2012 Global Temperatures

[Snow_Miser]

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.

If you could post a link to the ESA scientists actually saying such a thing, I would gladly like to see it. The quote Friv posted linked me to a BBC newspaper article not written by ESA scientists.

[The_Global_Warmer]

If you could post a link to the ESA scientists actually saying such a thing, I would gladly like to see it. The quote Friv posted linked me to a BBC newspaper article not written by ESA scientists.

So even though the quote will be the same, it's some how different?

You do understand one graph was calibrated for 2-5 meters of ice thickness.

The other was calibrated for 0-5 meters of ice thickness.

Which one do you think is scientifically impossible and absurdly inaccurate?

Listen, I don't know if your 18, 30, or 50 years old, but I do know I am years old. I do not now where you are from or how things are there. But where I come from and the people I am around, this thing happens to you in your 20s sometime, sometimes 30s for some.

And this glorious event takes place where a boy, man boy, or even a decently good man, decides to ascend and man up. This is called Emotional Maturity. When you acquire what is know as emotional maturity your perceptions on things change.

This typically comes with a higher level of integrity, honor, sense of duty, commitment, honesty, righteousness, humility, respect and so on.

I can't play the games your playing, I quite frankly think it's absurd and ridiculous, and a waste of time.

I will never understand why some people can see the truth and ignore it so easily compromising one's own self.

[Snow_Miser]

I don't understand what you are trying to argue Friv.

So because the scale only goes down to 2 meters instead of 0 means that it is wrong?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

[PhillipS]

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.

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As you are the king of posting unsavory stews made up of poor research that's been debunked, good research that's been superceded by more recent data, all mixed with a liberal dose of fringe pseudo-science. my suggestion is to go easy on attacking others. Friv posts more fresh data than any other poster on this forum. If he emulated you,he would be posting arctic sea ice data from the 20th century and claiming it was more relevant than fresher data. But I digress.

On the validity of the PIOMAS model, here is is what the Polar Science Center at Washington University posted:

PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered. From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 10

³

km

³

/decade. The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 10

³

km

³

. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 10

³

km

³

. Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain. Details on model validation can be found in

Schweiger et al. 2011

and

(here)

. Additional information on PIOMAS can be found

(here)

As you well know, the Cryosat team is not releasing arctic sea ice volume plots on a regular basis, so we can only occasionally compare PIOMAS and Cryosat. Which is exactly what the press release that Friv referenced did. And as Friv pointed out PIOMAS and Cryosat are in good agreement. You are wrong, Friv is right.

So until a better tool comes along, PIOMAS will continue to be the 'go to' source for data on trends in arctic sea ice volume.

[Snow_Miser]

Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. As you are the king of posting unsavory stews made up of poor research that's been debunked, good research that's been superceded by more recent data, all mixed with a liberal dose of fringe pseudo-science. my suggestion is to go easy on attacking others. Friv posts more fresh data than any other poster on this forum. If he emulated you,he would be posting arctic sea ice data from the 20th century and claiming it was more relevant than fresher data. But I digress.

On the validity of the PIOMAS model, here is is what the Polar Science Center at Washington University posted:

PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered. From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of ± 1.0 10

³

km

³

/decade. The uncertainty of the monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75 10

³

km

³

. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be ±1.35 10

³

km

³

. Comparison of winter total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover. Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain. Details on model validation can be found in

Schweiger et al. 2011

and

(here)

. Additional information on PIOMAS can be found

(here)

As you well know, the Cryosat team is not releasing arctic sea ice volume plots on a regular basis, so we can only occasionally compare PIOMAS and Cryosat. Which is exactly what the press release that Friv referenced did. And as Friv pointed out PIOMAS and Cryosat are in good agreement. You are wrong, Friv is right.

So until a better tool comes along, PIOMAS will continue to be the 'go to' source for data on trends in arctic sea ice volume.

What a joke.

Saying that Friv has no evidence to back up his posts is not an attack. Friv calling me a liar and his posts dripping with sarcasm towards my position are attacks. Interesting that you didn't seem to notice those.

Your quote sounds like circular reasoning to me. Of course they would support their own model. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have it out there.

