Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings

All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Recent Comments

Prev  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  Next

Comments 106151 to 106200:

  1. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner wrote : "I think i was overwhelmed by the low Arctic ice extend sep 2007. And i just trusted in the "consensus". But then i found out that in the same period the Antarctic ice extend anomaly (around 2007-8) not only set a max record of around +2 mio sq km, but this record war almost TWICE the anomaly ever measured since 1979." It sounds like you were someone in search of something to believe in : first it was the low Arctic extent which convinced you to believe one thing, then a low Antarctic (sea-ice ?) extent convinced you to believe something opposite. That doesn't make sense to me, because I think it best to look at long-term trends and to look at all the evidence as a whole - not just one piece in isolation. Perhaps you were unsure of what you actually believed before Jan 2008 (as you stated previously), and will go back to believing something else in a few years time ? As I suggested, look at the long-term trends of all the evidence. I would also suggest a read of this thread (Is Antarctica Losing or Gaining Ice) from Skeptical Science, where you will see the difference between land and sea ice, and how the big picture looks.
  2. Increasing southern sea ice: a basic rebuttal
    FIRST of all, according to the latest study Antarcticas land ice loss was cut in HALF. Secondly, its ONLY a measurement since 8 years. It requires serious cheerry picking and hasty conclusions to say anything about accelerating there. Thirdly, UAH and RSS show antarctica cooling since 30 years. Thermometers cover only a fraction. Fourthly, the SST has been decreasing since 1980. This was also Cooks misconception. I dont know where his claim was coming from (maybe Currys latest study???), but the data clearly shows cooling.
  3. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    t_p_hamilton at 06:40 AM, the point I was making is that the energy that is transferred directly from sunlight to water vapour through the evaporation process is no different in terms of the effect it exerts once in the atmosphere, to that energy that is absorbed directly into the atmosphere from incoming solar radiation. On the point of confusion, a forcing is a mechanism that can exert change. It does not cease being a forcing agent because at some point in time it has a value of zero. What perhaps does confuse the issue is that the values that are subscribed to the various forcings are anomalies, with the base year I believe being 1750. This is all very well in the case of CO2, but I feel, given the poor understanding of the state of the climate at that time and the relatively inadequate measurements of all the other factors driving it, anomalies may not allow the weight of each forcing mechanism to be fully appreciated when being worked into models. Would it not be better if absolute values were to be used instead?
  4. Climate cherry pickers: Falling humidity
    And John, do you have ANY evidence at all that water wapor never acts as a forcing? It seems evident, that the earths temperature anomalies match quite a bit with the tropospheric humidity. This correlation also includes the flattening on the GW trend during the last decade. No net warming since 1998 and also no net humidity increase since 1998. Which is the cause and which is the effect? Also one crucial point about water wapur feedback is the increase in the upper troposphere. Some evidence sugggest, that there is no increase. Also according to the latest McKitrick et al and Christy et al, no tropospheric hotspot is also to be found, on any of the datasets. You also point out, that humidity increases during El Nino events. It also means, during La ninas it will decrease. And according to history, the next 30 years or so will be the times of La Nina. That could also mean decreasing in humidity for the same period. The most critical question is... where do trade winds come from. As far as I understand, clouds drive them through condensation (models do not take in accoutn the pressure loss through condensation, this was pointed out by Jeff Id lately), and solar activity with planetary rotating parameters is driving the clouds. If you just compare the detrended global thermometer data and compare it to PDO and AMO indexes you will see that all of the 30 year variation must be driven by those events. This also suggest cooling for the next 30 years (and 30yrs of warming after that), thus a total of 1C increase temperatures for the next 90 years.
  5. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP, what you wrote was; "So instead of the effect you describe, as seen from a map, there is typically a large smudge or plume that emerges around an urban center that tapers eastward... heat that is gradually dispersed but never lost" You have stated that this is the typical situation. The norm. Thus, surely you can show some evidence of it. Otherwise you'd have made a claim about something being 'typical' with no basis. I was able to find the 'anomalous' images below showing NO 'long downwind tail' without much effort. Surely finding images of the TYPICAL situation must be MUCH easier. Either that or the laws of physics still hold, urban heat (which is mostly due to albedo change rather than waste heat to begin with) rises due to convection, heated air then spreads out - forcing colder air downwards on all sides, and thus you get an extremely localized heat ISLAND. With that heat then dissipated higher up in the atmosphere it quickly escapes to space like all other heat rather than magically hanging around in the climate system for decades. But that's just physics and sanity talking. Please, show me a 'typical' map to the contrary.
