|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 23, 2013 15:41:40 GMT
Tell your doctor to change your medication. What is it with you and the paranoia anyway? Quite possibly it is a side effect. What does he give you? Have you personally experienced any signs of feeling somehow unwell on the mental side, or has your family noticed anything similar? I can see you are incoherent and rambling. This can be a dangerous sign, seriously. In the real world most people are fairly crazy. You will have not noticed that however |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 23, 2013 16:05:59 GMT
I see you did not actually answer my question.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 23, 2013 18:31:26 GMT
Mainstream climate science recognizes that all the surface records likely suffer from this problem. Low elevation airports predominate in a gridded pattern where extrapolations occur over a 1200 kilometers sometimes from a single Stevenson screen. I has been acknowledged by many scientists that the surface record means could be off by 2C. However, they also believe that while the mean as an absolute temperature could be way off they argue the relative trends are not. The basis that the mean does not mean much is that airports will warm as much as mountain peaks. So they are considered to be reliable as a gauge comparing year to year. Learned skeptics only attack that assumption on a limited basis. UHI is believed to be the largest issue with the assumption that populated areas and airports are going to warm at the same pace as the mountain peaks. I think everybody would agree that if greenhouse gases are solely responsible for airport warming then the mountain peaks will probably warm faster too. However, UHI is NOT believed to be an issue with the arctic record so the derived arctic trend record is cleaner and probably more accurate depending upon what you believe to be the case with UHI in the general surface temperature record. Where the trend in the arctic gets weak is in comparison to older models, models that lack the data richness of the current model which has been in place only since 2010. It has been a series of models so the further you go back in the Arctic data gets sparse pretty fast compared to the urban predominant surface weather stations for the entire globe. So bottom line focus on the arctic over the past 8 years has led to some pretty darned robust temperature datasets even if the mean is difficult to ascertain (not to speak of determining exactly what the arctic consists of). So the mean is biased toward the pole? From where? The pole is the focus as it will be relatively nearer to the pole if we get close to no summer ice. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 23, 2013 20:32:19 GMT
I see you did not actually answer my question. Since you were experiencing hallucinations where i was incoherent and rambling it did not seem necessary to give you a detailed outline of all the various issues i have experienced in 57 years of my life or what my family have said about me. It seemed to suffice to point out that we are all a bit crazy one way or another. I know reality can be a hard and unforgiving thing but is it really that bad for you? Please try and lighten up a bit and stop pretending you are any different to the rest of us. |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 23, 2013 20:59:19 GMT
Icefisher, if you think the DMI graph represents the actual physical Arctic temperature, against what the DMI say themselves, theres is hardly anything I could do here. If you want more info on the question, it has been shown above that the DMi staff are willing to answer questions from the public.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 24, 2013 2:03:28 GMT
Icefisher, if you think the DMI graph represents the actual physical Arctic temperature, against what the DMI say themselves, theres is hardly anything I could do here. If you want more info on the question, it has been shown above that the DMi staff are willing to answer questions from the public. No the link you posted explains what the DMI represents. Its is a simple mean temperature of the grids surrounding the pole north of 80N. It is not a mean temperature of the entire arctic. Its a simple issue. The grids are 5 degrees. DMI is a mean of the grids. The grids immediately surrounding the pole are smaller than the next row of grids. Therefore the most northerly grids are more heavily weighted. However, you are anticipating melt at the pole so its really a non-issue. Its just a heads up if you choose to build a quantitative model you will need to get the individual grid temperatures. So yes it does represent an actual average measure of grids in the arctic. All the surface temperature records are an average of grids. So by that measure none of them are a physical temperature. They are all statistical temperatures. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 24, 2013 6:54:44 GMT
Icefisher, if you think the DMI graph represents the actual physical Arctic temperature, against what the DMI say themselves, theres is hardly anything I could do here. If you want more info on the question, it has been shown above that the DMi staff are willing to answer questions from the public. No the link you posted explains what the DMI represents. Its is a simple mean temperature of the grids surrounding the pole north of 80N. It is not a mean temperature of the entire arctic. Its a simple issue. The grids are 5 degrees. DMI is a mean of the grids. The grids immediately surrounding the pole are smaller than the next row of grids. Therefore the most northerly grids are more heavily weighted. However, you are anticipating melt at the pole so its really a non-issue. Its just a heads up if you choose to build a quantitative model you will need to get the individual grid temperatures. So yes it does represent an actual average measure of grids in the arctic. All the surface temperature records are an average of grids. So by that measure none of them are a physical temperature. They are all statistical temperatures. The grids are not real ones. They are modelled. Christ knows what it represents but it is not real temperatures. DMI say that all you can use the annual graph for is to make relative comparisions between years. But by all means write to DMI and tell them you have already changed their system for them and they do not realise it yet. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 24, 2013 8:13:12 GMT
