|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 11, 2013 1:43:08 GMT
Great pic numerouno.
Hope that you enjoy the currants.
What would the "normal", (please define base period) of the temps that you posted be?
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jul 11, 2013 4:47:13 GMT
Remember I told you about the false "happy hours" the "it's a recovery/it's cooling" folks might momentarily enjoy. Of course NumeroUno is not #1 for nothing! So, are you saying that the Arctic Summer temps are not unusually low???  Not looking too bad to me; certainly no reason to be slapping oneself on the back & rubbing ones hands with uncontainable glee...  |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 11, 2013 5:40:44 GMT
It's just one huge chain of recoveries in sight one after another:  Your shooting mega holes into Graywhale's contentions. He has been claiming that extent is up but its ultra thin compared to last year. Then he has been taking potshots at PIOMAS as if he thinks that is crappy science. So what do you do? You endorse PIOMAS! Seems like the warmist coalition is running everywhich way like they were doing trying to explain the missing heat, which remains missing. My favorite question for that time was "can CO2 turn on and turn off its warming characteristics at will?" So where are we? The climate has been cooling since 2005 at a rate of the speed of which it warmed over the past 160 years. The oceans have been cooling dramatically since 2003 according to raw temperature data (and cooling slightly after adjustment to fit tide gauge data which in turn was adjusted to allow for continental rebound effects from the last ice age when it was discovered that the oceans were not expanding fast enough to fit warming models) Our DMI arctic climate figures show the coldest arctic year on record so far. Ice extent continues to run ahead of 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012. Average thickness of the ice is up over the past two years. And obviously the volume is up a lot surpassing the past 3 years. So what can go wrong here? We have covered conduction from the ocean, conduction and radiation from the atmosphere, the spread of ice, the thickness of the ice, and the total volume of the ice and all 5 come up spelling less ice loss this year. Oh thats right we could have some bad weather, the sun could shine more and the wind could run the ice out of the arctic. Did I miss anything Nonum, Greywhale? |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 11, 2013 19:25:26 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 11, 2013 19:55:05 GMT
LOL! So the ocean anomaly is up from 30 years ago? I have wondered how the calculate anomalies for areas covered by ice 30 years ago. What do they do Numno? Do they assume the water temperature to have been zero C? If so then that would be an assumption the ocean played no role in the melting of the ice. It seems each time I see a sea surface anomaly map they have the current ice in white and the recently uncovered ice exposing water never seen before it has a big anomaly. Perhaps Numno you could clear some of that up and while you are at it maybe you could post a legend too? |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 11, 2013 21:32:16 GMT
THIS COMES UNDER THE HEADING: WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE BUT NEITHER ARE ANOMALIES. . .
. . .THAT WOULD INCLUDE EXTENDED FORECASTS, I GUESS.
Looking around the Arctic Circle on Accuweather, I found two Cities in Accuweather's database that had extended forecasts for the week AND average temperatures. I found two: Tiksi, Russia and Barrow, Alaska. I circled the extended forecast and average temperature for each and posted them below.
It's interesting to note that Barrow, AK will have temperatures slightly below average until next Monday. Tiksi, Russia will enjoy temperatures about 10 degrees fahrenheit below normal all week long.
Both Cities are sunny all day long.
Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 11, 2013 22:53:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 12, 2013 3:31:20 GMT
You really like those Land-based surface weather stations, huh?
|
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jul 12, 2013 3:48:10 GMT
mkelter  |
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 12, 2013 11:23:55 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jul 12, 2013 19:30:55 GMT
from the region I travel through extensively about 6x the land area of the US what is purported for the may anomaly is BS.
I think there is a bit of homogenization in the background.
that a couple of % of the globe in northern Europe has been hot tells me that this year the warm anomaly is in a place where connected people live. maybe last year it was in Siberia who knows but we all know, that volume of chat is more related to where an event happens than how bad or otherwise it was.
if you don't believe that think of the 9/11 event just 3000 dead less than a days road deaths in the OECD. yes it was an amazing tragedy but the response is measured in saturation coverage for months and trillions of dollars spent in wars.
hardly a proportionate response, it hit the media nerve in NY. (probably the intention also.)
|
|
|
|
Post by numerouno on Jul 12, 2013 20:17:49 GMT
from the region I travel through extensively about 6x the land area of the US what is purported for the may anomaly is BS. Unfortunately, you don't keep a single bit of statistics on the area you travel. |
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 12, 2013 22:33:24 GMT
. . . but we all know, that volume of chat is more related to where an event happens than how bad or otherwise it was. if you don't believe that think of the 9/11 event just 3000 dead less than a days road deaths in the OECD. yes it was an amazing tragedy. . .
. . .but hold that thought.
I too think these anomalies are local and to some extent are BS. I look at these things from an operations and maintenance perspective. I've got a mechanical aptitude that's normally in hyperdrive and I can look at alot of equipment every waking moment of every day and evaluate it until you're bored to tears. I can say from first-hand observation that the O&M standards in the real world ain't what they're cracked up to be in the books.
Bad things happen to data when the equipment isn't properly sited; or if a proper site is made to be unsuitable or is allowed to go into disrepair; or if equipment fails between calibrations and periodic inspection that may or may not occur. Hot spots that occur naturally as a result of atmosperic fluid and thermodynamics, can get exaggerated in the data sets.
Urban dwellers most likely support this AGW nonsense because they live in an Urban Heat Island. They have no idea that it's hotter in the big City than it is on the river fishing. City dwellers are more apt, in my unexpert opinion, to accept the Government's word that the thermometers are working, even when the perponderence of evidence suggests that the equipment is probably not working.
At least until something bad happens, and then they whine the loudest.
That's where I think we agree.
Back to the World Trade Center deal. That was a really big deal to a good deal of Americans. This was an attack on American soil even though it happened to a couple of my least-favorite places: New York and Washington, DC. They may not be my favorites, but they're still American citizens, and I take great offense in that attack.
New Yorkers may be over-dosed with whine-genes, but they had every reason to be angry and loud after 911.
|
|
|
|
Post by mkelter on Jul 12, 2013 23:18:42 GMT
ON A LESS SERIOUS NOTE:
How big an Urban Heat Island will be detected in the "anomaly" over Miami, Florida this weekend after the Zimmerman verdict is rendered?
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 13, 2013 1:09:00 GMT
I will state that it must have been durn cold from 1951 to 1980. I know for a fact that the upper mid west was well below that temp anomaly. But then I live here too.
|
|
