In The News

[jethro]

http://www.ncdc.noaa...c/global/2012/5

2nd hottest May in the series (hottest in the n.Hemisphere)

Not bad for the global cooldown I keep being told we are in the middle of?

With a moderate Nino' now forecast how will the rest of the year pan out?

And if someone had posted a link to show the 2nd coldest May (coldest in the N.Hemisphere) what would the response have been? A cast iron guaranteed, unified response of.....one month is utterly meaningless (unless of course it's a hot month).

This is a climate debate, if you want to talk weather, try this section: http://forum.netweather.tv/forum/1-weather-discussion-and-chat/

[Gray-Wolf]

And if someone had posted a link to show the 2nd coldest May (coldest in the N.Hemisphere) what would the response have been? A cast iron guaranteed, unified response of.....one month is utterly meaningless (unless of course it's a hot month).

This is a climate debate, if you want to talk weather, try this section: http://forum.netweat...ssion-and-chat/

My bad , I could have sworn it said "global climate" at the top of the report........

[BornFromTheVoid]

The 2nd coldest May globally on record would be interesting, despite your thoughts otherwise, but that clearly isn't happening. What makes this 2nd warmest May on record interesting, is that it's also on the back of the 2nd warmest April on record, during a -ve PDO, off the back of a double dip La Nina, during the weakest sunspot cycle in 100 years.

When most natural climate cycles are pointing negative, but we're recording some of the warmest months on record, I think it becomes relevant to the climate change debate because clearly, something is preventing cooling.

[Gray-Wolf]

This has to be the big worry BFTV.

In the early noughties the MetO told us that we might see some reduction in the current rate of warming (due to natural cold drivers ruling the roost) but that warming would resume post 2015.

As things have panned out we have had an extended solar min (that wasn't predicted) and still have had years rivaling the super nino year of 98'.

With the lowest Arctic Ice area/extent over this time period I have to wonder how long into a period of positive temp drivers we would need go before seeing a seasonal pack across the basin?

[jethro]

When the IPCC and the rest of climate scientists start using time periods of a month to make decisions/assumptions about climate then I'll start too. As it is, they all use a time period of not less than 30 years, it's their benchmark and it's their work which is under constant scrutiny in this debate. If we're now able to move those goalposts, as and when we see fit, then all those in favour of AGW ought to be tolerant when folk make posts about static temperatures over periods of less than 30 years. I never see any evidence of this happening so I see no reason why those in favour of AGW should receive a more sympathetic response.

[keithlucky]

The latest paper is one by Mathias Trachsel et al, titled: Multi-archive summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps, AD 1053–1996. Moberg and Esper are among its authors.

They present a multi-archive, multi-proxy summer temperature reconstruction for the European Alps for the period AD 1053–1996 using tree-ring and lake sediment data. The results show that summer temperatures of the last millennium are characterized by two warm periods (AD 1053–1171 and 1823–1996) and two cold phases (AD 1172–1379 and 1573–1822).

But get this. The abstract states (my emphasis):

Highest pre-industrial summer temperatures of the 12th century were 0.3 °C warmer than the 20th century mean but 0.35 °C colder than proxy derived temperatures at the end of the 20th century.The lowest temperatures at the end of the 16th century were ∼1 °C lower than the 20th century mean.â€

Now let’s assume the end of the 20th century proxy-derived temperatures are reliable. That would mean all the CO2 added by man over the last 1000 years (approx. 110 ppm) has led to a whole third of a degree Celsius of warming when compared to the Medieval Warm Period.

That’s it? This is a crisis?

The end of the 20th century in the Alps was a wee bit warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, that according to proxy data.

The added late 20th century tree-ring growth was probably due mostly to the CO2 enrichment.

That really should tell us and especially the IPCC something about the magnitude of feedbacks involving CO2 and water vapor.

