OT Climate: Record low temperatures for July recorded in the Arctic

And Greenland has been slowly cooling for the last 10 years: http://tinyurl.com/ya8lj2md
A bit more here: "While we were celebrating our Independence Day on July 4th, Summit Station in Greenland may have experienced the coldest July temperature ever recorded in the Northern Hemisphere at -33°C (-27.4°F)". http://tinyurl.com/y76wmmkz
I thought the first was a spoof, fake news, until I came across the second.
It'll be interesting to see what this winter brings in terms of ice sheet area.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yes the temperature differences are going to get bigger as the planet has to dissipate heat in one place to another cooler one. Brian
--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:18:54 +0100, "Brian Gaff"

That would only be true in a closed thermal system, which the Earth isn't. Heat enters the system from the sun, and some of it is re-radiated back out into space at different wavelengths. And heat doesn't move 'up hill', as it were. The arctic isn't going to lose heat to the tropics.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/07/2017 09:18, Brian Gaff wrote:

This isn't a temperature difference its an actual temperature. If one zone got really hot it wouldn't cool the other.
Anyway its only weather the same as the extra hot days are only weather. Climate is not weather.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 16/07/2017 22:01, Chris Hogg wrote:

There is always a worry of cherry picking in these kinds of reports. Locations, start dates and end dates are searched for and selected to give an appearance of the desired effect. I kind of expect that, but this report caught my eye
What exactly does this mean: "For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), *apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010*, mean annual temperatures .. exhibit a slightly decreasing trend."?
Has cheery picking started to delete unwanted points from the middle of the data set too? Would this cooling trend exist if 2010 were included.
Unless you can clear this up you'll have to forgive my suspicion that the people who suggest that they can tell the future from reading the tea leaves are misrepresenting the way the tea leaves look.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Oh, quite. But if you take that view, you have to apply it to all the short-term global temperature changes recorded over the last century and a half. But both sides of the global warming argument use short-term changes to support their particular case. For example it's generally accepted that the Earth cooled from 1880 to 1910, warmed from 1910 to 1945, cooled slightly from 1945 to 1975, warmed from 1975 to 2000, and has been more-or-less steady from then on, with the exception of a sharp spike due to El Nino last year, from which the global temperatures are rapidly recovering (recent global temperatures were no higher than they were in 2002). Up and down like a fiddler's elbow. But explanations are advanced for all of them, although you would argue that highlighting those individual periods is cherry picking. From a purely statistical POV you're may be right.
I suspect it was arguments like these that led to the questions in Parliament a few years ago as to whether it was statistically justifiable to fit anything other than a straight line to the data I've referred to. I don't have a reference, but I suspect Lord Monckton was involved, a vocal climate sceptic and no mean mathematician, AIUI. The Met Office gave a reply: http://tinyurl.com/y9mzzz55 You will no doubt understand it better than I.
The author of the original article on Arctic temperatures, Kobashi, is in the department of Climate and Environmental Physics at the University of Bern, Switzerland, working on the Greenland Temperature Project, so no mere amateur. https://sites.google.com/site/greenlandtemperature/my-page
He is responsible for the phrase "For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling", although I don't think he was responsible for adding straight line. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That quote seems to me like a straightforward observation. He is not attempting to explain why nor is he attempting to extrapolate into the future.
--
bert

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Having just re-read Nick's last sentence ("you'll have to forgive my suspicion that the people who suggest that they can tell the future from reading the tea leaves are misrepresenting the way the tea leaves look"), it certainly applies to the advocates of AGW.
--

Chris

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/17/2017 11:50 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:

Excellent post, very much aligned with my views. One of the benefits of advancing age is that it gives you a longer perspective. In the generally miserable summers of the 1950's and 60's I was regularly told by a succession of Great Aunts how much better the summers were in the 1920's.
Age also gives one a better perspective on wars, and how little our leaders seem to learn even from comparatively recent history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/07/17 22:14, newshound wrote:

