2012 Global Temperatures

[SVT450R]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but don't understand either of your last posts.

Why would there be a 4-5 year lag on solar forcing - particularly as opposed to some other type of forcing?

Terry

I believe it has to do with the oceans and transporting of heat.

[GaWx]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but don't understand either of your last posts.

Why would there be a 4-5 year lag on solar forcing - particularly as opposed to some other type of forcing?

Terry

 I earlier asked about the approximate range of lag periods attributed to major trend changes with the sun. Do you know the answer? I can say that 

the sun got extra quiet starting around 1875 and the Earth started cooling around 1880. IF the sun really was, indeed, the primary cooling influence between then and 1910 (I've yet to read any other theory), then an argument could be made that there was quite possibly about a five year lag then. I'm assuming that the high specific heat of the vast oceans is a major reason for the lag.

[Snow_Miser]

I hate to ruin the good time but your using completely useless and bunk data that the folks who make cryosat2 "GO" replaced with new data 2-3 months ago I believe, they also said their findings validate Piomas.

I would of thought this would have been noticed, it was a wide main stream press release with it.

So you don't know or your just trolling

Cryosat does not confirm PIOMAS sadly.

[Jonger]

Lets hear it for URBAN HEAT ISLAND.

Sunny Days with no Wind=Urban Heat Island

[TerryM]

 I earlier asked about the approximate range of lag periods attributed to major trend changes with the sun. Do you know the answer? I can say that 

the sun got extra quiet starting around 1875 and the Earth started cooling around 1880. IF the sun really was, indeed, the primary cooling influence between then and 1910 (I've yet to read any other theory), then an argument could be made that there was quite possibly about a five year lag then. I'm assuming that the high specific heat of the vast oceans is a major reason for the lag.

I don't know the answer - don't like playing 'got-cha' games from either end.

I can't imagine that solar radiation would be substantially different than any other form of radiation, that was the reason for my initial query.

As far as a multiple year lag times it seems to me that as the solar radiation waxes and wains throughout the seasons any lag might be measured in days or weeks. I haven't lived near the ocean for quite a while, but the Great Lakes for instance certainly experience warming and cooling that conforms with seasonal solar variation. There might be a lag of a week or so, but not much more.

The SST's followed so intently at this time of year in the Arctic might be a reasonable proxy for lag times, but melting and sublimation of ice could skew the figures.

Would air temperatures over the Azores, an area not affected by ice, in a relatively stable oceanic current, and far enough from the equator, give a more realistic approximation?

While it seems reasonable that a planetary sized body is going to exhibit massive thermal inertia before reaching equilibrium, any change in forcing should be evident as rapidly as seasonal changes are.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Cryosat does not confirm PIOMAS sadly.

That is a horrible bold face lie.

Cryosat said themselves the data validates Piomas.

You know the big press conference?

This is the calibrated final tested product Cryosat2 put out for April 2011.

This is what you posted From January/February:

Notice a dramatic difference?

Yeah, the people who run Cryosat got there data right then said this:

Cryosat found the volume (area multiplied by thickness) of sea ice in the central Arctic in March 2011 to have been 14,500 cubic kilometres.

This figure is very similar to that suggested by

PIOMAS (Panarctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System)

, an influential computer model that has been used to estimate Arctic sea ice volume,

and which has been the basis for several predictions about when summer sea ice in the north might disappear completely.

So you know the "truth" and the folks at ESA who have put Cryosat1 and Cryosat2 together, wrote algorithms, more programs and algorithms, did extensive validation and got it right.

They admit it turned out that Piomas was very accurate for a model.

But you know it's not true huh?

Please feel free to enlighten all of us.

[Snow_Miser]

That is a horrible bold face lie.

Cryosat said themselves the data validates Piomas.

You know the big press conference?

This is the calibrated final tested product Cryosat2 put out for April 2011.

This is what you posted From January/February:

Notice a dramatic difference?

Yeah, the people who run Cryosat got there data right then said this:

So you know the "truth" and the folks at ESA who have put Cryosat1 and Cryosat2 together, wrote algorithms, more programs and algorithms, did extensive validation and got it right.

They admit it turned out that Piomas was very accurate for a model.

But you know it's not true huh?

Please feel free to enlighten all of us.

I actually don't see much of a difference at all between the two, except that they might be slightly different since one is in April and one is in January.