Edited June 14, 2012 by keithlucky

[Gray-Wolf]

When the IPCC and the rest of climate scientists start using time periods of a month to make decisions/assumptions about climate then I'll start too. As it is, they all use a time period of not less than 30 years, it's their benchmark and it's their work which is under constant scrutiny in this debate. If we're now able to move those goalposts, as and when we see fit, then all those in favour of AGW ought to be tolerant when folk make posts about static temperatures over periods of less than 30 years. I never see any evidence of this happening so I see no reason why those in favour of AGW should receive a more sympathetic response.

" This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880"

The above is from the first paragraph of this May's global analysis. I make that 132 years of data?

Are we really trying to say that the NOAA are wasting their time by collecting such data? Surely this data covers all of the known climate drivers allowing us a rough guide as to what type of temps anom we should expect from various combinations of drivers over the series? As BFTV posted we are amid a host of cold natural drivers yet the year is shaping up to be amongst the warmest (again).

Would you care to give us your opinion, jethro, as to why we should find ourselves amongst the warmest months/years in the series even when amongst so many factors that we know cool global temps? Could you hazard a guess at what novel factor could be at play to make warm driver periods record warm and cold driver periods record warm?

i'm not asking for 'Fact' here, just let us know what you find the most reasonable explaination for the changes we are seeing across the land/ocean/atmosphere.

[BornFromTheVoid]

When the IPCC and the rest of climate scientists start using time periods of a month to make decisions/assumptions about climate then I'll start too. As it is, they all use a time period of not less than 30 years, it's their benchmark and it's their work which is under constant scrutiny in this debate. If we're now able to move those goalposts, as and when we see fit, then all those in favour of AGW ought to be tolerant when folk make posts about static temperatures over periods of less than 30 years. I never see any evidence of this happening so I see no reason why those in favour of AGW should receive a more sympathetic response.

Nobody reacted with your level of hostility when you started using the flat lining of global temperatures, based on one data set, over the last 15 years. Instead evidence was presented which may explain the global temperatures since 1998. Yet if someone moves away from the 30 year average that thinks AGW is a problem, you react negatively to them. Seems to me like you want to have your cake and eat it.

Whether you like it or not, the fact that we're recording near record high temperatures despite the background signals is very interesting. Sure, it's not a smoking gun for greenhouse warming, but in the context of a "climate and environment" sub section, it is relevant and worthy of discussion.

[knocker]

2 warmest winter months in Midwest history may have connection

Discoveries could help predict weather in the future

COLUMBIA, Mo. – This past March was the second warmest winter month ever recorded in the Midwest, with temperatures 15 degrees above average. The only other winter month that was warmer was December of 1889, during which temperatures were 18 degrees above average. Now, MU researchers may have discovered why the weather patterns during these two winter months, separated by 123 years, were so similar. The answer could help scientists develop more accurate weather prediction models.

Tony Lupo, chair of the Department of Soil, Environment and Atmospheric Sciences in the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources at MU, created computer models with global weather records and ship captains' logs to determine why these two months were unusually warm. He discovered that the preceding months were also dry and warm, as well as the previous summers, which led him to determine that both 2012 and 1889 were La Niña years.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uom-tww061412.php

[jethro]

Nobody reacted with your level of hostility when you started using the flat lining of global temperatures, based on one data set, over the last 15 years. Instead evidence was presented which may explain the global temperatures since 1998. Yet if someone moves away from the 30 year average that thinks AGW is a problem, you react negatively to them. Seems to me like you want to have your cake and eat it.

Whether you like it or not, the fact that we're recording near record high temperatures despite the background signals is very interesting. Sure, it's not a smoking gun for greenhouse warming, but in the context of a "climate and environment" sub section, it is relevant and worthy of discussion.

I think you'll find I've been equally critical when someone posts a 'coldest since or lowest for yonks' kind of post too. When I used the flat lining of global temps it was in a similar conversation to this one and was used as demonstration/illumination of how the boundaries move as to what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to global temps.