  6. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Jmurphy: I think i was overwhelmed by the low Arctic ice extend sep 2007. And i just trusted in the "consensus". But then i found out that in the same period the Antarctic ice extend anomaly (around 2007-8) not only set a max record of around +2 mio sq km, but this record war almost TWICE the anomaly ever measured since 1979. And I noticed that the medias was quiet about this. Then I had to dig down in things. Another thing: I was going "bla bla bla" about my global warming opninion at a party Eastern Europe, and then it turned out that NO ONE else shared my opnions that global warming was very real. It turned out that people thought western countries where acting like embarresing fools! So I was a little shocked, and had to check things out. K.R. Frank
  7. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner wrote : "I was believing "Alarmist" until around jan 2008." What's your definition of an "alarmist" ? I ask because perhaps you were the only one who believed in things the way you claimed to before Jan 2008 - a definition would help determine your beliefs. What did you believe and what evidence can you show that gives an idea of what your beliefs were before Jan 2008 ?
  8. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Archiesteel, you write: "You clearly seem to indicate that the "cooling trend" is general in that comment. Perhaps you should consider publishing a retraction on your blog? " ??? I should retract... a comment?? (that was a new one...!) Heres the comment again: "The end of the global warming movement seems to take more than good arguments and data - first when temperatures (due to the ongoing Solar low activity) reach temperatures so low than no adjustments can hide it, when the ice grows massively, then this night mare of pseudo science will pass away." To me this is a general comment, and yes my impression is, that too much of the alarmist foundation is based on pseodu-science and pseudo data. In this context I have shown you GISS pseudo data by projecting temperature from land over sea and ice. Its grotesk. We have seen how UHI has been "measured" from London and suburbs. Grotesk. we have seen how Cryosphere ice has been adjusted massively in the year 2000. What happened in year 2000? And when these drops of weak science just keep coming in thousands, then one day even I got sceptic. I was believing "Alarmist" until around jan 2008. K.R. Frank
  9. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    "Bibliovermis at 14:16 PM on 22 October, 2010 I don't find a trend of melt season cooling during an annual warming trend surprising either. The "missing" heat can reasonably be concluded to be going into the enthalpy of fusion of the increased melting rate. " I agree totally! It has been one of the possible explanations, and its nice that we now can take a more scientific look at these thing in stead of just ignoring data. My original purpose was to show descrepancy with GISS data 80N-90N that comes from their land based data projected 1200 km over water and ice. And then of course my aim was simply to show the DMI data for people to know and considder. I personally did not expect a cooling trend incentral Arctic while in the melting season at the same time the bulk of the Arctic lost a great amount of ice. For me it was surpricing, but not impossible. K.R. Frank
  10. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP>If this were true, the ambient temperatures would never get over 0 Kelvin. I think you need to reword that sentence. As KR pointed out, you are forgetting that there is a delay between when the input increases and when the output grows to eventually match the input. It is during this delay that temperatures increase. Once the output has had time to match the input, then we are at equilibrium and the temperature does not increase any further. Again, no accumulation beyond this point.
  11. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP >You are obviously saying that more energy is escaping due to waste heat, while less energy is escaping due to GHGs. Nope, that's not at all what KR was saying, you are just misunderstanding the definition of the terms. Decreasing the emissive spectra of the earth does not mean less energy escaping to space. What it means is the earth has to get hotter to equal the same output, which as I pointed out, it MUST do otherwise it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. In other words, the total radiation escaping to space is identical whether GHG's are present or not, the difference is the earth has to get a lot hotter to generate the same rate of emissions. This is the basic principle behind global warming.
