Arctic Temperatures – What Hockey Stick?

Circling the Arctic

What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.

By Lucy Skywalker Green World Trust

Click for a full sized image to click on graphs

with thanks to the late John Daly and his timeless, brilliant website page “What the Stations Say” (click on Arctic map above). Click on each thumbnail graph to access Daly’s full size graph with time and temperature scales and other details. The thicker dark horizontal line across some of these thumbnails indicated 0ºC (a few of the graphs are ALL under that line). The Arctic is shown in the condition of summer sea ice (see thumbnail below) and the pale circle is the Arctic Circle. All data comes from NASA GISS or CRU originally.

Paul Vaughan notes at WUWT that he “spent a fair amount of time updating these graphs (& others of Daly’s for other regions)” using http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and adds a cautionary note: The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years.

The highly variable temperatures and amounts of sea ice in both polar regions is well-known to locals, but cherrypicked extremes have become a media weapon to scare ignorant folk with. Greenlanders today are aware of recent warming; but history, archaeology, and the Norse sagas show that Greenland was warmer than today in the Middle Ages, when crops and trees were grown there. For recent sea ice changes (since 1979) see Cryosphere Today and note that while Northern Hemisphere sea ice (at the top of the CT page) has gone down recently (but is currently going up again), Southern Hemisphere sea ice (at the bottom of the CT page) is going up, so that the overall total is pretty constant although fluctuating between summer and winter.

This represents typical current summer and winter sea ice and snow cover in the Arctic and Antarctic. Permanent icefields are pure white. The difference between summer and winter sea ice is vast, and greatly exceeds the variations between different years.The faint circles are the Arctic and Antarctic Circles. Note how they delineate the Arctic Ocean and the Antarctica continent.

Finally, Jeff Id’s superb animation of recent Arctic sea ice>>

Share

About these ads

240 thoughts on “Arctic Temperatures – What Hockey Stick?

  1. When there’s a trend, you can always cherry-pick locations that show it to a lesser extent. But the zonal average tells a more representative story. The Arctic is warming. There’s a plot and link to data here.

  2. Well done Lucy, this was good work. I’ve posted a couple of comments over on your CA thread

    Good luck with your talk.

    There is hope, I sit on a committee of one of our Govt agencies and am always castigating the AGW figures. Last time I did this in response to a talk by a climate scientist and insisted my comments were recorded in the minutes.

    After the talk several senior people of the agency came up to me and said they agreed with what I said privately, but couldnt say so publicly as it was more than their job was worth.

    So the green resistance is startIng…

    tonyb

  3. Such a pity that this is a ”EYES ONLY TOP SECRET” document, now if only it was deregulated those politicians that read, might do so.

  4. “Paul Vaughan notes at WUWT that he “spent a fair amount of time updating these graphs (& others of Daly’s for other regions)” using http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and adds a cautionary note: The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years.”

    Is that really why all graphs end at or before the year 2003?
    Given the fact that after 2004 so much of the Arctic Ocean has become ice free in summer, methinks some station’s data cannot be manipulated to create the illusion of no trend!

  5. RR Kampen asks: “Is that really why all graphs end at or before the year 2003?”

    No, it’s because they’ve stopped collecting data! At least GISS has, just look up different areas of the arctic here, and see how few stations that have reported anything at all in 2009: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    I don’t understand how they dare make any claims about recent arctic temperatures at all with a data set that sparse.

    Another way to view the poor quality of the data, is to look at the GISS temperature anomaly chart, but with a 250km radius instead of their usual 1200km radius. You’ll see that both the arctic and Antarctica has vast uncovered areas (ah, and Africa and South America, too…):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=07&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=07&year1=2009&year2=2009&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg

    Thanks a lot to Lucy Skywalker for presenting this. I’ve recently browsed station data at GISS and other sources (Canadian met. pages) and while this not exactly being a scientific approach, my impression so far is that wherever there are long and good data series, it seems that (1) there’s no clear trend, and that (2) the 1940s might have been warmer than recent years. Not to mention the MWP, the Vikings weren’t lunatics when they established farms in Greeland…

  6. When certain folks start going on about catastropic Arctic warming, I have to remind myself that we’re talking the Land of Frozen.
    What difference does it make if it’s 45 below or 48 below?
    It’s still not fit for man nor beast.
    Every year, a couple of frozen idiots are pulled off of Mt. Rainier or Mt. Hood who had a really stupid idea of climbing up there too late in the season.
    Unfortunately, they don’t live to tell other idiots why people don’t live up there.
    It’s uninhabitable.

  7. What if climatologists and environmentalists aren’t actually bothered by the lack of solid evidence?

    There’s the argument that we only have one Earth so we can’t experiment in a normal scientific way.

    To them, all the criticisms about the data may simply be a case of, “yeah, we know, but so what?”

    Anyone familiar with Post-Normal Science?

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science

  8. RR Kampen (02:14:00) :

    See my post on the frozen mountain climbing idiots.
    They discover moments before freezing to death why the Norse colonies on Greenland perished.
    You still can’t live there, 1000 years later, but you can’t tell them that the day before they take thier last climb.

  9. It’s good to see John Daly remembered. It was “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” that first got me interested in global warming.

  10. Thanks Lucy – its good to see the overall picture. I also accessed both Daly’s data and GISS – the latter when I realised Daly’s would be too out-of-date to be usable. And there was a real problem getting continuity through the stations, especially to 2009. My conclusion was that the great majority of stations showed records around 1940, but did not feature 2005-2009 data, when according to CRU and IARC compilations of about 19 stations, the Arctic region as a whole showed peaks in 2007/2008, since dropping back. This peak is about 70 years on from the last peak and is around 20% higher. It will be interesting to see how deep the next trough goes!

    The Greenland temperatures are perhaps the most important, and these are the key ones showing the latest peak – but there is a difference between east and west Greenland.

    I have come to the conclusion from this Arctic data that if greenhouse gases are having an effect (since 1940), then it can’t be more than about 20% – and the same conclusion can be made from satellite data of the increased short-wave flux to the global oceans from 1980-2000 caused by thinning cloud – the net radiation gain is about four times that computed for infra-red ‘radiative forcing’.

    As you may be aware, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly head of the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, thinks the overall trend from 1800 hasn’t changed much as a ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’ and his report is available from IARC/Akasofu website (you can google the link).

  11. Nice summary.

    Hard to believe that such scattered surface sources could be used to create an Arctic temperature average accurate enough to guide trillion dollar policies.

  12. Nick Stokes (01:55:48) :
    When there’s a trend, you can always cherry-pick locations that show it to a lesser extent. But the zonal average tells a more representative story. The Arctic is warming. There’s a plot and link to data here.

    I note that the graph you link to appears to be of a single column of data from a set described as having eliminated outliers and a homogeneity adjustment. I’m sure it’s mere synchronicity that though none of the raw data shows much of a trend when the proper adjustments are made an uptrend suddenly and magically appears.

  13. @ Stefan
    Stefan, thank you for your input and your interesting link

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Post-Normal_Science

    I read a little bit and my lunch almost came back from my stomach. I’m deadly serious
    Read phrases like:

    “The traditional distinction between ‘hard’, objective scientific facts and ‘soft’, subjective value-judgements is now inverted.”

    Stuff like this is the end of our Western Civilisation. Are we an empire on its deathbed similar to the Roman Empire?

    “There’s the argument that we only have one Earth so we can’t experiment in a normal scientific way”

    So then stop emitting Carbon Dioxid. We will not ruin our economy only because there’s a chance of 1:10000000000 that the doom forecasts of someons is correct.
    If you think in such a manner, you pray everday to every God that exists, because there is a chance that the Christian or Jewish or whatever God exists

    “What if climatologists and environmentalists aren’t actually bothered by the lack of solid evidence?”
    Then they are bloody stupid

  14. The GISS data for the Angmassalik station is very useful – it goes back to the 19th century almost without interruptions: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    It does look like the 30s and 40s were slightly warmer than the 2000s, doesn’t it?

    I downloaded the data, and then computed 10-year trailing moving averages for the yearly temperature (last column). The years with the highest 10-year moving average temperatures were:

    1935 -0.036
    1936 -0.107
    1934 -0.119
    1948 -0.137
    2008 -0.139
    2007 -0.187
    1937 -0.188
    1947 -0.216
    1933 -0.27
    1941 -0.284

  15. 10 year trailing moving averages for Nuuk are even more obvious:

    1936 -0.061
    1935 -0.115
    1937 -0.159
    1932 -0.239
    1933 -0.245
    1934 -0.318
    1948 -0.335
    1941 -0.341
    1966 -0.388
    1942 -0.400

  16. The invaluable work of John Daly is enhanced if a clear distinction is made between the summer and winter temperatures in the Arctic, as can be found at: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/, where it is shown that the most pronounced Arctic warming since the end of the Little Ice Age from 1919 to 1939 was ocean related, respectively caused by the West Spitsbergen current.

  17. So here it is! Then compare this data with e.g. Siberian cities. You certainly find hockey sticks there:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222286980007&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222298380006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222295700006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=211351880010&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222307100009&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    This arctic data as well as data from rural areas don’t show hockey sticks. They only show solar activity signal.

    AGW has collapsed. There truly is human induced signal in GISS and HadCRUT datas, but it is caused by UHI. When GISS offers urban/rural option? Hansen, do something!

  18. Dave Wendt

    I’m sure it’s mere synchronicity that though none of the raw data shows much of a trend when the proper adjustments are made an uptrend suddenly and magically appears.

    You don’t know that none of the raw data shows trend. This post only presents a cherry-picked set.
    And you don’t even know that it is raw. Unlike the GHCN source that I quoted, the original post gives almost no sourcing information.

    REPLY: Nick here is a complete list of all GHCN stations that appear at or above the Arctic Circle (66.56°N). Note that many of them have closed, or stopped reporting data. With so few to choose from, it is rather hard to Cherry Pick and still have much usuable stations left.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/ghcn_arctic_circle_stations.pdf

    Feel free to pick your own list from this set of stations.

    -A

  19. Espen (02:34:54) / RR Kampen (02:14:00)

    “Data? We ain’t got no data. We don’t need no data. I don’t have to show you any stinking data.”

    Data IS the problem and there really is no short term solution. As has been demonstrated here there is no accurate long term data. GISS claims to go back to 1880 but that is a joke. They have data for two sites in Africa and none at all for South America or Antarctica and that’s not even addressing the quality of the data.

    Here is the long term solution. Upgrade the surface stations monitor the quality, compare it to satellite data and proxies where you actually know what the temperature and rainfall was, sit back and wait a hundred or better yet, five hundred years. Then you’ll have data!

    The problem with that is:
    1. If believers are right, it will be too late.
    2. Either way the lack of grant money to the theorists will force them to get a real job.

    Or you can simply make up the data.

    Let’s look at the quality control of GISS. The worst I’ve seen recently is an anomaly of +19.4967 C (+35.0941 F) near the city of Akzigit Kazakhstan for January 2002.
    They are claiming that it was almost 20 degrees above average for an entire month? I couldn’t find weather data for Akzigit but I did find it for Aktau about 160 km away. They average about -10 C in January. That means that it should have averaged about +10 C for the month. In my home town of Stone Mountain, Georgia, USA that would mean a record high every day for an entire month by an average of 9 C (20 F)! Come on. Nobody questions this?

    This isn’t just one grid but four adjacent ones plus at least three others that are impacted by this crap. If you let crap like this in what does it say about the integrity of the entire database that is supposed to be accurate within a tenth of an inch?

  20. Another good example of how applying statistics to the right bits of data from a dynamic chaotic system can indicate whatever you want.

    Physical evidence from satellite photo’s shows that both Arctic and Antarctic ice are in good shape, so where’s the panic?

    Until we have accurate data with sufficient granularity for all climate metrics and a thourough understanding of how the different mechanisms interact the science of Climatology (and med/long range weather forecasts) will be no better than Astrology.

  21. Lucy,

    Of course, you and I disagree about AGW and are both passionate. I do applaud you for backing up your arguments with data instead of just “talking trash”.

    I interperate this thread as a response to the recent paper by Kaufman et al. where they show the Arctic has reversed a 2,000 year cooling trend, especially in the last 100 years and the last 10 years. Your data actually supports their claim because all of these plots show warmer temps than those of the previous 2000 years. Of course, you cannot reproduce their hockey stick if you are not using 2000 years of data.

    As has been mentioned by others in other blogs, summer data in ice covered areas will skew the annual data because the heat is being used to melt the ice and temps do not move much. This is why Anthony Watts analysis in a previous post was very misleading. His animation did show warming in the cooler season. Here is a plot that shows this phenomena for locations north of 80 degrees:

    I know many of you do not view Tamino’s posts but there may be a few of you interested in another interpretation of what the Arctic is doing.

    REPLY: To be fair, much of the 2000 years worth of data is based on proxies, not actual measurements. And the proxy data as well as the methodology is suspect. The authors still haven’t fixed leftover junk from Mann, such as the upside down Tiljander series. Further, many of the proxies used have other problems as Steve McIntyre is demonstrating.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6981

    Lucy is reacting to the “reversal in the mid 20th century” statement in the paper. Putting the questionable proxy data aside, the question is: is there a reversal in overall Arctic Temps in the 20th Century?

    Jeff ID also has some interesting views on it:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/rewriting-arctic-history/

    What is most interesting is that once again, the Hockey Team worked hard to eliminate the MWP. Yet there is plenty of evidence to support its existence. With the MWP gone it makes Mann’s and Kaufman’s work much easier. Hockey GAME ON!

    For all you warmists that are worried about Kaufman not being represented fairly, let me point out that it got hundreds of mainstream news articles thanks to the multi-press release media blitz staged by the authors. Those articles reached millions. All this before many had a chance to view the paper since the PR preceded the paper. Hyping scientific papers in the press prior to their publication seems like an act of desperation to me. Or maybe it was designed so nobody could question it before the news machine got geared up and pumped out the PR? Hmmm.

    Here we might reach a few thousand eyeballs, and a few gripers are concerned we might be misleading people by looking at actual 20th century measured temperatures instead of proxies.

    – A

  22. Scott Mandia: The vikings did thrive on Greenland during the MWP. No mannomatic misuse of statistic methods applied to sparse (and partly misused) proxy data sets can erase that simple historic fact.

    So the facts are: During the Eemian perid, the Arctic was much warmer than now – and Greenland didn’t melt. 1100 – 700 years ago, at least one part of the arctic was significantly warmer than now. 65 – 80 years ago, the arctic was at least as warm as now. In the meantime, the Arctic was pretty cold in the eighties and nineties. “Arctic warming” = natural variation!

  23. Anthony,
    Feel free to pick your own list from this set of stations.
    Your list has about 95 stations within the Arctic Circle. This post shows just 15, and even then it’s not clear that they are on the list. So yes, there is ample scope for cherry picking.

    You asked for a counter list. The Norwegian site Rimfrost collects a lot of this data. Here is a list of Norwegian sites, with increases over the last 50 years:
    CHANGE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    FROM 1959 TO 2008 (UNIT °C)

    Trend computation : Linear regression

    SELECTION : ALL STATIONS
    COUNTRY/REGION MEAN VALUE : 1.45°C

    STATION CHANGE(°C) YEARS METER ASL
    LONGYEARBY : 3.36 (1959 – 2008) 27
    HOPEN -NOR : 3.34 (1959 – 2008) 6
    BJØRNØYA – : 2.35 (1959 – 2008) 16
    NESBYEN – : 2.25 (1959 – 2008) 164
    GARDERMOEN : 2.23 (1959 – 2008) 208
    LILLEHAMME : 2.12 (1959 – 2008) 242
    JAN-MAYEN : 2.11 (1959 – 2008) 10
    KISE – Rin : 2.07 (1959 – 2008) 122

    Or Greenland over 30 years:
    GREENLAND

    CHANGE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    FROM 1979 TO 2008 (UNIT °C)

    Trend computation :

    SELECTION : ALL STATIONS
    COUNTRY/REGION MEAN VALUE : 2.17°C

    STATION CHANGE(°C) YEARS METER ASL
    EGEDSMINDE : 3.0 (1979 – 2008) 41
    ITTOQQORTO : 2.66 (1979 – 2008) 65
    UPERNAVIK : 2.62 (1979 – 2008) 122
    TASIILAQ : 2.39 (1979 – 2008) 0
    ANGMASSALIK : 2.15 (1979 – 2008) 52
    ILLULISAT : 2.14 (1979 – 2008) 0
    DANMARKS-HAVN : 1.96 (1979 – 2008) 12
    NUUK : 1.95 (1979 – 2008) 70

    Or Canada over 50 years:
    CHANGE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    FROM 1959 TO 2008 (UNIT °C)

    Trend computation : Linear regression
    STATION CHANGE(°C) YEARS METER ASL
    INUVIK (N. : 3.89 (1959 – 2008) 68
    FORT_SMITH : 2.87 (1959 – 2008) 203
    FORT SIMPS : 2.59 (1959 – 2008) 169
    YELLOW_KNI : 2.53 (1959 – 2008) 205
    NORMAN_WEL : 2.21 (1959 – 2008) 67
    DAWSON (YU : 2.19 (1959 – 2008) 370

    REPLY: Thanks very much Nick! I’ll get back to this. There’s an interesting issue here, not the least of which is that you went outside the Arctic circle to find stations not on my original list. Yellowknife for example, 62.45N. Dawson, 64.04N LONGYEARBY is an airport, BTW and is on the list I provided. In fact many are airports. You fell into the same trap many others have. You just choose the data for what it says, but pay no attention to the measurement environment. There’s a lesson here and a future post is coming from it. -A

  24. Nick and Scott

    Anyone who has researched the arctic will be astonished at the regular melting and refreezing of ice. There is much observed and scientifcally derived evidence to demonstrate that the current warming event is nothing out of the ordinary

    To put Lucy’s map into perspective and help with overall orientation of the region, this link leads to a brilliant interactive arctic map (click on the dots) showing current temperatures.

    http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm

    There are numerous historic records of which the following is but one example-they are the British Board of Trade records for the region dating back 200 years

    http://www2.swgc.mun.ca/nfld_history/CO194/index.htm

    I ploughed through each of these for weather and ice references and it is one of the numerous sources cited in my thread

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688

    I had to discard many more records than I could include for space reasons.
    I am currently writing an article on the substantial 1920’s to 1940’s arctic warming and the even more remarkable periods that encompass the Vikings and Ipatuk-an arctic civilisation that predates the Romans.

    I think some of us we have a romantic vision of a permanently frozen arctic that is derived from Victorian chroniclers-the same ones who invariably depicted Charles Dicklens age as permanently frozen when in reality it includes some of our warmest winters ( he wrote ‘ A Christmas Carol’ in a heatwave).

    This vision extended to our notions of Hanibal struggling over ice filled Mountain passes to attack the Romans, when it appears he had a rather easier time than this as glaciers then were higher than today, and the Romans utilsed these high level passes to attack their enemies.

    Luc’ys thread usefully gives a visual context to the debate using long temperature records.

    tonyb

  25. There is one proxy which drives the big blade on the hockey stick in this Kaufman Arctic study – Series 22 – which rises to a huge +6.97C in the most recent decades.

    That is Briffa’s Yamal Pennisula tree ring reconstruction (This is the same one that Steve McIntyre has been trying to get the data and methods for but has not been successful.)

    Briffa took a very detailed 4,000 long year tree-ring reconstruction (which shows very little temperature change at all) and adjusted it by using some obscure tree-ring density measures from a near-by tree-ring reconstruction.

    It is still not clear what was done but it is very clear that temperatures in the Yamal Pennisula have not increased by +6.97C in the last two decades (up to 1.0C perhaps).

    Here is the original Yamal tree-ring reconstruction data versus Kaufmann and Briffa’s numbers.

    This is what the chart looks like if one puts the proper Yamal data in (and reverses the sign on the upside down Tijander lake sediment study).

    Interesting that the Little Ice Age, the recent warming, the downturn in 1975, the Medieval Warm period, the Roman Warm Period etc. now all show up.

    Yamal study.

    http://www.nosams.whoi.edu/PDFs/papers/Holocene_v12a.pdf

    Yamal data.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/asia/russia/yamal_2002.txt

    An Excel spreadsheet of Kaufman’s data is here.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/reconstructions/arctic/kaufman2009arctic.xls

  26. It’s really silly to stick a straight line trend through an obviously oscillating natural pattern which has just reached it’s new maximum and is probably now on the way back down again. Yet that is what is done in Nick’s referenced plot. And he has the cheek to talk about cherry-picking! The most anyone can say is that the Arctic might be slightly hotter now than it was in the early part of the 20th century though any difference is well within the margins of error. Furthermore the oscillating pattern matches very well with solar activity as W. Soon has shown.

