Are We Doomed To Arctic Winters In America?

Still posting your fraudulent Marcott graph see. You just can't tack on high resolution to loe resolution data. its fraud.

 

So you say -50 air was confined to the arctic, but -45 air can spread much further over the lower latitudes...correct?

If so, the the global temperature AVERAGE will plummet....how does this jibe with "Global WARMING?"

 

Be careful before you claim arctic sea ice is recovering. Arctic sea ice in October was higher than five of the last seven years, but still below last year as well as every year before 2006 as far back as records go.

 

I am certain the people in Buffalo and western New York are just thrilled to death to look at your graphs - instead of the snow falling at rates not seen in decades!

Maybe they'll print them out and toss them in the fire to keep warm.

 

it is not October, no need to post a wall of graphics but you might want to check these out

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current_new.png

 

You 'heard' but don't 'know' and call other people loony? LOL Funny how the tune has changed from the faithful since it is not getting warmer like predicted.

 

I'm certain the subject of this thread is climate, not weather.

 

True. And how global warming, not visible over almost 2 decades now, and within an overall cooling trend that has been going on for a few thousand years, is now being credited with causing Arctic winters. I suppose it makes perfect sense...if warming doesn't actually cause WARMING...then pretend it causes anything else that happens to be a current event. In this case...winters like we had back when the world was worried about the upcoming Ice Age.

 

Hans brinker was complete fiction, rivers lakes and seas still freeze in the Netherlands...

- - - Updated - - -

No you don't, you have zero scientific understanding. ..

 

Do you know what snow is? Water vapor right, please tell me you knew that? And how did water become vapor? Evaporation, now with your vast science knowledge tell us how much evaporation do you think occurs in the arctic in winter?.....more snow is a result of warmer temps in southern latitudes...

 

Seems to be a fly in someone's soup:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/2014-on-track-to-be-warmest-year-on-record-18041

 

Some people are brainwashed freaks and then there are those who do not buy the AGW nonsense. Seems like folks would learn by now that there is no use for the Hatfields and the McCoy's to be discussing things with each other.

 

Says who satellites show it as nothing special.

 

That is only one dataset and others show otherwise. Another issue many of the warmers don't realize is that there is no such thing as a global temperature A global temperature is actually modeled based on often extrapolated data and not actual data. That is why you will find different results with even the same data sets.

 

Even our local Fox station is saying the same thing and we are still in a dry warm year here in Texas. A fluke storm in the Bearing Sea does not equate to the year being a unusually warm year and last year that stopped gas production because they did not have enough customers up north to sell it to due to the warm winter, deny away, the record is what it is.

 

What is the standard error on those temperature measurements?

 

Easy enough to prove show that the relative humidity is abnormally high.

 

It varies with epoch, but roughly 0.2°C for Marcott, 0.1° C for Anderson, and 0.1°C for HADCRUT4.

 

First, you must realize that data like Hadcrut4 is modeled since it only covers about 84% of the earth and many claim that it is biased. Second, the model changed dramatically from Hadcrut3 (which used to be the IPCC flagsip) to Hadcrut4 making the trend warmer. Even then, there has been no statistical warming deviation from zero since1997. Hadcrut3 shows cooling but again, no statistically significant deviation from zero.

Met Office Statistics

 

Here, maybe you can find that dramatic increase in temperature in the raw data.

Station temperatures back to: select date: 1850 1900 1930

 

Says Marcott who has no skill to say so. His uncertainty calculation is ad hoc and not recognized as legitimate by any statistical journal or body l.

 

Nor has it been challenged in any peer-reviewed paper. Which means your entire argument is ad hoc.

 

Utter balderdash. Where do you get such nitwit arguments? Fox News?

You mean, many deniers who don't have the intelligence, guts, or honesty to subject their claims to peer-review? And why should anyone give such anonymous cowards the slightest bit of credence?

What a completely moronic argument. HADCRUT is not a model, never has been a model, and never will be a model. So go ahead and lie to yourself, but you're not fooling anyone but the denizens of Denierstan. The reason HADCRUT4 changed from HADCRUT3 is because HADCRUT4 included more data that was missing from HADCRUT3. Some of those missing regions were in the Arctic, which is the fastest-warming region on the planet. So yeah, HADCRUT4 is warmer. That's because it's better.

Also no statistically significant change in trend from the previous 17 years, either. Therefore, no statistically significant haitus, either. Feel better now?

 

In opposition to your obviously uneducated understanding of what Hadcrut is, there is no single temperature for the planet. You don't need peer review to know that Hadcrut only covers 84% of the planet. You could find that out yourself. The hiatus definition is that there has been no statistical warming for 18 years but that might be beyond you to understand.

If it is not modeled, then why do you think there is a Hadcrut3 and Hadcrut4?

 

Sorry it doesn't work that way. Getting an ad hoc method published in a non statistical journal doesn't make it an acceptable method. Until Marcott publishes his method in a journal in the field or uses another method that is accepted practice his claims are just jot air.