Coldest Winter in 100 Years

[Big Fitz]

You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.

Now satellite data has only been available since about 1979.


Hmmm...perhaps this base period is based upon highly selective temp. data?


....hide the decline!!!!!

Again, cherry picking the USA, one of the very few cool spots on the globe this summer.

Another interesting thing about the map is NO DATA for Antarctia or Arctic regions. This is satellite based correct? Why the missing data?

It was thrown out because it doesn't comply with the predetermined conclusion.

 

[Sinatra]

 

[Maple]

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.

They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.

And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder....

____


Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph

No kidding, what happened to all that global warming that Al Gore promised us.? I am freezing my ass off.

 

[Old Rocks]

You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.

Now satellite data has only been available since about 1979.


Hmmm...perhaps this base period is based upon highly selective temp. data?


....hide the decline!!!!!

Again, cherry picking the USA, one of the very few cool spots on the globe this summer.

Another interesting thing about the map is NO DATA for Antarctia or Arctic regions. This is satellite based correct? Why the missing data?

What? You mean to tell me that Siberia and Alaska and the northern tier of Canadian Provinces are not in the Artic? Possibly you incapable of reading a simple map?

 

[Old Rocks]

It is winter time in North America. Amazing that it is cold, correct?

 

[saveliberty]

You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.

Now satellite data has only been available since about 1979.


Hmmm...perhaps this base period is based upon highly selective temp. data?


....hide the decline!!!!!

Another interesting thing about the map is NO DATA for Antarctia or Arctic regions. This is satellite based correct? Why the missing data?

What? You mean to tell me that Siberia and Alaska and the northern tier of Canadian Provinces are not in the Artic? Possibly you incapable of reading a simple map?

No, but you are. Note the complete lack of satellite data for Antarctia and the northern parts of the Arctic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.

They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.

And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder....

____


Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph

No kidding, what happened to all that global warming that Al Gore promised us.? I am freezing my ass off.

Stupid people fail to plan for winter. Al Gore never stated, nor have any scientists that winter would cease as we warm.

In fact, one of the major predictions of global warming is wider and wilder swings in the weather, with an overall warming trend. That is exactly what we are seeing.

 

[Old Rocks]

Another interesting thing about the map is NO DATA for Antarctia or Arctic regions. This is satellite based correct? Why the missing data?

What? You mean to tell me that Siberia and Alaska and the northern tier of Canadian Provinces are not in the Artic? Possibly you incapable of reading a simple map?

No, but you are. Note the complete lack of satellite data for Antarctia and the northern parts of the Arctic.

I note that you are an ignorant fuck.

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

January 5, 2010
Extreme negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation yields a warm Arctic

Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal, primarily in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions. Finally, we provide a review of 2009 Arctic sea ice conditions.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles). The magenta line shows the 1979 to 2000 median extent for that month. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

High-resolution image Overview of conditions

Arctic sea ice extent averaged over December 2009 was 12.48 million square kilometers (4.82 million square miles). This was 920,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average for December, but 210,000 square kilometers (81,000 square miles) above the record low for the month, which occurred in December 2006. Ice extent was less than normal over much of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, including the Barents Sea, part of the East Greenland Sea, and in Davis Strait.

This data is from satelites.

 

[Old Rocks]

Figure 3. Monthly December ice extent for 1979 to 2009 shows a decline of 3.3% per decade.
—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100105_Figure3.png

 

[edthecynic]

You chart states a "1971 - 2000" base period.

Now satellite data has only been available since about 1979.


Hmmm...perhaps this base period is based upon highly selective temp. data?


....hide the decline!!!!!

Another interesting thing about the map is NO DATA for Antarctia or Arctic regions. This is satellite based correct? Why the missing data?

It was thrown out because it doesn't comply with the predetermined conclusion.

It's there al right, but you two are toooooooo blind to see it. Those areas are white to signify that they have no anomalous deviation from the 30 year average.

Below is another chart from the spring. If you notice in the first chart there is an area in central Africa with no dots also indicating no deviation, but there are dots in the other chart in most of the same area.

 

[OregonStream]

I thought global warming and other aspects of climate change were about long-term trends in the annual averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg

That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or for "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?