  27. Thanks Lucy for you excellent work. 22 charts and no hockey stick!. But there is one the big nose, Pinochio-like, the big one of the IPCC.
    It would be just funny, but it leaves everybody wondering why lying about climate everyday and everywhere. Why all that daily propaganda through all media, millions and millions spent everyday.
    Which are those big interests behind?. After all these big, big “investments”, bigger profits are evidently expected, which all of us without exception will have to pay.
    We are in need, now, not only of identifying, if “hockey sticks” are false, but of identifying those who have carefully planned this, because it is a big, big, the biggest “swindle” ever conceived.

  28. Asking the Manniacs who create the hockey sticks how they do it, is like asking Michael Angelo how he created beautiful statues from lumps of marble.
    Angelo’s answer was, I remove everything that is not the beautiful statue’.
    The Manniacs simply discard everything that is not a hockey stick, and voila! A hockey stick emerges from the lump of data, like Venus on the half shell.

  29. Nick Stokes (01:55:48) :

    Hi Nick – could you describe in detail how GISS does their zonal averaging and homogenization for the Arctic? Have you plotted their raw data?

    Thanks.

  30. Nick Stokes:

    First a comment about the Norwegian data – I’m Norwegian, and other Norwegians should correct me if I’m wrong, but I *think* the Gardermoen station may be close to Oslo Gardermoen Airport – Norway’s largest international Airport. If I’m right, no data from Gardermoen since 1998 can be trusted. Regardless of the runways themselves, the whole area was changed tremendously with the airport, it used to have much smaller airport and a military airport.

    Next, Greenland over 30 years doesn’t say much, as it was pretty much at the bottom of a long downwards trend around 1980. As I have shown above, temperatures were higher in the thirties than they are now.

  31. Here we might reach a few thousand eyeballs, and a few gripers are concerned we might be misleading people by looking at actual 20th century measured temperatures instead of proxies.

    Too bloody right, mate!

  32. Scott,

    (This totally OT, but I just can’t resist)

    I have visited your excellent site. It is clear that you have taken a great deal of work to put it together and it seems that you understand the underlying science behind.

    I can’t help but wonder, do you really believe it?

    In particular, on the page http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/modern_day_climate_change.html, you say: (I am quoting you)

    – Only a complete shut-off of CO2 emissions would result in a long-term stabilization at a constant level.
    – Cutting CO2 emissions by 50% today will only stabilize the levels for the next 10 years.

    So, Scott, I think we have a problem here, don’t we?

    You seem to be an inteligent person, and as such, I am sure you agree that cutting emissions by half is absolutely impossible. Just mentioning shutting-off emissions completely is plainly stupid (I am sorry about the word, but it really is stupid).

    Therefore, Scott. What is the deal? What do you exactly propose here?

    Don’t you understand that if what you tell on your site were true, we are doomed?

    I am the kind of person that will bet 1,000,000 to 1 that the world is not going to end tomorrow. You know why? Because if I lose, I won’t have to pay and if I win, I win twice (even though I am not going to make a lot of money).

    And you know what? Taking my bet is stupid (I am sorry again, but that is what it is).

    You say that we have a great problem because CO2 is going to cause a hell of a problem to Earth.

    Yet, you know that we are not going to reduce the CO2 emissions for the foreseable future. Even if we, the stupid developped countries (again the word), decide to commit an economical suicide, total emissions are still going up because the developing countries are more smart.

    Rather than betting that the end of the world is coming, why don’t you take a sensible approach and try to figure out how to solve the problem in a feasible way?

    I don’t think that CO2 is causing any problem, so I can sleep very well.

  33. Nick Stokes (01:55:48) :
    When there’s a trend, you can always cherry-pick locations that show it to a lesser extent. But the zonal average tells a more representative story. The Arctic is warming. There’s a plot and link to data here.

    The Arctic has been warming for last 30 years – but it just mimic warming in the first half of 20th century.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010650000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010250000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=222206740006&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634010010003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=652060110003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    All rural stations with 100 years trend show the same. How comrades from CRU managed to create a hockey stick from such data is beyond me, but maybe it is the “added value” they do not want to share with anybody.

  34. Lucy, thanks for this post. For those who have never seen the decimation of actual temperature monitoring stations, and therefore the decimation of actual data, see this:

    It makes it hard to believe anyone in charge takes actual temperature measurement seriously, they obviously believe they can just estimate it. And what is the response temperature has to being estimated instead of measured? see here:

  35. As I tried to read the article on post normal science I became increasingly nauseated–it should be abnormal non-science. The notion that opinion and fear should out-weigh data and the scientific methodology is beyond my elderly comprehension. Beyond that the most interesting part of the discussion of this excellent article relates to the lack of data, the inconsistencies of the data sites and the masssive assumptions of “2000 years” of data when in fact no data was collected and conclusions were drawn from analysis that are at best educated guesses with multiple assumptions.

  36. Anthony Wattas replied:

    Hyping scientific papers in the press prior to their publication seems like an act of desperation to me.

    This is unfair because you routinely comment on papers you have not actually read because they are “behind the paywall”.

    Of course, proxy data is not as high quality as actual measurements but in studies of climate we do not have the luxury of direct measurements for the past. At some point, you have to accept the proxy data with a certain degree of error otherwise we might as well just not study climate change.

    My point still stands that camparing plots that are 100 years or fewer and that end in 2002 or earlier, CANNOT be used to debunk a study that shows a 2,000 year trend has changed in the past 100 years and even more so in the previous ten years.

    @Manuel (06:47:02) :

    I am happy that you visited my site because one must always consider the “other camp’s” position when debating. You need to understand the context of those statements. Those statements show that AGW is serious, that it is going to get worse even if we take steps to reduce AGW, and that we are not going back to pre-AGW climate for quite some time even using the best solutions. We cannot afford a “wait and see” approach.

    As I have mentioned before, my goal is to move the debate from Is there AGW? to What are the implications of AGW and what are we going to do about it? These are far from my expertise so, as one can see, I offer no solutions to that question. The problem is that if we still debate the causes of warming we will never move forward to the real debate and the solutions will become even more costly.

    REPLY: It is perfectly fair. I choose not to engage in the paywall in most cases because as a US taxpayer, I find it reprehensible that I should have to pay twice for a study. Once to fund it and once to read it. In the rarefied world of academics, you don’t have to worry about such things, because it is paid for you to have access. But I think every journalist and blogger is in the same situation. They don’t subscribe to these journals either and if they asked for a budget, they would not likely get it since to cover all the journals it might be several thousand dollars. People in academics that have all this at their disposal don’t get this resentment from the average working taxpayer of which I am one.

    The unfairness is lack of public access to our free press and to the taxpayers that fund this research. It’s flat wrong to put out a press release ahead of a journal publication as Kaufman did. Nobody could check it if they wanted to. I think the authors counted on this. The Kaufman paper is the worst perversion of science I’ve seen recently. Its more Mannian proxy dreck and questionable statistical methods trying to justify it. Many of the proxies have no proven temperature signature/stability. Trees are better proxies for moisture than they are temperature.

    As for your goal, you missed a step. “What is the true magnitude and cause of AGW”? – A

  37. Nick Stokes offers us these figures (among others):

    Or Canada over 50 years:
    CHANGE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    FROM 1959 TO 2008 (UNIT °C)

    Trend computation : Linear regression
    STATION CHANGE(°C) YEARS METER ASL
    INUVIK (N. : 3.89 (1959 – 2008) 68
    FORT_SMITH : 2.87 (1959 – 2008) 203
    FORT SIMPS : 2.59 (1959 – 2008) 169
    YELLOW_KNI : 2.53 (1959 – 2008) 205
    NORMAN_WEL : 2.21 (1959 – 2008) 67
    DAWSON (YU : 2.19 (1959 – 2008) 370

    It’s not entirely clear to me how data is recorded and shared but I doubt that there are multiple contributors from these very remote locations. Even more remote are the stations Rabbit Kettle and Virginia Falls in Canada’s Northwest Territories.
    Several times last winter I tried to alert the people at wunderground to the curious fact that the forecasts for these two locations each day were in the -30C range (just like the rest of the Territory) but the recorded temperatures were consistently in the range of +5C. I received one e-mail in acknowledgement with an assurance that it would be checked out. Nothing changed and I heard no more.
    Seeing Nick’s citing of warming in Fort Simpson, which is a proximal station, I am wondering again about the smearing of data that Surface Stations has described.
    It’s my understanding that the source of the Canadian data is Environment Canada, but their own site didn’t seem to list these particular stations. Does anybody know about this?

  38. Juraj V: The rimfrost.no site that Nick recommended also shows much more moderate trends if you choose the 100 year trend option. And if they had offered a 70-year trend option, we’d see almost zero trend for most station…

    NORWAY

    CHANGE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    FROM 1909 TO 2008 (UNIT °C)

    Trend computation :

    SELECTION : ALL STATIONS
    COUNTRY/REGION MEAN VALUE : 0.7°C

    STATION CHANGE(°C) YEARS METER ASL

    NESBYEN – Nes(Busk) : 1.39 (1909 – 2008) 164
    NORDØYAN FYR – Vikna(N.Trlag) : 1.2 (1909 – 2008) 15
    RØROS – (S.Trlag) : 1.2 (1909 – 2008) 626
    ALTA – Elvebakken – Alta(Finm) : 1.05 (1909 – 2008) 3
    FÆRDER FYR – Tjøme(V.fold) : 1.04 (1909 – 2008) 6
    BERGEN – FLORIDA : 0.92 (1909 – 2008) 12
    LISTA – Farsund(V.Agder) : 0.88 (1909 – 2008) 14
    KJØREMSGRENDE – Lesja(Oppl) : 0.86 (1909 – 2008) 626
    VARDØ – (Finm) : 0.85 (1909 – 2008) 14
    BODØ – (Nordl) : 0.77 (1909 – 2008) 11
    UTSIRA FYR – Utsira(Rogaland) : 0.74 (1909 – 2008) 55
    OKSØY FYR – Kr.sand(V.Agder) : 0.6 (1909 – 2008) 9
    ONA – Husøy (M&R) : 0.56 (1909 – 2008) 13
    TORUNGEN FYR – Arendal(A.Agder) : 0.56 (1909 – 2008) 12
    ANDØYA – Andøy(Nordl) : 0.44 (1909 – 2008) 10
    TROMSØ – LANGNES (Troms) : 0.41 (1909 – 2008) 9
    OSLO – BLINDERN : 0.36 (1909 – 2008) 94
    KARASJOK (Finm) : 0.33 (1909 – 2008) 131
    LILLEHAMMER – SÆTERENGEN (HOMOGEN.) : 0.32 (1909 – 2008) 242
    KAUTOKEINO (Finm) : 0.2 (1909 – 2008) 307
    MANDAL (V.Agder) : 0.07 (1909 – 2008) 138

  39. Whenever you take a subset of data you will get a trend, no matter how small. Even people with no agendas can take the same data sets and treat it such that it reveals a trend.

    But there’s several key points:

    * we only have a subset of data points.
    * a lot of historical data points are not measured in the same way as recent data points.
    * recent data points are more numerous than historical data points.
    * differing trends are presented using those data points.
    * ignoring absolute values when calculating and demonstrating trends.

    Because of this, there is no conclusive demonstration of a radical trend (in any direction); aka. the “what *is* normal, anyway?”. How can you create a public policy on, well, anything without conclusive evidence of an actual event, as well as the inability to even demonstrate a causal effect of said event?

    When someone has something to gain, the temptation to cherrypick data is much higher. Since the AGW crowd has no compunction about penalizing *others* for their ‘evil ways’, greatly exaggerating and lying about cause and effects, it’s little wonder that any pro-AGW ‘evidence’ is held suspect.

  40. I have also been watching the individual GISS stations for quite some time and found the same result. Thanks Lucy for bringing it to public attention.

    Lots of manipulation going on here I believe….it pays to do your own research.

    BTW…the late John Daly was a huge Landscheidt fan :)

  41. More from rimfrost: Here’s what you get for Greenland if you choose the 100 year trend:

    GREENLAND

    CHANGE IN AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
    FROM 1909 TO 2008 (UNIT °C)

    Trend computation :

    SELECTION : ALL STATIONS
    COUNTRY/REGION MEAN VALUE : 0.18°C

    STATION CHANGE(°C) YEARS METER ASL

    ILLULISAT -JACOBSHAVN (WEST) : 0.7 (1909 – 2008) 0
    UPERNAVIK (NORTH WEST) : 0.27 (1909 – 2008) 122
    ANGMASSALIK (SOUTH EAST) : 0.06 (1909 – 2008) 52
    TASIILAQ (EAST) : 0.04 (1909 – 2008) 0
    NUUK – GODTHÅP (SOUTH WEST) : 0.0 (1909 – 2008) 70
    NUUK-NASA (SOUTH WEST) : 0.0 (1909 – 2008) 70

    But again, I miss the 70-year option… But wait, rimfrost can tell us more, let’s see which decades were the hottest in Illulisat:

    STATION ILLULISAT -JACOBSHAVN (WEST) , POS : 69.12 – -51.10, 0meter a.s.l
    (DMI)

    AVERAGE TEMP : -4.9 (1873-2009)

    THE 10 WARMEST 11-YEAR PERIODS 1873-2009

    YEARS (FROM-TO) AVERAGE TEMP (NB Only periods without missingdata are included)
    1927-1937 -3.03
    1928-1938 -3.14
    1926-1936 -3.24
    1925-1935 -3.34
    1924-1934 -3.37
    1929-1939 -3.37
    1996-2006 -3.53
    1930-1940 -3.56
    1923-1933 -3.62
    1932-1942 -3.68

  42. Sean Ogilvie (02:44:58) :

    It’s good to see John Daly remembered. It was “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” that first got me interested in global warming

    Same here-got to communicate with John several times,mainly about Tasmania and
    Hobart’s similar climate to Coos Bay,Or. Thanks, Lucy….

  43. RR Kampen (06:09:00) :

    Re: Nogw (05:57:56) : do you think certain oil companies like ExxonMobile have no financial interests?
    For convincing everybody not to use fossil fuels, which they produce and sell?, that would be extremely crazy.

  44. Scott Mandia (07:11:43),

    When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will be wrong. And so it is when someone tries to show that CO2=AGW. CO2 does not cause noticeable global warming. Its effect is so small that it can be completely disregarded. See? In fact, it appears more and more that AGW is made up out of whole cloth. Natural climate variability explains the climate, with no need for an extra variable like carbon dioxide.

    The ARGO buoys show a slight cooling trend in the deep oceans, and there is no tropospheric “hot spot” to be found. Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline.” With no hidden global warming lurking and waiting to pounce, the premise that CO2 will cause runaway global warming is effectively falsified. It is simply an untrue statement. You will have to find another reason to be alarmed.

    But if you base your premise on reality, instead of simply assuming that the temporary coincidence of rising CO2 and rising temperatures proves causation, then you will see how insignificant the rise in that very minor trace gas is. The planet is telling us the truth; it is people, motivated by the really huge amounts of money in play, who have the motivation to lie about what is, and what is not, happening.

    My well meaning advice: listen to the planet: click. She is telling you that CO2 is a non-problem. And our planet doesn’t lie.

  45. Nick, why not look at the Rimfrost data from the earliest Arctic records. Upernavik has about the earliest, starting from 1873, and is pretty much flat.

  46. Nick Stokes,

    thanks for throwing GISS data at us as if it is useful.

    Whether it is UHI, dropping true rural stations, using station temps 1200 km away to give that necessary higher AVERAGE temp, GISS and YOU are full of it!!!!!!

  47. For those who inwardly wish the end of the world: Do not worry anymore, today you are 24 hours nearer the end than yesterday, so your life is ending!
    Rejoice!

  48. Speaking for the Polar Bear League, I would like to extend a sincere and hearty invitation to Nick Stokes and Scott Mandia to come on up and spend some time with us. We have plenty of ice for gin, vodka, or koolaid — whatever is their pleasure.

    To appreciate the good life we have here, and to understand why our numbers are increasing across the Arctic, Nick and Scott should plan to stay throughout the year, for multiple seasons. That is the only way they will understand what is happening, so that they can speak more authoritatively on the topic.

    So come on up, boys. Bring plenty of food, fuel, and warm clothes. We’d hate for you to lose any of that baby fat during your stay.

  49. Espen (05:34:29) :

    “Scott Mandia: The vikings did thrive on Greenland during the MWP. No mannomatic misuse of statistic methods applied to sparse (and partly misused) proxy data sets can erase that simple historic fact.

    So the facts are: During the Eemian perid, the Arctic was much warmer than now – and Greenland didn’t melt. 1100 – 700 years ago, at least one part of the arctic was significantly warmer than now. 65 – 80 years ago, the arctic was at least as warm as now. In the meantime, the Arctic was pretty cold in the eighties and nineties. “Arctic warming” = natural variation!”

    Espen, thanks for your remark and spare me the time to make it.
    Our scientists can produce any temperature reconstruction but if the outcome is a hockey stick, they have neglected or eradicated history.
    We have had much warmer periods in the past than we have today, end of discussion.

    Smokey (07:51:30) :

    Scott Mandia (07:11:43),

    “When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will be wrong. And so it is when someone tries to show that CO2=AGW. CO2 does not cause noticeable global warming”.

    Smokey, well said although I doubt if Mr. Scott Mandia will do anything with your insights.

    What we have here is another Flanagan.

  50. Nick Stokes,

    For the first station in your list, Longyearbyen, it should be noted that the station has been moved several times and some years are missing althogether. The current station has only been observing since 1975 and this siting near much open water has quite different surroundings than previous locations some km away. There exists a record for Svalbard lufthavn (Longyearbyen) going back to 1912, included in the WMO Reference Climate Station network, a list of stations that have been selected for their long observation time and high quality. It’s particularly interesting since that makes it the longest continuous record in this part of the arctic. However, the data have been homogenised using stations 10s of km away or even 100s of km away to fill in missing years. I’m not saying that the reconstructed record is badly flawed. It’s probably a very good reconstruction based on the data available. It definitely shows the trends well, but much care should be taken when comparing temperatures of different periods. Certainly it cannot be done with a 1/100 degree resolution as in your list. For instance we know that the past few years have been warm and that some years in the 30’s were warm as well, but we can’t say for sure that the past few years were warmer than the warmest one in the 30’s. It’s not unlikely, but since the station has been moved several km from a valley to a promontory, we simply can’t tell.

    I’ve had a look at most of the data availble for the reconstrction of the series and made some preliminary notes at http://voksenlia.net/met/lyr/ (in Norwegian).

  51. Re: Nogw (07:49:45) :

    “For convincing everybody not to use fossil fuels, which they produce and sell?, that would be extremely crazy.”

    No, that’s what the Gore-lobby is trying to do. I asked whether oil companies wouldn’t try the same campaign with the opposite message, and I hope to find out if they do and how they do it.

  52. Kampen,

    Oil companies exist to make a profit as do carbon traders, governments, reseach establishments, universities, plastics companies, power stations, farmers, schools, hospitals, road builders, environmental orgs, etc. All of them have an interest in not supporting AGW but that is not how it works. All companies search for profits through whatever avenue or opportunities open up to them. Researchers and enviromentals, however, are stymied, all of their funding has to come from businesses interested in maintaining the AGW theology. If it falls so do they. You see, oil companies don’t really care either way, they have the time and funds to change. SO watch out for the lies and exaggerations and where they come from, that will tell you who is desperate.

  53. Nice work lucy!

    A few years ago I searched for the (raw) data of all circumpolar stations over 66.6N with sufficiently long records. About 70% were warmer to equal warm in the 1935-1950 period than in the current period. 30% are warmer in the current period, mainly in Eastern Siberia and Alaska.

    The same for Greenland, I plotted all stations around the inland ice up to 2005 here.

    Main conclusion: (summer) temperatures 1935-1950 were higher than in current period, so the ice edge melting then was (probably) higher than today. Despite the far higher CO2 levels these days…

  54. Next time my bills are due, I think I will send in a proxy.
    GCM’s are good for the money and Global Warming made me do it.

  55. RR Kampen (02:14:00) :-Well, John Daly is deceased so I wouldn’t expect he’d be updating the charts frequently anymore.

    For everyone-you might enjoy my comments on Jeff Id’s thread on this:

    “I notice at least two distinct “subclasses” of histories-which I will refer to as “Alaska type” and “Greenland type”. Alaskan type stations:

    Show sudden shifts around 1976 consistent with the PDO:

    Greenland type stations:

    All distinctly resemble:

    and

    “4-Well, El Nino’s have notable effects in Alaska, and the effect of the AMO on the Arctic was recently noted:

    http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

    I imagine that both effects are very important as a whole.