As for hostility, there is none. Being critical of science, logic and reasoning isn't hostility, it is a vital part of the scientific debate. This is a debate here, it isn't a forum for only one side of the argument to make posts and receive pats on the back for it - it's tedious for all when only the same few people post and those same few people all have the same perspective. I could quite reasonably throw the same accusation back, why the hostility to my posts? Keithlucky made a post and received no response, I make a comment and I attract endless criticism, both here and in the Arctic thread. Is that hostility? It must be if the same criteria is applied.

I didn't say the highest temperature wasn't interesting, I said it wasn't relevant to the debate on AGW, it is insignificant. I said the same thing about the record high temps in Russia a couple of years ago and I said the same thing about the record cold temps in the NH winter. It's weather and there's ample room to discuss weather on a weather based forum, it just shouldn't be confused with climate nor inferred to be relevant to it - that's why I posted a link for the more appropriate part of the forum.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I think you'll find I've been equally critical when someone posts a 'coldest since or lowest for yonks' kind of post too. When I used the flat lining of global temps it was in a similar conversation to this one and was used as demonstration/illumination of how the boundaries move as to what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to global temps.

Yep, individual weather events cannot always be directly attributed to climate change, no argument there. I believe the flat lining temperature debate before was you trying to demonstrate that natural climate driver were not promoting cooling, was it not? At least that's what I remember responding to.

As for hostility, there is none. Being critical of science, logic and reasoning isn't hostility, it is a vital part of the scientific debate. This is a debate here, it isn't a forum for only one side of the argument to make posts and receive pats on the back for it - it's tedious for all when only the same few people post and those same few people all have the same perspective. I could quite reasonably throw the same accusation back, why the hostility to my posts? Keithlucky made a post and received no response, I make a comment and I attract endless criticism, both here and in the Arctic thread. Is that hostility? It must be if the same criteria is applied.

I didn't see you being critical of science, logic or reasoning. I just read you disregarding GW's post, claiming people only find warm months as important and telling him to take his post elsewhere. A far cry from being critical of science, logic and reasoning methinks?

This forum is supposed to be for debating, yes, which why is telling someone their post is pointless and to take it somewhere else is attempting to prevent debate. Your unrelated proclamations of what this forum is or isn't has nothing to do with this though.

I agree, the circle-jerking and back patting is annoying for everyone. Most people here don't have the same perspective though, they just perhaps agree on certain aspects of this debate, seems that's something you have an issue with.

You made comments here and on the Arctic thread, both with a dismissive tone, and you received responses. I fail to see the issue with that. As for keithlucky's post, I could ask why you didn't respond to his copy and paste job yourself? What is the point here?

I didn't say the highest temperature wasn't interesting, I said it wasn't relevant to the debate on AGW, it is insignificant. I said the same thing about the record high temps in Russia a couple of years ago and I said the same thing about the record cold temps in the NH winter. It's weather and there's ample room to discuss weather on a weather based forum, it just shouldn't be confused with climate nor inferred to be relevant to it - that's why I posted a link for the more appropriate part of the forum.

Global temperatures and regional temperatures are 2 very different things. I sincerely doubt that any of the recent winter seasons or months were anywhere near record cold for the Northern Hemisphere, if they were, they would have raised some interesting questions.

Regional monthly or seasonal anomalies is weather. Global temperatures anomalies at record highs when background signals have been pointing to cooling for 15 years can raise some climate related questions.

Why aren't the global temperatures following natural climate drivers?

What will happen when these drivers turn back to their positive phases?

Will global temperatures increase further?

All relevant climate questions brought about by what GW posted.

[BornFromTheVoid]

http://www2.journaln...enc-ar-2353298/

N.C. Senate approves law that challenges sea-level science

Lawmakers passed a bill that restricts local planning agencies’ abilities to use climate change science to predict sea-level rise in 20 coastal counties. The bill’s supporters said that relying on climate change forecasts would stifle economic development and depress property values in eastern North Carolina...

...The legislation gives the state Coastal Resources Commission sole responsibility for predicting the rate of sea-level rise to be used as a basis for state and local regulations. The commission’s 15 members are appointed by the governor.