 

[Sinatra]

+

 

[Sinatra]

+

Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict

Britain is bracing itself for one of the coldest winters for a century with temperatures hitting minus 16 degrees Celsius, forecasters have warned.

They predicted no let up in the freezing snap until at least mid-January, with snow, ice and severe frosts dominating.

And the likelihood is that the second half of the month will be even colder....

____


Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict - Telegraph

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I thought global warming and other aspects of climate change were about long-term trends in the annual averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg

That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or for "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?

And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years. So maybe you can explain to your brain dead buddies that telling us the last 10 years have been warmer then any other 10 years means nothing since, obviously , the temperature is 1/3 of a degree higher.

 

[L.K.Eder]

It is winter time in North America. Amazing that it is cold, correct?

next you will tell the board that it was dark at night, too. what is up with that?

 

[OregonStream]

And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...

Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?

1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...

Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?

1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).

It is warmest you dumb as a rock fuck because the average temperature rose over a 1/3 of a degree from 1980 to 1998. Since then there as been little if any raise in global temperature. BUT since 1998 was end year anything after it would be with the higher average temperature. OF course 2000 to 2009 is warmer, a 5 year old could grasp the math on this one.

 

[saveliberty]

I thought global warming and other aspects of climate change were about long-term trends in the annual averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg

That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or for "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?

Actually, a trend of any type only has meaning if the data is accurate. Since the climatologists have artificially inflated the data to meet their needs, the results you see have no meaning. I find it very interesting that reports of warming in the media occur all the time, yet the cooling trend in the US was for the most part not reported. This is a political crisis, not a climate one.

 

[Old Rocks]

And yet your buddies can not grasp the concept that if the average temperature has risen over a 1/3 of a degree and stayed that way since 1998 that the temperatures for 2000 through 2010 would all be higher then the previous years...

Well, if you'll bear with my leanings toward the "brain-dead" positions of NOAA, NCAR, MIT's Global Change Program, and the world's scientific academies: Why? Who ever said atmospheric temperature would rise continuously, un-modulated by things like the 11 year solar cycle and ocean heat exchange cycles (at least two of which have been in their cool phases)?

1998 was biased to the upside by a strong el niño (yet barely holds the record, and only in the CRU surface dataset that excludes representation of much of the Arctic). Hence the problem with using a single year as a basis for comparison: The still-young atmospheric trend (think thermal inertia) is mixed with short-term variability that has little to do with Earth's radiative state. But last I read from the WMO and NOAA, the decade of 2000-2009 is the warmest on record (global average, with North America experiencing a relatively coolish period).

It is warmest you dumb as a rock fuck because the average temperature rose over a 1/3 of a degree from 1980 to 1998. Since then there as been little if any raise in global temperature. BUT since 1998 was end year anything after it would be with the higher average temperature. OF course 2000 to 2009 is warmer, a 5 year old could grasp the math on this one.

Now Sarge. You are once again proving your lack of intelligance.

Of course the last decade is the warmest on record because in spite of having a strong and persistant La Nina, and a long solar minimum, the AGW has built enough inertia to completely override those forcings.

A five year old can grasp that, you seem incapable of doing so.

And in the next five years, unless we have a Pinotubo or better volcanic eruption, I think we will see one or even two years exceed 1998.

 

[Old Rocks]

I thought global warming and other aspects of climate change were about long-term trends in the annual averages compared to a multi-decadal base period, like this:
tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/smooth.jpg

That is, not just a few months or a few selected regions. Apparently, that trend also wouldn't preclude some fluctuation from things like variability in ocean-atmosphere heat exchange. Seems that those arguing against a trend, or for "global cooling", cherry-pick individual years for comparison (when climate isn't just about individual years), or regional events (which can also be related to movement of heat within the climate system, rather than Earth's "energy budget"). And once temperatures dip below freezing, does "heavy" snowfall necessarily mean exceptionally low temperature, or is moisture availability the main factor?

Actually, a trend of any type only has meaning if the data is accurate. Since the climatologists have artificially inflated the data to meet their needs, the results you see have no meaning. I find it very interesting that reports of warming in the media occur all the time, yet the cooling trend in the US was for the most part not reported. This is a political crisis, not a climate one.

As usual, you are totally full of shit.

What you are stating is that the ESA, NASA, NOAA, and all the nations that have weather monitoring stations are in on a conspiracy to lie about the weather