    A very good place to correlate indices with surface temperatures is:

    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/correlation/

  56. Scott, you say that AGW is real and WILL get worse. Could you please show credible data that shows that what is happening now is caused by AGW and not the type of natural variation that does happen regularly without Anthropogenic CO2. I find it incredible that you as a scientist aren’t embarassed not only by the pronunciations of the AGW industry but also of your personal blind faith in it. This trading of graphs and trendlines is also puerile, we know that there has been some warming but it has been trivial, benificial, probably not global and gives no indication of disaster to come as it has never come before whatever the models say. The climate is a fairly stable self regulating entity, strong in negative feedback and it has kept the earths climate almost perfect for millions of years regardless of the CO2 level in the atmosphere. If the temperature changes upwards we will manage it, if sea levels rise as a result over time we will manage it, if it changes down then you guys will get your wish of the removal of a large part of the world’s population by starvation. Surely deep down you must have massive doubts now about AGW and must be shocked about the arrest in surface temperatures. You must also realise that there is going to be no reduction in CO2 and even if we eliminated it there would be no effect on climate. I believe that what we are seeing is a politico-scientifically induced beginning of a purely voluntary collapse of Western civilisation on the basis of something that has a weak basis and on the scientifically naive precautionary principal. What we actually know and understand about climate wouldn’t fill the back of a postage stamp in comparison with the libraries that we would fill with our ignorance on the subject. Government should act on this basis not on what they see on the stamp.

  57. Scott,
    If they use garbage proxies, which seems to be the Mannian school of science tradition, then the results of those studies are garbage, as well.

  58. To Scott Mandia (07:11:43) :

    Scott,

    [I am happy that you visited my site because one must always consider the “other camp’s” position when debating.]

    I agree, that’s the only way.

    [You need to understand the context of those statements … We cannot afford a “wait and see” approach.]

    Once upon a time we entered a warming period. It was easy to point at the warming and blame Man for it. As the warming trend became more and more tenuous and the public has become more and more tired of the subject, they have had to manipulate data, and exaggerate the symptoms of warming until reaching a point of no return.

    I believe that AGW proponents have put themselves in a very difficult position in which there are only two real alternatives:

    a) Either they are wrong, and we should certainly do nothing.

    b) Or they are right, and we are dead, no matter what we do.

    There is no third alternative: At our current stage of technology we cannot stop the burning of fossil fuels. PERIOD. If we do, we will collapse civilization and those countries that aren’t fool enough to suicide will conquer us (and continue burning fossil fuels anyway).

    Increasing taxes and creating a whole new financial business in carbon trading is NOT a solution. It will do nothing to reduce CO2, it will only cause capital transfers to companies and countries that know how to benefit from the scam, but no economical (or environmental) benefit.

    [As I have mentioned before, my goal is to move the debate from Is there AGW? to What are the implications of AGW and what are we going to do about it?]

    If that is so, there are some things that we might do:

    1) Stop scaring the public.

    2) Stop fueling money to schemes that won’t work such as taxes, regulation and subsidies for non-feasible renewable energies.

    3) Start investing money, science and technology resources in “cleaner”, more effective energy sources, or in real world solutions to counteract the future warming (if it does in fact occur).

    Or, in other words: Send policy makers home and let the ingenious people try to make good money on a potentially huge business opportunity.

    And remember, if you were right and we can’t really “wait and see”, we are dead. Let’s both hope you are wrong on this one. Are you willing to bet?

  59. wow, thanks, Anthony! hadn’t expected this and I only just found out. Will post again later when I’ve read the comments properly.

    Just for now: John Daly died in 2004 which is the chief reason that records are not right up-to-date of course. But the little bit missing since then still does not explain the latest Hockey Stick’s blade which appears to start from before 1900.

  60. BBC world ran a TV article today on the crisis in the scientific peer review process because of corruption and fraud. Well who would have thought that could be possible. Apparently it wasn’t only the climate change papers.

  61. oh yes, and I want this “audited”, I promise to deal with every criticism that has some foundation, since I believe this evidence is so plain stunning, so I want it checked.

  62. NH Sea ice extent increased again in Jaxa’s daily update.

    So we have an increase on Sept 4th and 8th and it should only be a few days till the minimum is reached.

    We will have to wait until near the end of the month to say so for sure since there are some years that the minimum was not reached until the 3rd week of September but last year the minimum was reached on September 9th.

  63. I keep hearing that it was warmer in the Arctic in the ’30s. While it’s clear that the summer melt is currently typical compared to the last ten years, I keep coming back to this plot at Cryosphere:

    Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent

    which shows that the summer extent is about 60% of what it was as recently as 1970.

    What is the data behind this plot? Is it considered to be bogus?

  64. Scott Mandia,

    You have received a large number of replies. As someone who enjoys the math in climate papers, I find it amazing that CPS methods are used at all. We are not on opposite sides of the AGW issue although we may be as to what we should do about it. I’m only on the side of reasonable science.

    The Arctic paper is a complete nightmare. There is no verification that these are actually temps and only by random chance could these averaged squiggles be related to temp in history.

    Assuming these squiggles are temp, I wonder if you have any opinion on the use of CPS in scaling non-perfect data?

    Here’s a link to help explain my view:
    .

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/hockey-stick-temperature-distortion-posts/

    In particular part II

  65. Scott:

    As I have mentioned before, my goal is to move the debate from Is there AGW? to What are the implications of AGW and what are we going to do about it? These are far from my expertise so, as one can see, I offer no solutions to that question. The problem is that if we still debate the causes of warming we will never move forward to the real debate and the solutions will become even more costly.

    You can’t move the debate away from “Is there AGW”, because all of the credible evidence says NO. But you choose to ignore that and move on. You can’t skip the most important part of fixing a problem, and that most important part is finding out if there even IS a problem.

    I’d hate to have you as my car mechanic, you’d be replacing parts that have nothing wrong with them. I’d REALLY hate to have you on my jury, you’d be the one saying “guilty” even when there are 24 witnesses saying otherwise AND someone else confessed.

    You can’t “move the debate”, because you lost step one. You also can’t replay the Superbowl because you lost 44 to 8, and you can’t “proxy” in the touchdowns you “should” have had during the game.

    Thanks for bringing this group with you, Lucy, I’ve been very entertained this morning.

  66. Nick Stokes.

    I would have responded on the CA BB, but cant register. Anyway, you used
    GISS data for your regression, pulling the data from a posted table. The
    Issue is this table relies on GISTEMP. E.M. Smith has had some rather interesting things to say about the processing that code uses. Personally, I found the code to be a mess and the critical components ( station reference method and the bias method) where not well documented or very understandable. That doesnt make it wrong. Since you have the math abilities it might be intersting to have a look at the data going back to the real source.
    GHCN. Have a look at the multiple versions of stations here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=&world_map.x=373&world_map.y=4

  67. Further to my question, to the left of the plot on the main page there’s a link to the University of Illinois Sea Ice Dataset:

    Dataset 1870 – 2008

    The last link in the set, “seasonal sea ice extent timeseries”, appears to be
    date / annual / season1 / season 2 / season 3 / season 4

    The last couple of entries in the plot don’t match the data. Also, they haven’t plotted points since 2006, it seems.

  68. Not to pick nits, Anthony, but…. Most of what I read on this site is excellent, but even some of the posters who make excellent points fail to edit their own posts. I refer here to the tendency of some posters to misspell common words. Since this blog has risen to the top of anti-AGW sites, it’s credibility might be improved by some self-editing. There are ‘typos’ and there are ‘dumbos.’ When someone types “thier” instead of “their,” that is a clear typo. When someone else writes “concences” instead of “consensus” it is a dumbo. So, please, could the moderators here take the liberty of correcting obvious misspellings before posting comments? Ditto for punctuation. As said above, “picking nits,” but credibility matters and people who failed to pay attention in English classes can damage that value. It goes without saying that foreign posters whose first language is not English get a pass; they do the best they can (usually very well), but there is no excuse for native speakers to mangle our common language. Thanks for listening.

  69. Perhaps its time to take a break from data
    and take a look at reality in the form
    of some pictures–(pictures seem to be
    very alien to agw modeling arguments)–

    ice breaker sea ice news–

    Real time (sep 7) sea ice pics of real sea ice–

    not much open water in these
    arctic pics–these pics need MORE
    agw modeling–

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page2/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page5/

    This is lots of new ice–
    RECENTLY FORMED–
    and SNOW COVERED AND NO SURFACE WATER–
    thus indicating very low temperatures for
    rapid formation of more and thicker ice–

    and notice how the sea ice has rapidly resolidified
    immediately after disruption by the icebreakers–
    Yes, melting ended quite a while ago–

    -massaged data from satellites or ground
    stations cannot compete with the reality of real time pics.
    The refreeze has begun in earnest and the melt is over–
    Right now arctic temperatures
    are much lower than anyone is admitting–
    contrary to “officially” massaged
    satellite and ground station sensory perecptions.

    Speculation is rampant that these ice breakers
    are searching for lost arks of greenpeas skippers.

    AND this is the rest of the story–
    SEE IF YOU CAN IDENTIFY ANY OPEN WATER
    AT ALL IN THESE HIGH REOLUTION SATELLITE SHOTS OF
    SNOW SNOW COVERED SEA ICE IN THE CANADIAN ARCHIPELEGO WHICH IS STILL
    SUPPOSEDLY 70 PERCENT ICE FREE.

    http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/marfcst.php?fcst=FZAK80PAFC

  70. Re: RR Kampen (02:14:00)

    Remko, you have misunderstood Lucy’s post. Lucy is presenting the work of John Daly.


    TonyB (01:56:05) “So the green resistance is startIng… “

    Thank you for sharing your comments about the committee politics – very interesting (& consistent with my experience).

    True greens deserve support & credit; it is the phonies [who outnumber the good ones 100:1 these days, it seems] who need to be firmly resisted. As the “environment industry” booms, phony environmental problems are stealing the spotlight from real ones. This is a multi-front war, as will become more & more evident as more & more capable people continue auditing the untenable assumptions upon which misguiding arguments are based.

    People who think or pretend the issue is whether there is warming or not are either missing the point or engaging in (possibly malicious) obfuscation.

  71. L (12:31:42) :

    It’s not it’s, it’s its.

    You wanna make a post complaining about grammar and tpyos, you ought to take extra care to not pwn yourself…

  72. Espen (02:34:54) responding to RR Kampen’s “Is that really why all graphs end at or before the year 2003?”
    “No, it’s because they’ve stopped collecting data!”

    Espen, I suggest you check your claim.

    Thanks for pointing this out:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    The choice between only 250km & 1200km spatial-smoothing is ‘interesting’. The polar projection option puts things into better perspective (for the purposes of this discussion).

  73. Great graphic Lucy. What John Daly achieved is amazing but not very eye-catching to a casual observer, who would have to click on individual links. Your graphic deserves to be widely disseminated, not least beacuse a quick glance shows the lack of upward trend.

  74. Oliver Ramsay (07:18:15) “Seeing Nick’s citing of warming in Fort Simpson […] It’s my understanding that the source of the Canadian data is Environment Canada, but their own site didn’t seem to list these particular stations. Does anybody know about this?”

    1.
    Go here:

    http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html

    2.
    Click the “Customized Search” button.
    3.
    Under “Search by Station Name” enter “Fort Simpson” in the “Name” box and hit the “Search” button a few lines down.

    This turns up 5 hits.

    Note that to get monthly series you need to select “monthly” from the drop-down menus. Once you’ve selected one of the stations and hit “Go”, the site will display a summary for only one year, but note under “Navigation Options” (under the table) the ‘Bulk Data’ option — click the ‘Bulk Data’ “CSV” hyperlink to get an Excel file of the data for the full record period.

    It is common for Environment Canada to take years to update files. When you see many listings for one location, that is usually an indication of a station move — you may need to (carefully) piece together a few records for some locations.

    Seeing a warming trend post-1976-climate-shift and a step-rise at 1998, which was a year when the Earth’s shells “galloped” (in the words of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin), is hardly surprising, particularly for NH sites (see Barkin).

    As I’ve said upthread: Those who focus on whether there was warming or not are either missing the point or (possibly maliciously) obfuscating. The issue is that our understanding of natural climate variation and north-south oscillations (including at depth & altitude, not just at the surface) only sees the tip of the iceberg. We have orders of magnitude to go.

  75. Thanks everyone. I’m making notes but it’s now too late to say all I want to say. So I’ll just talk to Scott Mandia for now.

    Scott Mandia (05:03:37) : Lucy, Of course, you and I disagree about AGW and are both passionate. I do applaud you for backing up your arguments with data instead of just “talking trash”. Thanks Scott, and I applaud you for keeping with us for so long, I know it must be hard work. Curiously, you remind me of the time when I was in your shoes, and argued as persistently as you FOR AGW. I visited your website and note you refer folk to Coby Beck and the RC section on answering “contrarians”. You should add Skeptical Science.

    It took me a lot of convincing to stop me in my tracks long enough to examine the critical evidence that turned me around. My web page on AGW had a similar feel to yours at that time. What took me time to change round was the work needed to deconstruct every single “answer to skeptics” from these three sites in particular. But I did it. And I’m glad I had to go the hard road, and thankful I had the time to do the job properly.

    Here is a plot that shows this phenomena for locations north of 80 degrees: http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/janjul.jpg Ha, interesting – and WHERE is it? I’ve deliberately used records up to 3 times that length. I understand your argument re melting ice, but that does not change the non-HS quality of the data I’ve presented. I’ve now peeked at a few of NASA’s extensions up to 2009 – some show a rise, some do not; the average rise is still not enough to make the dramatic new hockey stick blade.

    Scott Mandia (07:11:43) :…My point still stands that camparing plots that are 100 years or fewer and that end in 2002 or earlier, CANNOT be used to debunk a study that shows a 2,000 year trend has changed in the past 100 years and even more so in the previous ten years. No, it doesn’t stand, but you’ll have to wait till tomorrow for exactly why I challenge you on this. Or maybe I’ll find someone else has answered you already, heck, it’s too much for me to read now!

  76. Nick Stokes, that graph from NOAA is based on a small number of Arctic land stations mostly from the former Soviet Union.

    The steep upward trend starting after 1920 and continuing through to WWII probably reflects the expansion of the Siberian and Arctic prison labor camps. The less steep rise starting in the 1960s probably reflects the rapid expansion of Soviet oil and gas development.

    If that graph represents anything, it is how many people got shipped to the Arctic by Stalin, and how wastefully the Soviets used energy.

  77. Anthony:

    There’s an interesting issue here, not the least of which is that you went outside the Arctic circle to find stations not on my original list.

    Well, Lucy’s post went as far south as Scotland. But in fact I was not seeking out Arctic Circle stations. I cited the top trend stations in the list for each of those countries. Interestingly, they were indeed mostly far North.

    Frank K: Hi Nick – could you describe in detail how GISS does their zonal averaging and homogenization for the Arctic?

    It’s described in detail >a href=”http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/#dataaccess”>here, and in the cited papers. Homogenization modifies sites that are out of line with near neighbours, and so has rare application in the Arctic. It also has little effect on the zonal average, which is the measure I recommend.

    And Kuhnkat, Lucy’s data are from GISS and Hadcrut as well, although the individual attribution isn’t specified. And UHI is not generally a problem in the Arctic.

  78. Espen, Can you point us to the official Norwegian source of weather/climate records (as I’ve done above for Canada)?

    Also, can anyone here do the same for Greenland (Denmark), Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Russia, & Alaska (USA)?

    [Clarification: I’m not looking for a link to GISS, Hadley, etc.]

    If so: thanks.

  79. “”” Allen63 (03:25:20) :

    Nice summary.

    Hard to believe that such scattered surface sources could be used to create an Arctic temperature average accurate enough to guide trillion dollar policies. “””

    They can’t but that simply does not stop climate “scientists” from believeing that statistical manipulations can extract information from data sets that contain none. After all, they believe they can describe the climate of the whole planet, from a handful of ice cores that are collected from tens of thousands of km apart; and which in no way represent a global map of anything.

    It’s like watching the lady ahead of you waving her arm outside the driver’s side of the car; you can predict that she has her driver’s side window open; but you can’t predict anything else.

    George

  80. Note for Nick Stokes:

    As Currie (1996) has cautioned us, spatial averages can be blinding.

    Currie, R.G. (1996). Variance contribution of luni-solar (Mn) and solar cycle (Sc) signals to climate data. International Journal of Climatology 16(12), 1343-1364.

    All one has to do is move across a sharp local gradient and things go out of phase (i.e. major signal not detected due to destructive interference).

    It’s not a matter of “good” or “bad” – it’s a matter of interpretation. Parameter estimates should be investigated across a variety of spatiotemporal scales.

  81. Nick Stokes (01:55:48) :
    When there’s a trend, you can always cherry-pick locations that show it to a lesser extent. But the zonal average tells a more representative story. The Arctic is warming. There’s a plot and link to data here.

    Except that the zones chosen in GIStemp are themselves a cherry pick. Take a look at the code. It is a parameter. Someone built that code to let them play with the zone sizes until they got what they were looking for. Only then was it locked down at 6 zones. And 6 is a way too big number. It hides the migration of thermometers to the south, for example. Take a look at the “UPDATE” down at the bottom and compare the GIStemp 6 zones to the benchmark 9 zones.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/thermometer-years-by-latitude-warm-globe/

    Now, in STEP2 of GIStemp it does the “zonal” step. And in that step, it has chosen a zone that puts Alaskan Military Air Bases in place to be used as “rural” temperature stations for UHI correction (find “Alaska” in the comments):

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/gistemp-fixes-uhi-using-airports-as-rural/

    So I will take a fixed set of stations that does not change, or a “natural” proxy that does not change, over a zonalized cherry picked fantasy.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/agw-is-a-thermometer-count-artifact/

  82. Sean Ogilvie (04:44:52) : This isn’t just one grid but four adjacent ones plus at least three others that are impacted by this crap. If you let crap like this in what does it say about the integrity of the entire database that is supposed to be accurate within a tenth of an inch?

    You got it! GIStemp “cooks the books” with airport tarmac then spreads the goo around as far as it can filling in all the missing data with dreck. It is useless.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/09/08/gistemp-islands-in-the-sun/

  83. @Smokey (07:51:30) :

    “Natural climate variability explains the climate, with no need for an extra variable like carbon dioxide.”

    Which would that be? I do not recall seeing anything in a peer-reviewed journal that shows (with any confidence and peer support) any natural forcing to be the cause of the modern day global warming. The first person to do so wins the Nobel and their name hangs on the wall with the Galielos, Darwins and Einsteins. So there is certainly an incentive.

    @Polar Bear League (08:21:56) :

    I have been wanting to go to Iceland for years but I cannot convince my wife to go to an expensive place that does not include palm trees. :)

    @Martin Mason (09:56:18) :

    See my comments to Smokey.

    @Manuel (10:59:44) :

    3) Start investing money, science and technology resources in “cleaner”, more effective energy sources, or in real world solutions to counteract the future warming (if it does in fact occur).

    I couldn’t AGREE with you more!

    Jeff Id (11:56:58) :

    Jeff, I think if you viewed my original posts you will see that I stated that Lucy’s plots cannot be used to refute a 2000 year plot. That is pretty basic math and everybody should understand these plots are comparing apples vs. oranges. I have not claimed that the paper is ironclad proof of AGW. It appears that whenever I post a comment it turns into a pro-AGW vs. anti-AGW debate. Maybe that is my fault but that was not my original intention. I think my position is pretty well articulated now.

    BTW, I will absolutely study your site and its analyses. I just bookmarked it.

    @Lucy Skywalker (15:24:57) :

    Thanks for replying to me and thanks for that bookmark. You are a very good sport. :)

    Reply: Iceland is not the expensive destination it was 13 months ago ~ ctm

  84. “”” Scott Mandia (05:03:37) :

    Lucy,

    Of course, you and I disagree about AGW and are both passionate. I do applaud you for backing up your arguments with data instead of just “talking trash”.

    I interperate this thread as a response to the recent paper by Kaufman et al. where they show the Arctic has reversed a 2,000 year cooling trend, especially in the last 100 years and the last 10 years. Your data actually supports their claim because all of these plots show warmer temps than those of the previous 2000 years. Of course, you cannot reproduce their hockey stick if you are not using 2000 years of data.