The grids are not real ones. They are modelled. Christ knows what it represents but it is not real temperatures. DMI say that all you can use the annual graph for is to make relative comparisions between years. But by all means write to DMI and tell them you have already changed their system for them and they do not realise it yet. Sheeeeesh! If I want the temperature at Los Angeles City Hall I read a thermometer. If I want to know the average temperature of Los Angeles I have to model it. For chrissakes DMI uses the input to the T1279 ECMWF model for the grids above 80N. T1279 is a global effort assimilating over 8,000,000 observations every 12 hours. Input includes the same satellite data as used by UAH and RSS. They also use conventional measurements by aircraft, ships, buoys, and weather balloons. When the current state of the climate analysis is complete, DMI picks off the input for 80N and above before its run through the model and used for 10 day forecasts. Its real grids and real temperature data as real of grids as Hadcrut or NASA uses, probably better. The entire thing is being designed by the top meteorologists in the world to be a superior system. Its almost assurdedly already there and has been for a few years. www.data-assimilation.net/Events/Kick_Off_Meeting/Presentations/ECMWF_Isaksen.pdfNo doubt warmists are a lot more comfortable having Jim Hansen personally do it with a crayon in his office in Manhattan. |
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 24, 2013 8:15:59 GMT
Wow! Thanks, all. I do appreciate the responses. I thought it was a simple question but nothing in this science seems simple. I am still struck by the oscillations... The link Gorm provided polarportal.dk/en/arctic-sea-ice/nbsp/sea-ice-temperature/ is interesting and, I think, a new resource. zaphod Zaphod, I've finally got round to extracting & animating Gorm's images; Gorm stated in his reply: "You can unpact and animate these data and you will see that there is no particular occillation in that period that explains the saw-tooth variations." I'm not sure that I entirely agree... need to spend a little time removing the daily variation...  ________________________________________________________________________ Update: Animation below is using a single daily image in an attempt to make any potential 3-4 day oscillation easier to identify.  |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 24, 2013 11:28:28 GMT
Wow! Thanks, all. I do appreciate the responses. I thought it was a simple question but nothing in this science seems simple. I am still struck by the oscillations... The link Gorm provided polarportal.dk/en/arctic-sea-ice/nbsp/sea-ice-temperature/ is interesting and, I think, a new resource. zaphod Zaphod, I've finally got round to extracting & animating Gorm's images. . . |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 24, 2013 13:04:43 GMT
KARA SEA ICE. . . Over the past few summers I've noted a persistent low sea ice anomaly that has developed in the Kara and Barents Seas. A few days ago, NASA published a "Picture of the Day" which showed a one-month melting of the Taz River near the mouth of the Ob' River near the Kara Sea.
This jogged my memory back to Hydrology 101: more precipitation, more runoff, more melting. This study was done in 2009 which zeroed in on the 2007 Arctic Melting event. The thesis was that higher levels of precipitation caused greater runoff that could be associated with greater Arctic melting.
A I Shiklomanov and R B Lammers Study
As shown in the charts below, Shiklomanov and Lammers correlated higher precipitation with higher runoff with higher Arctic Ice loss.
We're not talking about a little runoff. The Ob' River Basin alone, is a 1.15 million square miles, with an average flow of 440,550 cubic feet per second. The river flows south to north over a distance of about 1000 miles, meaning that it's picking up and transporting warmer water from lower latitudes.
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 24, 2013 15:52:09 GMT
"Transporting warmer water." What might have warmed it?
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 24, 2013 15:59:22 GMT
"Transporting warmer water." What might have warmed it? |
|
zaphod
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 210
|
Post by zaphod on Jul 24, 2013 20:56:04 GMT
Well, I started something on the oscillation. Maybe many factors giving an input. The smoothing of acquired data could be one, but there still must be some element of that data that results in a sawtooth/almost sinusoidal curve. It was Icefisher who suggested "My guess would be its related to the polar vortex. The PV circulates around the arctic at pretty good speed and creates waves of energy much like the Rossby waves that affect the ENSO region. The speed and strength of the vortex varies over the year. Here on the west coast we get temperature fluctuations that take about a week to go a full cycle and its in time with storms that usually feed out of the Aleutian islands." I don't know how to paste his post here  I'm surprised that the DMI themselves dont see an explanation, the whole graph has ups and downs, I may find a way to flatten it out and weight the fluctuations to constant amplitude (maybe, one day!). This has become very interesting! |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 24, 2013 21:13:23 GMT
UPDATE July 24th: Heat Wave continues in Siberia
The extraordinary and perhaps unprecedented heat wave continues in the central arctic region of Russia. Some locations have now endured 10 consecutive days above 30°C (86°F). Wildfires are erupting in the taiga forests (see more about this in the comments section following this blog). Norilsk maximum daily temperatures have cooled down a little, but yesterday (July 23rd) it enjoyed its warmest night so far with a low of 20.2°C (68.4°F). wunderground.com/blog/weatherhistorian/comment.html?entrynum=177#commenttop |
|