  12. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    archiesteel #266 "Oh, and where are those UHI maps? Are you sure they exist?" My words were, "as seen from a map" to depict the perspective as in "top view". You need to improve your basic reading skills.
  13. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    KR #242 "radiation increases since we're now warmer than solar equilibrium... Greenhouse gases accumulate, decreasing the emissive spectra of the Earth." I have put these to clauses side by side to illustrate a "minor" inconsistency. You are obviously saying that more energy is escaping due to waste heat, while less energy is escaping due to GHGs. You mentioned I am not rational when in fact my entire approach is based on deductive reasoning. The Evans paper for instance is just the opposite in that it documents measurements made for the sole purpose of upholding a theory. I was going to say there are two schools of thought, empiricism and reason, however now that I THINK about it there is only ONE school of thought, and that is the school of reason.
  14. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner, how do you explain what you wrote in the comments section of that blog post: "The end of the global warming movement seems to take more than good arguments and data - first when temperatures (due to the ongoing Solar low activity) reach temperatures so low than no adjustments can hide it, when the ice grows massively, then this night mare of pseudo science will pass away. What a relief, and as you say, then we have to fight with many decades of colder times when we will remember the good old warm days. Thanks for your words!" You clearly seem to indicate that the "cooling trend" is general in that comment. Perhaps you should consider publishing a retraction on your blog?
  15. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    @RSVP: "If this were true, the ambient temperatures would never get over 0 Kelvin. I think you need to reword that sentence." No. *You* need to learn basic physics. Hint: heat transfer is not instantaneous (nor did e's post claim it was, hence the use of the term "grow"). Oh, and where are those UHI maps? Are you sure they exist?
  16. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatross, ok the title has been shortened and it does compromise the content - until one reads the article. Heres how I wrote: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/colder-arctic-temperatures-in-the-melt-season-vs.-giss-temperatures-188.php Ha! now I better understand this fuzz :-) K.R. Frank
  17. Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
    @oxymoron: I responded to you in the It's the sun thread. Needless to say, you are wrong in your assessment, as that article demonstrates.
  18. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    e #262 "The rate of output will always grow to exactly match the rate of input. Not some of the input, ALL of it. " If this were true, the ambient temperatures would never get over 0 Kelvin. I think you need to reword that sentence.
  19. It's the sun
    Responding to oxymoron, who in another thread argued that "Certainly before 2000 the correlation between TSI and temperature is obvious" Well, as this article shows, it's not 2000, it's 1980. Also, note that temperatures actually *lead* TSI from about 1925 to 1950. So, what can we conclude? Solar forcing does have an impact, but in the past 30-35 years it has been completely overpowered by anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
  20. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "Archiesteel, in the article I dont just write "the Arctic is cooling" as you imply." Well, that's the implication, isn't it? That DMI shows cooling while GISS shows warming? Isn't that the entire point of your blog post? The name of your blog directly refers to a contrarian mantra - now are you saying that all this time you really agreed that the Arctic, overall, has been warming at a rate greater than the rest of the world? Are you going to do a blog post about that as well? "And if i somewhere in the comments did so(???), im sure most peoble here knows by now that we are talking about DMI summer melt season 80N-90N trends (!)" Well, since we all agree that this is about melt season only, and does not change the fact that, overall, the Arctic is warming, then what was the point of coming here to argue about it? "But im happy you dont think the ½ degree cooling trend 1991-2010 summermelt 80N-90N is surpricing." [...] "correction: "is not surpricing" I'm confused now. You're happy I don't think the cooling is not surprising? That a double negative. Am I suprised by the cooling? Well, it's certainly interesting, but others here have provided some interesting hypotheses as to why this could be. Others dispute the cooling, so there's clearly no consensus about this. So, interested? Sure. Surprised? Not really. Concerned this could be an argument against AGW? Not in the least.
  21. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Joe> Im not saying this is driving climate at the present, im saying this is one physical mechanism capable of driving unforced climate oscillations. Fair enough, but I think this (a change to our knowledge of the physics in action today) is exactly what skeptics imply when they focus on the MWP, when that conclusion really does not follow.
  22. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    Still waiting on those 'typical' maps showing UHI effects stretching out far from their urban sources.