    As has been mentioned by others in other blogs, summer data in ice covered areas will skew the annual data because the heat is being used to melt the ice and temps do not move much. This is why Anthony Watts analysis in a previous post was very misleading. His animation did show warming in the cooler season. Here is a plot that shows this phenomena for locations north of 80 degrees:

    I know many of you do not view Tamino’s posts but there may be a few of you interested in another interpretation of what the Arctic is doing. “””

    Why don’t you simply issue personalized invitations Scott, if you want to siphon readers from WUWT over to whatever your site is. It’s a good strategy. I listen to the most popular morning talk radio show in the SF Bay area (as measured by the ratings people); it happens to be a politically realist station. Well you wouldn’t know that by listening to the paid station advertising; it is heavily leftist/socialist/Marxist advertising, often by the very interests who were getting blasted by the show hosts five minutes before they ran the ad, such as the CTA for example.

    Well it is no mystery; the show has the largest listenership by far, including both ends of the political spectrum, and everything in between. So the wacky advertisers know they are reaching the largest listening audience out there; including all the masochistic lefties and greenies who just can’t bring themsleves to not listen to a message that puts them in their place every day.

    But may I suggest, Scott, that the best way to improve your readership, is not to post stuff here on anthony’s open forum; but to clean up your own act over at your site, and make it an open forum.

    When people drop coins into an empty well, and never get a return echo, when the coin hits the bottom; they pretty soon get tired of dropping coins in there.

    So go back and fix up your place, instead of coming here with shovel ready hay that has already been once through the horse.

    George

  85. Scott Mandia (17:44:49),

    Your post above is unclear. What do you mean by ‘which would that be?’

    If you’re referring to carbon dioxide, Occam’s Razor shows that an unnecessary entity like CO2 should be promptly dispensed with:

    Never increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.
    ~ William of Ockham [1285-1349]

    See, you need to start with the presumption that CO2 is not necessary to explain the climate. Looked at that way, CO2 never becomes an essential entity. It unnecessarily clouds the issue.

    This article shows the last several warming/cooling cycles, going back to the 1800’s. [Great bibliography too, be sure to check it out.]

    Those natural multi-decadal cycles have nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Therefore CO2 should be disregarded as an entity in any explanation of climate change. Because if any old extraneous entity is thrown into the explanation, who knows what correlations we would find? click

  86. KBK (11:53:16) : Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent which shows that the summer extent is about 60% of what it was as recently as 1970.
    What is the data behind this plot? Is it considered to be bogus?

    Well, in the late ’60s and early ’70s it was abnormally cold. It snowed a few times in the Central Valley of California. I was a kid then and asked the “Old Timers” about it. They reflected and said basically: “Well, it has been warmer for a few decades, but a long time ago when I was a kid it snowed like this a couple of times…”

    Now, years later, we have “abnormal warmth” like we had in the 1930’s and folks are remembering that it used to be colder “a long time ago when I was a kid”…

    And guess what? In another of decade or so, when it snows again, I’ll be telling some little kid (hopefully some future grandkid) “Well, it has been warmer for a few decades, but a long time ago when I was a kid it snowed like this a couple of times…”

    The moral? A full PDO cycle is 60 years. People live 3 score year and 10.

    Do the math.

  87. steven mosher (12:19:04) : The Issue is this table relies on GISTEMP. E.M. Smith has had some rather interesting things to say about the processing that code uses. Personally, I found the code to be a mess and the critical components ( station reference method and the bias method) where not well documented or very understandable.

    Well, it is a mess. And documentation? There isn’t any in the normal sense. A few fragments have some comments, but not much. GIStemp has all the markers of a hacked together ‘hand tool’ that “just growed”. There is clear re-use and repositioning of code bits with dead code left laying about. There are sloppy technique and bad “design” all over the place (including scribbling scratch files in your “source code repository”).

    I’ve “quit” a dozen times.

    It is now part of my strategy. Work on it until I can’t stand it any more and want to upchuck. Walk away and visit a “warmer” site until I just MUST come back. Take a moment to read something Really Well Done (like Lucy’s work here). Then “suck it up” and dive back in…

    As I’ve said before, if one of the people on my staff wrote this, they would be told to fix it. If it came back less than stellar, they would be “walked out”. This code is NOT suitable for shipping and is NOT suitable for “production”. It is certainly NOT suitable for anything critical (or even very important.)

    You can share one of my “GACK” moments here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/gistemp-invnt-f-a-sympathy-plea/

    An example of sloppy coding technique that warms the entire body of the data by an average of 1/1000 C is here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/gistemp-f-to-c-convert-issues/

    And a fairly technical look at the kind of “clean up” needed to make this structurally “proper” (i.e. NOT scribble scratch files in the source code) is here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/gistemp-a-cleaner-approach/

    In about 6 months I expect to have decent documentation done. Maybe. If I can stand it… (Need to visit a warmer site again ;-)

    For now, I have a working Linux port available as a “tarball” to anyone who wants it.

  88. On O Factor tonight, Joe Bastardi is giving a lecture on ocean changes causing weather changes, not AGW. Greanpeas backed out and was a “no show”.

    I love Joe. He’s telling folks to go find out for themselves, not trust him, and now he’s covering cyclone energy and the lack of a trop. hot spot…

  89. Forgive me if someone else has pointed this out already, but the comments by Nick and Scott about the Kaufmann paper brought a question to mind. Even if you accept the presentation of the Kaufmann paper as correct, why is a 2000 year period assumed to represent some sort of golden mean? 2000 years is nothing in terms of geological time. There could be any sort of trend over a 2000 year period, and it would mean nothing in terms of predicting the next 2000 years. The complete inability of the AGW proponents to grasp geological time scales never ceases to amaze me. The perfect example of this is the fixation on the 1979-2000 mean of (fill in the blank here) as some meaningful measurement of “normal”. In any geological context, or even the context of biological evolution, it’s laughable to consider an arbitrarily chose 21-year period as a representation of “normal”. There is no “normal”. There is only constant change. That’s why the continents are not where they once were.

  90. Throwing in one more comment:

    Scott, even though you chose to ignore my earlier comment, I’m with Lucy in one regard. I USED to believe. I also had a big AGW website, and was about to get a company going to plant trees and do other “mitigation” activities.

    Guess what happened while I was researching the data to build the site?

    That’s right: I realized that not one single aspect of the AGW data is credible. This was in 2002, when there were no sites like this, and I stumbled across Daly’s site. At first I resisted… the warmers were very effective at making me think he and others (Pielke, etc.) were “flakes” or “in denial”. It appeared to me as though AGW was self-evident. Then, because I happen to be a very persistent and thorough person, I actually read and processed what was going on.

    AGW is, choose one or more:
    1. a myth
    2. the result of cumulative innocent errors
    3. an outright fraud
    4. the result of well meaning but misguided researchers

    Whichever, the two things AGW is NOT are:
    1. credible
    2. actual

  91. Nick Stokes (16:32:45) :
    Frank K: Hi Nick – could you describe in detail how GISS does their zonal averaging and homogenization for the Arctic?

    It’s described in detail

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/#dataaccess

    here, and in the cited papers. Homogenization modifies sites that are out of line with near neighbours, and so has rare application in the Arctic. It also has little effect on the zonal average, which is the measure I recommend.

    Sorry Nick, but the question was about the GIStemp “homogenization” not the USHCN testing of homogenization (i.e. SHAP) which is what your link is about. USHCN only tangentially enters GIStemp in STEP0 (where it throws out most of it and blends the rest with the GHCN copy via a strange method).

    The GIStemp process is “strange and wonderous” to say the least. The first thing you must answer is “which homogenization” since it does it in several steps. The one most folks think about is in PApars.f which you can inspect here:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/08/gistemp-step2_papars/

    This is part of STEP2 that does the zonalizing.

    Luckily this code is modestly well commented

    C**** Combining of rural stations
    C**** ===========================
    C**** Stations within Rngbr km of the urban center U contribute
    C**** to the mean at U with weight 1.- d/Rngbr (d = distance
    C**** between rural and urban station in km). To remove the station
    C**** bias, station data are shifted before combining them with the
    C**** current mean. The shift is such that the means over the time
    C**** period they have in common remains unchanged. If that common
    C**** period is less than 20(NCRIT) years, the station is disregarded.
    C**** To decrease that chance, stations are combined successively in
    C**** order of the length of their time record.

    C**** The homogeneity adjustment parameters
    C**** =====================================
    C**** To minimize the impact of the natural local variability, only
    C**** that part of the combined rural record is actually used that is
    C**** supported by at least 3 stations, i.e. heads and tails of the
    C**** record that are based on only 1 or 2 stations are dropped. The
    C**** difference between that truncated combination and the non-rural
    C**** record is found and the best linear fit and best fit by a broken
    C**** line (with a variable “knee”) to that difference series are found.
    C**** The parameters defining those 2 approximations are tabulated.
    C****
    C**** Note: No attempt is made to find the longterm trends for urban
    C**** and rural combination separately; using the difference only
    C**** minimizes the impact of short term regional events that
    C**** affect both rural and urban stations, hence cancel out.

    What this says is that a semi-random collection of of “nearby” stations up to 1000 km away are all ‘averaged together’ with an attempt to to remove ‘station bias’ via a semi-random overlap interval used as a stable mean that the other curve is adjusted to match. Then any ends with less than three stations in them are pruned off.

    THEN this average is used to “adjust” the target station.

    Does any of this make sense? I don’t think so. It “cools” the history of Pisa by 1.4C and if you exclude Alpine stations from the adjusting set (i.e. stations over 900m) the bogus cooling of the past reduces to 1.0C.

    Oh, and while all the 2 through N stations have their “Bias Removed” via this mean comparison, station one gets used “as is where is” (and, IMHO, creates a bias by setting the mean to itself. Yes, I think this is a bug, but it needs confirmation.) See:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/gistemp-a-slice-of-pisa/

    Almost the same code is used in STEP3 to “homogenize” the grids and boxes.

  92. Scott Mandia (17:44:49) :

    @Smokey (07:51:30) :

    “Natural climate variability explains the climate, with no need for an extra variable like carbon dioxide.”

    Which would that be? I do not recall seeing anything in a peer-reviewed journal that shows (with any confidence and peer support) any natural forcing to be the cause of the modern day global warming. The first person to do so wins the Nobel and their name hangs on the wall with the Galielos, Darwins and Einsteins. So there is certainly an incentive.

    So you can explain the Roman & Medieval warm periods and associated following cooling rather than trying to just disappear them?

    If so then you are the one for the Nobel science, (not peace), prize.

    Just because you don’t understand what the cause is, is not a proof of non-existence.

    The only reason for the various hokey (correct spelling) sticks has been to do this disappearing act so the current warming, (probably now cooling), appears extraordinary.

    Incidentally. What is the unit of forcing?

    DaveE.

  93. I thought we were warming since the LIA. Why was the Artic cooling from then until mid 2000’s according to the Kaufman paper? Isn’t this just as disconcerting as the purported warming for the last 50 years?

  94. The ‘hockey stick’ shape refers to millenial reconstructions, yet the top post here discusses temps for a century and less, weirdly conflating two distinct periods (no one claims the instrumental record has a hockey stick shape).

    No trend analysis on the stations on the stations mentioned above, a large nunmber of stations left out, data needlessly truncated (there is more data for most of the stations above – why not include it?), and virtually all the stations mentioned show a warming trend anyway.

    I call cherry-picking and distortion. When someone gathers the data for all Arctic stations (north of L60?), and plots all data, not just summertime, then we’ll have something with the beginnings of robustness. This eyeballing a few hand-picked time series with gargantuan, trend-hiding Y axes, doesn’t even come close.

  95. Adam Grey (20:49:35) : “The ‘hockey stick’ shape refers to millenial reconstructions, yet the top post here discusses temps for a century and less, weirdly conflating two distinct periods (no one claims the instrumental record has a hockey stick shape).”

    Huh???? Wha???

    The hockey stick is clearly and expressly shown in a century or less….

    You are trying to compare apples….to green beans….and it ain’t flyin!

    Weirdly conflating what??? Huh???

    DUH.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  96. Adam Grey (20:49:35) “[…] large nunmber of stations left out, data needlessly truncated (there is more data for most of the stations above – why not include it?), […] I call cherry-picking and distortion.”

    Nick Stokes (01:55:48) “[…] cherry-pick […]”


    You have misunderstood.

    Clarification:
    1) John Daly is dead (so he cannot update his work).
    2) Not all of the Arctic stations have long records.

    What Lucy has done:
    a) reorganized Daly’s work into an intuitive visual format.
    b) indicated a desire to collaborate to update the graphs.

  97. Seems like a large majority of the proxies in Kaufmann aren’t even correlated to temperature. A good percentage seem to be used to cancel the LIA/MWP (inverted from what you’d expect) or add slope . Shouldn’t each proxy be shown to correlate to temperature before being averaged to imply temperature? I mean if they don’t show a LIA or MWP (yes, you can claim I expect to see this, at least in the northern hemisphere) or especially if they show the opposite trend, I would expect them to require validation as having a temperature signal and define polarity of the proxy.

    Just try grouping each subset together and see what story they tell…even common proxies don’t tell the same story. What a mess. Seems like there are lags as well in some proxies. I don’t see how you could ever get a temperature signal out of that combination of proxies…

    Looks to me that you could pick your specific combination of proxies to achieve the desired trend.

    Hmmm…seems like a good career choice.

    Ed

  98. Thanks EM Smith. Nick does not get the mess that GISSTemp is. you have had more patience with the code than I have, giving up a few months after hansen released it. It really annoys me when people trot out GISSTEMP series like it was a record of observations. It’s not. There is even MORE fun if you jump down the rabbit hole of the GISSTEMP data SOURCE! GHCN and then jump down THAT rabbit hole to the B91s.

    I’ll be glad when you get a version up and running. There are tons of sensitivity experiments.

  99. RR Kampen (06:09:00) :

    Re: Nogw (05:57:56) : do you think certain oil companies like ExxonMobile have no financial interests?

    do you think certain AGW proponents like Al Gore have no financial interests?

  100. Adam Grey (20:49:35) :

    The ‘hockey stick’ shape refers to millenial reconstructions, yet the top post here discusses temps for a century and less, weirdly conflating two distinct periods (no one claims the instrumental record has a hockey stick shape).

    No trend analysis on the stations on the stations mentioned above, a large nunmber of stations left out, data needlessly truncated (there is more data for most of the stations above – why not include it?), and virtually all the stations mentioned show a warming trend anyway.

    I call cherry-picking and distortion. When someone gathers the data for all Arctic stations (north of L60?), and plots all data, not just summertime, then we’ll have something with the beginnings of robustness. This eyeballing a few hand-picked time series with gargantuan, trend-hiding Y axes, doesn’t even come close.

    And what trend was officially found for temps in the 20th century? 0.7 degrees Celcius. REF: http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

    And what were the error bounds for the instruments used to establish that trend in the 20th Century? The USHCN Network has 91% of it’s instruments with an error bar greater than 1 degree celcius.
    REF: http://www.surfacestations.org/

    How do you know that the claimed 0.7 degree Celcius up trend actually occured when so many instruments can’t measure to that level of accuracy?

    I would also challenge you to demonstrate a pre 20th Century temperature proxy that has an error band less than 1 degree celcius.

    From where I’m standing, I don’t see how you can justify a conclusion that you know that there is a rising temperature trend given the instruments and proxy data that you have to work with.

  101. savethesharks,

    The hockey stick is clearly and expressly shown in a century or less….

    It’s been a long time since I played hockey, but if I remember correctly the stick has a long handle with a short foot, something like this:

    _____________/

    The term is attributed to millenial constructions which approximate that shape, as the regulars here well know.

    The instrumental record doesn’t look like that, whether global or Arctic. More like rising sine wave with a flat middle. The term ‘hockey stick’ in this context is bewildering (unless it’s an orthognal jab at another topic).

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘power phrases’. The terms you listed are used by people here, including Anthony Watts. Do you contend they are also engaging in sophistry or does a different standard apply?

    John Vaughan – thanks for the clarification. I had read that you updated the data, and so wondered why there was nothing more recent than 2003 and many series finished earlier. Even though this is so far a collative work, I still hold that a better reflection of the graphs would be all Y axes that show variabiliy (and trend) more clearly, up-to-date and all stations (as caveated in my previous post) – just for eyeballing purposes. A statistical analysis with as much servicable data as possible would be much better. Has such been done anywhere that you know of (not just summer temps)? Apart from the science institutes that collate the data, I mean.

    As the sites posting this information in this way have a clear agenda – nothing wrong with that per se – I hope you can understand that I am deeply skeptical of selective presentations. (Yes, I apply my skepticism equally)

    Tamino’s reply to this post is worth checking out.

  102. Martin Mason (11:35:03) :

    BBC world ran a TV article today on the crisis in the scientific peer review process because of corruption and fraud. Well who would have thought that could be possible. Apparently it wasn’t only the climate change papers.

    Imagine that. People are susceptible to corruption and fraud.

    And some people are scientists, which means…

  103. Paul Vaughan (14:05:22) :
    “Espen, I suggest you check your claim.”

    Sorry about that, I was too sloppy in making that claim because I wanted to make my point about the rapidly diminishing number of reporting arctic stations.

    In another post, you asked for official data from Norway. You can get forecasts and recent data from yr.no (also in english) and history and trends from eklima.met.no (free, but registration required), but I think the data at rimfrost.no should be the same.

  104. Peter Taylor (02:57:37) :The Greenland temperatures are perhaps the most important, and these are the key ones showing the latest peak – but there is a difference between east and west Greenland. If you look at the Arctic sea ice animations, this observation makes sense – ocean currents you can actually see at work.

    I have come to the conclusion from this Arctic data that if greenhouse gases are having an effect (since 1940), then it can’t be more than about 20% – and the same conclusion can be made from satellite data of the increased short-wave flux to the global oceans from 1980-2000 caused by thinning cloud – the net radiation gain is about four times that computed for infra-red ‘radiative forcing’. I’d like to know how you quantify the 20% – another day!

    As you may be aware, Syun-Ichi Akasofu, formerly head of the International Arctic Research Centre in Fairbanks, thinks the overall trend from 1800 hasn’t changed much as a ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’ I know and like his work. However, I think he trends the recovery too eagerly as an overall straight line rise. I think it’s far more likely to be cycles-within-cycles, with the longterm recovery from LIA slowing down slowly.

    Sean Ogilvie (04:44:52) :… As has been demonstrated here there is no accurate long term data. GISS claims to go back to 1880 but that is a joke. I think NASA was better when Daly first used it. And please note, these are individual, mainly-rural stations that have not been moved and “upgraded” degraded, with many records taken in times when your son’s life might depend on the record’s accuracy.

    Let’s look at the quality control of GISS. The worst I’ve seen recently is an anomaly of +19.4967 C (+35.0941 F) near the city of Akzigit Kazakhstan for January 2002. Is this the material that was here a while back, when all the brouhaha about the Russian record hiatuses blew up? It would be brilliant to see a post that covers the GISS worldwide shortfalls so you can see the full picture: the worst and the average / pattern of distortions made by the degraded records.

    Bill Illis (05:42:38) : There is one proxy which drives the big blade on the hockey stick in this Kaufman Arctic study – Series 22 – which rises to a huge +6.97C in the most recent decades. That is Briffa’s Yamal Pennisula tree ring reconstruction (This is the same one that Steve McIntyre has been trying to get the data and methods for but has not been successful.)
    Thanks Bill, I think it would make a good post here if you could write up a progress report from CA plus the essence of the Yamal story. I really appreciated your link to the pdf showing that the original Yamal material has no hockey stick at all – if I understand you right. Now I want to know what Briffa did to it.

  105. Scott,

    I couldn’t AGREE with you more!

    I doubt it. If you look at my post carefully, I am just saying more or less the opposite of what you seem to believe.

    In a nutshell: “AGW is not an issue. Mankind is not facing destruction caused by CO2. Rather, resources that would be used more effectively elsewhere are being wasted. Polititians and environmental groups are not helping us, nor can they by their very nature”.

    I suspect you don’t agree with the above. Specially since I believe yourself are one of these resources that are being wasted.

    And that is a pity because, although I obviously think you are mistaken, I admire your ability to discuss inteligently without losing your temper. You deserve to be enrolled in a better cause, and not in the one that is bringing a lot of money and power to some smart guys.

  106. savethesharks (21:35:51) “Trend-Analysis”

    I also found such calls amusing.

    I live in a jurisdiction that has a carbon tax. I’ve seen reports from a “climate institute” (financed by the government here) that would suggest:
    a) night-time lows are going to overtake day-time highs.
    b) Winter temperatures are going to overtake summer temperatures.

