follow in time.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 1, 2009 21:44:14 GMT
This is one that I am going to have to dig deep into. With everything in NA, and seemingly Europe/Asia above the 45th parralel wayyyyy below long term trends in tempt, there must be somewhere that is realllllllly hot on the globe to overcome that cold.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 2, 2009 6:56:26 GMT
Funny you should ask. Due to AGW prejudice, Henrik Svensmark has struggled to obtain proper funding for his work and has had to rely, for years at a time, on the Carlsberg Foundation for support (which supports much science in Denmark, btw). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_FoundationSo, no, in my book, you are not allowed. Trust me to make an inappropriate joke I'm away for a few days so I am *not* going to touch Svensmark now. Any comments on whether ERA-40 is likely to provide an accurate reflection of far northern temperatures before the Satellite era. Did Kong Frederick IX send out edicts and thermometers to the northern population of Greenland for them to go out onto the ice and build Stevenson Screens?
|
|
|
Post by glc on Jul 2, 2009 9:35:51 GMT
This is one that I am going to have to dig deep into. With everything in NA, and seemingly Europe/Asia above the 45th parralel wayyyyy below long term trends in tempt, there must be somewhere that is realllllllly hot on the globe to overcome that cold.
Have you any data to support your statements about Europe/Asia. I only ask because 'my' part of Europe is currently at least 6 degrees C above normal. I'm led to believe that this is also the case for many other parts of Europe.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 2, 2009 11:39:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 2, 2009 23:12:05 GMT
.07C is significant, considering the difference between the warmest year of 2001-07 and the coolest year was only .08C. Just face it, GISS was the clear outlier with 2005...it's not even debatable.
The 1973 El Nino caused temps to jump about .25C...yet that temp record was broken 8 years later by a neutral year.
In addition, the 1987-88 El Nino caused UAH to jump about .4C...yet that temps climbed back to the same levels just 2 years later, again with neutral ENSO.
Going by HadCRU, the 2000s have been .17C warmer than the 1990s. So warm the 1990s by .1C, and it's only a .07C difference.
Yes, this changes the trend from the 80s to the 90s...but also remember that El Chicon cooled the 1982-84 period substantially -most experts guess around .3C. The 1983 El Nino, which was the second biggest ever after 1998, still managed to warm temps to a new global record...but if it hadn't been for El Chicon, the jump likely would have been just as great as the 1998 El Nino.
Considering all of the factors, I think the greatest decadal increase in temperature was the 1970s to 1980s (probably about .22-.24C when you subtract the volcanic cooling). The 1980s to the 1990s saw another .19-.21C warming...and then the 1990s to 2000s about .1-.12C warming.
I think June UAH will be cooler than May, I don't know about the others. Regardless, GISS is the only source that shows us currently at 2003 levels...and the .400 HadCRU posted for May is not significant, they were higher than that three months last year.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 2, 2009 23:43:22 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. Acceleration of melt? Wasn't 2008 supposed to produce an "ice free arctic for the first time in human history"? I posted several examples recently. You mention two papers compared to literally countless headlines in the bag for GW. What a joke. Example: www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0318315620070104www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Jan09/0,4670,BritainGlobalWarming,00.html www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/04/healthscience/EU_SCI_World_Global_Warming.phpnews.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6228765.stmwww.msnbc.msn.com/id/16465430/www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/04/ap/world/mainD8MEFCCO0.shtmlwww.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-01-04-climate-prediction_x.htmquery.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=980DE5DA1430F936A35752C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=printwww.nysun.com/article/46176www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/04/AR2007010400312.htmlnews.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/01/070104-warmest-year.htmlwww.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/04/hottest-2007.htmlwww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/04/weather.climatechangenews.independent.co.uk/environment/article2116873.eceenglish.peopledaily.com.cn/200701/05/eng20070105_338513.htmlwww.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/01/04/1821352.htmdsc.discovery.com/news/2007/01/04/warmestyear_pla.html?category=earthwww.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070105080024.htmwww.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2007/pr20070104.htmlIt is your side that came up with all the scaremongering global warming climate change climate chaos nonsense. Now that it isn't happening, did you expect to be immune from ridicule? It is so bad for warmists, they must resort to downright deception and fraud. See (if you dare): www.climateaudit.org/?p=6454www.climateaudit.org/?p=6440Don't you folks have one sliver of honesty? Mistakes are one thing; the above examples are not mistakes, they are fraudulent, no better than a common thief. In the meantime:
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 3, 2009 0:01:57 GMT
Funny you should ask. Due to AGW prejudice, Henrik Svensmark has struggled to obtain proper funding for his work and has had to rely, for years at a time, on the Carlsberg Foundation for support (which supports much science in Denmark, btw). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlsberg_FoundationSo, no, in my book, you are not allowed. Isn't it interesting there is indisputable evidence presented for near surface station networks being unreliable for a number of reasons, yet in the Arctic where there are no siting/UHI/LCC other than the thermometers being buried in snow, warmologists can't help themselves and cry foul? It is possible the sensors are out of calibration, but I'd be willing to bet they are better maintained than most.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 3, 2009 0:14:04 GMT
The ice on Hudson Bay, migratory bird woes in the region, and spate of northern volcanic eruptions make the Arctic cooling data seem in keeping with reality to me.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jul 3, 2009 19:58:22 GMT
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. Acceleration of melt? Wasn't 2008 supposed to produce an "ice free arctic for the first time in human history"? I posted several examples recently. You mention two papers compared to literally countless headlines in the bag for GW. What a joke. Example: www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSL0318315620070104They all seem to say stuff like this: "There is a 60 percent probability that 2007 will be as warm or warmer than the current warmest year, 1998, which itself was 0.52 degrees above the long-term average it said in a statement." Why a probability? Because certain variability such as ENSO is not predictable. As it was the 2007 prediction was based on the existance of an El Nino at that time and it was thought 60% likely that conditions would remain to cause prolonged positive anomaly. As it happened the El Nino gave way to a La Nina. Noone predicted the record arctic sea ice minimum that summer either. I don't see you complaining about that forcast...
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 4, 2009 8:55:13 GMT
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. Acceleration of melt? Wasn't 2008 supposed to produce an "ice free arctic for the first time in human history"? I posted several examples recently. As usual you fail to read what I say: "late acceleration in the melt". Last July I thought that the June and July sea ice predictions appeared to be overstating the melting, and said so here. Come August, lots of ice melted significantly reducing the anomaly, and the average of the June and July predictions was about right. I believe Woodstove agreed with me about the August acceleration. Perhaps you should take it up with him. And no, 2008 was not predicted to have an ice free arctic by anyone. So you got that wrong as well. Another example of reading/hearing what you want to read/hear? I have no idea why your headline list is relevant, so I'll cut it. Perhaps start a separate thread and make your point there. If you think this is significant, you don't understand the thread.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 4, 2009 9:00:16 GMT
Isn't it interesting there is indisputable evidence presented for near surface station networks being unreliable for a number of reasons, yet in the Arctic where there are no siting/UHI/LCC other than the thermometers being buried in snow, warmologists can't help themselves and cry foul? It is possible the sensors are out of calibration, but I'd be willing to bet they are better maintained than most. I'm not crying foul. Till you understand what I am saying, please hold back on your emotive prose. I'm pointing out that Joe D'Aleo doesn't know the difference between a reanalysis and an observation. Most of the region north of 80N is ocean, so I doubt there are many sensors buried in the snow or otherwise. Check a map for goodness sake!
|
|