donsutherland1 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 http://www.climate4you.com/ Good site. Thanks. The graph links to the dataset that I had. it concerns the South Pole, where there has been slight cooling. I was just wondering if there was UAH data for all of Antarctica, as I was curious whether there has been net continental cooling or warming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 No the trend does not change, the anomaly base does. Again, Links? The Antarctic has Been cooling. UAH shows a slight cooling trend. The continent itself has been in a deeper cooling trend, the Pennisula area has been warming due to UHI and natural influence. RSS would be colder if it included the cooling interior....it would be cooler than UAH. So you deny that UAH and RSS have different trends since 1979? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 So you deny that UAH and RSS have different trends since 1979? No I'm saying the different trends are because RSS doesn't measure the cooling interior Continent. If it did, it would be cooler than UAH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Thanks. The graph links to the dataset that I had. it concerns the South Pole, where there has been slight cooling. I was just wondering if there was UAH data for all of Antarctica, as I was curious whether there has been net continental cooling or warming. The Satellite data is pronounced witha certain set of coordinates (Lat/Lon) which they classify as the "antarctic", or "arctic". The specified region has an even more prononounced cooling trend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 The Satellite data is pronounced witha certain set of coordinates (Lat/Lon) which they classify as the "antarctic", or "arctic". The specified region has an even more prononounced cooling trend Yes the "Antarctic Region" which is the second image you posted contains much of the southern ocean which cooled 1979-present. The actual landmass of Antarctica shows no trend (-.01C/decade to be precise) according to the graph you posted earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 FYI Don the image Bethesda posted earlier of the actual landmass trend for Antarctica from UAH comes from WUWT (wattsupwiththat). The second image which comes from climate4you, as you know, is for the Antarctic region and includes much of the Southern Ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Yes the "Antarctic Region" which is the second image you posted contains much of the southern ocean which cooled 1979-present. The actual landmass of Antarctica shows no trend (-.01C/decade to be precise) according to the graph you posted earlier. The antarctic region covers part of the southern ocean, so the notion that the increasing sea ice is due to warming temps is BS.....as you should now know. Again, the Interior and the pennisula have to be seperated! The interior has cooled significantly, while the Pennisula has warmed significantly due to UHI......UHI is huge in cold climates, and the pennisula (where the stations are located) have buildings with heat sources nearby.....1 building alone can yeild 1F or more of increase. Example...this is why we see the warming! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 The antarctic region covers part of the southern ocean, so the notion that the increasing sea ice is due to warming temps is BS.....as you should now know. Again, the Interior and the pennisula have to be seperated! The interior has cooled significantly, while the Pennisula has warmed significantly due to UHI......UHI is huge in cold climates, and the pennisula (where the stations are located) have buildings with heat sources nearby.....1 building alone can yeild 1F or more of increase. I have never claimed that warming temperatures have caused increasing antarctic sea ice. But thank you for that irrelevant tangent. The interior has not cooled. As the recent O'Donnell analysis shows, much of the interior has warmed. Excluding the Peninsula, Antarctica warmed very slightly from 1957-2006. The south pole research station Amundsen Scott shows slight warming 1957-2006. Most of the cooling actually occurred over coastal areas, as you can see below. Research also indicates that Antarctica warmed rapidly prior to 1957, but there is little observational data. But that is when the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) indicates Antarctica would have warmed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Why are you comparing surface data to Satellite data? You cannot compare them. Satellite data is much better and more trustworthy than surface data. Surface data can kiss my ass several times over. All we need is UAH. Surface Data measured in these regions.....well.....UHI UHI UHI UHI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 The antarctic region covers part of the southern ocean, so the notion that the increasing sea ice is due to warming temps is BS.....as you should now know. Again, the Interior and the pennisula have to be seperated! The interior has cooled significantly, while the Pennisula has warmed significantly due to UHI......UHI is huge in cold climates, and the pennisula (where the stations are located) have buildings with heat sources nearby.....1 building alone can yeild 1F or more of increase. Example...this is why we see the warming! Do you have any evidence that thermometers in Antarctica are located too close to buildings? I didn't think so. Did the buildings cause the glaciers in the Peninsula to rapidly as well? Seven ice shelves have retreated or disintegrated along the Peninsula in the last two decades: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613104743.htm Every glacier on the southern half of the Peninsula retreated dramatically from 1947-present according to a USGS survey: http://www.physorg.com/news186068531.