Guest Post by Steven Goddard
From time to time we hear that various places on earth have been “warming much faster than the rest of the planet – as predicted by “the models.” One of the places commonly mentioned in that list is the Arctic, based largely on 30 years of satellite data. Fortunately though, we are not limited by 30 years of satellite data, as the Danish Meteorological Institute has records going back to 1958 and GISSTEMP has even longer records.
Below is a visual comparison of DMI 1958 Arctic temperatures vs. 2009, showing that temperatures have hardly changed since the start of their record.
2009 Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degrees
Below is an overlay directly showing that 2009 temperatures (green) are similar to 1958 (red) and close to the mean. Blue is mean temperature for the 41 year record.
So if the Arctic has warmed since 1979, how can it be the about same as 1958? The answer can be seen in the GISSTEMP graph below of Godthab, Greenland.
Temperatures have warmed since the start of the satellite record, but they cooled even more between 1940 and 1980.
Everyone (including NSIDC) quietly acknowledges that most of the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now – so they shift the warming argument to the Alaska side. However, that argument also has problems. Alaska temperatures rose at the positive PDO shift in 1977, and have cooled again with the recent negative PDO shift – as seen below. 2008 was notable in that Alaska glaciers started to increase in size.
If you look at only one leg of a cycle, you will come to the wrong conclusion about the shape of the graph. Thus I would argue that Dr. Spencer’s fourth order curves are much more meaningful than the nearly meaningless linear fits being used by most prominent climate scientists. Climate is primarily cyclical, as every good climate scientist should know.
Vostok Ice Core Temperature Records
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
oh great, more visual statistics.
Good to see some real science whilst the Hockey Team prattles on with a fish analogy.
still, the CO2 crowd can just ignore such data and with their media help, this information rarely makes the light of day to the general public .
here in Seattle, the U of Washington’s “climate” center, or whatever its called, continues to churn out PHD candidates who, for their dissertations, do work such as crafting computer models that suggest that the Cascade mountain range will be likely more snow free in the future. obscure local researchers print press releases claiming that global warming is going to be responsible for increasing allergic reactions due to pollen. the local TV media, needing to fill time, lap it up and regurgitate it.
the Seattle times, grabs such stupidity and prints it as the gospel – to the cheers of the greenies who blast those who question, as conservative, oil/coal company owners.
and if you post current science, you are immediately labeled a fool that believes just because its on the internet it must be true.
the democratic politicians in this state are ” past the science ” !
This is the perfect companion piece to “Watching the 2007 historic low sea ice flow out of the Arctic Sea”
Thanks,
Mike…
This is interesting, I suppose after spending so much time looking at the Antarctic, this is the next logical step. The lack of warming is a surprise, the fourth figure from the top is interesting too because of it’s length.
The link http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.431042500000.1.1/station.gif
Isn’t working for me.
I’ve completed a summary of the Antarctic reconstructions for those who are interested.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/antarcti-summary-part-1-a-trend-of-trends/
Between a group of us, we’ve completed nearly a hundred different reconstructions using Steig’s methods with modifications. Guess which has the highest warming trend?
Jeff
“Guess which has the highest warming trend?”
A $ to a peanut that Steig’s has the most.
Damn!
Another inconvenient truth. That’s okay; Al knows no shame and will feel no embarrassment.
A very true statement – “Climate is primarily cyclical, as every good climate scientist should know.” What makes it such a hard concept to get a handle on is that it’s not just a simple cycle; it’s cycles on top of longer cycles on top of still longer cycles. I suspect that we’ve already peaked on this latest 100,000+ year cycle; a thousand or a few thousand years in the future, our progeny will shake their heads in wonder at the presumptive folly of imagining that mankind can really impact the climate in any truly fundamental way.
These very steep downwards slopes of the Vostok ice-core graph frighten me. I can now understand why people were afraid of a new ice-age coming.
Once again, we clearly see that we are well within natural variability. Kudos to Mr. Goddard and friends.
@Jeff, It seems to be some tmp file generated.. go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and click somewhere on Arctic area and select a station. Ostrov Dikson is even better 😉
With increased glaciation in Alaska, the ice will build and flow faster to the sea, in much the same way as it careened out of the Alps in the Little Ice Age.