Journalists with no science degree commenting on the similarities between PIOMAS and Cryosat do not impress me at all.

In the press release they don't mention anything about PIOMAS:

http://www.esa.int/esaLP/SEMU55NW91H_LPcryosat_0.html

Show me that this new Cryosat release confirms PIOMAS. If not, it is simply mere speculation once again.

[SVT450R]

Channel 5 temps continue below 2010-2011

[roardog]

Channel 5 temps continue below 2010-2011

So that's why Friv hasn't posted an update since June 18th. He was giving us an update almost daily.

[SVT450R]

So that's why Friv hasn't posted an update since June 18th. He was giving us an update almost daily.

[Jesse]

So even though the quote will be the same, it's some how different?

You do understand one graph was calibrated for 2-5 meters of ice thickness.

The other was calibrated for 0-5 meters of ice thickness.

Which one do you think is scientifically impossible and absurdly inaccurate?

Listen, I don't know if your 18, 30, or 50 years old, but I do know I am years old. I do not now where you are from or how things are there. But where I come from and the people I am around, this thing happens to you in your 20s sometime, sometimes 30s for some.

And this glorious event takes place where a boy, man boy, or even a decently good man, decides to ascend and man up. This is called Emotional Maturity. When you acquire what is know as emotional maturity your perceptions on things change.

This typically comes with a higher level of integrity, honor, sense of duty, commitment, honesty, righteousness, humility, respect and so on.

I can't play the games your playing, I quite frankly think it's absurd and ridiculous, and a waste of time.

I will never understand why some people can see the truth and ignore it so easily compromising one's own self.

Is the last part a joke?

I'm sorry, but I can't take the posts of anyone who spews out this kind error-filled, half-baked drivel seriously. This is a weather forum not some dumbed down version of the Dr. Phil show. It looks like it was typed by a drunk eight year old.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So that's why Friv hasn't posted an update since June 18th. He was giving us an update almost daily.

Yeah that's it troll. Here is your graph. June of 2012 is still way ahead of 2011 and will continue to warm going forward.

So even though I am completely right again, I stopped updating because it would have clogged this thread. Trolls love nothing more than to take something like this and distract from the reality that June of 2012 is going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest on UAH.

[PhillipS]

Is the last part a joke?

I'm sorry, but I can't take the posts of anyone who spews out this kind error-filled, half-baked drivel seriously. This is a weather forum not some dumbed down version of the Dr. Phil show. It looks like it was typed by a drunk eight year old.

What you take seriously is, of course, your business - but Friv has a track record of posting a lot of up to the minute data and research. True, he, like most of us, makes spelling errors but the signal to noise ratio in his posts is very good. Your post, on the other hand, contributed nothing to the topic of this thread so, by definition, it was pure noise. Is meaningless noise really all you have to contribute in this forum? Sad, if true.

[Jesse]

What you take seriously is, of course, your business - but Friv has a track record of posting a lot of up to the minute data and research. True, he, like most of us, makes spelling errors but the signal to noise ratio in his posts is very good. Your post, on the other hand, contributed nothing to the topic of this thread so, by definition, it was pure noise. Is meaningless noise really all you have to contribute in this forum? Sad, if true.

I will admit I am mainly here to learn and spend most of my time lurking. Friv's posts are often unsightly enough to bring me out of the woodwork though. I guess I just need to ignore them.

[gracetoyou]

Yeah that's it troll. Here is your graph. June of 2012 is still way ahead of 2011 and will continue to warm going forward.

So even though I am completely right again, I stopped updating because it would have clogged this thread. Trolls love nothing more than to take something like this and distract from the reality that June of 2012 is going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest on UAH.

You're kidding right?? Please tell me you are.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You're kidding right?? Please tell me you are.

UAH top June Positive Anomalies.

1. 1998 .51

2. 2010 .39

3. 2002 .32

4. 2011 .32

Considering 2012 starting June started well warmer than 2011 at channel 5 and sat there until June 19th. 2012 is well warmer than 2011 at channel 5.

In fact 2011 is flat-lined the rest of the month. So 2012 could warm just a little bit and be back on top or roughly tied.

