The early and fast start to winter in the Arctic is due to cold temperatures not seen since 1996. Temperatures north of 80N have been normal to below normal for five months, obliterating global warming theory.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
arctic 1996 temperature
Steven:
A theory needs to be based on a testable hypothesis! There is nothing about the Global Warming “Theory” that is testable! Global Warming is an opinion and many assumptions that have not been narrowed down to a testable form. Global Warming is “What If” mind games played on computers with enough adjustable parameters to arrive at any conclusion. Now we even have surface temperature records that are also what if mind games loosely based on meaningless observations.
Sea surface temperatures might be accurate at the point of observation to within 4C and the same goes for land surface temperatures.
The Arctic region is experiencing variations in the long term weather patterns which are within normal range as displayed by long term historical records!
For NSIDC, I will add the regional ice conditions are also the result of mind games played on computers loosely based on satellite observations!
You have a lot of nerve reviewing actual data, rather than relying on the expert adjustments contained in Hansen’s coloring book, which have been peer reviewed and endorsed by 97% of climate scientists.
You’re saying that “global warming theory” has been obliterated at the conclusion of a summer that left the arctic with probably the smallest summer ice-cover on record. /facepalm. Did you forget to notice the exceptionally above-average temperatures all winter long? More importantly, did you forget that one year variation does not accurately reflect longer trends? Let me use an example: Young people are stronger and faster than old people. I can run a 5k faster today than I could one year ago. Therefore, I am growing younger. Right?
You realize that the sun doesn’t shine above 80N during the winter? That makes the greenhouse effect sort of a dodgy concept, eh?
Is that like the sun doesn’t shine on the night side of Earth? I wondered why nights are warmer than fast days. Must be magic, or very bendy photons.
> You realize that the sun doesn’t shine above 80N during
> the winter? That makes the greenhouse effect sort of a
> dodgy concept, eh?
So then you think the Artic surface emits no radiation in wintertime, i.e. that its temperature is absolute zero?
You tell us.
Most of us were brought up with the second law of thermodynamics, but I imagine that “Climate Science” has changed all that.
The implication that there is no greenhouse effect in winter implies that the surface emits no IR radiation, which by the Stefan-Boltzmann law implies its temperature is zero. That’s the logical consequence of Goddard’s comment.
No, if you wanted to take that direction, the logical consequence of Steve’s comment is, there is no incoming solar energy to be converted to IR. Winter in the arctic simply releases IR energy to space. Not that there’s much up there anyway, because of the angle of incidence.
But, I don’t believe that’s what Steve was saying. Aren’t we suppose to be in a death spiral where conditions are spiraling hopelessly towards spontaneous combustion? Isn’t the albedo of the arctic ice suppose to be some sort of regulator of earth’s temps? Yet, the continuous ice loss, bottoming out in 2007 has equated to no warmth? Missing something in that theory?……..
Sea-ice albedo is a feedback, not a regulator.
An object at a certain temperature emits an amount of energy independent of what radiation is incident on it. Ice is ice — it isn’t warmer in summertime than in the wintertime.
In the real world it’s more complicated because of melt ponds and air pockets and snow cover and all that, but the point is the greenhouse effect, or IR radiation, doesn’t disappear just because there is no sunlight.
David:
You have been reading to many fairy tales!
Andy, learn before you speak.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/09/24/how-to-be-a-fake-skeptic/
Steve is offering no analysis in this article, just assertions. Check the link for analysis.
Steve, did you do any analysis to support your claim that “Temperatures north of 80N have been normal to below normal for five months?” If so, what was the method/s?
That’s funny Barry, assumptions being the mother of all fu’s, both you and Tamino assume too much. I’m tired and don’t feel like doing your leg work at the moment, but Steve doesn’t use graphs to make his point, he uses them to illustrate his point. You should learn the difference and pass it on to Grant. The funny part is, you girls keep falling for it. More, even if Steve was using DMI information, while it is modeled, it is based on measurements and observations. Which, when interpreted properly, is the same as any graphical representation of temps. I wonder where Steve got the 1996 year from? Were I you or Grant, I’d endeavor to discern that question, first, before you opened your babbling mouths. You should learn before you speak. You’d look less foolish if you did.
Doltish children trying to play in a grown-ups world.
Andy, carry on.
Well heck, I wonder is Steve knows this stuff about models and reanalysis?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/28/giss-polar-interpolation/
It’s tricky. The red lie is below the green line.
That is so weird that Tamino got different results using different data set.
Steven, you can’t compare T1279 analysis to ERA40 reanalysis, because they are giving different results. ERA40 is “warmer” even than ERA Interim, so baseline on DMI charts is fake.
suyts,
Andy is implying DMI “actual data” isn’t adjusted. It certainly is, and heavily. That’s what the modelling does. Andy doesn’t appear to know this.
After reading tamino’s post, I got data and plotted it. Simple stuff. Then I posted here. I appreciate your honesty in saying that you’ve made no effort in this regard.
I made no assumptions. If you look very carefully at the post above – it’s not long – you will be able to verify that no analysis offered therein, as I said. That is why I asked Steve if he had performed any data analysis before making the claim, “Temperatures north of 80N have been normal to below normal for five months.”