You know what the news will be, though.
More evidence of catastrophic warming.
Soon to be on the endangered species list: Carbonated drinks.
This is all great data and analysis that will continue to chip away at the AGW dogma as ranks of moderate, logical thinkers move away from the fear mongering.
BTW OT: The Catlin Expedition made it to ABC’s Nightline this evening. Amongst the wow-factor of the cold (-84° below freezing) and difficulties, the report slipped in a prediction from someone at the University of Washington(?) that the Arctic could be ice-free as early as 2010 – 2016!
Why take only one day, or why consider the trend of one station only? Don’t you all see this is cherry picking at its best?
This is what one gets when considering the whole arctic anomaly, as compared to the global anomaly
http://i37.tinypic.com/2lrxtu.jpg
Arctic in 2008 had an anomaly which was almost 1 centigrade higher than in the rest of the world.
Some fun http://goredearth.com/archives.html
Well, the temperatures are widely oscillating – the noise is clearly more important than any possible trends integrated over 50 years. But the graphs don’t really show there was “no warming” since 1958: look at the accuracy.
For example, the third graph shows the red and green curves coincide plus minus 2 degrees Celsius. That still doesn’t exclude a more than 1 deg C warming of the annual averages. Again, it is likely that relatively to the weather, the warming can’t possibly influence anything we care about. On the other hand, it can still exist and be statistically detectable (which is a much weaker type of influence than an actual influence on real lives).
I may be OT or not, but the google ad ( right before the comments) is selling the book “the god who wasn’t there” This could come across wrongly as an anti Christian sentiment that might be shared on this site.
I’ve seen this ad on other sites that have alterer “political” motives and pegged them as not creditable to a clean link.
Even scientific truths dispensed with an agenda are not science. IMO
In reality, of course, this is revenue for this site and I’m thinking in the abstract, someone who might be visiting this site for the first time.
This could possibly foster the belief/connection to non/anti new testament believer conspiracy sites like similar to pharyngula http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Believer or not, it muddies credibility.
And on that note, I’ve been clicking on the top google ads and suggest others have a look at them. See what’s paying for this site, what constitutes and sells itself as REAL science .
(snip?)
Maybe it is just little old me, but graphs 1 & 4 seem similar as I draw a visual mean curve thro’ the blue squigles, although a shade flatter. Nevertheless, this info does not surprise me. Nothing tends to these days. Anyhow this will all change once the Catlin scientifically gathered data is added into the equation, you know, the one that says all the observations are incorrect & the model is right!
Steven, that’s a great summary of some real data and some real facts.
I am surprised that Jeff Id is surprised by the Greenland picture. This ought to be more well known. Go to
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
and click on the map somewhere round Canada, Greenland or Iceland. Then select a station that has a long record (unfortunatley, not very many).
You will see that it is a similar picture at many stations (Steven has not been cherrypicking), for example Clyde, NWT, Angmagssalik (Greenland), Akureyri (Iceland). The temperatures now are no higher than in the 1940s. There are also several scientific papers confirming this (look for papers by Jason Box on Greenland and Iceland) .
Meanwhile, the BBC continues with its arctic propaganda following the end of the failed Catlin survey (equipment didnt work and they only got half way), falsely claiming that their data supports the idea that the ice will vanish soon.
Time for another WUWT post on this, please guys?
is the planned reduction of the bbc’s science stuff related to the poor quality of their reports ?
Reflections…
BTW any newcomer here wanting to get an overview of the skeptical Climate Science story, click my name
When I first “converted” out of AGW I thought a skeptics’ climate science wiki would be a brilliant idea. A good way to channel frustration into something of value to bequeathe our children, to bypass Connolley’s diktat at Wikipedia. At present it’s not the work I’ve got to do, but I still think it would be good at all levels.
I’d like to add to that, we really need a DUMMIES’ / IDIOTS’ GUIDE TO BASIC SCIENCE w.r.t. Climate Science. Something to hold alongside Ian Plimer. Something that an eight-year-old can understand and enjoy. With pictures. Anyone up for starting the project, perhaps together with other disaffected and knowledgeable posters here?
