Sorry about these intermittent posts. I haven't taken the time to stay current with the thread, but it's nice to see that there are others here interested.
Ok, lets think about your graph.
Does it represent "climate" or "weather" time scale?
Does it represent regional or global climate?
"Daily temps" definition? Day time? Night time? Average?
We're comparing the first 150 days of each of two years? Why? Why these two years? Which days are represented here? The first five months of each year? If so, this graph show a large seasonal variance, doesn't it? Weather is varied and noisy!
"Even the NSIDC admits the Arctic was warmer in the 1940's than it is now."
What does this mean? Decadal average? Decadal average of the first 150 days of the years?
What is the connection between the graph's first half of 1958/2009 comparison and the 1940's comment? Is there one?
I'm not accusing you of anything here, Rog, just wondering.
I assume that since you're posting the information on this thread, you want to make a point about global temps or climate change. What global significance do you find in the
comparison of N. OF 80 temps from 1958 and 2009?
What global significance do you find in the comparison of Arctic 1940's temps and "now"? Where's your data? What does "now" mean? Decadal comparison? Annual? 1940's to 2000-09?
1940's to 09? Is the 1940 Arctic above N.80?
Meanwhile as you know, Arctic Sea Ice extant continues its climate scale downward trend.
I understand that the growth in Antarctic sea ice has just (in the last 12 to 18 months or so) reached statistical significance. This does not change the fact that it has, but as we have discussed before, the response time of the ocean dominated S. Hemisphere is relatively slow compared to the North. The comparison of cores from Greenland and Antarctic reinforce the SH's slow response time. Rising Southern Ocean temperatures, the incidence of glacial melt pools, increasing snowfall, glacial mass measurements, the strengthening of the circumpolar winds, the cooling effect of Antarctic ozone loss, coastal glacial patterns, decreasing overturning of coastal waters, and regional temperature patterns of Antarctic, point to a changing Antarctic climate.
The "evidence" that you provided in your post may be obvious and clear evidence to you that "warming is not all the alarmist say it is" (whatever that means), but it says nothing to alter the likelihood of increasing long term global temperatures, caused in large part by the emissions
of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.
Among a number things, I agree with Stuart that climate and climate change is interesting, if not fascinating. I enjoy reading about it and I enjoy talking about it,and I enjoy learning about it. I most enjoy talking about it within its conceptual framework: I like the structure of accepted definitions and concepts, and maybe my need for structure is a function of my own lack of knowledge, even ignorance. My surface thin knowledge of climate concepts has given me an equally thin context within which I can think about the climate related papers and conversations/discussions that I seek out.
A long,long,...long time ago:), in this thread, you indicated a willingness to ignore fundamentals of climate science and statistical analysis, and indeed the entirety of your posts is a strong testimony to your willingness to ignore those definitions.
We end up talking past each other in monologue rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. What's the point? The last person with which I had that kind of relationship is my ex O, and I certainly don't want to divorce you, Rog!
So maybe a drive by relationship is best. You can continue your weather reports on this thread, and I'll check in when the terms of your climate change denial grow so farcical that I'm laughing so hard that I can't do anything else but respond. Come to think of it, that particular standard may have me responding more often than I like, because when it comes to farcical denialism, your status is heroically legendary!
Until next time, my best!