Either way, you can do the math. The drop just at channel 5 that 2012 would have to do to equal 2011 is not going to happen. That was obvious a week ago.

[roardog]

Yeah that's it troll. Here is your graph. June of 2012 is still way ahead of 2011 and will continue to warm going forward.

So even though I am completely right again, I stopped updating because it would have clogged this thread. Trolls love nothing more than to take something like this and distract from the reality that June of 2012 is going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest on UAH.

Take deep breaths and remember, it's only a messag board.

[Jonger]

Yeah that's it troll. Here is your graph. June of 2012 is still way ahead of 2011 and will continue to warm going forward.

So even though I am completely right again, I stopped updating because it would have clogged this thread. Trolls love nothing more than to take something like this and distract from the reality that June of 2012 is going to be the 2nd or 3rd warmest on UAH.

Did this maybe change since you posted this? It looks like 2012 is below the other two years.

[ben4vols]

Did this maybe change since you posted this? It looks like 2012 is below the other two years.

I think what he is saying is if you look from June 1 till present, 2012 has outpaced 2011. Which it has.

[TerryM]

Slightly OT - Lloyds of London is apparently factoring Global Warming into its costs. The link below is to the 'Insurance Journal', not usually habituated by tree huggers.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2012/06/25/252761.htm

They seem to be looking at changes that encompass the globe leading me to post it on this thread.

Terry

[cyclonebuster]

Notice on the Dot Chart how much more numerous and larger the red dots are compared to the blue dots................

Global Highlights

• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above the 20^th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880, behind only 2010.
  
• The Northern Hemisphere land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 0.85°C (1.53°F) above average.
  
• The globally-averaged land surface temperature for May 2012 was the all-time warmest May on record, at 1.21°C (2.18°F) above average.
  
• ENSO-neutral conditions continued during May 2012 and sea surface temperature anomalies in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean continued to warm. The May worldwide ocean surface temperatures ranked as the 10^th warmest May on record.
  
• For March–May (boreal spring) 2012, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.59°C (1.06°F) above average—the seventh warmest such period on record.
  
• The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2012 was the 11^th warmest on record, at 0.50°C (0.90°F) above the 20^th century average.
  

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2012/5

[cyclonebuster]

Global annual average temperature measured over land and oceans. Red bars indicate temperatures above and blue bars indicate temperatures below the 1901-2000 average temperature. The black line shows atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration in parts per million.

Sad isn't it?

Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20^th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

[ben4vols]

Sad isn't it?

Global average temperature is one of the most-cited indicators of global climate change, and shows an increase of approximately 1.4°F since the early 20^th Century. The global surface temperature is based on air temperature data over land and sea-surface temperatures observed from ships, buoys and satellites. There is a clear long-term global warming trend, while each individual year does not always show a temperature increase relative to the previous year, and some years show greater changes than others. These year-to-year fluctuations in temperature are due to natural processes, such as the effects of El Ninos, La Ninas, and the eruption of large volcanoes. Notably, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1981, and the 10 warmest have all occurred in the past 12 years.

Again, the temperature climb from 1910 to 1940 closely resembles the last 30 year warming period even though CO2 climbed at a much faster pace.

[GaWx]

Cyclonebuster,

Note the sig. cooling of 1880-1910 despite a rise in CO2. This was during a quiet sun period overall implying that the sun could have easily had much more influence then than CO2.

[cyclonebuster]

Again, the temperature climb from 1910 to 1940 closely resembles the last 30 year warming period even though CO2 climbed at a much faster pace.

The rate of rise in heat and Co2 the last 30 years looks much more agressive to me than the 1910-1940 period. What say you?

[cyclonebuster]

Cyclonebuster,

Note the sig. cooling of 1880-1910 despite a rise in CO2. This was during a quiet sun period overall implying that the sun could have easily had much more influence then than CO2.

Not as much Co2 was in the atmosphere back then to trap that heat. More "Radiatve Heat" was able to escape Earths atmosphere back then because of it thus allowing it to cool more. Incoming solar radiation has basically remained constant for thousands of years. Check out NOAA's graph here:

Global surface temperature (top, blue) and the Sun's energy received at the top of Earth's atmosphere (red, bottom). Solar energy has been measured by satellites since 1978.