If you yourself don’t make assumptions, then you must know what Steve’s method/s was for validating this claim. A concise, grown-up reply would be much appreciated.
DMI uses temps gathered from buoys and sat data. So, yes, it is actual data. It is then processed for spatial inconsistencies and errors.
Barry, I’m usually not that short with people that come by to snipe, but I was tired and have little time or tolerance for people such as Tamino. You’ll find if you start reasonably with the people here, you’ll get reasonable answers. If you start unreasonably rude, you’ll be treated the same and more.
More, I just got through presenting an argument at WUWT that the time for suffering people like Tamino is over. Dialogues with people such as Tamino has been attempted many times over the years. So, whether direct dialogue or you by proxy, is seen to be fruitless, and truly not worth the effort. If you are simply curious and wish to see what the skeptical perspective is, then I’d invite you to stay and participate. You note a discernible difference in the latitude given to the commentators from any perspective.
As to me giving you exactly what Steve was saying and how he came to that conclusion, I don’t speak for Steve and will not put words in his mouth. I’m sure you understand.
James
Which data set/s did you use? Could you briefly describe what you did with the data?
It is very tricky. I compared the graphs at the link I provided for the different years.
Steve, this is what DMI says about the plot you’ve copied. I’ve bolded the bit you may have missed:
chrisd,
Here is what you had to say about the plot Steve copied. I’ve bolded the bit you may have missed.
So while I don’t agree with quantitative predictions coming from the DMI model, it appears that year-to-year comparisons are valid using these plots. Though personally I’d like to see some integration going on before the claims being made are actually made…
-Scott
it appears that year-to-year comparisons are valid using these plots.
Right, Scott, I understand that. But Steve is pretty clearly trying to imply that these are physical measurements, and that the temps shown in the plot are actual temps, neither of which is true.
We don’t even need to get into the utterly ludicrous claim that five months’ data in one region “obliterates” global warming theory, do we?
I figured everyone knew that 5 months of Arctic model output didn’t obliterate global warming theory and that he put that there to increase attention and comments on the article. Not even worth addressing.
-Scott
There’s a cognitive disconnect with alarmists. They don’t understand humor and how these wild sweeping statements directly reflect to the hyperbole generated by alarmists with their assertions stated as fact.
I really find it quite humorous when they attempt to confront Steve on his statements.
Himalayas will melt to below sea level!!! Amazon gone tomorrow!! The last polar bear eats a human in retaliation!!
I think I have to agree with Scott and suyts here. We took Steve too seriously.
You have been arguing mindlessly all day, like brain dead alarmists like to do. Which year since 1996 had a colder start to autumn?
It’s all a bit vague, Steve. You speak of a sharp downturn in ‘Arctic’ temps for Autumn (lowest since 1996), but show a chart only of 80N+. Already there is confusion in your first post, and this flows into your current question, which is even more vague. Do I answer your question here for total Arctic area, or just by eye-balling the 80N graph?
I’ll take the latter course for now.
There’s a down spike in temps for the first few days of Autumn, north of 80N, that doesn’t seem to be equalled since 1996, just from eye-balling the DMI charts. If your remarks had been as constrained as that, then none of the following criticism would have occurred. But you went on…
As you have indicated, summertime temps North of 80 don’t rise much above zero. IIRC, you’ve explained why in the past (80N+ always ice-bound, temps hover around normal. Not being one of your familiars, I now ask myself if this remarking on the unremarkable was a jest or attention-getter, as suggested by Scott.
But if I take it seriously, the last 5 months appear to above normal, just by eye-balling DMI charts. Summertime temps are mostly below the line for many of the preceding years to 1996. 2011 is on the line. If you’re using a different metric for ‘normal’, it’s not clear from the exposition in your original post.
If you’re just chatting to familiars who are going to ‘get you’ when you post, don’t be surprised when interlopers misread you. Your blog is public, after all.
BTW, I’m on the other side of the world. I’ve slept, gone to the beach and watched a film as well as posting here. And thanks for the brain-dead, mind-of-a-3-year-old and moron epithets. Classy stuff from the host. The option to explain where I erred is always available to you, but it seems you prefer the low road.
While year-to-year comparisons may be valid, it’s important to be clear what DMI are actually doing. Their figures weight the 0.5 degrees from 88.5N to 90N exactly the same as the 0.5 degrees from 80N to 80.5N depite the fact that there’s a 40-fold difference in area.
That means that their figures are very strongly biased towards the central area around the Pole, and take almost no notice of the temperatures at lower latitudes around 80N. As such, it is not a proper measure of “temperatures north of 80N”, and is little better than a single-point estimate of temperatures at the actual Pole.
Awesome,
The post by me that I’m replying to actually made the comments at Tamino’s site. I’m so proud.
Steve appears to get the credit for the comment, although Peter says it could have come from one of Steve’s “claque”. Funny, I look up the definition of “claque” and it doesn’t fit at all considering I’m neither hired by or sycophantic towards Steve. That’s especially funny comming with respect to yet another posting by Steve that I disagree on, LOL.