I ache each time I read another knowledgeable poster’s frustration with the current state of scientific knowledge. I would love to see that energy channelled constructively. Maggie Thatcher started the whole collapse, by using her science degree to push Global Warming research and freeze all other research. Al Gore brought the nonsense to its present pitch by using his science knowledge as a gag to gain Presidency of the United States of Science.
We could do a lot with just a very little good knowledge…
Despit the general impression given, the arctic is actually a weakness in the AGW argument.
Between 1910 and 1940 the arctic warmed by ~1.5 degrees. Why? CO2 was only ~300ppm in 1910. Maybe it was the sun? possibly – but then why did it suddenly start to cool in the ~1940s.
Between 1940 and 1970 the arctic cooled by ~1 degree. Why was this? Industrial (tropospheric) aerosols is the widely accepted reason. But the effect of industrial aerosols is “regionally specific” (Mann &Jones). The majority of the aerosols in the 1940-1970 period came from the NH mid-latitude regions. The arctic cooled ~4 times as much as mid-latitude bands (24N-44N & 44N-64N; see GISS zonal record) Aerosols are short-lived in the atmosphere. Most get washed out of the air by rain/snow within a few days or weeks. The cooling effect of aerosols is supposedly twofold, i.e. (i) they reflect solar radiation and (ii) they promote cloud formation. But, the reflective properties of aerosols can only operate for 6 months of the year in the arctic, while clouds in the arctic results in warmer temperatures. Many studies show that the effect of aerosols in the arctic is warming via the phenomenon known as ‘arctic haze’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Haze ) which includes the statement: “The aerosols contain about 90% sulfur and the rest is carbon, which makes the haze reddish in color. This pollution is helping the Arctic warm up faster than any other region on Earth”
Since the ~1970s the arctic has warmed ~1.5 degrees or about the same as during the 1910-1940 period (again see GISS zonal record). Arctic warming/cooling is a significant contributor to the overall trend at the time, but there is clearly doubt about what is responsible for it’s rapid climate shifts.
The IPCC claims that it can explain the earth’s temperature fluctuations over the past century, but that it is only by including the increase in greenhouse gases can it to explain the late 20th century warming. The uncertainty (I would say serious doubts) regarding the assumed contributory factors suggest this is nonsense.
It is on issues such as this, that the AGW argument needs to be challenged
When Leif Svalgaard raises doubts about the sun’s role in climate change or I (not that I should be compared with LS **) defend the GISS temperature record, it does not necessarily mean that we support the CO2-induced warming cause. Note that in the above comments the GISS record and lack of the sun’s role have both been used to cast serious doubts on basic IPCC tenets.
** I’m sure he’s much older 🙂
I have made a blinker image of the DMI data, comparing the 8-year periods 1958-1965 and 2000-2007 (8 years as my graphics program only averages 2 images at a time, only up to 2007 as the image format changed afterwards).
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qmkqdj&s=5
7 pixels in the image vertically correspond to 1°C. I would estimate that on average temperatures have gone down by about 0.5°C during melt season (about day 150-240) and gone up by 3-4°C during wintertime (days 0 to 80) and autumn (days 280-365)
It would be interesting to see the data as monthly anomalies.
This is what we got last night on the BBC news. ‘Gruelling’ Arctic mission ends.
Regarding the Catlin Mission:-
Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge has brought forward his estimate for the demise of summer sea-ice in the Arctic
“By 2013, we will see a much smaller area in summertime than now; and certainly by about 2020, I can imagine that only one area will remain in summer.”
I doubt that I shall make 2020, but I hope that some of you younger ones, hold these idiots to acccount for their stupidity.
Anthony, If this doesn’t get your name taken in vain on RC, nothing posted here will.
Figures don’t lie, but liars sure can figure….
REPLY: Heh, they’ve already allowed comments that refer to WUWT as “Watts Up Your Ass” so I doubt they can say much worse, but they are certainly creative so maybe I’ll be wrong.
Gavin doesn’t police for decorum. – Anthony
John Finn (02:13:01
Defend GISS? After all the hard work Anthony and his many hard working volunteers have done?
I could see a use for the GISS product, [snip – lets leave those comparisons outside of WUWT, Anthony]