|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 3, 2011 5:48:24 GMT
thermostat: I knew you were using GISS data. It doesn't even come close to any other data set. By using the outlier and not verifying it with other data, you have done yourself a diservice. Do you think tstat realizes Reto Ruedy from GISS recommended using Hadley data over GISS? |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 3, 2011 15:14:45 GMT
thermostat: I knew you were using GISS data. It doesn't even come close to any other data set. By using the outlier and not verifying it with other data, you have done yourself a diservice. Do you think tstat realizes Reto Ruedy from GISS recommended using Hadley data over GISS? I doubt he has informed himself of what Ruedy said. We know that for folks who think AGW is real use the highest temp metric. Even tho the authors of that metric have plainly stated there are problems with it. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 3, 2011 20:10:33 GMT
While we continue to hear the myths of AGW now being applied to cooling, despite all the evidence to the contrary, it behooves us to once again observe the effects of the ENSO I forecasted has yielded in the American Mountain West -
(AP) -- July 3, 2011- As the Fourth of July holiday weekend kicks off, people across the U.S. West are donning shorts, bikini tops and Hawaiian shirts — and then they're hitting the slopes.
Ski resorts from California to Colorado opened for the weekend to take advantage of an unusual combination of dense lingering snow from late-season storms in the Sierra Nevada and the Rockies and a high-pressure system ushering in warm air from the east.
Resort operators were reporting large crowds, balmy temperatures and plenty of bare skin.
"I've seen bathing suits, funny costumes like Hawaiian skirts and silver sequined pants. Shorts are very standard today," said Rachael Woods, a spokeswoman for California's Alpine Meadows, which has offered Independence Day skiing just one other time in its 50-year history. "People are coming off the slopes and putting on flip-flops."
The weather at the base of the mountain was in the upper 50s Fahrenheit. At Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort in Utah, 783 inches (1,989 centimeters) of snow this season smashed the old record of 688 inches (1,748 centimeters) set in the winter of 1983-84.
By the time the resort closes for the season after Monday's holiday, it will have been open a record 202 days.
Colorado's Arapahoe Basin Ski Area drew more than 1,500 skiers and snowboarders Saturday — about half as many people as a regular-season weekend day, said spokeswoman Leigh Hierholzer.
The resort, located 70 miles (113 kilometers) west of Denver, last offered skiing on the Fourth of July weekend in 1997, she said.
The weather allowed some of the more adventurous skiers at Arapahoe to try "pond skimming," a blend of snow skiing and waterskiing in which an individual picks up as much speed as possible going downhill and then attempts to coast over the top of a mid-mountain lake.
But while snow-sport enthusiasts are celebrating, the peculiar conditions are proving frustrating — and even deadly — for visitors to some of the West's popular camping and hiking destinations.
This year's massive snowpack is thawing, causing rivers and streams to surge and prompting flood warnings.
At Yosemite National Park in California, one hiker was killed and another remained missing after they were swept off a bridge into a reservoir Wednesday by unusually high runoff.
Several of the park's popular high-country campgrounds, cabins and other amenities remain closed due to snow.
Officials at nearby Stanislaus National Forest have had to turn away disappointed visitors seeking permits to hike the popular backcountry this weekend, said Karen Caldwell, summit district ranger for the forest, located primarily in Tuolumne County.
Much of the terrain above 8,000 feet (2,400 meters) remains blanketed in snow, while some lower-elevation areas are blocked by high- and fast-running creeks and overflowing rivers.