But the legislation also defines how the Coastal Resources Commission is to decide sea-level rates. Specifically, the law says forecasts can be based on historical data only and can’t take into account non-historical factors. The key factor that’s disqualified is the belief that greenhouse gases are causing climate change and speeding up glacier melts.

[jethro]

Yep, individual weather events cannot always be directly attributed to climate change, no argument there. I believe the flat lining temperature debate before was you trying to demonstrate that natural climate driver were not promoting cooling, was it not? At least that's what I remember responding to.

I didn't see you being critical of science, logic or reasoning. I just read you disregarding GW's post, claiming people only find warm months as important and telling him to take his post elsewhere. A far cry from being critical of science, logic and reasoning methinks?

This forum is supposed to be for debating, yes, which why is telling someone their post is pointless and to take it somewhere else is attempting to prevent debate. Your unrelated proclamations of what this forum is or isn't has nothing to do with this though.

I agree, the circle-jerking and back patting is annoying for everyone. Most people here don't have the same perspective though, they just perhaps agree on certain aspects of this debate, seems that's something you have an issue with.

You made comments here and on the Arctic thread, both with a dismissive tone, and you received responses. I fail to see the issue with that. As for keithlucky's post, I could ask why you didn't respond to his copy and paste job yourself? What is the point here?

Global temperatures and regional temperatures are 2 very different things. I sincerely doubt that any of the recent winter seasons or months were anywhere near record cold for the Northern Hemisphere, if they were, they would have raised some interesting questions.

Regional monthly or seasonal anomalies is weather. Global temperatures anomalies at record highs when background signals have been pointing to cooling for 15 years can raise some climate related questions.

Why aren't the global temperatures following natural climate drivers?

What will happen when these drivers turn back to their positive phases?

Will global temperatures increase further?

All relevant climate questions brought about by what GW posted.

No, you've remembered incorrectly.

My criticism (as is plain to see) was the acceptance that it is ok to post about warm months with the reference to climate but that it is deemed unacceptable to postulate the same for cold events. That isn't personal criticism nor an attack on GW, merely an observation based on long experience in this forum. It is doubly irksome that this double standard exists when it is often the same person/people who post warm events but criticise when others post about cold ones - you cannot have your cake and eat it - that applies to everything in life, including here. Using global temperatures for one month is pointless in this debate; that's not a personal opinion but a universal standard applied by every scientist involved in climate science. Should those rules be re-written on a whim? Where does that leave the standards of science? This is a weather forum with plenty of room to discuss weather, there have been past threads to discuss instances such as the Russian heatwave which took place in the weather section of the forum, and that's exactly where they should be. I make no apologies for that suggestion, it's a routine point made by oodles of people in numerous threads so quite why you've decided to get uppity about it in this instance is beyond me. If I made a post about Solar output in the Scottish Politics thread, I'd be told to re-direct my comments to a more appropriate area.

I don't have an issue with anyone agreeing with anything but what I do have an issue with is the happy way these threads progress so long as everyone involved is coming from the same perspective, if there's a group of 3 or 4 people all on the same wavelength and just one person with an opposing view joins in, they all descend with an affronted manner which has very loud overtones of an 'how dare you' attitude. Science progresses via questions and criticism, it's a bizarre contradiction that by definition of being here and participating people are showing an interest in science, but interpret a question or criticism as a personal affront. Couple that with the fact that we're all complete strangers, makes the contradiction in logic and reasoning doubly bizarre.

Can tone be dismissive via the written word when discussing science and citing the science reasoning behind the criticism? I've asked for anyone to post a paper in the Arctic thread showing why my criticism was wrong, as yet no one has. I've also said I'm happy to eat my words if someone can show me that paper. Is that dismissive? I can't see how I can say fairer than that. Do you? You often ask for proof behind people's reasoning, why is that ok for you, a satisfactory way for you to criticise, but not someone else?

Why haven't I responded to Keith? Have you seen the amount of stuff my one comment has generated? All I said was one month's data is weather not climate and here we are hours later.....I haven't got time to deal with more than one thing at a time if everything's going to have the same result.