I googled the quote, and I came to a bunch of press releases about the subject, not confirmed by the Cryosat authors.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I actually don't see much of a difference at all between the two, except that they might be slightly different since one is in April and one is in January.

I googled the quote, and I came to a bunch of press releases about the subject, not confirmed by the Cryosat authors.

You can't possibly not get what your looking at. So how can you bold face lie like this?

[Snow_Miser]

So I'm lying because they don't look all that different, or am I lying because I am disagreeing with your views?

[The_Global_Warmer]

So I'm lying because they don't look all that different, or am I lying because I am disagreeing with your views?

You apparently come to this board without the ability to read graphs.

The first one was very wrong and thrown out and redone.

You know the graph that says the arctic in January and February of 2011 only has 2 meter thick or higher ice which is completely utterly absurd.

But yeah you keep living the fantasy

[Snow_Miser]

You know the graph that says the arctic in January and February of 2011 only has 2 meter thick or higher ice which is completely utterly absurd.

Yes, and you will note that the first graph in January/February of 2011 did not cover areas like the Bering sea, which would typically have thinner ice than the Arctic Basin.

[FloridaJohn]

Lets hear it for URBAN HEAT ISLAND.

Sunny Days with no Wind=Urban Heat Island

The Urban Heat Island Effect is well accounted for in the reported observations.

What are the year-to-year rate of change differences for your temperatures in Urban and Suburban Detroit?

[Jonger]

The Urban Heat Island Effect is well accounted for in the reported observations.

What are the year-to-year rate of change differences for your temperatures in Urban and Suburban Detroit?

Off the cuff and non peer reviewed guess.... The buildup since 1880 has probably tacted 5 degrees on the average nighttime low and 2-3 degrees on the daily high. Considering most early weather stations were placed in areas that are now built up, its illogical to believe this isnt a major issue.

Granted, the arctic is still declining.... Gotta add that clause into any discussion on this board.

Jon

[WeatherRusty]

Off the cuff and non peer reviewed guess.... The buildup since 1880 has probably tacted 5 degrees on the average nighttime low and 2-3 degrees on the daily high. Considering most early weather stations were placed in areas that are now built up, its illogical to believe this isnt a major issue.

Granted, the arctic is still declining.... Gotta add that clause into any discussion on this board.

Jon

It would be a major issue if left unaddressed. When it is accounted for the heat island stations show similar warming trends as do nearby rural stations.

[SVT450R]

I don't know the answer - don't like playing 'got-cha' games from either end.

I can't imagine that solar radiation would be substantially different than any other form of radiation, that was the reason for my initial query.

As far as a multiple year lag times it seems to me that as the solar radiation waxes and wains throughout the seasons any lag might be measured in days or weeks. I haven't lived near the ocean for quite a while, but the Great Lakes for instance certainly experience warming and cooling that conforms with seasonal solar variation. There might be a lag of a week or so, but not much more.

The SST's followed so intently at this time of year in the Arctic might be a reasonable proxy for lag times, but melting and sublimation of ice could skew the figures.

Would air temperatures over the Azores, an area not affected by ice, in a relatively stable oceanic current, and far enough from the equator, give a more realistic approximation?

While it seems reasonable that a planetary sized body is going to exhibit massive thermal inertia before reaching equilibrium, any change in forcing should be evident as rapidly as seasonal changes are.

Terry

The point being is that there is a lag. The equator receives the most sun radiation of the entire earth and to transport that heat threw the oceans around the globe doesn't happen over night.

[FloridaJohn]

Off the cuff and non peer reviewed guess.... The buildup since 1880 has probably tacted 5 degrees on the average nighttime low and 2-3 degrees on the daily high. Considering most early weather stations were placed in areas that are now built up, its illogical to believe this isnt a major issue.

That wasn't the question I asked. I was looking for differences in the rate of change between the urban and the suburban weather changes. What I mean by that is if the suburban weather station shows a 1 degree change between year one and year two, what is the difference between the urban weather station in year one and year two?

[Jonger]

That wasn't the question I asked. I was looking for differences in the rate of change between the urban and the suburban weather changes. What I mean by that is if the suburban weather station shows a 1 degree change between year one and year two, what is the difference between the urban weather station in year one and year two?