  23. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    As a matter of fact, the "clipping effect" ought to be nicely amplified or highlighted in a regime undergoing a shift to exaggerated inversions. "Cooling," yes, but a case of being careful of what we wish for.
  24. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Not at all, Albatross. If this is about temperature inversions then this is much ado about nothing, or worse if one is a selective skeptic. The bottoms of inversions are little worlds all of their own, and of course such a beast is going to neatly reflect the "clipping effect" alluded to earlier. If anything, hardened, more persistent or more frequent inversions could well be seen as confirmatory of change, unless somebody can explain why upper air is warming for natural reasons.
  25. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Doug, Perhaps it is b/c it is late and I'm tired, but could you please elaborate on this: "This is beginning to sound entirely mundane." Thanks. So sorry to be dim.
  26. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Albatross: ...it is evident in their Fig. 1c. that the strongest warming during the summer (JJA) is not at the surface but concentrated between 850 and 950 hPa... Now that's interesting. I've been puzzling over what might forestall or even reverse an increase in temperature at the surface. Bearing in mind the clipping effect which seems pretty obvious from graphs, what could also help drive down statistics would be more frequent, deep or persistent temperature inversions. Superficially at least, it seems that warming above the surface would help drive an inversion process. Albatross continues: Given the stable stratification of the low-levels, it is difficult for the warmer air to mix down, thereby resulting in a slower rate of warming immediately at and above the surface during the summer. This is beginning to sound entirely mundane. Another smoking gun?
  27. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Franks says @97, "in the article I dont just write "the Arctic is cooling" as you imply." Really? This is what the title of Frank's post is at WUWT (and that sets the stage in the reader's mind): "DMI polar data shows cooler Arctic temperature since 1958" Nowhere in the title does he mention that he is only discussing melt season temperatures, or that he is focusing only north of 80 N. He uses the word "Arctic", that technically means north of ~66.56 N. The title is misleading. Yes, and I know what the first sentence says, but many people do not get beyond the title, and if they do, the title pre-conditions them as to how they will interpret the content. "But im happy you dont think the ½ degree cooling trend 1991-2010 summermelt 80N-90N is surpricing." As I have cited previously (and as John Cook has discussed here on SS ), the ERA-interim data (a continuous record with no splicing issues) analysis presented by Screen and Simmonds (2010) shows statistically significant warming north of 80 N during the summer (JJA) over the lower troposphere between 1989 and 2008. Interestingly, it is evident in their Fig. 1c. that the strongest warming during the summer (JJA) is not at the surface but concentrated between 850 and 950 hPa; a small region of statistically significant warming does, however, extend to the surface. One possible explanation for this warming signature/feature is that warmer (less dense) air from surrounding areas having much more open water is overrunning a shallow and relatively cooler (more dense) dome of air which is present above the more persistent ice. Given the stable stratification of the low-levels, it is difficult for the warmer air to mix down, thereby resulting in a slower rate of warming immediately at and above the surface during the summer. Additionally, as others have noted here, Screen and Simmonds (2010)state: "The near-surface warming is modest in summer [JJA] because energy is used to melt remaining sea ice and warm the upper ocean" So, I remain unconvinced that summertime temperatures north of 80 N have cooled since circa 1990-- the ERA-interim data (which is the best currently available) just do not support that assertion. I'm beginning to suspect that the "cooling" trend is an artifact of the analysis method used by Frank, for example, using the melt season (noting also that melt seasons differ from year-to-year). As I suggested to Peter earlier, it is more appropriate to look at all the data within a certain area for a fixed window of time each year. The "skeptics" are rapidly running out of ways and data sets to show cooling in the Arctic.
  28. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Going a little further than "e," it doesn't really seem as though the MWP-- whatever its extent and magnitude-- addresses the current physics problem at all. That's something that leaves me not really caring about the MWP, except as a more abstract puzzle. The MWP seems just a specific case of "the climate's changed before." So what?
