|
Post by tacoman25 on Jun 30, 2009 8:34:16 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. 11 years without a new global temp record, Steve. The 1980s and 1990s, despite two climate-cooling volcanic explosions, still averaged a new temperature record every 2-3 years. That was the era of warming. Live in the present, the era of the plateau.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 30, 2009 9:51:20 GMT
Yes and apart from 1997/8, all those earlier temperature records have been beaten by every year this century, and heat content of the earth, best represented by this plot (Levitus et al 2009, Ocean heat content), is higher than 1998: This thread is about people who latch on to the tiniest hint of cooler temperatures with the vaguest evidence. Pray for a plateau, but I think we have a false crest.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 30, 2009 14:04:03 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. You're wrong, in my opinion, to believe the Levitus OHC results. Pielke, for one, disagrees. At worst, the jury is still out on OHC. The 24-month tropical cyclone being at a historic low would tend to corroborate Pielke. You're right to anticipate accelerated melting in August, of course. And if you anticipate, however faintly, that 2009 Arctic sea ice minimum will be beneath 2008 then perhaps we could bet about that? The Arctic sea ice catastrophe has been cancelled. The Antarctic sea ice catastrophe never existed. The melting poles story line has been annulled.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jun 30, 2009 17:24:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jun 30, 2009 17:44:46 GMT
OK, I can see why you would prefer not to bet. Just for fun, I hereby officially predict that September Arctic sea ice is at least 0.5 million square kilometers more than it was in 08. I also predict that 2007 will be the minimum Arctic sea ice extent for the next 20 years (at least).
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 30, 2009 19:03:19 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. 11 years without a new global temp record, Steve. The 1980s and 1990s, despite two climate-cooling volcanic explosions, still averaged a new temperature record every 2-3 years. That was the era of warming. Live in the present, the era of the plateau. Massive warm events like the 1998 el nino make it harder to break records subsequently. They don't make it easier. See: tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Jun 30, 2009 19:46:48 GMT
It's not a massive warming event, but a cold PDO that is making warm record breaking difficult. Hansen was betting a new record in 2007, and now a bunch of warmistas are betting on 2010-11. The El Nino this year will be weak and over by the end of the year. It may not even make 5 months for official status.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jun 30, 2009 21:29:13 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.
|
|
|
Post by william on Jun 30, 2009 22:06:32 GMT
Heinrich Event? First the surge in the ice sheets and then abrupt cooling. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/323/5913/458awww.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/greenlands-ice-armageddon-comes-end“It has come to an end,” Murray said during a session at the meeting. " There seems to have been a synchronous switch-off " of the speed-up, she said. Based on the shape and appearance of the 14 largest outlet glaciers in southeast Greenland, outlet glacier flows have returned to the levels of 2000 nearly everywhere. “There's a pattern of speeding up to maximum velocity and then slowing down since 2005," Murray reported. “It's amazing; they sped up and slowed down together. They're not in runaway acceleration.” “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical,” said atmospheric scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology. Simpson, formerly of NASA, is the author of more than 190 studies and is among the most preeminent climate scientists. According to Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist and former IPCC member, global warming scaremongering is the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 1, 2009 0:33:33 GMT
11 years without a new global temp record, Steve. The 1980s and 1990s, despite two climate-cooling volcanic explosions, still averaged a new temperature record every 2-3 years. That was the era of warming. Live in the present, the era of the plateau. Massive warm events like the 1998 el nino make it harder to break records subsequently. They don't make it easier. See: tamino.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/breaking-records/Then why have Hansen, Hadley and others repeatedly forecast a year would "likely" set a new global temp record? This is since 1998. 1972-73 featured a massive El Nino. Yet that 1973 global temp record was beaten 8 years later, in 1981...by a neutral ENSO year.
|
|
|
Post by tacoman25 on Jul 1, 2009 0:44:42 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. Second, we are not warming at the rate of .2C/decade. Pinatubo cooled the 1990s about .1C...therefore, depending on what source you use, the 2000s have actually only been about .05-.1C warmer than the 1990s. Finally, where do you get the idea that we are approaching the warmth of 2003? In May 2003.... UAH: .239 / .043 in 2009 RSS: .395 / .090 in 2009 HadCRU: .435 / .400 in 2009 GISS: .51 / .55 in 2009 Ah, I see....once again, you are using GISS and ignoring all other data.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 1, 2009 3:54:50 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. Second, we are not warming at the rate of .2C/decade. Pinatubo cooled the 1990s about .1C...therefore, depending on what source you use, the 2000s have actually only been about .05-.1C warmer than the 1990s. Finally, where do you get the idea that we are approaching the warmth of 2003? In May 2003.... UAH: .239 / .043 in 2009 RSS: .395 / .090 in 2009 HadCRU: .435 / .400 in 2009 GISS: .51 / .55 in 2009 Ah, I see....once again, you are using GISS and ignoring all other data. Soon they will be touting NOAA temperatures.....
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2009 11:43:01 GMT
OK, I can see why you would prefer not to bet. Just for fun, I hereby officially predict that September Arctic sea ice is at least 0.5 million square kilometers more than it was in 08. I also predict that 2007 will be the minimum Arctic sea ice extent for the next 20 years (at least). According to the Sea Ice outlook, 2008 was 4.7. A continuation of the linear melt would be 5.6, and most of the outlook projections range between 4.6 and 5.0. Your bet (on the same scale) is 5.2 which isn't far off many of the outlook projections. So it doesn't sound like a very courageous bet
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jul 1, 2009 13:54:24 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.
It does take a particular kind of courage to suggest that the Arctic cooling is non-existent.
It takes a similar sort of courage to suggest that model predictions of polar warming are right on the money. ;D
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 1, 2009 15:48:10 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.
|
|