    A bright Stat 101 student will easily point out that the model assumptions are not met – (and so trend analysis is garbage in this context).

  107. I have just come across a very interesting post on Climate Sanity that works on an animation presented here:

    http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-does-show-increasing-temperature-trend/

    The animation seems to show, as I have understood it, that one of the biggest lies in that AGW proponents have told is that the recent warming period (which I believe has really happened), is not such a threat.

    The global mean temperature did probably increase in the last years of the 20th Century, but not mainly because days in the summer in the lower latitudes were hotter, but in part because nights in the winter had become less severe in the higher latitudes.

    How that is bad?

  108. Oliver Ramsay (07:18:15) : …Several times last winter I tried to alert the people at wunderground to the curious fact that the forecasts for these two locations each day were in the -30C range (just like the rest of the Territory) but the recorded temperatures were consistently in the range of +5C. I received one e-mail in acknowledgement with an assurance that it would be checked out. Nothing changed and I heard no more. Seeing Nick’s citing of warming in Fort Simpson, which is a proximal station, I am wondering again about the smearing of data that Surface Stations has described. It’s my understanding that the source of the Canadian data is Environment Canada, but their own site didn’t seem to list these particular stations. Does anybody know about this?
    Looks like there’s room for another whole piece here. I’m more and more sure that the whole AGW can be put to rest on the multiple faulting of the most basic records. Can you dig some more?

    Espen (07:19:58) : Juraj V: The rimfrost.no site that Nick recommended also shows much more moderate trends if you choose the 100 year trend option. And if they had offered a 70-year trend option, we’d see almost zero trend for most station…
    Hei Espen, takk for alt du har skrivet her. Har du sitt, Jo Novas bok er oversettet på norsk?

    Can you write up all this into another piece? I could add it to our website. Vær så god, email meg.

    Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:13:35) : Nice work lucy! A few years ago I searched for the (raw) data of all circumpolar stations over 66.6N with sufficiently long records. About 70% were warmer to equal warm in the 1935-1950 period than in the current period. 30% are warmer in the current period, mainly in Eastern Siberia and Alaska. The same for Greenland, I plotted all stations around the inland ice up to 2005 here…

    Thanks Ferdinand! Your link is not working however and I’d love to see your work which seems like a backup to this piece…

  109. Adam Grey (00:18:07) “Tamino’s reply to this post is worth checking out.”

    I see Tamino is quoting me severely out-of-context. An honest mistake?…

    You asked about analyses. I’ve no doubt you’ll find no shortage of analyses in the literature. Also, I encourage you to run your own analyses. One of my interests is the timing of major turning points in climate records.

    It is interesting to see how eager some are to distort my comments. Thanks for the alert Adam.

  110. Espen (00:18:40) “I wanted to make my point about the rapidly diminishing number of reporting arctic stations.”

    I agree that this is an unwelcome development.

    Thank you for the info on accessing Norwegian climate series. My hope is to study them in depth.

  111. Scott Mandia (07:11:43) : …Of course, proxy data is not as high quality as actual measurements but in studies of climate we do not have the luxury of direct measurements for the past. At some point, you have to accept the proxy data with a certain degree of error otherwise we might as well just not study climate change. My point still stands that camparing plots that are 100 years or fewer and that end in 2002 or earlier, CANNOT be used to debunk a study that shows a 2,000 year trend has changed in the past 100 years and even more so in the previous ten years.

    Scott, I remember how it was when I believed in AGW. The way I drew on arguments, “evidence”, and “proof”, and the way I viewed certain prominent skeptical contributors, was, I now realize, highly coloured by the fact that I believed the basic “warmist” scientific arguments, and therefore tended to accept more of their material without question. I can recognize the same energy behind everything you write, it’s a very subtle effect a lot of the time, but it is nevertheless powerful in causing even fair evidence to be misunderstood, and I don’t think it will change unless I can show you that every single one of those pieces on which you draw from Gristmill and RealClimate (as well as comparable pieces from New Scientist, BBC, etc) is cardinally flawed. It took me a long time to deconstruct those pieces to my own satisfaction – and it would take even longer to deconstruct them to the satisfaction of others who lapse into belief more readily than I – I’ve always been a terrier for digging out and checking evidence.

    Still, I’ll have a go.

    proxy data is not as high quality as actual measurements but in studies of climate we do not have the luxury of direct measurements for the past As I said, I recognize the style of language here. Of course, proxy data is not as high quality as actual measurements. This is one reason why I focussed on direct measurements and left the proxies aside. Measurements whose accuracy, in 1860, might well make the difference between your son’s life and death. Now while we do not appear to have “direct measurements” from the Arctic earlier than 1820, we do have other indicators beside the proxies now so widely touted. And those other indicators are distinguished by the deafening silence with which they are not mentioned in the current science – as if they are even less respectable than proxies. Now this is a point that needs examination, not just sliding over. History and archaeology show that Greenland was inhabited, and fields were cultivated, in the Middle Ages. Some of the sites still lie in the current permafrost – yet there is no way they could have been permafrost-bitten originally. I believe there is even evidence of trees, though I cannot confirm this firsthand. There is a huge, utterly huge reservoir of such studies. The true longterm patterns of glaciers. Massive evidence that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today. I have not got the patience to cite all the references here now. Some are in my basic piece (click on my name) or in other pages on our website. Much is yielded by careful Googling.

    At some point, you have to accept the proxy data with a certain degree of error otherwise we might as well just not study climate change. What Climate Audit have found is that the level of error accepted by Mann et al (“the Team”) is not acceptable – and that certain methodology is highly slipshod (it would be failed in any engineering-quality report) – and that there are plenty of studies with far less error that show the Medieval Warm Period etc – and that the unacceptable errors ALL have to do with the difference between alarmist levels of warming, and no warming at all, or only insignificant / natural warming. Again, you need to read something basic here like Caspar and the Jesus Paper

    My point still stands that camparing plots that are 100 years or fewer and that end in 2002 or earlier, CANNOT be used to debunk a study that shows a 2,000 year trend has changed in the past 100 years and even more so in the previous ten years. I had a close look at the latest “hockey stick” and it clearly starts rising sharply in, or just before, 1900. Therefore the WHOLE BLADE is within the range of actual temperature measurements. This is already enough evidence to show that the purported blade does not appear to exist at all in the good long records. It may well exist in the records from stations that suffer UHI or have been moved and upgraded put in range of warm effects like planes, maritime moderation, etc – Anthony is the expert on how many different modern measurement factors can each cause a warm bias. Lastly, the tiny difference caused by the fact that Daly died in 2004 does not change the massive import of the records from 1820 on up to 2003 or so. I’ve checked some recent NASA records, and some do indeed appear to show a little uptick at the end of the record. But I know that NASA now use “homogenization” techniques that were not used earlier, which often means that good rural records are distorted by bad station records. And since I see gross spiking in earlier records, and a tame tiny uptick in recent ones, my BS detector has been activated. No proof, and no time to prove it right now. So I leave it aside since my reasoning does NOT stand or fall on five years’ evidence.

    But I have noted it.

  112. One thing which occurs to me after staring at all these graphs and temperature lists from the arctic, is that the period that GISS uses as base period for its anomaly graphs almost coincides with a cold cycle in the Arctic. If they had used an earlier period, or a longer period, the numbers would have looked pretty different. For instance, the 1951-1980 mean annual temperature for Angmassalik, Greenland is -1.27, but the1921 – 1980 mean annual temperature is -0.88. I picked another station with long-running data, Haparanda in Finland, and computed 0.98 for the 1951-1980 period and for 1921-1980 1.29. Or how about 1.6 for the 1921-1950 period?

  113. Lucy,

    I agree that the most difficult part of studying something is removing confirmation bias. I am sure that I am not able to be 100% objective nor can anyone else without using a double-blind study.

    I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause. I also see that the folks who support the AGW theory are able to articulate their arguments much better than those that are anti-AGW. There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field. One cannot deny that but one can certainly trot out the conspiracy theory arguments or name a small fraction of experts who disagree. Science progresses through the peer-review process not via blogs and mass media interviews. To change that process would be scientific anarchy and, using a metaphor, the wheels would fall off.

    You do this blog a great service because although I do not think you are correct, you articulate your position very well and you support your arguments with data.

  114. Lucy Skywalker (02:13:59),

    Excellent critique following a great article. Thanks for both.

    I still recall the first time I saw your memorable name on this site. Scientific progress used to be accomplished by gifted amateurs who took an interest in their subject. Great to see you carrying on that tradition.

  115. Scott Mandia: “There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field”
    I used to have this position as well – and I used to be a “believer” in AGW for more than 25 years (ever since Carl Sagan introduced me to GHG theory through “Cosmos”).
    I think, however, that one of the dangers of today’s highly specialised science is that some branches will have too much “inbreed” of ideas that will not be weeded out by the peer reviewed literature. I note that there are quite a few scientists outside of climatology, but within neighbouring disciplines (be it Meteorology, Geology, Glaciology, Physics or Statistics) that are questioning the quality of the science. But I assume that the reviewers of climatology papers will all be specialised climatologists, won’t they?

  116. Scott Mandia said:
    I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause.
    That is because you see only what you want to see, Scott. You have lost your ability to be objective (if indeed you ever had it), and have become an ideologue, which is sad. Yes, you are “polite”, and have the aura of rationality, but it’s all phony.
    Many of us, including Lucy used to believe AGW was true, but, upon investigation began to see more and more problems with it, eventually becoming skeptics or climate realists. This is a journey that rational people take, people who are interested in the truth, and in science. “Conspiracy” talk would, if anything, be a turn-off, and in fact, is primarily used by the AGW Believers as lame straw man argument.
    Believe me, It would have been much, much easier to simply stay in the AGW “camp”, believing the hype, and in “the consensus”. Family and friends remain Believers, and it is now a taboo subject due to the rift it causes.

  117. MORE SEA ICE PICS–

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2009253/?multiple&resolutionlist

    Every picture
    belies claims that current sea ice in
    canada archipeligo is only 30 percent.

    NO OPEN WATER
    AT ALL IN THESE HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SHOTS OF
    SNOW SNOW COVERED SEA ICE IN THE CANADIAN ARCHIPELEGO–the sea ice may be thin and new –but that just shows how cold it is there now–and that the melt is over–pics refute
    GRAPHS and claims that the melt season is not yet finished.

  118. CodeTech (11:57:03) :
    You can’t skip the most important part of fixing a problem, and that most important part is finding out if there even IS a problem
    I’d hate to have you as my car mechanic, you’d be replacing parts that have nothing wrong with them.

    Isn’t this called preventive maintenance.
    I would hate to own a car that has been driven well past the recommended cam belt mileage. It may never break but can you afford to take the risk?

    You change the cam belt (not cheap) because if it fails you wreck the engine (very expensive)

    Very similar to global warming. Accept a large cost now to prevent a humongous cost later.

    Waiting is not an option

  119. “I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause.”

    Because you want to see the AGW in the evidence. I was there too a few years ago. It has been my experience, by far, that the believers in the general public don’t know enough about science or statistics to “get it” and see what’s really going on. Once you learn the least little bit about stats, what these guys is doing will make any real scientist cringe. Sir Issac Newton, the inventor of the scientific method, rolls over in his grave every time one of these reports are issued….

  120. Scott Mandia:

    “I do not recall seeing anything in a peer-reviewed journal that shows (with any confidence and peer support) any natural forcing to be the cause of the modern day global warming.”

    DaveE has already posted an explanation of this but I’ll add my two penneth’s worth. The hypothesis that the modern warming is not the result of natural forcing is predicated on the belief that the climate was stable in the past, as symbolised by the now debunked hockey stick. In fact, as soon as you reintroduce the natural cycle variables – Roman warm, dark age cool, MWP, LIA, modern warm then the need to invent an anthropogenic forcing agent dissappears entirely. That is why hockey stick revisionism is so crucial to the AGW debate.

    “I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause. ”

    What IS this evidence? You AGW people keep telling us about this evidence, but when asked to present it, it invariably leads a reference to the IPCC report. Yet, this report offers no evidence. Why? Because it is still anchored to an implied hockey stick – the myth of a stable climate.

    In reality, such a climate has never existed except in the minds of warmists. But in order to believe in such a fantasy, here’s what you have to do. You have to walk past a mountain of archeological, paleological and historical evidence that has been built up over hundreds of years, and pick up instead a crumb that represents Mannian bristlecone proxies.

  121. Scott
    Let’s be clear, the new Arctic hockey stick is not the mainstream view. It is a new idea and it has been published and hyped up precisely because it is new. It conflicts with existing lines of evidence and uses discredited techniques so subsequent peer reviewed papers will likely debunk it in the fullness of time. Taking a position too early is indeed bias (yours as well as ours) but skepticism of unusual new claims is always a rather more credible position to take than accepting every new paper at face value.

    Of course, the mainstream view is shifting all the time. Many “experts” are now admitting to not being so expert after all. The wilder postulations have been overturned not by AGW skeptics but by AGW believers: The hurricane scares and the gulf stream shift scare to name but two. Now it is even generally accepted that natural variation is far more important than had previously been perceived. So yes science does progress and over the long term it is progressing towards the skeptics long-held positions and away from the alarmist positions.

    Scientific progress is being slowed though by the consensus mentality and current peer-review process which acts as a gate-keeper, excluding many reasonable but more skeptical views from being published. It seems that science journals are becoming like the tabloid press where new and scary ideas will always be published but boring, “nothing happening here” stuff won’t. So you might see anarchy in new publishing methods but we see a way of combating the stifling of ideas inherent in the old systems.

  122. Smokey (18:21:14) :
    Those natural multi-decadal cycles have nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Therefore CO2 should be disregarded as an entity in any explanation of climate change.

    There are many met stations in rural UK areas (e.g. Stornaway, Lerwick, Tiree, Yeovilton, Ross-on-Wye and of course CET) that show the claimed rise in temps since 60s (not global I know, but I would trust the data) Globally Hadcrut3v GISS etc show the similar rise.

    This temperature rise has not happened between MWP (assuming this is a valid period although where you get data from is tricky since you (AAGWers) do not trust proxies of any description) and the 60s.

    The solar output is similar over milennia. There is no other source of heat.
    You are looking for a means to store solar output for a few centuries and release it now – can you suggest a storage medium for that?
    Another alternative is that the albedo of the earth has changed (reflecting energy back to space) and has been high for the last couple of centuries and was magically low during the MWP and 20th/21st Century
    Another alternative is that the insulation surrounding the earth has changed (slowing the release of energy to space). CO2 CH4 H2O O3 could all be culprits.
    H2O is transient and needs heat to increase to get it into the atmosphere
    CH4 is longer lived but gets broken down to CO2
    CO2 is even longer lived in the atmosphere
    O3 is short lived but is important in reducing the UV (energy) hitting the earth. High UV = high plant mortality+high genetic damage. Did this happen in the MWP? Is it happening now?

    Using your mate Occam, which is most likely to cause the globe to warm.
    Assume you suggest heat storage, then please tell me where this storage is that can have such a controlled release.
    Or is the simplicity of GHGs the most likely?

  123. Scott Mandia:

    “I also see that the folks who support the AGW theory are able to articulate their arguments much better than those that are anti-AGW.”

    I have followed climate blogs for some years now, and I have to say that this statement just beggers belief. Most warmists avoid arguing science and give only appeals to authority, like you have done with the following:

    “There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field.”

    And when warmists do try and debate the science their ignorance usually shows when they fail to understand major flaws in their arguments such as the lack of accumulation of ocean heat since 2003. They seem to confuse this with ENSO events and argue that the heat will return with the next El Nino. Unbelievable. Or they think that global warming is evidence of AGW.

  124. Lucy
    I’ve only checked one station using raw and homogenised GISS temperatures from Fairbanks – the homogenised version actually lowers modern and raises historic temps – but the results do not look much like those in your graphic. Do you know the source of the data used in your graphs? Is it wise to use annually averaged data?
    The plot I created averages monthly data a month at a time over the usual 1961 to 1990 period then creates a monthly anomaly for plotting. Doing a yearly plot looses too much data in my view.

    Before using the graphic it would be worthwhile updataing the temperature plots to current data and state where the data has been derived from.

  125. What I see is the blatant misuse of statistics begun by Mann 10 years ago. That’s the only way they can get a hockey stick: sleight of hand mathematical trickery…

  126. bill (06:13:49)

    “Or is the simplicity of GHGs the most likely?”

    Bill – to clarify: Is your starting position that without industrial activity the earth would experience an invariant climate at all points on the globe such that by reference to the day number of the year one would know the weather conditions?

  127. Bruce Cobb (04:52:39) :
    Many of us, including Lucy used to believe AGW was true, but, upon investigation began to see more and more problems with it, eventually becoming skeptics or climate realists

    Halleluja.

  128. Scott Mandia: “There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field”

    Scott, many others here have already said they come from an originally “warmist” stance – I too am one. I appreciate your rational approach and willingness to converse on these matters. Of course, as an experiment, you could try posting something ‘negative’ on RC (under an assumed name) and see whether it gets published, and if it does, whether you drown in a sea of slander and invective.

    Having a preponderance of support from a preponderance of experts does not a scientific theory make. History is littered with examples of where the ‘consensus’ had it wrong and continued to get it wrong for a very long time. Examples include round-earth, helio-centricity, natural-selection, plate-tectonics, helicobacter-pylori, prions; I could go on.

    Often in ‘warming’ circles, it is the sceptic who is compared to the flat-earthers because AGW is seen as the “new idea” and we are seen to not accept it, therefore being Luddite in nature. This is far from the case (at least as I see it) – AGW is a form of one of the oldest theories in the book, namely: “the sky is falling and it’s all our fault”.

    Reading and listening to the likes of Mann / Hansen et al. puts me in mind of what it must have been like to be in the presence of the Oracles of ancient times. Do we look back and think the old soothsayers had it right? No we think they made up their readings, rode the wave of public fear and had the ear of the rich, powerful and influential – sound familiar?

    AGW has become politicised and this is a bad thing for science. Scientists aren’t, as a rule, political animals. When the AGW bandwagon’s wheels finally come off I guarantee that the politicos of the time will turn around with one voice and place the blame for all the hysteria at the feet of the scientific community; it is the way of the world.

    There is growing evidence, mainly from the terms in which certain ideas are now being couched, that some in the scientific realm are getting decidedly twitchy about the hyperbole and exaggeration prevalent in the media and government circles. They are trying to position themselves apart from such excesses. However, they only have themselves to blame for not reigning in those with a public voice earlier.

    There’s only so much the general public will take of being told the end-of-the-world-is nigh before getting entirely fed up with it; especially when it starts to hit their pockets…

    Science as a whole will suffer because of AGW.

    Cheers

    Mark

  129. Excellent work Lucy, with thanks also to the late John Daly. (Just a thought: have you averaged all the data together into one series? I reckon it would give a pretty flat line.)

    I’ve only been visiting WUWT and similar sites for less than 6 months – my internet connection at home wasn’t up to the task until then and, being an oil guy, I don’t access these sites at work- but even in that short time I have noticed a gain in momentum away from the AGW side. There is a lot of excellent work being done in the fight against the AGW fantasy.

    Thanks again to yourself and Anthony, and also, for example, to the Pielkes, Roy Spencer, Jeff Id – and to all the other true climate scientists out there: the truth will out. (Especially with the continuing help of Old Mother Nature herself.)

  130. If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then why was the earth not much colder for much of the past 4 1/2 billion years, including the cretaceous and jurrasic?

  131. incidentally, when oceans heat and evaporate, causing clouds and precipitation when it hits cold air, it also releases a lot of heat and carbon dioxide. Oceans are net emitters of c02 during warming phases. You therefore have the later scenario of a cooling period with elevates levels of c02 and decreasing temperatures

  132. “Scott Mandia (17:44:49)

    @Smokey (07:51:30) :

    “Natural climate variability explains the climate, with no need for an extra variable like carbon dioxide.”

    Which would that be? I do not recall seeing anything in a peer-reviewed journal that shows (with any confidence and peer support) any natural forcing to be the cause of the modern day global warming. The first person to do so wins the Nobel and their name hangs on the wall with the Galielos, Darwins and Einsteins. So there is certainly an incentive.”

    Reply:
    If there is indeed an incentive to get climate analysis right
    then do please explain why there is no peer reviewed material noting the periodic multidecadal ocean phase shifts AND linking them with the subsequent and obvious latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems.

    It must be apparent to all that such a latitudinal shift represents a real world physical process and it should be obvious to all that the process must involve an adjustment in the rate of energy transfer from surface to space.