-Scott
I put as much stock in DMI as I do PIOMAS. In other words, their both models using actual input data, but the results should be used qualitatively only.
-Scott
Obviously, I had an error above…”their” should be “they’re”. Sorry.
-Scott
This is why Santa Claus goes South every Christmas. The greenhouse effect stops in winter and temperatures plummet to near absolute zero. No reindeer can survive, not even Rudolf.
I have charts for all of this.
Yeah,
That comment from Steve didn’t make a whole lot of sense. Maybe he was confusing albedo and greenhouse effect?
-Scott
The greenhouse effect occurs when shortwave radiation heats the ground and the emitted longwave radiation gets absorbed by GHG. There isn’t any SW in the Arctic in the winter.
Global warming should make for warm Arctic summers, not winters.
If your theory were true, then temperatures would approach -130 to -230C, same as the dark side of the moon and the lunar poles, where there is no greenhouse effect.
Arctic winter is about -60 at its deepest.
You reckon the greenhouse effect stops at night, too?
Winters warming faster than summers is actually a signature of GHG warming. As the impact of the sun diminishes (seasonally, diurnally), the impact of GHGs is more revealed. Solar warming would cause summers to warm more than winters, obviously.
Right on your thoughts wrong on the details. I’ve personally experienced temps below -60 and I was several degrees below 80 lat.
barry,
I agree with your post except the following:
Yes, winters warming faster is a potential sign of GHG warming, but it’s also a sign of UHI. Additionally, it’s a sign of general warming because climate science uses temperature as their proxy for energy. Equal energy increases throughout all seasons of the year yields a higher increase in winter temperature than that for the summer.
I disagree with your last sentence. Winters would be expected to warm with increasing solar input due to a variety of mechanisms. Convection is a huge one. Thermal lag is one too. The mechanism of solar input as well…changes in cloud cover for instance. And again, all this is enhanced because of the reliance on temperature as the energy proxy, and temperature is more sensitive at changes in energy at lower absolute temperatures.
-Scott
Barry,
You are coming across as a complete moron, with the reading comprehension of a three year old.
Ah, Barry, you got the “moron” label. Wear it proudly. You know you’ve struck home when the ad hominems start. “Moron” is Steve’s final retreat, the top rung, just above “idiot.”
I’m not one to brag, but I got both of them when I used to hang out here. Keep trying. You can do it!
are you that reading challenged?…..
He got moron in training….
…at most that’s a ribbon
..certainly not a lable
As he’s declined to respond straightforwardly, I think we can take it as read that Steve gathered no data and did no analysis.
Yeh, ’cause we should always do an analysis on data that has been analyzed. Its the only way to ensure the proper answer.
I think he made it clear that his analysis was visual inspection of the graphs. I don’t know if that counts, as it’s qualitative. I’d rather see a quantitative measurement via integration of temperatures or the like.
-Scott
It would be nice if people in climate science would provide data for their graphs, but they normally don’t.
This topic is a no-brainer to understand which is why it is perfect for Tamino and barry to fail to understand.
It would be nice if people in climate science would provide data for their graphs, but they normally don’t.
This topic is a no-brainer which is why it is perfect for Tamino and barry to fail to understand.
I posted links to the data for both ERA40 (green curve) and ECMWF (red curve). The comment never appeared. Let’s try again.
ERA40: http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/data/d/era40_daily/
ECMWF: http://data-portal.ecmwf.int/
It’s not possible to get data for 80 to 90N for the period of interest (including post 2002) unless you’re a research tech or scientist. And you have to pay for it.
Then you have to be savvy enouhg to meld the data from different models, if that’s even possible to do in any robust sort of way.
The DMI data is readily available in graphical form and is shown in this post. The underlying digital data is not readily available. It is quite clear from the graphs and the rapid freeze in the Arctic, that this autumn has been much colder than other recent years.
What is astonishing is that people are arguing about it.
Arctic temperature anomalies from ERA Interim dataset
http://gfspl.rootnode.net/klimat/arctic/
Timeseries to june 2011
http://gfspl.rootnode.net/klimat/arctic/arctic_ts.txt
Scott,
Perhaps, but not applicable at 80N+ (or at sea). Greater winter warming over time is something you can see just by eye-balling 80-90N DMI charts.
I went back through the comments and saw that you had eventually answered my query, Steve. Thanks. You’d strongly implied you had worked with a ‘data set’ and processed them to get ‘results’.
I erred in not returning upthread to find your answer after the conversation continued below. I quit posting 10 minutes after your replyand hadn’t seen it before my last few posts.
Barry says….
Winters warming faster than summers is actually a signature of GHG warming. As the impact of the sun diminishes (seasonally, diurnally), the impact of GHGs is more revealed. Solar warming would cause summers to warm more than winters, obviously.
This is not at all true. Winter would generally warm faster than summer because there is more of an albedo depletion in the winter with warming temperatures, and as a result you get a positive feedback that accelerates the warming trend in the winter time. This would occur regardless of what the cause of the warming would be.