Energy from the Sun Has Not Increased

The amount of solar energy received at the top of our atmosphere has followed its natural 11-year cycle of small ups and downs, but with no net increase. Over the same period, global temperature has risen markedly. This indicates that it is extremely unlikely that solar influence has been a significant driver of global temperature change over several decades.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

[TerryM]

I've always wondered if the particulate matter (soot) from all those steam engines might have had a short term dampening effect on the climate. After oil replaced coal for transportation about the end of WW2, temperatures have been pretty steadily upward.

Terry

[cyclonebuster]

I've always wondered if the particulate matter (soot) from all those steam engines might have had a short term dampening effect on the climate. After oil replaced coal for transportation about the end of WW2, temperatures have been pretty steadily upward.

Terry

Correct,the particulate matter is darker also which also absorbs more incoming solar radiation which heats the air surrounding it. Particulate matter also accumulates on Arctic Ice/snow which melts it. Coal,Fossil Fuel Oil,Diesel,Jet Fuel and Gasoline are all involved..........

[ben4vols]

The rate of rise in heat and Co2 the last 30 years looks much more agressive to me than the 1910-1940 period. What say you?

Both periods look to have warmed around 1 degree F according to your chart. CO2 by itself shows very little correlation with temp.

[Jonger]

Both periods look to have warmed around 1 degree F according to your chart. CO2 by itself shows very little correlation with temp.

I really want to know how much extra heating 90ppm co2 is contributing. We see experiments with co2 absorbing heat, but its always 1000's of ppm co2. There are so many factors to consider in the comparison.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW 2

[The_Global_Warmer]

Cyclonebuster,

Note the sig. cooling of 1880-1910 despite a rise in CO2. This was during a quiet sun period overall implying that the sun could have easily had much more influence then than CO2.

Ummm...

Co2 was at 290PPM around 1880 and at 300 PPM in 1910. That is a 10PPM increase in 30 years.

Co2 rose 10PPM from 2007-2012

co2 rose 20PPM from 2002-2012

co2 rose 30PPM from 1997-2012

co2 rose 40PPM from 1989-2012

co2 rose 50PPM from 1983-2012

co2 rose 60ppm from 1977-2012

co2 rose 70ppm from 1968-2012

co2 rose 80ppm from 1955-2012

CO2 went up 20ppm from 1880-1950!

Just doing some arm chair research.

1883 had a huge Volcanic Eruption. VEI 6

1886 had a VEI 5

1889 had a VEI 4 but with a lot of debris shot up into the atmosphere

The global temperature scheme warmed a bit from 1893-1901

1902 had VEI 6 and two VEI 4 eruptions.

1904 another VEI 4

1907 had a VEI 5 eruption

1911 VEI 4

1912 VEI 6

1913 VEI 5

1914-1919 Saw 8 more VEI eruptions and one that may have been a 5.

After that things slowed down. And there wasn't as many major eruptions taking place so close together that could have cumulative effects on the Earths energy budget.

So you try to say co2 is irrelevant even though the increase during the said period was 10ppm in 30 years which a tiny net increase from start to finish.

You also haven't spoken of the increased Volcanic activity at that time either and it's short term impacts on climate.

As far as the other cool period that goes completely against solar ideas on major climate shifting as roughly from: 1945-1980.

Ironically this is also when this happened:

The last atmospheric nuclear weapons test occurred on 16 October 1980 in China. The first was on 16 July 1945 in the U.S.

It is estimated that the total yield of all the atmospheric nuclear weapons tests conducted is 438 megatons. That's equivalent to 29,200 Hiroshima size bombs. In the 36 years between 1945 and 1980 when atmospheric testing was being conducted this would have been equivalent to exploding a Hiroshima size bomb in the atmosphere every 11 hours.

Even more ironic is that the Northern Hemisphere where nearly all of the Atmospheric tests took place was much cooler or trended cooler than the southern hemisphere during the same period which showed much more warming.

There are many factors that need to be accounted for.

I just don't see where the Sun is a major one.

[TerryM]

Friv

Nice post. Although I lived in Las Vegas at the tail end of the above ground testing period I never considered the effect on climate.

Terry