I would have to find someone who has parsed the local data for trends. I remember a thread about great lakes area temp increases since 1880 and it was in the order of 0.4 degrees Celsius since records began.

[TerryM]

The point being is that there is a lag. The equator receives the most sun radiation of the entire earth and to transport that heat threw the oceans around the globe doesn't happen over night.

Correct

The lag I would guess would be most noticeable in polar regions where huge amounts of water experience phase change on an annual cycle. The 144 BTU/LB required to effect this change acts as a damper to slow things down, and it may take 50 or 100 cycles before equilibrium is reached. However, solar forcing on a seasonal basis is still very much in evidence, and this rapid temperature change is what I'm referring to.

If solar forcing required 5 years before altering the planet's temperature, I'd expect annual solar variability to also lag by 5 years, and this of course is not what we experience. It may take decades or longer before equilibrium is reached, but temperatures should head in the direction of the forcing almost immediately.

Terry

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes, and you will note that the first graph in January/February of 2011 did not cover areas like the Bering sea, which would typically have thinner ice than the Arctic Basin.

What does that matter?

i guess it's time to go back to Kindergarten to show the class how to read a graph.

I know this is extremely hard to follow along with, most people require a PHD to even know what we are about to look at. So bear with me everyone, I will do my best to get this down to a grade school level so we can all enjoy the power of knowledge and truth and stop letting fantasies and delusions take the place of science.

I apologize for posting January/February 2011 vs April 2011 I had no idea you would pretend to be confused like this over 3rd grade science.

January/February 2011

VS OLD GRAPH FOR THE SAME TIME FRAME:

1. The old Graph was calibrated for whatever reason to believe every bit of ice is over 2 meters. This is absurd. It was wrong, it was really sad no one at ESA on the project even noticed this error.

2. BAFFIN BAY- The new graph shows the ice around 1 meter thick. The old Graph shows 3+ meters thick.

3. BARENTS AND KARA- The old graph shows 2-3 meter thick ice. The new one shows 0.5 to 2 meter thick ice, mostly 1-1.5 meters

4. LAPTEV- 2-3 meters on old graph, 1 meter on new one.

5. ESAS- 2-3 meters, in part of the area 3-3.5 meters old graph and 1-3 meters new graph

6. BEAUFORT AND CHUCHKI- 2.5-3.5 METERS OLD GRAPH. 1.5-2.5 meters new graph

7. CENTRAL ARCTIC BASIN- Not changed as much as the other regions but a general .5 meter drop sometimes more.

THanks for wasting my time setting the record straight after your non stop lies.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The point being is that there is a lag. The equator receives the most sun radiation of the entire earth and to transport that heat threw the oceans around the globe doesn't happen over night.

The heat in the arctic under, on, or around the ice is mostly from the sun.

[SVT450R]

The heat in the arctic under, on, or around the ice is mostly from the sun.

While i agree that the sun plays a good role you can't underestimate the amount of heat transported by the Thermohaline circulation either.

[Snow_Miser]

What does that matter?

i guess it's time to go back to Kindergarten to show the class how to read a graph.

I know this is extremely hard to follow along with, most people require a PHD to even know what we are about to look at. So bear with me everyone, I will do my best to get this down to a grade school level so we can all enjoy the power of knowledge and truth and stop letting fantasies and delusions take the place of science.

I apologize for posting January/February 2011 vs April 2011 I had no idea you would pretend to be confused like this over 3rd grade science.

January/February 2011

VS OLD GRAPH FOR THE SAME TIME FRAME:

1. The old Graph was calibrated for whatever reason to believe every bit of ice is over 2 meters. This is absurd. It was wrong, it was really sad no one at ESA on the project even noticed this error.

2. BAFFIN BAY- The new graph shows the ice around 1 meter thick. The old Graph shows 3+ meters thick.

3. BARENTS AND KARA- The old graph shows 2-3 meter thick ice. The new one shows 0.5 to 2 meter thick ice, mostly 1-1.5 meters

4. LAPTEV- 2-3 meters on old graph, 1 meter on new one.

5. ESAS- 2-3 meters, in part of the area 3-3.5 meters old graph and 1-3 meters new graph

6. BEAUFORT AND CHUCHKI- 2.5-3.5 METERS OLD GRAPH. 1.5-2.5 meters new graph

7. CENTRAL ARCTIC BASIN- Not changed as much as the other regions but a general .5 meter drop sometimes more.

THanks for wasting my time setting the record straight after your non stop lies.