I'll give it a go though..... hmmm, all that fuss about such a small increase in temperature. Made all the more questionable when you add in that climate isn't static. We've chucked out all that CO2, it's supposed to be really dangerous stuff and we've changed so much land by concreting it over, felled goodness knows how many millions of acres of forest - and everyone's panicking about this teeny, tiny temperature change. Really?

Now wait for the wrath to descend.......

What background signals have been pointing to cooling for the past 15 years? None that I know of. The PDO only went into a negative phase 3 or 4 years ago, we've had a prolonged Solar minimum and a quiet cycle thus far but every Solar physicist and climate scientist will tell you there's a lag in the impact on climate - times spans vary according to source but at the earliest, they reckon it's at least 5 years before any impact is measurable. The winter just past produced some staggeringly low temps in the NH, the SH winter prior to that produced very low temps too. They have been talked about, over in the weather section of the forum; mostly by folk hoping that the SH winter would portend a good one for us and folk wishing the record breaking cold over in the east of the NH would get shunted this way.

[VillagePlank]

... something is preventing cooling.

The word you are looking for is hysteresis.

Edited June 15, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Gray-Wolf]

The word you are looking for is hysteresis.

Hi Boar!

Just so any 'nubes' can get up to speed. what would happen to a system displaying hysteresis if the pressure to depart from the 'norm' is not only continuously applied but increased over time?

Is it kinda like a 'hookes Law' thing where the hysteresis in the system will increase with the applied loading up to a given point and then ....Blamo!..it flips to a new point of 'rest'?

Edited June 15, 2012 by Gray-Wolf

[BornFromTheVoid]

No, you've remembered incorrectly.

My criticism (as is plain to see) was the acceptance that it is ok to post about warm months with the reference to climate but that it is deemed unacceptable to postulate the same for cold events. That isn't personal criticism nor an attack on GW, merely an observation based on long experience in this forum. It is doubly irksome that this double standard exists when it is often the same person/people who post warm events but criticise when others post about cold ones - you cannot have your cake and eat it - that applies to everything in life, including here. Using global temperatures for one month is pointless in this debate; that's not a personal opinion but a universal standard applied by every scientist involved in climate science. Should those rules be re-written on a whim? Where does that leave the standards of science? This is a weather forum with plenty of room to discuss weather, there have been past threads to discuss instances such as the Russian heatwave which took place in the weather section of the forum, and that's exactly where they should be. I make no apologies for that suggestion, it's a routine point made by oodles of people in numerous threads so quite why you've decided to get uppity about it in this instance is beyond me. If I made a post about Solar output in the Scottish Politics thread, I'd be told to re-direct my comments to a more appropriate area.

I don't have an issue with anyone agreeing with anything but what I do have an issue with is the happy way these threads progress so long as everyone involved is coming from the same perspective, if there's a group of 3 or 4 people all on the same wavelength and just one person with an opposing view joins in, they all descend with an affronted manner which has very loud overtones of an 'how dare you' attitude. Science progresses via questions and criticism, it's a bizarre contradiction that by definition of being here and participating people are showing an interest in science, but interpret a question or criticism as a personal affront. Couple that with the fact that we're all complete strangers, makes the contradiction in logic and reasoning doubly bizarre.

Can tone be dismissive via the written word when discussing science and citing the science reasoning behind the criticism? I've asked for anyone to post a paper in the Arctic thread showing why my criticism was wrong, as yet no one has. I've also said I'm happy to eat my words if someone can show me that paper. Is that dismissive? I can't see how I can say fairer than that. Do you? You often ask for proof behind people's reasoning, why is that ok for you, a satisfactory way for you to criticise, but not someone else?

Why haven't I responded to Keith? Have you seen the amount of stuff my one comment has generated? All I said was one month's data is weather not climate and here we are hours later.....I haven't got time to deal with more than one thing at a time if everything's going to have the same result.

