Jump to content

BornFromTheVoid

Members
  • Content count

    9,832
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    24

BornFromTheVoid last won the day on August 26 2016

BornFromTheVoid had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

9,460 Exceptional

3 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Newcastle Upon Tyne
  • Interests
    Climate and weather, music, Formula 1, rugby, a few other sports and sciences.
  • Weather Preferences
    Cold, Snow, Windstorms and Thunderstorms

Recent Profile Visitors

28,103 profile views
  1. Here's the forecast based on the 06z GFS Rolling CET... Anomaly to 81-10 rolling avg (Daily Avg: Anomaly to 81-10 daily avg) 12.6C to the 25th... +1.2 (14.6: +2.1) 12.8C to the 26th... +1.4 (17.5: +5.1) 13.1C to the 27th... +1.6 (18.8: +6.7) 13.2C to the 28th... +1.7 (18.5: +6.2) 13.4C to the 29th... +1.8 (17.3: +4.5) 13.5C to the 30th... +1.9 (18.0: +4.9) 13.7C to the 31st... +2.0 (17.5: +4.2) So after a week with many runs suggesting record breaking heat, we are now back to where we were on Monday, warm but not exceptionally so. In fact, the latest forecast has no daily records, not even a single day above 19C, while several runs during the week saw the warmest day record for May get smashed! As things stand, 13.7C (13.67C) is current estimate before corrections. Realistically, this could vary from 13.4C to 13.9C before corrections, then 12.9C to 14.0C after corrections. That's a range of 2nd warmest on record down to 24th warmest
  2. What a remarkable 12z! If it comes off, the final 5 days of the month will average close to 20C and we'd have a genuine shot at beating the warmest May day on record, at least twice!
  3. Here's the forecast based on the 06z GFS Rolling CET... Anomaly to 81-10 rolling avg (Daily Avg: Anomaly to 81-10 daily avg) 12.3C to the 21st... +1.1 (14.5 +2.4) 12.4C to the 22nd... +1.2 (15.5 +3.3) 12.5C to the 23rd... +1.2 (15.0 +2.2) 12.6C to the 24th... +1.2 (15.0 +1.7) 12.7C to the 25th... +1.3 (15.4 +2.9) 12.9C to the 26th... +1.4 (17.1 +4.7) 13.0C to the 27th... +1.5 (16.0 +3.9) 13.1C to the 28th... +1.6 (16.2 +3.9) 13.3C to the 29th... +1.7 (16.6 +3.8) 13.5C to the 30th... +1.8 (19.2: +6.1) A variation between warm and very warm seems most likely for the remainder of the month, with the CET climbing accordingly. Still no more daily records under threat, but that requires means in the high teens or low 20s at this time of year.
  4. BornFromTheVoid

    Antarctic Ice Discussion

    Accounting for stations moves and the UHI is part of the data homogenisation So adjusting and correcting for know errors and biases are now considered anti-scientific by some. Trumpisms are spreading.
  5. BornFromTheVoid

    Antarctic Ice Discussion

    If you know that the older instrument has a clear bias, then you can adjust for it.. This is good scientific practise. Otherwise, you are knowingly used faulty data but not accounting for know changes. This would result in a loss of ability to comare old with new reading, rendering the whole data series invalid. This isn't just a technique used in thermometers, it's used all over the world for countless other things. Your link has a paywall. I also wonder why this Dr has to publish her ideas in a paper rather than following the scientific route. Might it be that the Australian has little to no review process and gives access to a mass of relatively gullible readers?
  6. BornFromTheVoid

    Antarctic Ice Discussion

    What if the scientists had a thermometer from 1950, and a modern thermometer which was known to be more accurate. Then they tested them at the same site and found the modern thermometer read, on average, 0.5C lower than the 1950s thermometer? Would that not be justification for some adjustments? Held in contempt of court, over a graph that's fully in agreement with other reconstructions? Got any proof or just more random, out of context email snippets? https://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
  7. BornFromTheVoid

    Antarctic Ice Discussion

    All you posted was an image. You didn't (and still haven't) explained the point you were attempting to make. Yes, I can tell it's Antarctic ice thickness, but by posting a link to the source (where the original image comes from) it might help to answer a few questions about the model such as: How long has it been in use? What validation has been done? How accurate is it? Is it primarily based on observational data or models? The kind of questions anyone with a sceptical mindset might have. Just from the images, it says it covers 65-70 degrees south. Do you think that covers all the sea ice? So, mind posting a link to the climate change denier blog you stole those images from? Equipment gets updated, stations get moved, techniques improve, spatial coverage improves, biases are identified and corrected, and all this is explained in published papers and reports so everything can be tested and replicated. If you want to really criticise the temperature record, you need to find the papers that detail the changes made and the explanations for them, then demonstrate why they are wrong. Anything else just comes across as conspiracy theories. Are you familiar with Richard Muller, @tablet?
  8. BornFromTheVoid