Abuse. There are many locations to the north of Greenland that have significantly thicker ice than the older version.

The Baffin Bay is the only real noticeable decrease from the old graph, but that is compensated by increases in ice thicknesses to the north of Greenland.

There is no significant difference between the two.

[Snow_Miser]

Oh and please show everyone how this new Cryosat map allegedly confirms PIOMAS, Friv.

[Snow_Miser]

You see, Friv, the current AMSU data is absolute proof why you can not make such confident claims about what "place" the Global temperature anomaly will be, or what anomaly it finishes as.

[The_Global_Warmer]

They already know. We all went over this already months ago.

I don't really understand why your defacing the ESA team that has put cryosat together.

They said it validates Piomas. The folks running Piomas published that fact in an article because it's kind of a big deal that Piomas was right. Even if it wa obvious to everyone but you, it's good to know cryosat validates it and ice sat, which has all been confirmed over and over by buoys, ships, subs, expiditions, ice bridge program and so on.

The Baffin Bay is the only real noticeable decrease from the old graph, but that is compensated by increases in ice thicknesses to the north of Greenland.

There is no significant difference between the two.

You have ZERO INTEGRIDY.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You see, Friv, the current AMSU data is absolute proof why you can not make such confident claims about what "place" the Global temperature anomaly will be, or what anomaly it finishes as.

Proof?

So your saying channel 5 temps will drop .2 to .3C below what they are now for what I predicted to not happen?

That would be proof if it actually happened.

[Snow_Miser]

They already know. We all went over this already months ago.

I don't really understand why your defacing the ESA team that has put cryosat together.

They said it validates Piomas. The folks running Piomas published that fact in an article because it's kind of a big deal that Piomas was right. Even if it wa obvious to everyone but you, it's good to know cryosat validates it and ice sat, which has all been confirmed over and over by buoys, ships, subs, expiditions, ice bridge program and so on.

You have ZERO INTEGRIDY.

No, you have shown time and time again that you have zero evidence to back up any of your claims. If you are going to claim that the new cryosat map is different than the other map, prove it statistically instead of eyeballing, and calling me a liar when you are eyeballing a graph to try and find a 0.5 meter decrease. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you claim a significant decrease in ice thickness. Prove it, instead of doing your unscientific eyeballing and speculation.

The quote was made by a BBC press release, which also is not scientifically robust.

[Snow_Miser]

Proof?

So your saying channel 5 temps will drop .2 to .3C below what they are now for what I predicted to not happen?

That would be proof if it actually happened.

It could happen. As I said, channel 5 temperatures are extremely variable, and it was premature to say that 2012 would come in either 2nd or 3rd place.

[skierinvermont]

No, you have shown time and time again that you have zero evidence to back up any of your claims. If you are going to claim that the new cryosat map is different than the other map, prove it statistically instead of eyeballing, and calling me a liar when you are eyeballing a graph to try and find a 0.5 meter decrease. I honestly have no idea what you are talking about when you claim a significant decrease in ice thickness. Prove it, instead of doing your unscientific eyeballing and speculation.

The quote was made by a BBC press release, which also is not scientifically robust.

You're not even reading what he posts. He's already posted the ESA scientists saying that the calculated volume from cryosat is very similar to that of PIOMAS.

It doesn't matter what your stupid (and clearly biased) eyeballed estimates of thickness are. The CALCULATED volume (thickness X area) = PIOMAS. And if you take 20 seconds to google the press releases they say that the ice is thinner in the new map than the old one.

[skierinvermont]

It could happen. As I said, channel 5 temperatures are extremely variable, and it was premature to say that 2012 would come in either 2nd or 3rd place.

It probably is premature to say that UAH will finish 2nd or 3rd. I think there is a good chance of finishing 3rd (IE above 2005's anomaly of .25C). The last two months have been .29 and .30C, and given the developing Nino it would seem likely that the rest of the year will average at or above .3C as well.

EDIT: I just realized Friv was talking about June temps. I haven't done the calculation but I would agree that June will likely finish 2nd or 3rd. If the lead over the 3rd warmest becomes large enough, it becomes very difficult for it to fall below.