Oregon and Wyoming both saw their second-wettest spring in 117 years of record keeping as a result of late-season snowmelt and abundant rain, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
|
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 5, 2011 0:38:20 GMT
woodstove, And I see from slide 27, "•A majority of the ENSO models, and all three multi-model outlooks, predict ENSO-neutral conditions (Niño-3.4 SST anomalies between -0.5C and +0.5C ) to continue into early 2012." |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 5, 2011 0:44:38 GMT
sigurdur, I agree, looks like El Nino is now neutral, although it appears there are some lingering climatic affects. It's funny. Warmologists say ENOS doesn't explain the last 30 years of warming, yet they all look forward to each El Nino in hopes that it will make it look like the globe is still warming. Magellan, You wrote, "Warmologists say ENOS doesn't explain the last 30 years of warming, yet they all look forward to each El Nino in hopes that it will make it look like the globe is still warming." (Actually it is called ENSO not ENOS). It means "El Nino Southern Oscillation". As the name indicates, ENSO is a cycle, a periodic variation. ENSO does not drive climate change, but rather redistributes heat within the climate system in a periodic fashion. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 5, 2011 0:50:51 GMT
thermostat: I knew you were using GISS data. It doesn't even come close to any other data set. By using the outlier and not verifying it with other data, you have done yourself a diservice. Do you think tstat realizes Reto Ruedy from GISS recommended using Hadley data over GISS? Magellan, I think it is generally a good idea to look at all of the data. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2011 16:22:41 GMT
Do you think tstat realizes Reto Ruedy from GISS recommended using Hadley data over GISS?
Magellan,I think it is generally a good idea to look at all of the data.
I agree with the statement you made Tstat.
Just that when you look at GISS you are not looking at any different data. You should know that.
What you are looking at is the interpretation of the world's leading climate nutcase's interpretation of the data.
You seem to have an unnatural infatuation with the worst of the worst, the most politically-oriented, dollar enviro-influenced scientists in the climate community.
Hansen and Thompson have to be ranked #1 and #2 in the world in political and dollar connections to the rabid promotion of AGW. They both have huge control over climate funding (Thompson and his wife overwhelming even Hansen on this issue). Its like relying on a cigarette company scientist for all your science on cigarettes.
woodstove,
And I see from slide 27, "•A majority of the ENSO models, and all three multi-model outlooks, predict ENSO-neutral conditions (Niño-3.4 SST anomalies between -0.5C and +0.5C ) to continue into early 2012."
Following the NWS models versus the academic models for about 2 years now, the NWS models have tended to 1) be more accurate over the past 2 years; 2) the academic models have a warming bias over estimating El Nino and underestimating La Nina.
But that all said, more importantly there is also the fact that the NWS models update daily. The academic model report has not been updated since June 14.
The NWS model La Nina only emerged in the past 3 weeks. They have been declining a little before that not to the extent of picking a La Nina Episode.
The academic models have not been updated. Though the academic models took a good sized drop from the May 17 report. The current report as of Jun 14 include models updated between May 17 and June 14.
So your comment is out of date and irrelevant to the observation that the NWS models had recently moved into La Nina prediction territory.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 5, 2011 19:07:37 GMT
Do you think tstat realizes Reto Ruedy from GISS recommended using Hadley data over GISS?
Magellan,I think it is generally a good idea to look at all of the data.
I agree with the statement you made Tstat. Just that when you look at GISS you are not looking at any different data. You should know that. What you are looking at is the interpretation of the world's leading climate nutcase's interpretation of the data.
You seem to have an unnatural infatuation with the worst of the worst, the most politically-oriented, dollar enviro-influenced scientists in the climate community. Hansen and Thompson have to be ranked #1 and #2 in the world in political and dollar connections to the rabid promotion of AGW. They both have huge control over climate funding (Thompson and his wife overwhelming even Hansen on this issue). Its like relying on a cigarette company scientist for all your science on cigarettes. woodstove,
And I see from slide 27, "•A majority of the ENSO models, and all three multi-model outlooks, predict ENSO-neutral conditions (Niño-3.4 SST anomalies between -0.5C and +0.5C ) to continue into early 2012."Following the NWS models versus the academic models for about 2 years now, the NWS models have tended to 1) be more accurate over the past 2 years; 2) the academic models have a warming bias over estimating El Nino and underestimating La Nina. But that all said, more importantly there is also the fact that the NWS models update daily. The academic model report has not been updated since June 14. The NWS model La Nina only emerged in the past 3 weeks. They have been declining a little before that not to the extent of picking a La Nina Episode. The academic models have not been updated. Though the academic models took a good sized drop from the May 17 report. The current report as of Jun 14 include models updated between May 17 and June 14. So your comment is out of date and irrelevant to the observation that the NWS models had recently moved into La Nina prediction territory.