    Nowhere in the peer reviewed material have I ever seen an investigation of the potential implications. Instead it has been said that the latitudinal shift was the fault of mankind and permanent. When the shift started reversing from 2000 not a word was said.

    Those two processes in oceans and air when combined have the power to explain all the regional climate changes ever observed subject only to a solar induced background trend on century time scales.

    Why was the link ignored ?

    Why is it still being ignored ?

  133. John Vaughan:

    You asked about analyses. I’ve no doubt you’ll find no shortage of analyses in the literature.

    I have, and on web pages of the relevant science institutes (NSIDC, for example), as well as the semi-popular blog literature. They tend to support the notion that the Arctic has warmed significantly over the instrumental trecord. But being skeptical by nature I visit this place and others in the hope to find robust analysis that challenges the mainstream view. Not because I prefer a particular view, but to balance my references.

    In this regard, for example, I am eager to see trend time analysis of US weather stations per the surfacestations.org project.

    Also, I encourage you to run your own analyses.

    If I had the skill to do that, I would do this work for myself. The best I can do is try to understand what is presented, which includes being critical (skeptical). Well, I taught myself how to run trend lines in Exel, so I can do some of the simple stuff.

    I note that upthread the instrumental record is still being referred to as a ‘hockey stick’. What else can I make of this conflation of the ‘blade’ with the whole hockey stick but that this is a reference to a tangential topic, probably deployed because ‘hockey stick’ is a ‘power phrase’? And that therefore the premise of the top post (“what hockey stick?”) is a straw man?

    Do you disagree with the mainstream view that the Arctic has been warming over the instrumental record?

    In what way did Tamino mischaracterise your remarks? Better yet, can you clarify what you meant by, “The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years”?

    Surely, when we’re talking about a few degrees or tenths of a degree, scaling the Y axes to 50 degrees (for example) serves to conceal any trend?

  134. Scott Mandia (03:33:24) :

    I agree that the most difficult part of studying something is removing confirmation bias. I am sure that I am not able to be 100% objective nor can anyone else without using a double-blind study.

    I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause.

    Scott Mandia,

    You are “believing” and defending a hockey stick graph (non is produced by any temperature record in the real world) that denies the existence, for example, of the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the Maunder and the Dalton Minimum, this despite the fact that all these events have been confirmed in different peer reviewed scientific reports.

    You defend your point of view by referring to the elimination of confirmation bias and a double blind study necessary to confirm any results, at the same time claiming that you are not 100% objective!

    Would you therefore please explain why you see AGW in the evidence and why you think that the Medieval Warm Period (with temperatures much higher than today), the Little Ice Age, the Maunder and Dalton Minimum, much colder than today are not a strong confirmation of a climate driven by natural cycles?

  135. Another dumb layman’s thought from yours truly ….
    If the only way that it is possible to produce a figure for the global temperature (or the arctic or any other part of the planet) is by this process of ‘homogenization’ then the whole idea of trying to establish a globally averaged temperature makes no sense.
    I live less than a mile from an amateur meteorologist who recorded the max temperature in his backyard one day in July as 93.2F and duly posted it on his website as a local record. My recorded max for that day was 78.2F though I could have moved the thermometer a couple of feet and probably got another six or seven degrees.
    The whole exercise is meaningless if you are (in effect) always cherry-picking and if, as we know, a large number of the sites are producing rubbish reading anyway …

    Scott:
    “I also see that the folks who support the AGW theory are able to articulate their arguments much better than those that are anti-AGW.”
    You are, of course, joking! I haven’t heard any argument from the supporters of AGW theory, except for the few that come on here and are infected by our natural good manners. They don’t argue; they assert. They don’t articulate; they insult. You agree with every word they say or you are a “denier” (with all that that implies) or in the pay of Big Oil (apparently forgetting that Big Oil has realised that AGW is a potential bandwagon) or whatever insult they can fling at you as occasion demands.
    Sheesh!

  136. bill (06:13:49) :

    Bill, there is no heat in the “pipeline”, opposite to what James Hansen declared a few years ago. The warming of the largest heat reservoir on earth, the oceans halted about 4 years ago. Thus the increase of GHGs since 1998 has currently less effect than the natural variation (El Niño, PDO, AMO,…) which cools everything down and even has reduced the potential heat effect of the warmed oceans to near zero.

    Thus there is no reason for a need for a natural huge heat reservoir to explain the RWP, the MWP and the current warm period, it is all a matter of natural cycles, whatever the main mechanism behind it, driven by the ultimate source, the sun.

    One possible strong source of the variation is clouds: a 1% change in cloud cover has the same effect as the (theoretical) effect of all GHGs emitted since the start of the industrial revolution. Our understanding of clouds is minimal, to say the least and only with the latest satellites, some more detailed data are dropping in. But it is clear that there are variations, which influence climate and aren’t captured by the models. See e.g. the papers of Chen, Wielicki e.a. with a nice explanation at the NASA web site:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/DelicateBalance/

    There is a lot of evidence that the RWP and MWP were as warm (worldwide!) or warmer than the current period, from the Alps (passes open in Roman times, still under ice today), Greenland (digged graves under permafrost today), China (speleoterms), South Africa,… Only cherrypicking some very suspicious series like Mann and now Kaufman used don’t show this, simply because these are no temperature proxies at all in the past centur(y)(ies).

  137. Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:00:01) : There is no south pacific warm pool whatsoever, even NOAA’s once flaming red inkjet maps (now pale orange and yellow) are reflecting this reality, so the ocean heat piggy bank is exhausted, not to mention the imaginary Hansen’s tropical atmosphere heat piggy bank, the sun’s gear is in parking mode, low cloud cover increased, and the only heat to find is in the feverish imagination of global warmer’s empty skulls.

  138. KBK (11:53:16) : I keep hearing that it was warmer in the Arctic in the ’30s. While it’s clear that the summer melt is currently typical compared to the last ten years, I keep coming back [Cryosphere] which shows that the summer extent is about 60% of what it was as recently as 1970. What is the data behind this plot? Is it considered to be bogus?

    I think Cryosphere data are ok as far as they go. Shame they put the Arctic prominently at the top, while shunting Antarctica and the two together to the bottom – which suggests to me a possible bias of attitude. Problem is, CT records start in 1979. Before that, we can use other evidence to assess the state of the Arctic – photos of US subs at the North Pole in 1959; these pesky temperature records; and the evidence of history (oral and written) and archaeology.

    KBK (12:25:51) : …to the left of the plot on the main [CT] page there’s a link to the University of Illinois Sea Ice Dataset:

    Dataset 1870 – 2008

    The last link in the set, “seasonal sea ice extent timeseries”, appears to be
    date / annual / season1 / season 2 / season 3 / season 4

    The last couple of entries in the plot don’t match the data. Also, they haven’t plotted points since 2006, it seems.

    [snip]… how can they claim to have measured “sea ice extent” since 1870??? And to FIVE DECIMAL PLACES??? And then, as you note, since the 2008 autumn, NO RECORDS. Here I was, thinking that the scientific integrity in record keeping couldn’t sink any lower… Now in 1979, satellite measurements started – which promise to give reasonable planetary records – if they’ve been calibrated well enough. Now I’ve found three different values, Uni Illinois data and the IARC-JAXA graph (“sea ice extent”) and CT (“sea ice area”). I can at least understand the plausibility of this, since different ways to measure “extent” and “area” may well yield somewhat different figures. But the patterning should be the same, so long as one sticks to one source.

    Mike Odin (12:49:35)
    I found it difficult to be sure from your pics that the ice was refreezing behind the ships. But I am interested if the official report of 70% ice-free is quantifiably at odds with the actual state. Your hyperlink to a hi-res satellite shot linked to an info page, not to your picture.

  139. Ferdinand Engelbeen (09:00:01) :
    Bill, there is no heat in the “pipeline”, … The warming of the largest heat reservoir on earth, the oceans halted about 4 years ago. Thus the increase of GHGs since 1998 has currently less effect than the natural variation (El Niño, PDO, AMO,…) which cools everything down and even has reduced the potential heat effect of the warmed oceans to near zero.

    But you have not explained where the heat was cominging from to heat the ocean 4 y ago and where it is now going. The TSI is pretty much constant. i.e. the energy reaching the top of the atmosphere is constant. Something is modulating the temperatures over centuries. Many here claim the MWP and LIA are global so if the heat arriving at the atmosphere is constant something has increase the heat in the MWP and decreased it in the LIA then disappeared for a few hundred years to emerging as heat again in the 60s. If the input is constant where has the current heat come from. If as you say el nino etc have cooled things down then this can only happen if the heat is stored or additional heat radiated away.
    Storage over centuries is not feasible in my books. so what has over the last few years changed to cause the heat to radiate to allow the cooling earth cycle to begin?
    By adding many frequencieswith differing phases and amplitudes together then adding a trend it is possible to replicate the last 150 years of variations reasonably accurately:

    and by continuing the time scale to the future “predict” the next few years:

    (yes I know you can generate any shapes with a fourier series – it was just an exercise!)
    Looking at this one can see the last few years at static temperature followed by a dip over the last couple of years. On can also see similar dips and peaks into the future. So cyclical events can predict the humpy bits of temperature. BUT the slow rise is more difficult (impossible) to generate cyclically without getting massive over/under swings. In these plots a simple trend has been used to get the current temperature rise.

    Thus there is no reason for a need for a natural huge heat reservoir to explain the RWP, the MWP and the current warm period, it is all a matter of natural cycles, whatever the main mechanism behind it, driven by the ultimate source, the sun.

    The MWP was 700 years ago (approx!) what changed for this heat to dissipate and where has the current heat come from when the sun’s output has not changed significantly. the heat has not been stored in the oceans as you admit but over the last 60 years the globe has warmed. How!

    One possible strong source of the variation is clouds
    why over the last 60 years have these caused less heat to be radiated/reflected?
    Why has it taken 700 years for this event to suddenly reappear?

  140. Scott Mandia (03:33:24: “I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause. I also see that the folks who support the AGW theory are able to articulate their arguments much better than those that are anti-AGW. There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field. One cannot deny that but one can certainly trot out the conspiracy theory arguments or name a small fraction of experts who disagree. Science progresses through the peer-review process not via blogs and mass media interviews. To change that process would be scientific anarchy and, using a metaphor, the wheels would fall off.”

    So, by “articulate” do you mean obviously manufactured hockey sticks? Or, do you mean massaging data and not disclosing methods? Or, do you perhaps mean claiming the debate is over while a debate rages on?

    This is just a small sample of the obvious holes in AGW that even non-scientists can see. If it was really science then none of these things would occur.

    And, as for peer-review being the way science is one. Don’t you mean it’s that way science as been done RECENTLY? There was no such thing as peer review for centuries. Sure, peers reviewed scientific claims but there was no process. And, science moved along just fine. Arguably, peer-review is a poor method since over 80% of all peer-reviewed articles are shown to be wrong within 20 years. That you would hide behind peer-review demonstrates you aren’t willing (or don’t want) to see evidence that contradicts your view … contrary to your claims.

    AGW will fall apart because it hasn’t followed good scientific methods. Very little effort is spent on TESTING the hypothesis. Any person with any scientific knowledge understands this is a recipe for disaster. Stick around and you may learn something.

  141. bill

    The sun is sufficiently variable on century time scales.

    Even the IPCC considers that the warming of the first part of the 20th Century was most likely solar induced.

    There is no need for the oceans to store anything in the usual sense of the word. All they need to do is accelerate or decelerate the transmission of solar energy through the Earth system thus altering the balance between solar shortwave arriving and radiative longwave departing. The air circulations respond rapidly to maintain stability.

    The globe has warmed slightly over the past 60 years because of several solar cycles of increased solar shortwave entering the oceans and, despite a run of powerful EL Nino events during a positive oceanic phase, the solar input was still high enough to prevent a reduction in ocean heat content.

    Now the balance of input and output has changed due to a less active sun and a negative oceanic phase so we first saw a plateau and now a fall.

    You must also bear in mind that the air warms as the oceans cool due to the transfer of energy from one to the other. Thus the air cools as the ocean warms.

    In both situations the trump card is whether the solar input remains high enough to replace whatever the oceans release. That ultimately determines whether the background trend is warming or cooling. During a strong La Nina a weak solar input can still prevent an increase in ocean heat content and during a strong El Nino a strong solar input can still prevent a decrease in ocean heat content.

    It is a constant dance round a point of equilibrium but that equilibrium is set primarily by sun and oceans with the air providing a minor component only and the human contribution truly miniscule.

  142. “”” Home SciTech ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Aug. 20, 2009
    Warming Brings Walruses to Shore Early
    U.S. Geological Survey Says 3,500 Walruses Have Come to Alaska’s Northwest Coast as Sea Ice Retreats. “””

    Why do they keep lying to us ? IARC-JAXA says the ice has stopped retreating; looks like at least a week earlier than 2008 and at 14% more ice than last year.

    If those damn toothed furbags don’t come ashore now, they are going to get crushed by the growing sea ice; idiots! where did you take your last courses in elementary problem solving ? maybe the chow line down at the welfare department !

    Can you set them striaght on this Lucy; and by the way; nice piece of science journalism there; very quick way to get a snap shot of reality.

    George

  143. Just for completeness, I pasted the above “NEWS” headline from five minutes ago off the CBSNEWS website; the Neanderthal Times of live, as it happened eons ago “news”. Maybe the Catlin survey just gave them their up to the minute download.

  144. Scott Mandia

    Thanks for the reply. I know when you make pro AGW comments here you do not fear the inevitable criticisms to come and respect that.

    I think Lucy’s point that the blade of the recent hockey stick is inside the temp record yet isn’t shown by actual instruments is very telling, it should at least cause a great pause when reviewing a reconstruction of data which is not even known to be related to temp.

    Regarding the quality of articulation, I have personally found ZERO blogs in the AGW world where science can be discussed in a rational fashion without being snipped out of existence. The science presented is far weaker and less open form than the skeptic type blogs and the reasoning is often flawed to the point of extreme advocacy. RC is a great example.

    You can say peer reviewed journals is where science happens and state the lack of skeptic papers is due to lack of quality, Then you make the implication that we must believe in conspiracy arguments to make a case. All of this is flawed. First, conspiracies do happen although they are often simple. Political parties are conspiracies by definition. People funded by government are going to get more money from the government if they support the governments intended goals. This would happen whether someone has a conscious meeting or not. The fame and money have a sorting effect on scientists over decades of time. McIntyre’s rebuttal papers are a perfect example of correct science being bashed out of existence by the ‘mainstream’ reviewers in the driver seat.

    Therefore your quantity of scientists argument is the weakest possible one against reasonable science. Frankly, I’m sick of hearing it from believers and if this were not Anthony’s house, there might be a few cuss words to explain. The ‘conspiracy’ is that the AGW science comes from government money where the government DOES have a stake in the outcome. It’s a natural biasing process which even smart liberals seem to be incapable of understanding.

    Since you seem to be a reasonable scientist, and have enough background, I hope you’ll consider my links before as they show the truth of CPS hockeysticks.

    Finally, the fact that the blade is inside the range of temp curves is highly telling. This is a natural process in correlation and slope sorting proxy calibration algorithms. The ends of the calibration range are rounded based on the autocorrelation of the noise. This indicates that the shape of the curve is likely a result of mathematical operations comparing an upslope to noisy proxy data for sorting and scaling.

  145. Bill:

    “But you have not explained where the heat was cominging from to heat the ocean 4 y ago and where it is now going. The TSI is pretty much constant. i.e. the energy reaching the top of the atmosphere is constant. Something is modulating the temperatures over centuries. Many here claim the MWP and LIA are global so if the heat arriving at the atmosphere is constant something has increase the heat in the MWP and decreased it in the LIA then disappeared for a few hundred years to emerging as heat again in the 60s.”

    This is an excellent point, and you have inadvertenly put your finger exactly on the problem than undermines the whole AGW position. It is precisely because the AGW theorists have implicitly or explicitly accepted the premise that since the TSI must have remained constant, then the climate could not have cycled through these warmer and cooler periods.

    According to the warmist’s hypothesis, the TSI and insolation remains constant and there was no forcing and the earths radiative balance remained zero, until humans disturbed it. You ask “If the input is constant where has the current heat come from?” And you are quite correct when you imply that the heat could not have come from anywhere if there is no forcing.

    IF THERE IS NO FORCING! Notice the premise of your conclusions. There are many scientists such as Roy Spencer who have argued convincingly that the AGW assertion that there has been no forcings before humans is fallacacious. In this alternative postulate, the earths climate is a non linear chaotic system. Like any chaotic system it is NEVER stable, but continually moves towards its great attractors. Once it moves towards one attractor there is necessarily a forcing that moves it to the next. Therefore we don’t have to invent a variable TSI to account for natural cycles, because this behaviour is perfectly explained by chaos theory.

    There are plenty of good books on chaos theory and it is quite amazing to see some of the shifting patterns that emerge. I promise, you’ll never look at climate change the same way again.

  146. @Jeff Id (11:20:51) :

    I promise you I will look at your links when I have a good stretch of time to give it a fair look.

    I will, however, comment on this piece of your reply:

    Political parties are conspiracies by definition. People funded by government are going to get more money from the government if they support the governments intended goals.

    During most of the eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration they openly discredited AGW and were huge supporters of the fossil fuel industry. How was it then possible for American scientists to get the funding to do their research that cemented AGW during that time? How many studies from US scientists matched the Bush/Cheney administration agenda?

    I refuse to believe that there are conspiracies everywhere and that our scientists are perpetrating a hoax. Frankly, this thinking discredits ALL scientists in ALL disciplines even those that many of you quote here.

    Now I feel like throwing some cuss words around. (Just kidding.)

  147. bill (10:21:51) :

    Bill, Stephen Wilde did reply already with several arguments, here some additions:

    There is a small variation over the sun cycle of about 1 W/m2 at the top of the atmosphere. Despite that this gives a very small change of direct incoming heat at the surface, the real infuence is beyond that, as the tropical sea surface (upper few hundred meters) temperatures increase with 0.3-0.5 C within a few years. That is mainly by an inverse correlation between solar intensity and (low) cloud cover. Higher solar activity = lower low cloud count, which is a positive feedback for solar (anyway initially). The mechanism (GCR or other) is not proven, but the empirical evidence is clear. See:
    http://folk.uio.no/jegill/papers/2002GL015646.pdf Fig. 1
    BTW, there is no correlation found between increasing GHGs and clouds (despite what the models say).

    The main discussion is not about the 11/22 year solar cycles, but about the long term changes in solar input. The cold period which was the LIA, was the first period where we have observed data about solar activity: a complete lack of sunspots coincidences with the coldest part of the LIA. Similar for the previous century: the warming coincidences with the highest solar activity of the past 8,000 years (measured as proxy by 10Be and 14C levels). That may be less obvious for short periods (less than 30 years), but the long-term picture is there. See e.g.:

    http://noorderlicht.vpro.nl/attachment.db/18258097/Solanki.pdf

    The main problem for the AGW theory in all this: if we don’t know the exact causes and magnitude of the natural variation how can we determine what the role and magnitude of greenhouse gases is?

  148. Adam Grey (00:18:07) : John Vaughan – thanks for the clarification. I had read that you updated the data, and so wondered why there was nothing more recent than 2003 and many series finished earlier. Even though this is so far a collative work, I still hold that a better reflection of the graphs would be all Y axes that show variabiliy (and trend) more clearly, up-to-date and all stations (as caveated in my previous post) – just for eyeballing purposes. A statistical analysis with as much servicable data as possible would be much better. Has such been done anywhere that you know of (not just summer temps)? Apart from the science institutes that collate the data, I mean.

    As the sites posting this information in this way have a clear agenda – nothing wrong with that per se – I hope you can understand that I am deeply skeptical of selective presentations. (Yes, I apply my skepticism equally)

    Tamino’s reply to this post is worth checking out.

    Thanks Adam for your comments. I agree that standardising Y-axes would have been the best… however it posed a few problems: (1) I wanted to have a reply to Kaufman out while the cake was warm (2) I already had to distort Daly’s graphs in order to get them into iconic form (3) there is another Y-axis problem… the absolute range. High Arctic are incredibly low and if I showed the necessary absolute range, it would have been difficult to see either spikes or trends (4) the point I needed to convey “at a glance” is the non-trend evidence WHEN COMPARED WITH THE SPIKES AND CYCLES, for which I needed no Y-axis scale at all. For the natural variations MUST be subtracted before we can have any reasonable idea of manmade cumulative effects. But when the existing evidence of natural variations is not just ignored but is actively suppressed (read Bishop Hill, Loehle on peer-reviewed studies of the Medieval Warm Period, me on Santer and IPCC 1995, Martin Mason (11:35:03) saying BBC world ran a TV article today on the crisis in the scientific peer review process because of corruption and fraud; and TonyB on historical evidence) we have a problem of corruption in the science. Of first importance to me was to give something that could allow folk to stop long enough to look, think, ask questions, and do some research themselves.