I'll give it a go though..... hmmm, all that fuss about such a small increase in temperature. Made all the more questionable when you add in that climate isn't static. We've chucked out all that CO2, it's supposed to be really dangerous stuff and we've changed so much land by concreting it over, felled goodness knows how many millions of acres of forest - and everyone's panicking about this teeny, tiny temperature change. Really?

Now wait for the wrath to descend.......

What background signals have been pointing to cooling for the past 15 years? None that I know of. The PDO only went into a negative phase 3 or 4 years ago, we've had a prolonged Solar minimum and a quiet cycle thus far but every Solar physicist and climate scientist will tell you there's a lag in the impact on climate - times spans vary according to source but at the earliest, they reckon it's at least 5 years before any impact is measurable. The winter just past produced some staggeringly low temps in the NH, the SH winter prior to that produced very low temps too. They have been talked about, over in the weather section of the forum; mostly by folk hoping that the SH winter would portend a good one for us and folk wishing the record breaking cold over in the east of the NH would get shunted this way.

But the recent global warm months is worthy of discussion. It is not a determination of current climate, but is anomalous with regard the background cooling signals. Once again, regional events like the Russian heatwave are weather, I agree, and in general don't have much of a place in a climate discussion, besides, the warmth is usually balanced by cold somewhere else. When the entire globe is warm, that's not the case.

GW did not make any determination of what the current warm months means with regard to climate, but you reacted based on your pre-formed ideas of him and a presumption of what he meant rather than on the merit of his post.

Global climate is determined by a 30 year mean, so your saying only 30 year means can be used when simply discussing climate change, climate drivers and their effects? That's nonsense. You could wipe out the vast majority of climate discussions based on that. Besides, many climate scientists often discuss climate issues without using only 30 year means. Natural climate drivers are analysed on all kinds of scales, not just 30 year means. Monthly and yearly anomalies are analysed with attempts to spot trends and analyse which drivers are having the largest impact and in what way, in order to help with future climate predictions.

This is a forum, whereby things are discussed and often, clearly, argued. Your attempts to stifle this because of your own assumptions and opinions I think is unnecessary.

Science is progressing anyway, no matter what goes on throughout these forums. Climate science progresses along in confidence that mankind's GHG emissions are currently one of the main climate drivers, and that warming is expected.

There has been little debate here because it's mostly been people posting things that are in the news for others to see, rather than personal opinions. This makes you unhappy!? Some are only happy in argument I suppose. Your the only one descending on people with a manner of "how dare you" here, which I think is pretty clear for all to see.

Yes, tone can be dismissive. Like telling GW to take his post elsewhere, claiming in the Arctic thread that everything is working just as it's supposed to do (thus insinuating that analysis of the sea ice is pointless, as everything is just as it should be), then when people attempted to respond, you grew more dismissive, didn't bother to respond to anyone and exclaimed why you don't post there any more. If you don't like the thread and think everything is just dandy, that's up to you.

With regards keiths post, I would have thought that was an example of someone making a determination of the importance of CO2 to the globe based on a small area. Are you really going to ignore that? Is it only when a certain poster posts something that vaguely hints at some kind of inconsistency that you get uppity?

As for the solar stuff. I'm still waiting on a definite and proven link between solar activity and our climate. Vague correlations over the little ice age won't do it. Solar activity has been declining since the 50s, steepening since the 70s. Even if it was causing warming, it most likely wouldn't be most prevalent in the troposphere, which is where most is occurring now. The PDO and ENSO and been trending negative for the last 15 years, as have the AO and NAO, allowing for more cold outbreaks, and equally, more warmth into the Arctic.

Your claims of record regional cold mean nothing globally when they're balance by record warmth at the same time.

This ridiculous. Your comments in the Arctic thread got you to responses in favour and two against. Yet you think everyone is descending on you!

In this thread, the only real responses you're getting is from me (and GW who is entitled to defend his post), yet once more, you think you're generating an unreasonable amount of responses!?

I dunno....

[knocker]

This could well have been posted before

Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling

Abstract

The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000.

http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Data%20sources/Kaufman%20Schneider%20recent%20warming.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks W.S.! Yes, some folk had been aware of the trend ?I had to consult with NSIDC for confirmation that we should be 'cooling' a few years back and i think i posted up the response by R.Alley as to where we 'ought to be' and where we are now.