+1
Back in the 70s when rag'n'bone men were still not uncommon, tips were fairly unregulated and tradesmen could transport their own waste, onwards into the 90s when some councils put skips all over the place every six months for general us, I recall sod all fly tipping.
Now it's regulated to death, I see rubbish everywhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Interesting POV and to an extent I agree with you, OTOH a lot of it is the visibility of modern materials coupled with that they have hardly any value to make collecting them worthwhile. We had three old treadle sewing machines dumped in one of our farm gateways circa 1967 , the machines were too damaged to do much about but the iron frames have done good service as garden table legs . In 1970 on a stay with rellies in London a neighbour obtained the then unusual item of a metal detector , we went down to the River near Barnes Bridge and promptly found an office telephone exchange in the Mud, so fly tipping certainly happened even then. We disposed a lot of our own rubbish from the farm and Dads building business in a convenient small disused quarry on our land some of which would be decidedly dodgy under modern rules. Old glass accumulators from various radios ,asbestos ,old oil , a pile of live 303 rounds and ball round cartridges left over from a neighbours Home Guard duties , a battered Morris Eight and god knows what all covered over by a layer of soil as it became available.
The modern equivalent of the Rag and Boneman still exist mainly driving around in battered Transit Pick ups collecting old domestic white goods, what they are not interested in is the stuff that has no value such many plastic based building materials or huge plastic childrens garden toys which I see regularly flytipped and it's the preponderance of plastic and cheap nasty disposable furniture that makes flytipping stand out. The piles of steel cans and brick rubble etc that was flytipped in decade past at least on the whole broke down or settled into the ground after a few years.
G.Harman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes "recycling centres" (tips) are too fussy about what they will accept. They check that you are from the right area (eg we live in Ryedale and can't use tips in the York area - they ask for postcode and ID) and they charge for some items (eg rubble/stones/plant pots/other ceramics) as £x per sackful. Previously they restricted you to two sackfuls per month, so I just took stuff to three separate tips! Then they stopped accepting it altogether unless you paid - they actually expected you to advertise that you had some waste rubble and see if anyone local wanted it - eg farmers for filling potholes in their lanes. Expecting private individuals to do this, rather than having a central authority that people apply to if they want rubble, is daft.
I've seen a lot more rubble dumped in farm gateways and on verges since they brought in that rule.
Six or seven years ago I dug our garden and found a lot of flat sandstone "slabs" (naturally-occurring, not dumped by a previous owner) which I dug up so the soil was reasonably stone-free. We piled them up in the corner of the garden in case we wanted to make crazy paving etc. I took the smaller stones to the tip in sacks (two per tip per month, spread around three tips) while I still could, but we've been left with the huge pile (about 3x4x2 feet) which we'd have to pay the tip to accept - so my wife has made a dry-stone wall alongside a hedge where dogs sometimes get in from the footpath alongside. I suppose what the council want us to do is either pay to take the stuff to the tip or else pay to hire a skip. Being a Yorkshireman, my philosophy is "only a fool pays for something if he can (legally) get it for free".
It's like with garden waste: they now charge to collect that, so I take it to the tip. Having a brown garden waste bin wouldn't suit us anyway: when we clear the garden we have far more that will fit in one wheely bin, and then we have nothing for several months. It's not as if we've got space in the garden to keep the excess so we can drip-feed it, one binful at a time, over several weeks. So pointless to pay for a bin - better to take it to the tip in our own cylindrical dustbins and trugs as and when we produce it. I can fit far more in the car (three bins in place of the back seats and three trugs in the boot and passenger footwell) for one journey than will fit in a wheely bin.
Thinking of council skips, I remember in the 1970s there was a skip in a layby near us. The council emptied it each week. Whenever we went along, people were picking over the contents and taking back things that other people had dumped - on occasion they'd even approach you as you pulled up and look in your boot "you throwing that away? can I have it?" so it would go straight from our boot to theirs! We got a few things like an old table (tatty and scratched but perfectly serviceable if you put a cloth over it).
I suppose we were Wombles. Which reminds me: there is a recycling centre near us, on the outskirts of a very appropriately-named village: Wombleton. https://www.northyorks.gov.uk/wombleton-household-waste-recycling-centre in case you think I'm making it up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17/07/2017 10:21, Nick wrote: 8<

Yes!
Why do you think those in the know distrust the AGW stuff when we know data has been manipulated and discarded and hidden?

Would AGW exist if all the data had been used rather than the cherry picked stuff feed into the models. Would it exist if the models weren't specifically tailored to produce a particular result. We have ample proof that they were when the global warming scare started as none of the predictions they made have happened and they have had to modify the models to match observations. That is the scare stories were based on faulty models and/or data. There is no reason to believe they aren't still faulty as they haven't made a good one yet.

You won't convince me until they either:-
Produce a *verifiable* model that can predict the future and the past using the real data and in public.
or
They can produce a model that actually physically models the Earth's climate.
The later is unlikely as they don't understand it.
The former is unlikely as they still want to deny that they were wrong in the first place.
You may decide to believe the lie if you want. I want evidence not some bunch of "scientists" making claims they can't substantiate using methods they can't tell you, using data they conveniently lose.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/17/2017 4:00 PM, dennis@home wrote:

IIRC not many years ago all attempts to run the then current models backwards took you back to a deep ice age ("Snowball earth").
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.