What you are looking at is the interpretation of the world's leading climate nutcase's interpretation of the data.
I'd have to disagree with that. It's not even an interpretation of the data because GISS does not derive their results from measurements, admittedly so. Therefore, to refer to GISS as "data" is an insult to Metrology, which is the science of measurement. Lump Hansen and Thompson in with Tom Karl and Peter Thorne (to name a few), whom have staked their entire careers on failed predictions of doom, and now must resort to exaggerations and flat out lying to save face. A separate thread should be created to cover just these "mistruths" told by many AGW prognosticators the likes of tstat reveres. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 5, 2011 23:28:22 GMT
I'd have to disagree with that. It's not even an interpretation of the data because GISS does not derive their results from measurements, admittedly so.
Therefore, to refer to GISS as "data" is an insult to Metrology, which is the science of measurement.
I have to take exception to your comments.
First I said "when you look at GISS you are not looking at any different data". So the "therefore" was unneeded. Its clear I was not freeing to GISS extensions as being data.
Second, if its not data its an interpretation of the data they did use. In this case its the same data the thread was comparing another service too.
Since GISS starts with essentially the same data its an interpretation of the Hadcrut data no matter what they do with it. We already know that it is not a scientific interpretation of the data as what they did with it is not available for repeating and testing what they did with it. Call it what you will but its a perversion of science to call such practices science.
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Jul 6, 2011 2:34:20 GMT
I'd have to disagree with that. It's not even an interpretation of the data because GISS does not derive their results from measurements, admittedly so.
Therefore, to refer to GISS as "data" is an insult to Metrology, which is the science of measurement.I have to take exception to your comments. First I said "when you look at GISS you are not looking at any different data". So the "therefore" was unneeded. Its clear I was not freeing to GISS extensions as being data. Second, if its not data its an interpretation of the data they did use. In this case its the same data the thread was comparing another service too. Since GISS starts with essentially the same data its an interpretation of the Hadcrut data no matter what they do with it. We already know that it is not a scientific interpretation of the data as what they did with it is not available for repeating and testing what they did with it. Call it what you will but its a perversion of science to call such practices science. I was referring to the GISS unmeasured temperature of the Arctic region Hansen uses to inflate the global monthly surface temperature, and to within tenths of a degree; it's a joke. And of course he didn't "discover" this until it became clear global temperatures were not cooperating. The 1200km extrapolation and lights=0 are two more Hansen inventions. Hansen was very clever. Disprove the negative. HadCRUT data is at least measured. From that point it is a matter of interpretation; UHI, TOBS, etc. Unfortunately, the raw data was "lost". Naturally that can't have anything to do with Phil Jones' quote in the climategate emails threatening to destroy it rather than turn it over. What's important is to remember that tropospheric temperatures should be warming faster than the surface according to greenhouse "theory", now discarded by warmologists after the fact. Their only hope was to discredit satellite data, namely UAH, but now that RSS is tracking lower than UAH.......... That hasn't worked out so well. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 6, 2011 3:37:34 GMT
Magellan:
What this all boils down to is that temps, at least in the USA, are approaching our past high during the 30's and early 40's. Before that particulate matter all of a sudden cooled us for 30 odd years.
