Ah perhaps we're going to cool after all

[Devonian]

Dev

Knew what you mean't. Only 44 Jans were colder since 1900...obviously not for the UK though.

BFTP

Not according to the figures I quoted - count them up for yourself :huh:

So, according to who, or, perhaps, where?

[Roger J Smith]

I was just reading through this thread, and wanted to correct one statement earlier (in the article, actually).

Someone drew attention to the seemingly non-credible statement that Eskimos were sighted paddling canoes off the coast of the U.K. in a colder climatic era.

Actually, one instance is cited in Lamb's work on climate records, where a frozen Eskimo paddler was reported washed up on a beach in Scotland. The implication was that the circulation at that time must have been rather north of due west since Eskimo paddlers lost at sea would have begun their fatal journeys from Baffin Island or at least far northern Quebec or Labrador.

Whether the story is actually true or not, I don't know, but this is what the article should have said, rather than the rather questionable alternative, which would imply Eskimos of even more stalwart constitution than in reality.

However, even in the modern warm climatic regime, it would not be that difficult to imagine a sequence of events that would carry a lost paddler from Baffin Island to Scotland, for example, Tuesday night on the current GFS might easily do the trick.

[noggin]

Fascinating stuff, Mr Smith! I will never cease to be amazed, however old I get!

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/map/images/fnl/sfc...er_30b.fnl.html

Looks like February may well come in above average in the Northern Hemisphere, but the Southern Hemisphere may be close to average. My guess would be:

NH 7th warmest

SH 43rd warmest

[Stratos Ferric]

One point that has been raised in the past is that Climate Scientists don't know everything about Climate Science because the field crosses so many different disciplines. A Climate Scientist may have no more profound understanding of the subject than a physicist or a chemist (and, since both chemistry and physics feature highly in climate science, those scientists are equally well-placed to offer a view on the overall science).

What is it about climate scientists that makes their views more correct than a chemist's or a physicist's? Each of them knows some of the bigger picture, but none of them knows all of it, so everybody's views need to be assessed in order to get to the truth of it all.

CB

EDIT - I see Wysi beat me to the punch on that one...curse my slow typing!! The above post can be read as "What Wysi Said!"

When I did my first degree one of the first essays we wrote was about Geography being a poor science because those who peddled it were jacks of all disciplines, but masters of none.

Chemists specialise, largely, at a small scale (they are mainly concerned with molecular and nuclear reactions): physicists, for sure, take a broader view, and many professional meteorologists will have physics (or maths) as primary degree subjects.

Geography is unique amongst the hard sciences in requiring an ability to think in cycles and systems: much other pure science tends to be more linear.

For sure physicists and chemists have vakid input to understanding how climate works, but I would trust neither on their own to outwit a good atmospheric physicist / meteorologist when it comes to assessing what is going on in the atmosphere.

I was just reading through this thread, and wanted to correct one statement earlier (in the article, actually).

Someone drew attention to the seemingly non-credible statement that Eskimos were sighted paddling canoes off the coast of the U.K. in a colder climatic era.

Actually, one instance is cited in Lamb's work on climate records, where a frozen Eskimo paddler was reported washed up on a beach in Scotland. The implication was that the circulation at that time must have been rather north of due west since Eskimo paddlers lost at sea would have begun their fatal journeys from Baffin Island or at least far northern Quebec or Labrador.

Whether the story is actually true or not, I don't know, but this is what the article should have said, rather than the rather questionable alternative, which would imply Eskimos of even more stalwart constitution than in reality.

However, even in the modern warm climatic regime, it would not be that difficult to imagine a sequence of events that would carry a lost paddler from Baffin Island to Scotland, for example, Tuesday night on the current GFS might easily do the trick.

Roger, arguing that a dead canoeist got carried on the current and the prevailing wind is one thing, but it is very different indeed to the report in that article. Nowadays people occasionally attempt to row the Atlantic, doing so deliberately, and with a lot of provisions. It rather beggars belief that in a time before anyone knew what lay beyond the vast expanses of water they could see, someone would set to see with huge provisions to embark on, say, an 80 day paddle. This is rendered even more implausible by the fact that storing sufficient fresh water, and food (there were no plastic containers or cans), for such a journey, even if it were contemplated, would have been well nigh impossible I think.

If there was an eskimo washed up then I'd put it in the same category as the rubber ducks appearing on Irish beaches over the past year or so.

[Roger J Smith]

No, I wasn't arguing that at all, my point was to correct the wording reported in the cited article.

I have no idea what the intentions of the lost Eskimo paddler(s) may have been, but I rather imagine it was to get from point A to B in northeast Canada, and not to visit Scotland. Whether the average 18th century Eskimo knew of the existence of Scotland or not, would be a questionable point in and of itself.

Whether knowing of it, they would risk life or limb to get there in a canoe across the open Atlantic, presupposes a lower intelligence than I would wish to ascribe to the average Inuit, as the Eskimo prefers now to be known.

I am sure that if the earth rotated in the opposite direction, one or two Scots might have ended up in Baffin Island by misadventure.

Certainly the Franklin expedition did not wish to expire in the central Canadian arctic from 1845 to 1849, although they had much bigger ships and lots of provisions for a time.

[wysiwyg]

Geography is unique amongst the hard sciences in requiring an ability to think in cycles and systems: much other pure science tends to be more linear.

