|
|
Post by phydeaux2363 on Jul 24, 2013 22:15:26 GMT
Wunderground. Dr. Jeff hyperbole Masters. Imagine that it would be cold in Australia, New Zealand and Southern South America in winter, and hot in Russia in the summer. Surely something "extraordinary and unprecedented" must be happening. Sheesh. Give it a break and start enjoying life. It's shorter than you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 24, 2013 23:42:30 GMT
phydeaux2363: It is unprecedented for this summer......  |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 25, 2013 1:25:48 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#commenttopHow Many Watts/M2? The Good news: Trees in a Taiga forest use less water when CO2 levels are high.
ScienceDaily article on Forest Water Consumption
Now for the bad news: a productive Taiga forest produces a lot of fuel for fires when surficial ground water supplies are low. When they burn, Baby they burn.
The good news (again) is that once they burn, the fuels are consumed and tender young vegetation grows up to replace the old growth. Critters love it because the food is tastier. Makes for good hunting grounds.
Everybody knows this. NASA says:
Fire is an important ecological factor in the taiga forests, but in this region a combination of dry conditions and increased human exploitation during recent decades can increase the frequency and extent of fires and alter the historical fire regime. It is important to consider the effects of changing fire regimes from a climatological point of view, since the complex interactions between aerosols (tiny airborne particles), clouds, surfaces and the hydrological cycle are the main source of uncertainty in global climate models.
NASA article on 2003 Siberian fires
I appreciate the scientific realism of NASA in recognizing the uncertainties inherent in the Global Climate models--this article must have been written before NASA Management went politically correct.
Here's a good picture of the Siberian smoke plumes:
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 25, 2013 5:10:54 GMT
Reality check update, the present Arctic Storm has probably reached its maximum, but will persist for a day or two more. Here is the latest IJIS graph, www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htmThe unknown is what happens next. How different is the present ice from the 20th century standard? How different are present conditions from back then? |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 6:32:01 GMT
Wunderground. Dr. Jeff hyperbole Masters. Imagine that it would be cold in Australia, New Zealand and Southern South America in winter, and hot in Russia in the summer. Surely something "extraordinary and unprecedented" must be happening. Sheesh. Give it a break and start enjoying life. It's shorter than you think. The news acticle says that its is not just hot but cxceptionally hot in Northern Siberia actually. That area lies next to the Arctic. |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 6:37:26 GMT
Mkelter, the SI unit metre is abbreviated as "m". "M" stands for the prefix mega. "m" also stands for the prefix milli (1/1000).
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 10:15:23 GMT
Mkelter, I also notice that you are a so called terminal state of climate change deniers. Old Skool state one was "it only happens because people measure temps at airports" and the trendy stage final is "let's party like hell as climate change is here".
"Climate change gives us wonderful hunting grounds" would be wonderful parody but I'm afraid it was meant for real.
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 12:37:16 GMT
[quote author=" icefisher" source="/post/92227/thread" [/quote] Icefisher, what is ERA40 is the reference graph, the so called DMI Arctic temperature is something else. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 25, 2013 16:47:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 25, 2013 17:13:17 GMT
[quote author=" icefisher" source="/post/92227/thread" Icefisher, what is ERA40 is the reference graph, the so called DMI Arctic temperature is something else.[/quote] DMI has assembled a number of forecasting models starting states to demonstrate the trend over time. They apparently do this consistently by extracting the "initial state" Arctic grid data from global forecasting models. ERA40 is the earliest in the DMI product and was done entirely retroactively in 2002 by the international forecasting group ECMWF. It was never used as a forecasting model but was built by the forecasting agency as a control to check how well forecasting models can reconstruct the past. This is akin to the work of Phil Jones at UEA that was created as a reanalysis of historic temperatures and actually serves as part and parcel to all the surface temperature records by Hadcrut, GISS, and NOAA. DMI is like these temperature records. Each took the past reconstruction and may or may not have applied unique grid modeling techniques. It appears that DMI did no such manipulations and as a result the disclaimer that it represents "the mean" temperature of the Arctic. At Hadley they have more than Hadcrut 2, 3, and 4. They also have Hadley that uses a different grid modeling technique. DMI has apparently been using a single source from the start, while the surface records, with the possible exception of Hadcrut and Hadley may have not. DMI did not make any of the models or reconstructions they use. But have relied on ECMWF to provide updated information (forward model starting states). So DMI is really the arctic equivalent of the global surface records. The ECMWF model is actually a global weather forecasting model. The ECMWF reanalysis work and subsequent model starting points may serve as the starting point for some number of global climate models as well. www.ecmwf.int/products/data/archive/descriptions/e4/ |