Sadly we still get posters claiming we are still emerging from the ice age (hence the ice melt) when we should be on a gentle cool off into a minor glacial epoch.

Mr Alley also pointed out that if we had 'offset' this decline (remember all the 70's talk of an ice age beginning?) we would have to wait a full 2 processional cycles before our position would be favourable to ice retention (46,000yrs or so) due to us moving into a very round orbit from here on in.

So here we have BFTV and myself asking why ,midst all the cold drivers we still post global top ten temps (and ice mass continues down) when we should also be mindful of the biggest of all cold drivers, above and beyond the piddling PDO/ENSO/AO/NAO, being both negated and reversed.

Surely , year on year, we are confirming the fears that humanities pollution can alter climate? maybe some folk are plain unhappy to be proven wrong in the end that they still try and bring forward evidence that AGW is flawed as a theory but in their trawling around for that evidence they must come across so much more that goes to prove AGW was correct, if not fully understood, all along?

[knocker]

There is a special report on the Arctic in this weeks economist. Unfortunately you have to be registered to read online. I'm not but happened to buy the journal this morning in Tescos. Looks quite interesting but not had chance to read it properly.

[jethro]

This ridiculous. Your comments in the Arctic thread got you to responses in favour and two against. Yet you think everyone is descending on you!

In this thread, the only real responses you're getting is from me (and GW who is entitled to defend his post), yet once more, you think you're generating an unreasonable amount of responses!?

I dunno....

You're right, this is ridiculous.

GW is perfectly entitled to answer my post, GW and I are perfectly able to disagree amicably, we have a long history of it, we come from two completely opposing views on this topic and despite disagreeing for years, we've never fallen out, neither one of us has taken umbrage from the other. Whilst I admire anyone sticking up for someone else, it is after all a selfless act and speaks volumes about the character of a person, in this instance it isn't needed. GW hasn't taken umbrage at what I said, he know's there's nothing personal intended so really, however well intentioned, you've created a problem where none existed.

You've quite clearly mis-interpreted my style of posting, apparently reading all sorts of meanings/undercurrents which frankly aren't there. If you really want to continue this conversation or want any point clarified, please do PM me then we can stop clogging up the thread with nonsense.

[keithlucky]

" This is the second warmest May since records began in 1880"

The above is from the first paragraph of this May's global analysis. I make that 132 years of data?

Are we really trying to say that the NOAA are wasting their time by collecting such data? Surely this data covers all of the known climate drivers allowing us a rough guide as to what type of temps anom we should expect from various combinations of drivers over the series? As BFTV posted we are amid a host of cold natural drivers yet the year is shaping up to be amongst the warmest (again).

Would you care to give us your opinion, jethro, as to why we should find ourselves amongst the warmest months/years in the series even when amongst so many factors that we know cool global temps? Could you hazard a guess at what novel factor could be at play to make warm driver periods record warm and cold driver periods record warm?

i'm not asking for 'Fact' here, just let us know what you find the most reasonable explaination for the changes we are seeing across the land/ocean/atmosphere.

You are for some factors The bureaucracy at NOAA and NASA who report the U.S. temperature data undertake what they term “correcting†the raw data. These corrections are not just one-time affairs, either. As time goes by, older temperature readings are systematically and repeatedly made cooler, and then cooler still, and then cooler still, while more recent temperature readings are made warmer, and then warmer still, and then warmer still.

Science blogger Steven Goddard at Real Science has posted temperature comparison charts (available here, and here) showing just how dramatically the NOAA and NASA bureaucrats have doctored the U.S. temperature data during the past several decades. As the before-and-after temperature charts show, government bureaucrats with power and funding at stake have turned a striking long-term temperature decline (as revealed by the real-world data), into a striking long-term temperature increase.