For sure physicists and chemists have vakid input to understanding how climate works, but I would trust neither on their own to outwit a good atmospheric physicist / meteorologist when it comes to assessing what is going on in the atmosphere.

I tend to agree with this from a perspective of pure vs applied science. (I'm probably going to lambasted now by the pure scientists amongst us) As an engineer with a pure and applied maths and physics education I tend to think much more empirically about systems and feedback mechanisms and I personally think this gives me an outlook that is much more applicable to other 'real' phenomena seen at a natural level in the world as we know it. Specialising in an applied area of science allows one to develop a greater understanding of 'how things actually happen' as opposed to how the 'idealised' science should turn out.

Bottom line is I would always have the uttmost respect for an esteemed climate scientist and I don't think it is those scientists that make flawed and questionable claims that are further skewed and misrepresented by the media. However, when scientists begin to make claims that appear to fit some 'agenda' then it is human nature that other scientist from different disciplines will begin to challenge these claims.

Wysi

[Admiral_Bobski]

When I did my first degree one of the first essays we wrote was about Geography being a poor science because those who peddled it were jacks of all disciplines, but masters of none.

Chemists specialise, largely, at a small scale (they are mainly concerned with molecular and nuclear reactions): physicists, for sure, take a broader view, and many professional meteorologists will have physics (or maths) as primary degree subjects.

Geography is unique amongst the hard sciences in requiring an ability to think in cycles and systems: much other pure science tends to be more linear.

For sure physicists and chemists have vakid input to understanding how climate works, but I would trust neither on their own to outwit a good atmospheric physicist / meteorologist when it comes to assessing what is going on in the atmosphere.

Do you mean Geography or Geology? I don't think Geography is considered a science at all, although I suppose that depends upon how you define the subject. Geology, on the other hand, is quite clearly a science, so I'm not quite sure what your essay was getting at.

As for chemists "outwitting" good atmospheric physicists....why not? If they have a scientific background, an understanding of chemical (and usually physical) interactions and an analytical approach to what they're studying then there's no reason to presuppose them wrong.

CB

[Devonian]

I was just reading through this thread, and wanted to correct one statement earlier (in the article, actually).

Someone drew attention to the seemingly non-credible statement that Eskimos were sighted paddling canoes off the coast of the U.K. in a colder climatic era.

Actually, one instance is cited in Lamb's work on climate records, where a frozen Eskimo paddler was reported washed up on a beach in Scotland. The implication was that the circulation at that time must have been rather north of due west since Eskimo paddlers lost at sea would have begun their fatal journeys from Baffin Island or at least far northern Quebec or Labrador.

Whether the story is actually true or not, I don't know, but this is what the article should have said, rather than the rather questionable alternative, which would imply Eskimos of even more stalwart constitution than in reality.

However, even in the modern warm climatic regime, it would not be that difficult to imagine a sequence of events that would carry a lost paddler from Baffin Island to Scotland, for example, Tuesday night on the current GFS might easily do the trick.

Assuming it happened, and we don't know it did, why couldn't the Inuit have come from Greenland where they also live? Indeed, if Arctic sea ice extended well south of where it does now in the 1680's might he have paddled around the sea ice edge and then got swept south on a Nly?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Can see how, given it was above the 1951-80 average and that's, since it's warmed through out the century, a warm 30 yr average?

Quote from the NOAA:

“For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5°F (-0.83°C) for January, which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th coolest January on record, based on preliminary data."

and

"The January global land surface average was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../jan/jan08.html

Overall the Jan 08 temperature was the 31st warmest. Not withstanding snow and cold in some very odd places (Mexico, India and Baghdad (first time in living memory) as wll as widepsread snow over the middle east (Jordon and the Lebanon).

[Devonian]

Quote from the NOAA:

“For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5°F (-0.83°C) for January, which was 0.3°F (0.2°C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th coolest January on record, based on preliminary data."

and

"The January global land surface average was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982."

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/resear.../jan/jan08.html

Overall the Jan 08 temperature was the 31st warmest. Not withstanding snow and cold in some very odd places (Mexico, India and Baghdad (first time in living memory) as wll as widepsread snow over the middle east (Jordon and the Lebanon).

I was replying to a comment about a global map. Globally (land and oceans) it was an average month, not cold, not warm.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think there's a bit of confusion here- it was the land temperature that came out 0.01C below the 20th century average, but land and ocean came out 0.18C above and was 31st warmest.

In a sense you're both right about the land and ocean temperature- yes it was 31st warmest, but the anomaly relative to average was only small- even more so when you compare with a reference period like 1951-80, 1961-90 or more especially 1971-2000.

[Polar Continental]

Not sure if anyone has seen this press release yet!!

press release

Also read the link to the word document at the end of the article, they certainly don't mince words.

Paul

[stewfox]

I am sure that if the earth rotated in the opposite direction, one or two Scots might have ended up in Baffin Island by misadventure.

I assume we would get more Easterlies and more snow events

[noggin]

Not sure if anyone has seen this press release yet!!

press release

Also read the link to the word document at the end of the article, they certainly don't mince words.

Paul

Excellent news re John Casey getting some good people on board. Hopefully it will get him more respect. But then again......where is the media? I note that there doesn't seem to be anything in the media re the conference in New York re natural causes either.

Edited March 5, 2008 by noggin