  29. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    e at 14:58 PM As to the science, this is part of it, the extreme swings during glaciations would be evident of it. The younger dryas is "generally" accepted as an extreme case of this scenario, where ice dams breaking, causing a sudden massive flux of fresh water stalled the THC. It would be evident with greater lower water anomalies than atmospheric(during times o greater THC export), it could potentially i suppose show a reduction in hurricane intensity in the tropics during times o greatest increase in THC(just due reduced depth o warm water, greater export of energy from tropics), changing the opacity o the atmosphere changes things o course. It would mean a more rapid build up of energy, and slower decline than during pre industrial times. Im not saying this is driving climate at the present, im saying this is one physical mechanism capable of driving unforced climate oscillations. And is certainly a contender for the likes o the MWP/LIA It would also cause outgasing at times of warming(increasing co2) and reduce co2 during cooling phases. Although no where on the scale o anthropogenic contributions.
  30. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Joe, So how would an extra warm MWP be evidence for this particular hypothesis over existing theory? That's the core issue I see with skeptic claims regarding the MWP. When I say I've seen no specific theory offered by skeptics, I mean at a level of detail that makes specific testable claims. An implication of the hypothesis you described is that whatever oscillation caused the MWP may have a role in warming today. So how do you prove it? What evidence would tell you that this particular hypothesis may be true and existing theory flawed or mistaken? Another thing I consider: if this hypothesis is true and the current understanding of climate is significantly flawed, why does it work so well? Why do current models recreate historical temperatures as well as they do? How do millenia of climate data just happen to synch up with an incorrect theory? Any theory that rewrites the explanation of the MWP needs to square itself with the remaining bulk of evidence. If robust evidence arises to the contrary I'd be happy to change my mind, but at present I see no reason why the MWP - whether it is warmer or not - should cast doubt on the mainstream science.
  31. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    I don't find a trend of melt season cooling during an annual warming trend surprising either. The "missing" heat can reasonably be concluded to be going into the enthalpy of fusion of the increased melting rate.
  32. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    e at 12:58 Its possible that long term ocean/THC oscillations are driven by the gradual build up of energy in the north Atlantic, and its effect on arctic melt and salinity. A strong THC will build up energy over time in the north atlantic(increasing sst, increasing evaporation/GHE), leading to increasing arctic melt, resulting in reducing salinity in the arctic regions, reulting in a slowing of the thc, which will lead to reduced energy transport(reduced SST/evaporation/GHE), which leads to increased ice cover, and reducing salinity, increasing density of the colder waters leading to increasing the energy export through the THC. etc This isnt really an unknown, and it would be capable of considerably influencing climate, without a need for a change in forcings, but oscillate around a mean, driven by a greater differential in energy, and slowed as the differential across latitudes reduces. The fact is we dont have enough high resolution data to say why, its all speculation... but this would fit what i have read on the MWP, being more noticable in the NH, with less ocean/more land, less thermal capacity than the SH.
  33. Do critics of the hockey stick realise what they're arguing for?
    Joe Blog, I never claimed that internal energy distribution plays no role. What I said was that no skeptic has come forward with a specific physical theory on how exactly the MWP and LIA came about, if not by the existing known processes and forcings. I also pointed out that a warmer than currently accepted MWP in no way implies that there must be some sort of additional unknown process at play, as many skeptics seem to assume. Since the overall shape of the temperature trend reflects the effect of known forcings, then a higher climate sensitivity would be consistent with the observation of a warmer than expected MWP. I see no reason to assume some unknown process. If skeptics believe there is a natural oscillation at play, they need to explain the physics and provide evidence why their theory is true and prevailing theory is false. Otherwise its nothing more than a guessing game.
  34. Do 500 scientists refute anthropogenic global warming?
    archiesteel: Certainly before 2000 the correlation between TSI and temperature is obvious. Ned: Thanks for the references. I will take a look. I do not see any correlation between CO2 and temperature.
    Moderator Response: Wrong thread for that conversation. Please look through the list of "Arguments" to find a more relevant one on which to post your next comment on that topic.
  35. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    correction: "is not surpricing"
  36. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Archiesteel, in the article I dont just write "the Arctic is cooling" as you imply. And if i somewhere in the comments did so(???), im sure most peoble here knows by now that we are talking about DMI summer melt season 80N-90N trends (!) But im happy you dont think the ½ degree cooling trend 1991-2010 summermelt 80N-90N is surpricing.