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jul 25, 2013 18:03:26 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. It depends upon what we mean by the word model. I think model is different to estimate. DMI appears to be saying the temperature curve is not an estimate but rather something that is not directly related to actual temperatures Therefore by reading the graph we cannot say the estimated real temperature above 80N is 3 degrees. All we can say according to DMI is that compared to previous years of modelling the modelled temperature is average. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 25, 2013 19:03:45 GMT
Iceskater:
That is a correct analysis of the DMI temp metric.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 25, 2013 19:10:56 GMT
Therefore by reading the graph we cannot say the estimated real temperature above 80N is 3 degrees. All we can say according to DMI is that compared to previous years of modelling the modelled temperature is average. Yes that is correct! Looking for trends is what DMI is useful for as I told Numno. That is what is meant by DMI when they say you cannot use the figure as a mean temperature of the arctic. So if you wanted to say calculate how many joules of heat the arctic is gaining or losing you cannot do it with the temperature provided. You would have to go to the grids, weight them and build a model to do that. But its also incorrect to say that the temperature provided is not a real temperature. Its roughly representative of the average temperature of 85 degrees north. However, like all the gridded temperature systems that number would likely have some substantial error in it due to such things as extrapolating across coastlines and all sorts of geological features like mountain ranges, ice lines, ice sheet lines, and population centers. All the global temperature records do that. In the arctic you are extrapolating across ice lines, ice sheet lines, coastlines and some mountain ranges, but not really any population centers. |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 25, 2013 19:33:42 GMT
Magellan, of course it is just pure bad luck that there would be a once-in-500 years heat wave in Russia (and Finland) just during these last few years! (With a humongous blocking high, naturally.) I have no doubt that there is a denialist blog that says so, and nothing else. Just pure bad luck (for some), ha ha.  "The summer of 2010 was exceptionally warm in eastern Europe and large parts of Russia. We provide evidence that the anomalous 2010 warmth that caused adverse impacts exceeded the amplitude and spatial extent of the previous hottest summer of 2003. “Mega-heatwaves” such as the 2003 and 2010 events likely broke the 500-year-long seasonal temperature records over approximately 50% of Europe. According to regional multi-model experiments, the probability of a summer experiencing mega-heatwaves will increase by a factor of 5 to 10 within the next 40 years. However, the magnitude of the 2010 event was so extreme that despite this increase, the likelihood of an analog over the same region remains fairly low until the second half of the 21st century. "
The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Record Map of Europe Published Online March 17 2011 Science 8 April 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6026 pp. 220-224 DOI: 10.1126/science.1201224 www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/220.abstractIf you need the whole paper rather than the web abstract, I can supply citations. |
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 25, 2013 19:36:01 GMT
Magellan, of course it is just pure bad luck that there would be a once-in-500 years heat wave in Russia (and Finland) just during these last few years! I have no doubt that there is a denialist blog that says so, and nothing else. Just pure bad luck (for some), ha ha. "The summer of 2010 was exceptionally warm in eastern Europe and large parts of Russia. We provide evidence that the anomalous 2010 warmth that caused adverse impacts exceeded the amplitude and spatial extent of the previous hottest summer of 2003. “Mega-heatwaves” such as the 2003 and 2010 events likely broke the 500-year-long seasonal temperature records over approximately 50% of Europe. According to regional multi-model experiments, the probability of a summer experiencing mega-heatwaves will increase by a factor of 5 to 10 within the next 40 years. However, the magnitude of the 2010 event was so extreme that despite this increase, the likelihood of an analog over the same region remains fairly low until the second half of the 21st century. "
The Hot Summer of 2010: Redrawing the Temperature Record Map of Europe Published Online March 17 2011 Science 8 April 2011: Vol. 332 no. 6026 pp. 220-224 DOI: 10.1126/science.1201224 www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/220.abstractIf you need the whole paper rather than the web abstract, I can supply citations. Funny how weather is not climate except when Warmologists say it is. It isn't about "global" warming anymore; just look for a hot spot anywhere on the globe, and that somehow is proof of AGW. You people are nut jobs. Greenland and the Arctic as whole sure is on fire isn't it? ROFLMAO.  |
|