    Unfortunately, the problem with countering AGW is that one HAS to do a bit of science for oneself, and that can be hard work; moreover it can leave one open to being called a fool, apparently with justification, by “experts”.

    Thanks for flagging up Tamino, Adam. Sorry T didn’t see fit to ask me if I’d like to reply, as might have been done without any real extra effort… it would have raised my opinion of him immeasurably.

  149. Stephen Wilde (10:56:55) :
    The sun is sufficiently variable on century time scales.

    Show your figures and their source please

    because of several solar cycles of increased solar shortwave entering the oceans and, despite a run of powerful EL Nino events during a positive oceanic phase, the solar input was still high enough to prevent a reduction in ocean heat content.
    Now the balance of input and output has changed due to a less active sun and a negative oceanic phase so we first saw a plateau and now a fall.

    Just how much does the solar input change in your books? In mine the average has gone from min 1365.7 in 1905 to 1366.2 in 1950 to 1365.78? in 2007? and 1365.5 in 1700 Leifs figures – are you suggesting that this is sufficient to cause the change in temperature?

    You must also bear in mind that the air warms as the oceans cool due to the transfer of energy from one to the other. Thus the air cools as the ocean warms.

    Just how do you propose heating warm air from cold ocean?

  150. Vincent (11:40:46) :

    The total energy on earth = total energy arriving (TSI) – total energy leaving
    If TSI is constant then the only way of changing earth energy is by changing energy leaving.

    If the temperature on earth changes lower then either you are going to have to store energy or increase transmission away from earth. Since temperature fluctuations are on centennial cycles you would have to store energy for centuries – not easy. Much simpler to take GHGs and varying the radiation from the earth as the cause. (simplistic of course!)

  151. bill (06:37:37) : Lucy: I’ve only checked one station using raw and homogenised GISS temperatures from Fairbanks – the homogenised version actually lowers modern and raises historic temps – but the results do not look much like those in your graphic. Do you know the source of the data used in your graphs? Is it wise to use annually averaged data?
    The plot I created averages monthly data a month at a time over the usual 1961 to 1990 period then creates a monthly anomaly for plotting. Doing a yearly plot looses too much data in my view.

    Before using the graphic it would be worthwhile updataing the temperature plots to current data and state where the data has been derived from.

    Bill, what I actually did was to take John Daly’s graphs, crunch them into thumbnail icons sans axes, and repeat what Daly said about his source. I now believe, looking at Paul Vaughan’s NASA URL and clicking on the world map in the Arctic, that this record (or its earlier versions, more likely) was what Daly could have used. IMO we need some spikes but not too many, for visual clarity without sacrificing the record, and Daly’s yearly plots do this for me. Certainly this source could be used for more uptodate graphs. However, this would still raise problems for me: (1) as folk here, especially E M Smith, are aware, the NASA GISS records are (now) highly suspect; they have been heavily doctored; whereas I’m more inclined to trust old maritime Arctic records where lives often depended on accuracy of the records; (2) this doctoring may have happened, or worsened, since Daly used NASA as source material; (3) all NASA records now start at 1880… which cuts off some of the most important early material.

    P Wilson (07:22:02) : bill (06:13:49)
    Oceans retain heat. Air doesn’r retain much heat. The sun works 24 hours a day

    I don’t know if anyone else has seen this, but Ferdinand E’s charts from Greenland show that recent summer temperatures have been lower, yet annual averages have stayed much the same, as in the 1930’s – 1950’s. I thought WHY?? Ha, a flash. What differentiates Arctic winter and summer? The Sun. So now we have a cooler Sun than in the 1930’s (yes – somehow, even if it’s not TSI as currently measured) but a warmer ocean, due to the past warm Sun. Presto! warmer winters (though still cold) and cooler summers. I think we actually have here a significant piece of evidence that it is the Sun – as was always supposed, before modern Science got too clever for itself.

  152. bill (12:59:47) :

    Vincent (11:40:46) :

    The total energy on earth = total energy arriving (TSI) – total energy leaving
    If TSI is constant then the only way of changing earth energy is by changing energy leaving.

    bill, I think you’re not taking into account the same thing that the entire alarmist crowd ignores: clouds. A change in cloud cover changes the energy arriving. And it doesn’t take much of a change in cloud cover to have a really big effect.

  153. bill (12:41:17)

    The IPCC accepts that early 20th century warming was most likely solar induced.

    In discussions with Leif he has tended to accept the idea of a varying solar influence on century timescales with amplification on shorter time scales by an unidentified factor internal to the Earth system. It is cycle to cycle variaton that Leif is most averse to and I agree with him on that.

    Cold ocean does not heat warm air. As energy is transferred from a warmer ocean to a cooler air the water cools and the air warms as they move towards equilibrium.
    If the water is cooler than the air then less energy is transferred to the air which cools to match the water temperature because the energy flow to space becomes faster than the energy flow from water to air. Evaporation ensures a one way flow of energy because it continues to occur when the water is cooler than the air due to the pressure and density differentials.

    However one cuts it there can be no significant energy flow from warm air to cooler water.

    In view of your apparent comprehension problems please forgive me when I decline to address your comments. I do not want my points to be obscured by purposeless confusion.

  154. I’d have a look at the GISS data for the largest city north of the arctic city: Murmansk, which has records back to 1918 (two years after it was founded).

    I first ran a linear regression on the “unhomogenized” data, and got just below zero trend (-0.06 °C / century). I then tried the “homogenized” data, and got a positive trend (+0,44°C / century). I’ve seen the same for several Scandinavian cities: The temperature data of cities get “homogenized” to a steeper warming trend than they already have (or in Murmansk case, that it didn’t even have). Something is very, very wrong with the GISS algorithms, and my guess is that it’s UHIs at all the airports that is wrongly categorized as “rural” that does this.

  155. bill (10:21:51) :… Storage over centuries is not feasible in my books.

    The 800-year lag of CO2 behind temperature in the ice core records is well explained by regarding the oceans as storing some heat, especially since some folk put the time of total ocean circulation around 800 years. However, I am partly in agreement with you… and am looking towards the Sun and towards solar cycles as the primary cause of fluctuating Earth temperatures. Before you jump on me, I’m perfectly aware that TSI appears unable to explain enough of the changes. I say, appears, since there is still correlation. I’m also aware of factions actively trying to discredit solar folk like Svensmark, sometimes stooping to false accusations and preventing replies from being published alongside the critical papers (as is generally, rightly, normal scientific practice). So we have muddied waters in which to look for evidence – which means double-checking all the time. I believe there is a lot of evidence showing at least a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures; what is still missing is a mechanism. And though Svensmark et al may be moving towards proving some of the mechanisms, I still think we have a mystery, I still think there are mechanisms as yet unknown, even by Svensmark, that we need to quantify in order to prove the solar influence. This is still a hotly contentious issue even among skeptics: witness the steam rising every time Leif Svalgaard and Geoff Sharp get into, er, discussion.

  156. bill, you said this:

    “Much simpler to take GHGs and varying the radiation from the earth as the cause.”

    Surely it is just as simple to take the oceans as varying the rate of energy transfer from ocean to air ?

    My suggestion fits observations whereas yours does not.

    The reason yours does not fit observations is because the effect of GHGs as observed by Tyndall and others is so small compared to the variations that the oceans induce so that the GHG effect is wholly swamped and unmeasurable.

  157. Lucy Skywalker (13:24:15): I still think we have a mystery, I still think there are mechanisms as yet unknown, even by Svensmark, that we need to quantify in order to prove the solar influence.

    I didn’t know, when I wrote this, that WUWT had just published a piece on just such a hitherto-unknown possible mechanism. That’s a beautiful piece of serendipity.

  158. This needs to be shot down:
    “Were the 1930s the Warmest Decade?”

    http://bartonpaullevenson.com/1930s.html

    The assumptions upon which the statistical inference are based are absolutely untenable, as any bright Stat 101 student would easily know.

    Also, the author is applying the usual tactic of trying to paint all WUWT readers with the same brush – pure distortion – we are a varied bunch.

    Tamino makes a few valid points, but as usual they are strawmen. He seems to misunderstand (or is it distortion?) why John Daly was looking at the longer Arctic station records. Also, he seems unaware (or is it distortion?) that WUWT readers are well-aware of upward temperature steps post-1976-climate-shift and following recent major El Ninos, such as 1998, as Bob Tisdale has very thoroughly demonstrated upon a number of occasions here. Finally, does Tamino understand that John Daly is no longer with us? Attacking a dead man for not updating his graphs? – more than a little distasteful, for sure.

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/arctic-stations/

    A poorly-researched post, with partisan intent.

    Alarmists seem so determined to control the framing of the strawman issue of “whether or not” there has been warming. There has been warming; there has also been cooling. There will be more warming – and there will also be more cooling.

    No amount of distortion-artist issue-frame-control weaseling can make “whether or not” there has been warming the issue

    Let’s be clear about where humanity has failed:
    The task is understanding natural climate variations and humanity has not – stress not – made sufficient progress.

    Course: Understanding Natural Climate Variations
    Student: Humanity
    Grade: F

    Some might argue that the grade should be D. Alarmists might be willing to settle for a D (and base their understanding of climate change on that foundation), but at WUWT there are people who are willing to take the course as many times as necessary to achieve an A+.

    On alarmist sites one cannot trust that legitimate comments about natural climate variation will even make it past moderation (first-hand experience). Perhaps some perceive efforts towards improving the grade as a threat.

    When we reach the stage when ENSO forecasts work like tide-tables, we’ll be somewhere (and maybe our grade will be increased to C).

  159. Lucy,

    I suspect John Daly’s data would have been downloaded from GIStemp (or equivalent). The current data link is here:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    you can either click on the map or enter a station name (if known). They offer three versions of the data for each station – “Raw GHCN data+USCHN corrections”, “after combining sources at the same location” and “after homogeneity adjustment”. The data is available for download at the bottom of each plot.

    One of my favourite games at the moment is opening all three versions of the plots for one station in different tabs and “blinking” between them (I’m not techie enough to set up a blink comparison) so I can see what effect GIStemp homogeneity adjustment has on the data. There are some horrors (e.g. Aberystwyth, UK)

    As mentioned above by bill (06:37:37) the homogenised version actually lowers modern and raises historic temps – at least this is USUALLY the case. The GIStemp code ‘looks’ for possible Urban Heat Island effects and corrects for them. As an example here is a list of stations in northern Norway.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=bodo&world_map.x=391&world_map.y=58

    Basically, if the station is labelled rural area there will be no adjustment – even if this is an airport. If there is a population size and there is warming in the last 30-50 years, the programme compares the data with rural stations (possibly up to 1000 km away) and corrects the UHI by warming the older data.

    As the final ‘product’ of GIStemp is anomaly data, +/- compared to baseline of 1950-1991, this should not be a problem. However, I’ve found many instances of stations where the warming trend of the homogenised data has been increased by homogenisation. For example – here are the plots of the three types of data for Bodo in Norway:

    Bodo (Raw GHCN data+USCHN corrections):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634011520000&data_set=0&num_neighbors=1

    Bodo (after combining sources at the same location):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634011520003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Bodo (after homogeneity adjustment):

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634011520003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    The older data is made cooler and the trend increases. Note also the subtle shift of scale in the Y axis, which disguises the adjustment. I am not suggesting there is foul play here (in disguising the adjustment), I think it is just an intrinsic flaw in GIStemp. I think this UHI malajustment happens when the rural station cools instead of warms. Another flaw in GIStemp as discussed on E.M. Smith’s blog in several posts is which stations are used in adjustment. There are some very inappropriate choices made by the programme, such as high alpine stations and those North of the Alps contributing to the adjustment of Pisa, well South of the Alps on the Mediterranian coast.

    Should we worry about this? Well, in my brief survey of UK data (96 Stations), 22 were noticably changed in some way and of these 13 seemed to have an increased warming trend after homogenisation.

  160. Ellie in Belfast: Do tell us what you find for the UK stations!
    After posting my findings about Murmansk, I checked the list of GISS stations actually used, and picked out the stations north of the arctic circle. There were only 91. However, of those 91, only the following 35 have 2009 data:

    200460003 GMO IM.E.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 806 581 R A cc=222 0
    200690003 OSTROV VIZE lat,lon (.1deg) 795 770 R A cc=222 0
    202920005 GMO IM.E.K. F lat,lon (.1deg) 777 1043 R A cc=222 0
    206740006 OSTROV DIKSON lat,lon (.1deg) 735 804 R A cc=222 0
    207440001 MALYE KARMAKU lat,lon (.1deg) 724 527 R A cc=222 0
    208910006 HATANGA lat,lon (.1deg) 720 1025 R A cc=222 12
    214320004 OSTROV KOTEL’ lat,lon (.1deg) 760 1379 R A cc=222 0
    219460006 COKURDAH lat,lon (.1deg) 706 1479 R B cc=222 0
    219820002 OSTROV VRANGE lat,lon (.1deg) 710 -1785 R A cc=222 0
    230740000 DUDINKA lat,lon (.1deg) 694 862 S C cc=222 65
    232050004 NAR’JAN-MAR lat,lon (.1deg) 676 530 S A cc=222 14
    241250005 OLENEK lat,lon (.1deg) 685 1124 R A cc=222 0
    241430002 DZARDZAN lat,lon (.1deg) 687 1240 R A cc=222 0
    242660006 VERHOJANSK lat,lon (.1deg) 676 1334 R A cc=222 0
    243430002 ZHIGANSK lat,lon (.1deg) 668 1234 R A cc=222 7
    251730006 MYS SMIDTA lat,lon (.1deg) 689 -1794 R B cc=222 10
    252480003 ILIRNEJ lat,lon (.1deg) 673 1680 R A cc=222 0
    719170006 EUREKA,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 800 -859 R A cc=403 0
    700260000 BARROW/W. POS lat,lon (.1deg) 713 -1568 R C cc=425 40
    701330000 KOTZEBUE, RAL lat,lon (.1deg) 669 -1626 R A cc=425 10
    42200001 EGEDESMINDE lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -527 R A cc=431 0
    43120000 NORD ADS lat,lon (.1deg) 816 -167 R A cc=431 0
    43200000 DANMARKSHAVN lat,lon (.1deg) 768 -187 R A cc=431 0
    28360003 SODANKYLA lat,lon (.1deg) 674 267 R A cc=614 0
    10010003 JAN MAYEN lat,lon (.1deg) 709 -87 R A cc=634 0
    10080002 SVALBARD LUFT lat,lon (.1deg) 783 155 R A cc=634 0
    10250000 TROMO/SKATTO NORWAY lat,lon (.1deg) 695 190 S A cc=634 0
    10280003 BJORNOYA lat,lon (.1deg) 745 190 R A cc=634 0
    10650000 KARASJOK lat,lon (.1deg) 695 255 R B cc=634 18
    10980003 VARDO lat,lon (.1deg) 704 311 R B cc=634 9
    11520003 BODO VI lat,lon (.1deg) 673 144 S C cc=634 25
    221130005 MURMANSK lat,lon (.1deg) 690 331 U C cc=638 107
    221650004 KANIN NOS lat,lon (.1deg) 687 433 R A cc=638 0
    222170000 KANDALAKSA lat,lon (.1deg) 672 324 S C cc=638 15
    20800003 KARESUANDO lat,lon (.1deg) 685 225 R B cc=645 12

  161. Espen (13:14:37) “I first ran a linear regression on the “unhomogenized” data, and got just below zero trend […] then tried the “homogenized” data, and got a positive trend”

    This is a tricky issue. You will find that the authorities even publicize such discrepancies – it’s not always hidden – (but sometimes you might have to fire off an e-mail to get the info if it is not on a website). There are legitimate reasons for homogenizing, but the methods I’ve investigated are heavily suspect. In short: It’s a messy issue because the homogenization needs to be done, but there is not always (or even generally) a problem-free way of doing it. Thus, in practice one thing one can do is what you’ve done – i.e. run analyses on both series (homog & not) and report on both — at least that empowers fair judges with awareness.


    Re: Adam Grey (07:55:41)

    Be careful with your ideas about trend analysis.

    A bright Stat 101 student will easily point out that the model assumptions are not met – (and so trend analysis is garbage in this context).

    I encourage you to develop the foundation you need to apply regression analysis properly. You need to be able to run diagnostics on the residuals. [Note: Most people don’t – and worse: most people don’t even know they should (let alone know how to do so properly) — included in this group: scientists – plenty of them — I can even point to examples who are top in their field (but I won’t – just being polite).]

    The preceding notes have nothing to do with climate politics. This is just basic & intermediate-level applied-stats – and it is relevant for any dataset (including ones that spark controversy).


    Adam Grey (07:55:41) “In what way did Tamino mischaracterise your remarks?”

    Let me ask you this: Can you point to the context in which my quoted-words arose using the info Tamino has provided? (Note: If you point to this page, you reinforce my point.)


    Adam Grey (07:55:41) “[…] can you clarify what you meant by, “The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years”?”

    Have a look at Tamino’s notes for some insight. He does a fair job handling that (particular) issue. Time-frame & aspect-ratio can be manipulated to distort; Tamino & I agree on this. He makes the same points I have taught Stat 101 students (and I am not responsible for others quoting me out-of-context &/or misunderstanding &/or misrepresenting my words).


    Adam Grey (07:55:41) “Do you disagree with the mainstream view that the Arctic has been warming over the instrumental record?”

    Please review my comments in this thread (without assuming that the majority of people who comment here are represented by the few partisans that also comment here).


    Re: Lucy Skywalker (13:00:44)
    It is important to differentiate between solar irradiance and insolation (the latter of which is influenced by clouds, aerosols, …) [Really, that is all it takes to get the solar-nazis off our backs – they’re just looking for that differentiation – (and few are offering it (…yet)).]


    Lucy Skywalker (12:07:08) “For the natural variations MUST be subtracted before we can have any reasonable idea of manmade cumulative effects.”

    Careful here – be mindful of shared variance and the (possilby untenable, especially in a geophysical setting) assumptions which go into decompositions.

  162. Paul Vaughan (15:31:09) :”Let’s be clear about where humanity has failed: The task is understanding natural climate variations and humanity has not – stress not – made sufficient progress.
    Course: Understanding Natural Climate Variations
    Student: Humanity
    Grade: F”

    Well said Paul. Just think if all the AGW cult had been expending all of their scientific energy [and grant money] on legitimate research of the causes, not some dead-end sidestreet of a trace-gas that is essential for life on this Earth, just think how much more scientifically advanced we would be in understanding how everything works.

    And just because they accept a “D” because it passes [and gets them more grant money]…does not make it right…or scientific.

    Its unfortunate…as brainwashing and mass delusion can dumb down even the brightest in the world.

    Seeing the many bright minds on this site, one is given hope that cooler heads will prevail…even amidst the madness and mass deception of the new worldwide religious cult of the 21st Century: The International Church of the Great Anthropogenic Warming.

    Spanish Inquisition, please step aside. The award goes to…..

    And by the way: Brilliant post, Lucy. Thank you. There is nothing like real-time observation. Give ‘em hell!

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  163. Hmmmm!
    Not impressed with the title here.
    I have now gone through the GISS data (homogenised) and differenced the monthly figures of each station then averaged over the locations in the above map. It may not be classical hockey stick but its very close:
    Over 2 degC difference between 1882 and 2008
    A steady rise from 1966 onwards rising to greater than 0.5C higer than 1936 temp

  164. Can anyone here point me towards sea temperatures in the Arctic area?

    I am looking for those at the surface and at varying levels and that were taken both in open water and under the ice.

    I wish to compare histrorc readings taken during expeditions 150 years ago with modern readings, but need a like for like basis. I also need location specific readings rather than homogenised ones.

    Thanks to anyone who can help

    tonyb

  165. Paul Vaughan: “It’s a messy issue because the homogenization needs to be done, but there is not always (or even generally) a problem-free way of doing it.”

    I agree, but with the low number of stations that GISS is actually using now (6262 in total, including stations no longer reporting), I don’t think it should be impossible for NASA to find out which of the “rural” stations that are actually located at urban heat islands like close to airport runways. Take Murmansk, which was founded 2 years before the record starts, and which is the only really large city north of the arctic circle. Its population has decreased sharply since the nineties, but it most probably had a strongly increasing UHI effect from 1918 until then. So how come homogenising increases the warming trend, and contributes to making the temperature trend of the 35 operating arctic stations completely useless? It must be nearby stations in “rural” areas that are placed at UHIs.