It is, of course, possible that certain factors can influence the real-world temperature readings such that a correction in real-world temperature data may be justified. The most important such influence is the growth of towns and cities around temperature stations. Forty years ago, for example, Chicago’s O’Hare airport was located in a largely rural area with surrounding agriculture and relatively sparse population. Forty years later, the city has expanded and consumed the entirety of the O’Hare region.

This begs the question, what is the localized temperature impact of our growing cities? As cities sprout up and grow, the expanding human population with its industrial machinery and urban land patterns create what is known as the urban heat island effect. Temperature readings in large cities, and even in modest-sized towns, are consistently and significantly warmer than the surrounding region. So as towns or cities grow in the vicinity of temperature stations, the more recent temperature readings show a warming trend that is entirely local and directly tied to local land-use decisions. It makes sense, therefore, to adjust more recent temperature readings downward to compensate for the artificial heat signal provided by the localized urban heat island effect.

Ironically, the government overseers of raw temperature data are doing just the opposite. As Goddard shows here, they are doctoring older temperature readings (when urban heat island effects were minimal) in a manner that makes the older temperature readings seem colder than was reported in the real-world data. At the same time, they are doctoring more recent temperature readings (when urban heat islands are more pronounced) in a manner that makes the more recent temperature readings seem warmer than the real-world data report.

The real-world U.S. temperature data show a long-term cooling trend. Common sense indicates that if the real-world data need adjustment, the proper adjustment is to further reduce recent temperature readings. Yet the bureaucrats who oversee the data have instead doctored the data to show a false, long-term warming pattern.

With billions upon billions of dollars in annual federal funding at stake, who do you suppose the manufactured warming trend benefits?

[4wd]

[BornFromTheVoid]

Here's a link explaining many of the temperature adjustments and the reasoning behind them.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html

It's all out in the open, no big conspiracy.

[knocker]

Expansion of forests in the European Arctic could result in the release of carbon dioxide

Carbon stored in Arctic tundra could be released into the atmosphere by new trees growing in the warmer region, exacerbating climate change, scientists have revealed.

The Arctic is getting greener as plant growth increases in response to a warmer climate. This greater plant growth means more carbon is stored in the increasing biomass, so it was previously thought the greening would result in more carbon dioxide being taken up from the atmosphere, thus helping to reduce the rate of global warming.

However, research published in Nature Climate Change, shows that, by stimulating decomposition rates in soils, the expansion of forest into tundra in arctic Sweden could result in the release of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Dr Iain Hartley now based in Geography at the University of Exeter, and lead author of the paper, said: "Determining directly how carbon storage is changing in high-latitude ecosystems is very difficult because the majority of the carbon present is stored below ground in the soils. Our work indicates that greater plant biomass may not always translate into greater carbon storage at the ecosystem level.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-06/uoe-eof061512.php

[VillagePlank]

Hi Boar!

Just so any 'nubes' can get up to speed. what would happen to a system displaying hysteresis if the pressure to depart from the 'norm' is not only continuously applied but increased over time?

Is it kinda like a 'hookes Law' thing where the hysteresis in the system will increase with the applied loading up to a given point and then ....Blamo!..it flips to a new point of 'rest'?

Not really; hysteresis is a dependence on the entire history of a dynamical system - ie a point in the systems state can only be be reached because of that system's history - a by-product of this is that the system takes longer to return to it's intial state; rather like a moving average.

For instance, if one were to use a well known differential equation (that models hysteresis), and plot the temperature record, sunspot data, and a few well chosen parameters, you will get this,

With a few more parameters modelling ENSO, volcanism, and sea-ice extent, you will get this,

Once you've modelled the system, you can extrapolate it forward a few years (since you know the systems history) and in April 2009, I got this,

It did seem promising at the time, but I ran out of money - indeed, I am still paying back all that money required to purchase knowledge.

EDIT: and as far as I can tell, way back in 2009, this theory was the only theory predicting a 'sharpish' annual decline in temperatures for this decade, HadCru3 as of last week,

I never got as far as adding GhG's to the model.

Edited June 18, 2012 by Boar Wrinklestorm