Mallow
-
Posts
5,457 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by Mallow
-
-
El Niño is not associated with reduced Arctic sea ice in general. Indeed, over the Barents and Kara Seas region, based upon my own research, enhanced central Pacific equatorial convection is associated with reduced temperatures and increased sea ice. The effects of ENSO on Arctic sea ice vary from region to region, and I am unaware of any recent study that shows (in observations) that there is a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice.
As for the statement "there is nothing unusual about our current climate," if one is comparing our current climate to that of recent centuries, one could not be further from the truth. But that point has been rehashed repeatedly and can be easily researched with a small bit of time and effort.
-
1 hour ago, pazzo83 said:
Holy sh*t - that end of year max is just not there this year for global sea ice:
Yep. As far as I could tell, this is the only year on record that the NH summer peak in global sea ice was higher than the NH autumn peak. I couldn't find one in the past that was even close.
-
11 minutes ago, csnavywx said:
The SAM went negative, so that's helped, but it doesn't explain everything.
Pure speculation mode:
I was wondering if there was a link with the Super Nino earlier this year. However, we didn't see this kind of response in 1998, so I'm having a hard time reconciling that.
The big coastal polynyas this year might hold a clue. More warm CDW being directed at the continental margins would explain that.
But why would that show up as polynyas in all the basins at once this year, and not in any previous year? Not even a hint...
-
3 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:
Is it possible that there those record levels in the Antarctic over the past couple years were only in coverage and not necessarily volume (as in, the ice was more widespread but demonstrably thinner)?
I think that was the general consensus. It's just so strange to me that it would seem so steady, and then suddenly collapse. Perhaps feedbacks are more important down there than I realized.
-
19 minutes ago, pazzo83 said:
Meanwhile in Antarctica, a big ol' WTF
Wow... that has to be an error, doesn't it? That would be like if NYC's record high and low for a date were 80°F and 40°F respectively, and then they go and record an 18°F.
-
50 minutes ago, Bacon Strips said:
From monitoring coronal hole data for decades, it is 'not' normal. The size of these holes. Even during solar minimums in the past.
There is no conspiracy here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--anecdotes based on memory are about the weakest form of evidence one could present. In other words, you're going to have to present data (again, not anecdotes, but real, comparative data) which support your claims in order for people to take your hypothesis more seriously.
-
14 hours ago, skierinvermont said:
It's also worth mentioning that square depictions of the earth from the north pole (sorry don't know the cartography term) greatly exaggerate the size of arctic ocean relative to the lower latitudes. Those negative anomalies over Asia encompass an area several times the arctic ocean.
That's not entirely true. The projection shown in that temperature plot looks like a polar stereographic projection, which is much better than, say, a mercator or equirectangular projection when looking at the accuracy of polar regions.
-
Could this be the first time on record that the global SIA peak happened in June rather than Oct/Nov?
-
On November 8, 2016 at 9:23 PM, tacoman25 said:
I've reiterated it twice for you. Three times is not necessary.
No, sorry I wasn't clear with that post. I cited "record fastest freeze", but I wasn't the one claiming it was significant. Same with high points in the fall. And I never dismissed volume decline. Make more sense now? I promise, if you and others get rid of your assumptions about me, it will make things easier to understand.
Welcome to CO, by the way! I didn't know you'd moved here.
I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.
-
On NSIDC, we're now below 2011, and almost tied with 2007 for second lowest on record.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
-
I had said 2017-2018, but it's looking more likely that it'll be 2016.
-
Based on your definition who defines the "truth"? The "truth" is very elusive when it comes to the atmosphere. That
is another reason why the "denier" name calling is offensive.
Not you.
-
It's not that there are warm biases now, it's that they have yet to correct for the cool biases in the data through 2005. Do you not think that cooler biases in the data through 2005 will affect the trendline?
It depends. If the cool bias isn't changing with time, it by definition won't affect the trendline.
-
It's not just a matter of grammar either. The post began with "Actually I was mistaken" referring to his previous post where he talks about gridding. The following post is clearly, in context, a reversal in which he claims there isn't any gridding or spatial homogenization.
I said that.
-
I was referring to your nonsense claim that there is a "homogenization" procedure carried out in/between the grid boxes. When I wrote "gridding or spatial", the "or" was meant to refer to the fact that both terms reflect the same thing. Not the best grammatical structure, but definitely understandable.
You'd rather believe that I mysteriously changed my mind, three times, for no reason? That's ridiculous.
This is where all the confusion is stemming from. Any reasonable person would read that sentence as "... anything in the way of gridding, nor anything in the way of spatial homogenization." The word "gridding" is almost exclusively used as a verb/gerund. Nobody would assume you were using it as an adjective in the noun phrase "gridding homogenization", which is a phrase I've never heard uttered, when it could be interpreted as the much more grammatically standard format I quoted above (italics).
