nflwxman

I believe this is the highest anomaly recorded in the 80N spatial area, FWIW.

Right. In the near term, the record slow refreeze means very little in terms of "climate feedbacks." The extent in May and June have much larger implications on lasting arctic warmth due to the sun pouring in at that time. The argument can be made, however, that a record slow refreeze could potentially cause a less solvent ice pack moving into next melting season.

If the Euro ensembles are any indication, the ice will be in a far worse state at the end of May than in 2012 or 2007. A collapsing super nino favors continued warmth at 80N, so I'd put the odds slightly above 50%.

I don't disagree in principle, but there is a bit of a wildcard when it comes to runaway global warming; Hydrogen Sulfide. During the Permian Extinction, it is thought that this toxic gas wiped out 95% of life on earth, due to acidification of the oceans. While it would not lead to a complete bio-extinction event, it would set mammals back millions of years more than likely.

Don, What's the best place to download RATPAC data? Thank you in advance.

It does on a regional basis, but that regional bias is pretty blunted over a 60 year period. This is evident by the fact that RATPAC, GISS, HadCrut4, and NOAA are all within 15% of eachother on the surface trend since 1950. The results speak for themselves.

Very well. Its not like this board will make a difference in the grand scheme of climate policy or anything. Putting it in perspective is important. Sometimes being anonymous allows people to be more bold or arrogant than they otherwise would be. My rule of thumb; treat others as if you were having an in face conversation with them, and all should be better.

Yeah. I agree, Weatherguy. No reason to be nasty over science.

Who would you care to reply to? There are not that many active posters on here.

Or it's diverging from TWO other datasets. Both of said datasets are using the same fallible equipment and contain high uncertainties since they are not direct measurements; particularly in the tropics. Based on the major adjustments in UAH in the past, it's a wonder that you defend it so viciously, while attempting to crap on a peer reviewed dataset run by a fantastic organization. We will agree to disagree. Debating you is so very fruitless.

And yet it very closely matches the 60 year trend of all the surface datasets. Why is that? Resolution is not as large of a factor over a long period. This has been explained many times.

The answer is in the uncertainty defined by each dataset. And it's a fact that surface datasets have lower uncertainties than their satillite counterparts in their respective domains. That, coupled with the fact that humans live at the surface, inherently makes the surface datasets more relevant and accurate than the MSU products for measuring global warming, IMO. While there is no magic bullet, since RATPAC accurately emulates the sfc datasets should give at least a bit more confidence that it's probably a relatively accurate dataset aloft. I'm not sure why that's in dispute. Remember RSS and UAH use the same equipment from the same sensors to measure temperature. It's very possible that both are very much in need of orbital drift correction (among others). RATPAC is an independent source of hundreds of sondes unrelated to the GNCH v3 datasets.

Yes, could you please?

Where are your statistics about how UAH/RSS is used 900 times in peer review versus RATPAC less than 50? Just curious.

Sondes are sensors....Okay, so let's assume for a hot second you are not a skeptic. What dataset do you trust the most for empirical TCR and ECS calculations?

Not sure. Clearly it can affect a 10-15 year trend, but the datasets tend to converge at the end.

You are not so secretly a climate change skeptic, by the way. Your game is fairly obvious. Stop trashing your own integrity for the end game.RATPAC uses several sensors. MSU products use ONE. Yes, color me skeptical when one sensor that requires several post processing techniques is being used to define the future of our planet.

The resolution wouldn't matter as much over a 60 year period. In shorter timescales, it's impact becomes more evident.

Source of that statistic, please?

What's up with the d*ck measuring contest in the sea ice forum? Haven't you guys realized noone cares about your credentials on the internet?

Still pretty strong melt in Greenland. Models show the ice sheet cooling off later this week, which should slow losses a bit. Compare this to 2013 or 2014 and we are way ahead. 2015: 2013: 2014: 2014:

Greenland is beginning to make up for it's slow start. The model ENS are pretty warm for the next week as well. Little chance it makes it to the drop of 2012, but interesting to see how much ground a short period of time can "make up"

There are some extremely alarming things well within the threshold of scientific possibility with climate change. While abrupt methane feedback or sudden sea level rise is not likely in the next 100 years, there is some evidence to suggest there is a modest possibility either could actually occur. Even if that possibility is 2%, should climate scientists just sweep it under the rug? I just don't understand that logic. Why bury earth changing consequences of climate change because they are unlikely or cause "scary" PR? Look at the WAIS. No more than 10 years ago scientists that suggested inevitable collapse were heavily mocked and now that thought is becoming mainstream in literature. Some on this board treat many of these scientifically feasible CAGW events as alarmist propaganda while other treat them like an absolute certainty. Both are wrong, IMO.

This matches up very well with GISS and NCDC data. The US has seen very cold weather the last 2-3 years. No surprise there was no rise in the temperature The US is 1.9% of the world's surface area.