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Do you have any evidence that thermometers in Antarctica are located too close to buildings? I didn't think so. Did the buildings cause the glaciers in the Peninsula to retreat rapidly as well? Uhh, they are obviously close to buildings, because we need to be there to measure the data Google Earth the stations yourself if you do not believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Please post the source for your first image, as the cooling it shows does not agree with the trend of zero shown in the last graph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 You want satellite data? Here is satellite data for skin temperature collected by satellite: Yet again demonstrating that there is substantial disagreement and error among satellite analyses and/or that the surface trend is significantly different from the tropospheric trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 You want satellite data? Here is satellite data for skin temperature collected by satellite: Yet again demonstrating that there is substantial disagreement and error among satellite analyses and/or that the surface trend is significantly different from the tropospheric trend. You know what satellite that is....right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Uhh, they are obviously close to buildings, because we need to be there to measure the data Google Earth the stations yourself if you do not believe me. And humans are not capable of walking? Or have you heard of this new invention whereby remote devices broadcast a signal to a location indoors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 And humans are not capable of walking? Or have you heard of this new invention whereby remote devices broadcast a signal to a location indoors? We are capable of walking, but obesity is a problem for a reason The stations are located near buildings...google earth the stations if you do not believe me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 We are capable of walking, but obesity is a problem for a reason The stations are located near buildings...google earth the stations if you do not believe me. How about you post image where we can see how close the thermometers in Antarctica are to buildings. Put up or shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 How about you post image where we can see how close the thermometers in Antarctica are to buildings. Put up or shut up. I'm not your f**king mistress, you have the brainpower to do it yourself. Or do you..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Do you have any evidence that thermometers in Antarctica are located too close to buildings? I didn't think so. Did the buildings cause the glaciers in the Peninsula to rapidly as well? Seven ice shelves have retreated or disintegrated along the Peninsula in the last two decades: http://www.scienceda...80613104743.htm Every glacier on the southern half of the Peninsula retreated dramatically from 1947-present according to a USGS survey: http://www.physorg.c...s186068531.html Yes, just like the UHI is responsible for the rapid melt of the Pine Island glacier that has been discussed in this forum We can see the thermometer on the peninsula at Rothera here: http://www.discoveringantarctica.org.uk/alevel_2_1.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Yes, just like the UHI is responsible for the rapid melt of the Pine Island glacier that has been discussed in this forum No, that is a natural occurance. I understand you're joking, but I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 I'm not your f**king mistress, you have the brainpower to do it yourself. Or do you..... If you want to prove something, post evidence like everybody else on this forum does. Nobody is going to take you at your word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clifford Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Does that satellite image have measles or something? What are all those red spots along the coast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 If you want to prove something, post evidence like everybody else on this forum does. Nobody is going to take you at your word. Ok, so you are saying we put stations in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the antarctic sheet.....figures. I garauntee you, if you look at google earth, you will see where they are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Does that satellite image have measles or something? What are all those red spots along the coast? He doesn't even know what the satellite is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salbers Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Actually I'd like to know what satellite it is.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Does that satellite image have measles or something? What are all those red spots along the coast? Where glaciers and ice shelves have disappeared (due to the construction of nearby buildings). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Actually I'd like to know what satellite it is.... The image comes from here: http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=8239 It is the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite product. There are also a few other skin temperature products I believe including one from MODIS. This paper describes the AVHRR product and gives some references: http://www.met.sjsu....-ts.reprint.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 The image comes from here: http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=8239 It is the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) satellite product. There are also a few other skin temperature products I believe including one from MODIS. This paper describes the AVHRR product and gives some references: http://www.met.sjsu....-ts.reprint.pdf Remember our discussion on why we should not use satellites that measure physical surface temperature? As in, "if you touch it", etc? Things such as reflectivity from the sun, snow falling on top of ice, etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Remember our discussion on why we should not use satellites that measure physical surface temperature? As in, "if you touch it", etc? Things such as reflectivity from the sun, snow falling on top of ice, etc? Yes I do remember, and that is a good point. Given the Antarctic is probably the most pristine least changed place on earth the last 30 years, skin temperature readings might be more accurate there. There's probably still some inaccuracy, I don't know, one would have to be more familiar with the product. Nevertheless, it is one more piece of evidence. There are also numerous problems with UAH and RSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Yes I do remember, and that is a good point. Given the Antarctic is probably the most pristine least changed place on earth the last 30 years, skin temperature readings might be more accurate there. There's probably still some inaccuracy, I don't know, one would have to be more familiar with the product. Nevertheless, it is one more piece of evidence. There are also numerous problems with UAH and RSS. There are numerous problems with every dataset, whether it Be UAH, RSS, GISS, NSIDC, there is no such thing as an "accurate" dataset actually....depending on your definition of "accurat". I guess the argument is, we really dont know. There is more evidence that the Pennisula is warming, and there is more evidence that the interior is cooling. We know sea ice has been increasing. We'll be able to better measure in the future hopefully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.