As for the other part, that you "mysteriously changed your mind"... you said it yourself in the very same post. "Actually, I was wrong." Any reasonable person, having read the following sentence in the way mentioned above (italics), would interpret the "I was wrong" part to mean exactly that--that you changed your mind.
So, saying "that's ridiculous" is unhelpful here. It's not ridiculous, as skier and I (and many others) interpreted your post exactly the same way. If you really did mean something else, then you chose one of the most poorly worded means to express yourself I've ever seen. To me, the grammar of your post so obviously meant exactly what skier is suggesting, that it is actually easier for me to believe that you were wrong and didn't like being called out, than that you honestly just worded your statement poorly and meant something that no reasonable person would interpret your post to have meant. And that's why skier is so combative with you.
Does that all make sense?
-
I have moved the relevant discussion on RATPAC to this thread, since it seems to be a catchall of sorts. Please keep the observation threads clear of accusatory posts.
-
Every time this conversation re-surfaces:
-
Here is a chart from Christy's upper-air section in the 2014 BAMS state-of-the-climate. He uses RATPAC data and shows that it agrees very well with other upper-air datasets.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/
Even over relatively short time periods, it would seem.
-
Argh.
I think you both honestly believe what you're saying. And you both believe the other is being intentionally deceitful. And that's why this argument is still going on. Stop assuming the other is intentionally trying to lie to get an advantage and maybe the conversation will be more civil in the future.
-
I can prove you wrong.
This should settle it. I wrote this post before I supposedly claimed that RATPAC does no gridding.
So, do you honestly think I mysteriously changed my mind three times? Why would I claim that the data was gridded, only to deny it, then change my mind again?
I'm trying my best to clarify myself and end this, but unfortunately it seems you'd rather mischaracterize me, even after being proven wrong.
I think people (including me) are confused because the post of yours that's been quoted several times doesn't seem to have any other possible reasonable interpretation. Your attempts to explain what you were trying to say with that post have been confusing, and I still don't know how one could interpret it to mean anything other than that you were saying it wasn't gridded. At the very least, it was poorly worded, and the amount of people that interpreted your post the way you say it shouldn't be interpreted is a testament to that.
In any case, this whole conversation is tedious and old, and I hope that it will be dropped soon.
-
Is this a Supreme Court trial? Even if he was wrong, which is your opinion, he has no obligation to publicly admit it.
He was demonstrably wrong (not an "opinion"), but you're right, he doesn't have to publicly admit it. And this conversation played itself out a week ago. Like he keeps suggesting, take it to PM.
-
I'm pretty sure it's not homogenization.
I thought geographic normalization was a form of weighting, just sort of reversed? I believe used I've used both terms interchangeably, but if I'm wrong that's fine (I'm not a geography major). The point I was making is unchanged.
http://dauofu.blogspot.com/2013/02/normalizing-geographic-data.html?m=1
I've never heard the term "geographic normalization" before. It's possible that it is a term used in geography, though I suspect the blog you linked uses the term "normalization" merely as a descriptive term (rather than a mathematical/scientific one). Either way, in the field of meteorology/climatology, as far as I'm aware, normalization refers to the statistical definition.
-
Weighting grid points to account for the areal coverage of the grid point is absolutely not called "normalization". I do not know for sure that it is called "homogenization", but I believe that it is.
Normalization is, at its most basic, scaling variables by their standard deviations to allow for statistical intercomparisons.
Weighting is a simple form of extrapolation. It is mathematically identical to extrapolating a single value to a larger continuous region, doing that for each data point, and then taking an average (via integration) over the whole globe.
-
If we stopped emitting now, it might take 35 years instead of 15 to melt the ice out 100%. Yeah, that's a huge difference from the human perspective.
We are very close to tipping points already so every +1 ppm of CO2 causes forcings greater than the original input.
I don't agree. The lag is longer than 15 to 30 years.
Arctic Sea Ice Extent, Area, and Volume
in Climate Change
Posted
Again, please show me the observational studies or data which suggest that El Niños are strongly correlated to low Arctic sea ice. I am not aware of such a linkage. Warmer global temperatures during El Niño are mostly associated with elevated SSTs in the tropics and midlatitudes (especially the tropics). As far as I am aware, there is not a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice.
Indeed, a cursory glance shows that some of the strongest El Niño events in recent record (1982-1983 and 1997-1998) were not followed by particularly anomalous Arctic sea ice minima (1983 was near or even slightly above the average of the time, and 1998 was below the average of the time, but not remarkably so). Other moderate El Niño events such as 1986-1987, 1987-1988, and 1991-1992, were followed by anomalously high Arctic sea ice minima for their time. Furthermore, the extremely anomalous 2012 sea ice minimum record was preceded not by an El Niño, but by a La Niña.