  37. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "I agree with everyone that a strong cooling in the 80N-90N is surpricing," It's not surprising, because it's not a strong cooling. It's about half a degree, and might be due (as others have suggested) to more open water bringing down averages. As we've noted before, however, it is disingenuous to say "the Arctic is cooling" when what you're really talking about is the relatively small decrease in *melt season* temps. The fact is that, overall, the Arctic is warming up at an alarming rate. The DMI data makes that clear, which is why the DMI itself agrees. Discussion about the UHI effect is off-topic on this thread. Try this one.
  38. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Peter, superbe illustration of ERA-40 vs. T511. It IS a possibility that DMI´s data stich is not perfect, but remember that around 80% of the dive after 1991 actually happens before 2002, that is, before the stich. I agree with everyone that a strong cooling in the 80N-90N is surpricing, even though we cant say its impossible, but i understand fully why its tough to swallow. But the alternative is, that DMI´s data are useless. If the Peak temperature in 1991 (Far warmer than the DMI average) is NOT warmer in real life than the peak cold in 2010 (Far colder than the DMI average), then these melting DMI data are says absolutely nothing. is not that correct? If when DMi say "far colder than normal" doenst mean far colder than normal etc... Then DMI are close to useless. - and thats hard to swallow too :-) And as I said, 80% of the dive happens 1991-2002 in pure ERA-40 data. So these should be junk too? Hard to swallow - it just doesnt sound correct. K.R. Frank PS: Peter, its as though the few data from rather populated areas of Europe (UK + Holland) means more to you than 4-500 hundred rural-city pairs i showed you from all over USA... isnt it? And then data from the whole world i showed you: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/urban-heat-island---world-tour-155.php And the 0,53K from 1951 to 2004 from china... ...
  39. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Frank, On Nevins blog we had a discussion earlier this summer about the Polar Hole (the unshaded area at the center of ice pictures) having an unprecedented amount of open water this year. See nevins polar hole image. This area roughly corresponds to your above 80 degree area. Perhaps you can explain why there is so much open water at the pole when the temperature seems to be "cooling". Since the water is about -2C, while the surface of ice floes is closer to 0C, that would acount for the decrease in temperature that you observed. The ice was insulating the atmosphere from the colder water. With the ice now melting, the atmosphere is exposed to the cold water and gets slightly cooler. Do not worry, once the ice is completely gone the water will heat up and the air will go up too. It is interesting to find instances where warming results in transient cooling for odd reasons like the exposure of cold water to the air. Cryosphere Today adjusts their sea ice area for open water at the polar hole. Does anyone know how to get a record of how much they have had to adjust for that and how much this year was over the average?
  40. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Wops, heres the grid: http://hidethedecline.eu/media/BLANDET/dmi2010.jpg
  41. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Hi Peter Heres grid for 2010. average just under 0,4 C. vertical lines are days, i have estimated each day and summed up. What do you get for 2010? K.R. Frnak
  42. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    KR @89, I would if I had the time ;)
  43. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Peter @84, If I may make a humble suggestion. I would be interested to see the results of your calculation of the trend in temperatures north of 80 N from 1958-2009 (or 2010) for the period JJA, and/or JAS. I think important to consistently use the same time window (rather than the variable melt season) and to us all the grid points N of 80 N (i.e., "Is it possible that your pixel counting process is introducing bias"). One can then try and fit a OLS model to the data (if appropriate) and test the null hypothesis for zero slope (beta=0). I agree, something does not add up, there are some pretty major differences between your analysis and that of Frank's. Sorry, no ideas as how to deal with the "jumps" in the records when they changed products. kdkd or someone else more familiar with stats might be able to offer to ideas as to how one can homogenize the data.
  44. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    I attempted to download the DMI data, in order to determine how many days of >= 0C there are on a yearly basis (to look at the length of the summer melt season), but can't seem to get access to it. I would be curious to find out if the length of such a nominal 'melt season' increases over the years since 1958. Is anyone with access to the data willing to take a look?