There is absolutely nothing extreme about current temps, at least not in the USA. And of course, we know the USA has this huge high fence around it so that we cant' collect heat like the rest of the world.
|
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Jul 14, 2011 22:36:29 GMT
Magellan: What this all boils down to is that temps, at least in the USA, are approaching our past high during the 30's and early 40's. Before that particulate matter all of a sudden cooled us for 30 odd years. There is absolutely nothing extreme about current temps, at least not in the USA. And of course, we know the USA has this huge high fence around it so that we cant' collect heat like the rest of the world. Hi Sigurdur, While the warmest temperature records are those of the mid-1930s, the period 1944-1980 shows more variable, cool and wetter climate conditions. The astronomic signals of that 36-year period clearly depict a more variable climate over those decades. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 16, 2011 2:02:59 GMT
Magellan: What this all boils down to is that temps, at least in the USA, are approaching our past high during the 30's and early 40's. Before that particulate matter all of a sudden cooled us for 30 odd years. There is absolutely nothing extreme about current temps, at least not in the USA. And of course, we know the USA has this huge high fence around it so that we cant' collect heat like the rest of the world. sigurdur, touche! Climate change globally is completely distinct from regional variation in the near term. That is an essential point. This is related to why this or that posting about weather extremes in this place or that are interesting news, but so what. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 16, 2011 2:17:27 GMT
Magellan: What this all boils down to is that temps, at least in the USA, are approaching our past high during the 30's and early 40's. Before that particulate matter all of a sudden cooled us for 30 odd years. There is absolutely nothing extreme about current temps, at least not in the USA. And of course, we know the USA has this huge high fence around it so that we cant' collect heat like the rest of the world. sigurdur, touche! Climate change globally is completely distinct from regional variation in the near term. That is an essential point. This is related to why this or that posting about weather extremes in this place or that are interesting news, but so what. Thermostat: You are learning! Good for you! Global climate is global climate. We have those that take a few places that were not warm during the MWP and try to disprove the MWP just because of that. When we have two ice sheets.....greenland and antarctica both showing a MWP.....one has to think it happened. Same for RWP, Holocene Optimum etc. Back to local weather. This is not global weather. To examine global temps, one has to understand cloud cover as a starter. That is the MOST single defining phenomum to temperature distribution AND intensity. WE have had diminished cloud cover for decades. IF we hadn't warmed globally...well....we would be in a deeeeeeeep dooooooooo daaaaaaaaaa pile. I get a kick out of "denialist" mentality of the AGW folks. IF you don't swallow their shoddy science.....then...you are a denialist. Yet....when you show them empercial evidence with physical causeation that does NOT agree with their belief...they go nutso. Some of us are old fools.....and can be fooled once in a while. But we are not continuous fools that can be fooled over and over. That is what the AGW folks seem to think..well....won't happen. Ever notice on here tht most folks who have valid questions about AGW are the "older" folks? There are reasons for this....one which is called wisdom. |
|
|
|
Post by thermostat on Jul 16, 2011 2:42:44 GMT
sigurdur, touche! Climate change globally is completely distinct from regional variation in the near term. That is an essential point. This is related to why this or that posting about weather extremes in this place or that are interesting news, but so what. Thermostat: You are learning! Good for you! Global climate is global climate. We have those that take a few places that were not warm during the MWP and try to disprove the MWP just because of that. When we have two ice sheets.....greenland and antarctica both showing a MWP.....one has to think it happened. Same for RWP, Holocene Optimum etc. Back to local weather. This is not global weather. To examine global temps, one has to understand cloud cover as a starter. That is the MOST single defining phenomum to temperature distribution AND intensity. WE have had diminished cloud cover for decades. IF we hadn't warmed globally...well....we would be in a deeeeeeeep dooooooooo daaaaaaaaaa pile. I get a kick out of "denialist" mentality of the AGW folks. IF you don't swallow their shoddy science.....then...you are a denialist. Yet....when you show them empercial evidence with physical causeation that does NOT agree with their belief...they go nutso. Some of us are old fools.....and can be fooled once in a while. But we are not continuous fools that can be fooled over and over. That is what the AGW folks seem to think..well....won't happen. Ever notice on here tht most folks who have valid questions about AGW are the "older" folks? There are reasons for this....one which is called wisdom. sigurdur, Oh my 'wise one'. wow! |
|