    Antarctic Ice Discussion

    @tablet instead of just posting links to images without a sources or explanation, perhaps you could try, if it's not too much work, 2 things? 1: Add a source (link) for your images, with a little explanation as to how the data is collected, how accurate it is, how long the data set is, especially when it's not one we are all familiar with. 2: Explain what you think it proves. Clearly, you appear to think that the above images disproves Dev's comment that extra snowfall over Antarctica is expected with warming. I have my suspicions as to why you think the above graph disproves that, but I'll like to hear your explanation rather than making assumptions myself.
  9. Here's the forecast based on the 06z GFS Rolling CET... Anomaly to 81-10 rolling avg (Daily Avg: Anomaly to 81-10 daily avg) 11.9C to the 18th... +0.9 (10.3: -1.1) 12.0C to the 19th... +0.9 (13.6: +1.8) 12.1C to the 20th... +1.0 (14.5: +2.2) 12.3C to the 21st... +1.1 (16.0: +3.9) 12.5C to the 22nd... +1.2 (15.8: +3.6) 12.6C to the 23rd... +1.3 (16.1: +3.3) 12.8C to the 24th... +1.4 (16.6: +3.3) 13.0C to the 25th... +1.6 (18.3: +5.8) 13.1C to the 26th... +1.6 (15.0: +2.6) 13.1C to the 27th... +1.6 (13.8: +1.7) A steady warming trend for the foreseeable future. No days yet appear to threaten any daily records, but a reasonable warm spell nonetheless Something else to keep an eye on, the warmest April and May combinations! The top 5 are 12.0C (2011) 11.7C (1893) 11.6C (1788, 1798, 1865) As April was 9.8C, to equal joint third warmest combination we need a May of 13.3C. 2nd place requires 13.5C, both of which lie within the realm of possibility this year. The warmest combination requires May to finish on at least 14.1C, which looks very unlikely.
  10. BornFromTheVoid

    Links to Reports and Papers

    @Midlands Ice Age , I've already explained the differences and purposes of the 2 sea ice products. It appears you cannot comprehend or even acknowledge that which doesn't fit your view of things. I could answer your questions, but it would largely be repetition of the same points I've already made. When I provide accurate information and descriptions, you dismiss it as just my opinion and then continue on with more misunderstandings, as if they are akin to catching out the NSIDC in their devilish trickery! So yeah, Brandolini's Law makes this situation untenable. We both know there's not a chance of converting you. You quite clearly have an issue with experts who's view on their expert subject differs to yours (whether science or politics).
  11. BornFromTheVoid

    Links to Reports and Papers

    The differences are down to creating the most accurate, relevant and useful data sets - individual data sets fit for specific purposes. What you find confusing or others find confusing, especially when you don't make an effort to rectify your confusion, is in no way a viable reason to dismiss or criticise the NSIDC or the data they produce. I suspect this is a point we will continue to disagree on, however.
  12. BornFromTheVoid

    Links to Reports and Papers

    With regard to the above paper, I find that there's a useful 3 step process when guessing the quality of many scientific papers, but especially for those that go against the consensus and make bold claims. 1: Check the authors 2: Check the focus of the Journal 3: Check the impact factor. 1: The first red flag for the paper above comes from the first author, Scaffeta. He is very much in the "AGW sceptic" area of the spectrum and has been involved in some very dubious publications in the past (one such had another expert contributor listed as Ken Ring, a Kiwi pseudo meteorologist who previously wrote a book on Palmistry for Cats). He's also involved in the Heartland Institute, the science focused think tank that released these objective and informative billboards. While the author list shouldn't be reason to completely dismiss a paper, it does raise some suspicions. Often in these situations, the the "sceptical" authors will fail to get their papers published in related journals because the experts there have the experience to see it's bunk. What the authors then do is fish around for a vaguely related journal with less relevant expertise that makes getting the paper published easier. These journal are often niche or low quality. So this leads to the next two checks. 2: The paper was published in the International Journal of Heat and Technology.... not exactly a close match for a paper on climate models, climate cycles and bit of solar physics. The paper has an about section that described it's focus - none of which are in close association with the topic of the paper. But what about the journal quality though? 3: The most common way (although not perfect) to measure journal quality is a metric known as the impact factor (IF). These is a measure of how frequently a paper in a journal get cited by other papers. Some examples of climate related journals and their impact factors include: Nature - 40 Science - 32 Nature Climate Change - 19 Geophysical Research Letters - 4.2 The international Journal of Heat and Technology has an IF of 1.5. Which by itself is no reason to dismiss, but given the above factors.... So, to summarise, we have a dubious first author who got a climate paper published (that apparently casts doubt of thousands of other studies, our understanding of the climate/climate models and the role of GhGs) but only published in a low tier journal not related to climate science. I mean, it's certainly a step up from getting a report published through the GWPF or the Heartland Institute, but it still doesn't fill me with confidence. Anywho, I'll give the paper a read when I get the chance, but so far it's ticked all the boxes for making me suspicious!
  13. If we count the first half as the 1st to the 15th and second half as 16th to 31st then it's happened 45 times in the record, so roughly once every 5 years. More often than I would have guesses! The most recent was 2016, with a first half of and a second half of 12.7C and a second half of 12.4C. The biggest difference was in 1898, with a first half of 10.94C and second half of 8.16C, giving a difference of 2.8C. More recently, 2008 was quite notable. First half of 14.6C (2nd warmest first half on record), second half of 12.2C, difference of 2.4C!
  14. Here's the forecast based on the 06z GFS Rolling CET... Anomaly to 81-10 rolling avg (Daily Avg: Anomaly to 81-10 daily avg) 12.1C to the 15th... +1.2 (13.8: +2.0) 12.2C to the 16th... +1.2 (12.7: +1.3) 12.0C to the 17th... +1.0 (9.6: -1.7) 11.9C to the 18th... +0.9 (10.0: -1.4) 12.0C to the 19th... +0.9 (13.1: +1.3) 12.1C to the 20th... +0.9 (14.1: +1.8) 12.3C to the 21st... +1.1 (15.9: +3.8) 12.4C to the 22nd... +1.1 (14.4: +2.2) 12.5C to the 23rd... +1.2 (15.4: +2.6) 12.5C to the 24th... +1.1 (13.1: -0.2) Some ups and downs in the coming week but relatively stable overall, a warm final week could leave us above 13C, or into the 20 warmest Mays on record, while a cool final week could see us drop below 12C, or close to the 81-10 average (11.7C).
×