  45. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    Frank, Talking of humor, funny that you seem to have completely ignored the data and content of the papers that I presented in my post #72. I say that that because I provided data for all seasons and annual, and all the seasons show warming during the summer going back to 1979, and most of the ice loss has occurred during that time. Anyhow, despite your unsubstantiated allegations, no-one is trying to ignore or "hide" temperature changes over the the summer period as evidenced by the three papers that I cited. You are the one who chose to focus on the short summer period and ignore the rest of the year. In the interests of clarity and honesty, please insist that Anthony Watts change the title of you post at WUWT to: "DMI polar ECMWF reanalysis data shows cooler suggests little change in Arctic summer temperatures north of 80 N since 1958" Although to be honest, I would even contest the validity of that statement until seeing the results Peter's latest analysis. Frank "and there fore I think it is relevant to compare todays Arctic conditions with the almosr "human-CO2-free" period 1925-45 with todays conditions." I am not going to let you detract from the misleading title and content of your WUWT post which is under discussion here. Please take your discussion about the 1925-1945 window to a more the appropriate thread.
  46. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: do you have a link to the data you used for your graph? The link you provided pointed to the graph again. "To me this supports the NASA finding that the ice retreat after year 2000 is to some degree result of special wind pattern rather than only warming." I thought that was a Russian research? Do you have a link to the NASA study?
  47. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP - And you completely ignored what I said here, that the sign of the TOA radiation imbalance completely disproves the waste heat theory. As to that 1% accumulating - well, it's been 1% for as long as the 99% greenhouse gas forcing, the CO2 side effects of that energy use, which is actually the major cause for warming. RSVP, you have continued to hold to this theory over >300 postings on multiple threads, despite numerous examples of why you are incorrect. I can only conclude that you have non-rational reasons for clinging to it. Given that, it's simply not worth the time to discuss it any further with you.
  48. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    @FLansner: "Archiesteel: The summer temperatures 80-90N in 1991 was at all time highest since 1958. there after ther summer temperatures trended down to all time minimum 2010." I'm interested in the actual temperature delta. According to figure 2 above this is about 0.5C over 14 years, or 0.36C per decade. "So the trend dive is the largest possible for this data type." How do you know this? Are you arguing the fact that, because this is the largest dive in the instrumental record, then it's the largest *possible*? Think about it. "What more do you want?" A sense of perspective would be nice. Compare the 0.36C/decade cooling with the annual warming of about 2.5C over the same 14 years, or 1.8C/decade. Note that this is an *annual* trend, so it includes the colder melt season temperatures. To claim the Arctic is cooling, as is often done on WUWT and other such sites, is simply wrong, even if there has been a slight cooling melt season trend in the past decade. "Its so funny, all the time we hear you warmies say we have to focus on SUMMER conditions in the Arctic" Two things here: using the term "warmies" doesn't make you very convincing. To the contrary it tends to decrease your credibility. Second: who among us "warmies" said we had to focus on summer temperatures? What we check in summer is not temps (since it's relatively stable above the melting point, as explained above), rather we check sea ice extent and volume. The only ones focusing on summer temperatures are the "skeptics" at WUWT and such. "but then a data set comes by that tells a colder story for the 80N-90N area in summer time. And bingo, you demand FULL YEAR FULL YEAR." It's always been about full year for temperatures. "You may not see the humor, but I do :-)" I guess it's good to be able to laugh at oneself.
  49. DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?
    FLansner at 08:47 AM on 22 October, 2010 At the moment I only have DMI data through beginning of Summer 2010. ERA Interim I can get more easily but this runs a few months behind anyway.
  50. Waste heat vs greenhouse warming
    RSVP >The market is saturated, so the oranges are not shipping Listen carefully: this is physically IMPOSSIBLE in thermodynamics. There is no such thing as "saturation" when we are talking about how much energy a particle emits. The rate of output will always grow to exactly match the rate of input. Not some of the input, ALL of it. Your constantly accumulating surplus cannot and does not exist.

Prev  2116  2117  2118  2119  2120  2121  2122  2123  2124  2125  2126  2127  2128  2129  2130  2131  Next


The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us