    I looked at a few Swedish cities (south of the Arctic Circle) and found the same thing – amplification of a possible UHI-related trend instead of removal of it, one possible contributor here may be the Norwegian site Gardermoen which is supposed to be “rural” but which really is located at or near Norway’s largest international airport.

    So, don’t you think that it would actually be better to use the data “as is” than to apply a procedure that seems to skew them even more?

  166. savethesharks (22:31:46) :

    What the article about Greenland glaciers mention is a comparison of current speeds compared to the “normal” speed of the glaciers. But they fail to ask the scientists what is “normal” in this case, the speed in 1935-1950 (probably as high as today), or the speed of 1970-1990, when ice sheet edge temperatures were lower…

  167. Re: savethesharks (22:31:46) :

    “Uh huh….like the GISS data can be trusted….at all.”

    For Holland, where I live, the GISS-data are always accurate.
    Everyone on this forum can check for their own location.

    I think all will find the GISS-data for their location correct, which would be a remarkable coincidence of course :)

  168. Thanks to everyone, supporters and critics alike – everything that’s been said here has been helpful to me. I shall be working on it all. I’d like to thank Jeff Id, because it’s probably because he published me that WUWT took it up. Jeff’s blog is an excellent science workshop, engineering quality. Do use him for this.

    Ellie, I’m going to try and turn your Bodø graphs into a blink comparator. If it works well (I’ll post the link here) then you might like to email me a few more bad’uns you find.

  169. savethesharks (19:23:14) “Just think if all the AGW cult had been expending all of their scientific energy [and grant money] on legitimate research of the causes, not some dead-end sidestreet of a trace-gas that is essential for life on this Earth, just think how much more scientifically advanced we would be in understanding how everything works.”

    You give serious cause for reflection Chris.

    The good news is that a handful of bright minds can accomplish a lot with a small budget.


    Re: Espen (00:22:07)

    The homogenization procedures I have studied are the ones used by Environment Canada (since they are the ones relevant to my research contracts). The various comments here about GISS homogenization procedures leave me with the impression that they are very different. [When an opportunity arises, I’ll look into it — thanks for the notes.]

  170. Lucy Skywalker (12:07:08) “Of first importance to me was to give something that could allow folk to stop long enough to look, think, ask questions, and do some research themselves.”

    Success.

  171. Paul Vaughan: Unlike some posters here (e.g. E.M. Smith) I haven’t looked into how the homogenization procedures of GISS really work, but it’s well-known (e.g. from this blog) that they adjust urban stations by values from “nearby” (which can be up to 1000 kms) rural stations. The underlying problem that creates such oddities like the adjustment of Murmansk in the wrong direction is probably that many “rural” stations aren’t really rural – a lot of them are at or very near airports.

    Speaking of Canada: Do you have any idea why there is only one single reporting Canadian station left in the GISS data set that is north of the arctic circle? Yesterday I filtered out all 91 “actually used” (see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt) stations that are north of the arctic circle. I then looked up all these stations and made a note in the list if the last year of reporting wasn’t 2009. Here’s what I got for the Canadian stations – this is the relevant part of the original station list, and I have put a star and a year on the left hand for those stations that haven’t been reporting in 2009. And as you can see, that leaves only Eureka covering all of arctic Canada!

    *1990 710510000 SACHS HARBOUR lat,lon (.1deg) 720 -1253 R A cc=403 0
    *1997 710720006 MOULD BAY, N. lat,lon (.1deg) 762 -1193 R A cc=403 0
    *2008 710810005 HALL BEACH,N. lat,lon (.1deg) 688 -812 R B cc=403 10
    *1989 710810010 MACKAR INLET,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 683 -857 R A cc=403 0
    *1991 710820000 ALERT,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 825 -623 R A cc=403 0
    *2008 710900006 CLYDE,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 705 -685 R A cc=403 8
    *1989 710910000 LONGSTAFF BLU lat,lon (.1deg) 689 -751 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 710920000 DEWAR LAKES,N lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -712 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 710930000 CAPE HOOPER, lat,lon (.1deg) 685 -668 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 710940030 BROUGHTON ISLAND,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 675 -638 R A cc=403 0
    *1960 710950010 POND INLET,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 727 -780 R A cc=403 0
    *1976 710950030 ARCTIC BAY,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 730 -851 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719110000 SHEPHERD BAY, lat,lon (.1deg) 688 -934 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719110010 PELLY BAY,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 684 -897 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719110020 GLADMAN POINT A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -978 R A cc=403 0
    719170006 EUREKA,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 800 -859 R A cc=403 0
    *1978 719170010 ISACHSEN,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 788 -1035 R A cc=403 0
    *2008 719240005 RESOLUTE,N.W. lat,lon (.1deg) 747 -950 R A cc=403 0
    *2008 719250005 CAMBRIDGE BAY lat,lon (.1deg) 691 -1051 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719250010 JENNY LIND ISLAND A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -1017 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719250020 BYRON BAY A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 688 -1091 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719370000 LADY FRANKLIN lat,lon (.1deg) 685 -1132 R A cc=403 0
    *2008 719380005 COPPERMINE,N. lat,lon (.1deg) 678 -1151 R A cc=403 8
    *1989 719380010 CAPE YOUNG A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 689 -1169 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719480000 CAPE PARRY,N. lat,lon (.1deg) 702 -1247 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719480010 CLINTON POINT,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 696 -1208 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719480020 NICHOLSON PENINSULA,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 699 -1290 R A cc=403 0
    *1969 719480030 HOLMAN,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 707 -1178 R A cc=403 0
    *2008 719570006 INUVIK,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 683 -1335 R A cc=403 0
    *1977 719570020 FORT MCPHERSON,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 674 -1349 R B cc=403 0
    *1989 719570030 AKLAVIK A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 682 -1350 R B cc=403 0
    *1989 719570040 TUKTOYAKTUK,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 695 -1330 R B cc=403 0
    *1989 719680000 SHINGLE POINT lat,lon (.1deg) 690 -1372 R A cc=403 0
    *1989 719680010 OLD CROW A,YT lat,lon (.1deg) 676 -1398 R A cc=403 9
    *1989 719680020 KOMAKUK BEACH A,YT lat,lon (.1deg) 696 -1402 R A cc=403 0

  172. Canada and Greenland are indeed a part of the world, but they are not the whole world.

    Trend 1929-2008 shows some cooling over Greenland and a small part of the Arctic indeed. Globally temperatures have risen.

  173. To–
    Espen (03:59:55)

    Here is a satellite pic of Eureka–

    http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?lat=79.98000336&lon=-85.93000031&zoom=8&pin=Eureka%2c%20Nunavut&type=hyb&rad=0&wxsn=0&svr=0&cams=0&sat=1&sat.num=1&sat.spd=25&sat.opa=85&sat.gtt1=109&sat.gtt2=108&sat.type=VIS&riv=0&mm=0&hur=0

    http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=98

    Appears to be a bit of icebreaker activity in the 30 miles closest to Eureka-but even with that– the
    sea ice area is over 90 percent ice.
    Try zooming out for perspective–

    Also
    more sea ice pics (reposted from above for
    the convenience of those who do not wish to
    “waste” their tme searching this thread or
    messing around with this picture stuff}

    http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2009253/?multiple&resolutionlist

    Every picture
    belies claims that current sea ice in
    canada archipeligo is only 30 percent
    (YOU KNOW–FROM THOSE CUTE
    POLAR SEA ICE GRAPHS
    ALWAYS BEING BRUTED ABOUT).

    NO OPEN WATER
    AT ALL IN THESE HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SHOTS OF
    SNOW SNOW COVERED SEA ICE IN THE CANADIAN ARCHIPELEGO–the sea ice may be thin and new –but that just shows how cold it is there now–
    and that the melt is over–pics refute
    GRAPHS and claims that the melt season is not yet finished.

    And icebreakers–

    Remeber these ships are in almost constant movement and are contstanly
    disturbing the surroundingg water and ice–
    and they stop for only short periods(minutes or hours)–

    icebreakers–sEPT 2009–

    090905-G-8744K-184 (For Release)

    This particular pic makes obvious the rapid (almost instant)
    refreeze of disturbed water-ice near the icebreaker–

    notice the really dark shiney smooth water within 20 feet near the ship–

    that is calm smooth mirror reflective water–(there is no wind in this pic-
    so the ruffled surfaces are all ice)–AND
    WATER APPEARS NOWHERE ELSE IN THIS PIC–

    and EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE PIC IS ICE–refrozen or otherwise–

    the white stuff is snow covered or frost covered ice–
    the semiclear greyish mottled(with streaks and curved lines) between the boats is
    fresh frozen —

    if you never have been on a large area of ice(even a lake) get someone
    who has, to interpret it for you–
    once you have been on ice it is easy to recall and relate features–

    Here are more icebreaker pics SHOWING
    the rapidky refreezing and reconsolidating ice–

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page2/

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page5/

    OF COURSE SOME WILL DEMAND ENDLESS REPETITIVE EXPLANATIONS TO
    GENERATE AND INFLICT
    CONFUSION AND BOREDOM ON OTHER READERS who might be interested
    in the ICE pictures.-

    NUCLEAR ICEBREAKERS–

    http://www.barentsobserver.com/next-generation-nuclear-icebreakers-gets-funding.4582270-116320.html

    http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Tests_Nuclear_Icebreaker_On_Open_Sea_999.html

    http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/our-fleet/kapitan-khlebnikov

    RUSSIA APPARENTLY DOES NOT ANTICIPATE
    AN ICE FREE ARCTIC–and obviously
    russia intends
    to dominate the arctic over the
    delusional blabbermouths who can talk a snowflake
    to earth but cannot figure out what happens
    when lots of snow flakes get together–

    ———-

    by the way–speaking of graphs–
    delusional is the only word for anyone that
    puts any trust in those things–
    for example– here is a comparison
    of the most looked at graph in the warming debate–
    the same graph archived from a year ago–
    compared with todays publication–

    http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

    what a joke–
    why would anyone believe that the comparison curves of the
    2007 to 2008 curves are any more accurate this year than last??

    Last year the curves almost intersected in sept–
    this year the the 2007 2008 lines are suddenly
    moved more than 400k kilometers apart.

    The comparison is very clear(keep looking at it
    the difference will become clear)

    likewise why would you believe that this year’s 2009 sept
    ice area graph is any more accurate–
    it too could be off by 400k kilometers–and probably will
    change by 400 k by next year in order to make next year’s
    graph more warmest friendly.

    It boggles the mind to try to plumb
    the depths of statistical contortions
    and outright perjury disgorged by the warmer accolytes.

    They are commanding billions of people to
    dress in bikinis
    when they know that even mukaluks wont be warm enough–
    to survive in the looming freeze–
    they are sending billions of unprepared and unwarned
    victims to certain death–
    they are a pack of slimey genocidal sbs.

  174. bill (12:59:47) :

    Vincent (11:40:46) :

    “The total energy on earth = total energy arriving (TSI) – total energy leaving
    If TSI is constant then the only way of changing earth energy is by changing energy leaving.”

    “bill, I think you’re not taking into account the same thing that the entire alarmist crowd ignores: clouds. A change in cloud cover changes the energy arriving. And it doesn’t take much of a change in cloud cover to have a really big effect.”

    Clouds do make a difference, but my point is that chaos theory accounts for a changing climate even without clouds or any other variable that effects insolation. I tried to explain this in my previous post. Basically what happens when you drive a chaotic system is that it NEVER converges to equilibrium. It is like a pendulum that always overshoots the equilibrium point, except that in a chaotic system it is attracted to another equilibrium point. As this movement occurs, the radiative balance is constantly shifting from positive to negative. There is no need to argue for energy storage.

    Why don’t people get this?

  175. RR Kampen (06:34:23) “Canada and Greenland are indeed a part of the world, but they are not the whole world.”

    Physical Geography 500 – Lecture #1 – Sentence #1:
    The stability of parameter estimates should be investigated across a range of spatiotemporal scales.

    Also, I see no reason to not include a spatial axis that runs from the centre of the Earth out into space, rather than hopelessly focusing on only the surface.

    We must develop an understanding of complex spatiotemporal turning points. It is not enough to put all our eggs in the basket of global-scale-only surface-only univariate linear extrapolations. The model assumptions are untenable and way too much is at stake.

    Suggested: Read Yu.V. Barkin.

    – –
    Espen (03:59:55) “Do you have any idea why there is only one single reporting Canadian station left in the GISS data set that is north of the arctic circle?”

    The only comment I’m going to offer is that there are some very weird politics involved.

  176. Ferdinand Engelbeen (00:24:00) :
    savethesharks (22:31:46) :
    What the article about Greenland glaciers mention is a comparison of current speeds compared to the “normal” speed of the glaciers. But they fail to ask the scientists what is “normal” in this case, the speed in 1935-1950 (probably as high as today), or the speed of 1970-1990, when ice sheet edge temperatures were lower…

    Very prescient observation, Ferdinand.

    As you know, the time spans you mentioned correspond nicely with the warm and cool oscillations of the Atlantic Multidecadal.

    Agree with you that they lack the insight to point out what you have here.

    Thanks for the comment.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  177. Lucy, I had a chance to look at this (which you inquired about in a recent WUWT thread):

    “Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability”

    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm

    My main concern about what is presented there:
    More explicit consciousness needs to be devoted to the possibility of lurking & confounded variables. [Imagine there is a lurking (you don’t know about it – maybe it’s hiding in the bushes where you can’t see it) variable that is driving both of 2 confounded variables, so it may appear [to those not devoting chronic vigilant attention to the possibility of lurking & confounded variables] that one of the 2 confounded variables is driving the other. 2 unrelated people may work the same shift on opposite sides of city; it could be erroneous to think person A is causing person B’s work schedule — more likely their schedules are both being driven by the day (and society’s conventional adherence to daily-structure tradition).]

    Useful clues are assembled on Cheetham’s page [thank you very much Alan] – and I would advise investigators to consider what is posted there in conjunction with Barkin’s work. Barkin has a missing link. It might not be long before people start cluing in that this could be a reason for a natural hockey-stick-blade.

    You may want to think about how Barkin & Cheetham’s work is related to Scafetta’s model in his February 2009 presentation…

  178. Tell me one point please.

    Does the red arrow in Jeff Id’s animation of Arctic sea ice denote the wind direction, or that of ice barycenter change?

    Thanks.

  179. The above-mentioned “wind direction” actually means “wind direction and (average) velocity”.

    Thanks again in advance.

  180. Paul
    I think you mean what most folk say as “Correlation does NOT prove causation”, yes?… Since I regard the whole universe as a mystery, I see the possibility of “lurking variables” everywhere. Particularly, I suspect Quantum Physics Zero Point Field, and /or understanding of resonance effects, may be needed to help “explain” why small solar changes “produce” rather larger climate changes. Fascinating what’s coming in right now that seems to support the “electric universe” ideas. And folk who report on the “smell” of space, it sounds to me like the effect of something like electricity.

    PS Could you give me a ref for Barkin, for me to start?

  181. These 2 are worth comparing:

    Southern Ocean SST south of Indian Ocean

    [credit: Bob Tisdale]

    Iceland surface temperatures:

    [credit: John Daly]

    (Flip one or the other upside-down.)

    Oceanographers, is this reflecting valve-like activity off of the Southern Ocean’s Antarctic Circumpolar Current?

    It is consistent with what Sidorenkov & Barkin are saying.


    Lucy Skywalker (00:47:01) “Paul I think you mean what most folk say as “Correlation does NOT prove causation”, yes?”

    One can read that from an understanding of confounded & lurking variables, but those who blast this oversimplicity at folks lacking a conceptual understanding of lurking & confounded variables will get nowhere with their scolding memorization-oriented educational efforts.

    The important thing to recognize is that confounded variables convey info about each other (it’s like looking at a shadow – sometimes a very clear one cast from a good angle) and that we are dealing with nonrandom phenomena.

    …so when people bark that correlation does not imply causation in these threads we can ignore them most of the time if we have a solid conceptual understanding of lurking variables, confounding, & randomness. (The assailants are targeting people with no conceptual understanding upon which to base their own thinking.)


    Barkin gives an alternative to “mysterious forces”. It is important to understand that even his work is based on assumptions, even though he removes the “most stupid” assumptions used by the mainstream. Other bright folks should be able to advance Barkin’s work incrementally. Removing “stupid assumptions” is brutally difficult mathematically (which should be a huge clue as to why we are stuck with the junk in the first place). I’ve spent many years around academic statisticians and I can tell you bluntly: totally garbage assumptions underpin a staggering amount of what passes as “science”, “economics”, etc. The mainstream acceptance of what I call convenient dramatic oversimplification (cdo) is a serious threat to nature & civilization. It could take more than a century to overcome this major obstacle in our society even if we initiate strategic reforms to the mainstream education system promptly.


    Lucy Skywalker (00:47:01) “Could you give me a ref for Barkin, for me to start?”

    During a busy week I decided to make no effort to take notes in a tradeoff for speed in locating & plowing through the sheer volume of Barkin material. A considerable proportion of his work is difficult to locate, behind pay-walls, in Russian, &/or heavily mathematical. Perhaps I can find some time to try to retrace my steps, generate a reference list, do some bookmarking, copy some key sentences, etc. in the days ahead.

  182. RR Kampen (08:03:49) “Of course there are several stations north of the Arctic in Canada used for the GISS dataset. […] http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    That’s the link I originally advertised (in the earlier thread that preceded this one).

    It appears you have not read Espen’s posts carefully. His concern is about station closures and lags in record-updates. (Note the dates listed in his post upthread.)

    Environment Canada has shut down stations over the years and they are much slower in updating records (for remaining stations) than many of the other agencies one sees in links in these threads. For example, we see threads here addressing monthly updates that are posted within a few days of the end-of-the-month. Meanwhile, I have to wait upwards of 2 years to get the records I need from Environment Canada websites. The standard explanation is that time is needed for quality control, but in my experience (to put it politely) this is a partial truth.

    – –
    RR Kampen (08:03:49) “No politics involved in the real world.”

    amusing claim

    If you want to see something laughable, take a look at the CO2 “data” for Alert, Nunavut, Canada provided by CDIAC. [They’re not actually data – they are modeled stats with rigid structure artificially imposed.]

  183. RR Kampen:

    You write: “Of course there are several stations north of the Arctic in Canada used for the GISS dataset. No politics involved in the real world.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

    You wrote this as a comment to Paul Vaughan’s comment to me. Try to read my post about the GISS stations in arctic Canada again – and you will see that out of 35 stations actually used for the GISS analysis, ONLY Eureka has been reporting in 2009. Of the remaining stations, only 6 have reported in 1998-2008, and only 3 more have been reporting since 1989.

    (note: With “arctic” I here mean north of the arctic circle – not north of 60N as is also commonly used)

  184. (My previous comment was made almost obsolete by Paul Vaughan’s answer, but it hadn’t appeared yet as I wrote my answer)

    But I have one more question for RR Kampen: Earlier you wrote “For Holland, where I live, the GISS-data are always accurate.”

    Really? Which stations?

    I tried to find stations with long records in Holland, and found De Bilt (near Utrecht) which shows the same result of homogenization as the arctic cities: The temperatures from 1881 to 2009 first shows a flat trend (-0.05C/century), but after homogenization there’s suddenly a +1C/century trend! For Milano, Italy, it’s even stranger – a -0.7C/century trend is turned into a +0.7/century trend. I.e. the homogenization performs the reverse of an UHI correction, despite the fact that Linate is an airport very close to a huge city!

  185. Aber (04:13:24) “[…] http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/
    , where it is shown that the most pronounced Arctic warming since the end of the Little Ice Age from 1919 to 1939 was ocean related, respectively caused by the West Spitsbergen current.”

    Thanks for that link, which leads to useful info, along with some ‘interesting’ ideas here:
    Bernaerts, A. (2007). Can the “Big Warming” at Spitsbergen from 1918 to 1940 be explained? PACON 2007 Proceedings 325-337.

    http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/pdf/Submitted_conference_paper.pdf

    Surprisingly: No mention of LOD (length of day), polar motion, and factors influencing them [but WWI is suggested as a cause].

  186. Instructions for creating a Natural Arctic Hockey Stick Blade beginning around 1970:

    1) Download the DJFM (DecemberJanuaryFebruaryMarch) Winter NAO Index:

    http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/jhurrell/Data/naodjfmindex.asc

    2) Calculate a cumulative sum.
    3) Graph.

    Positive DJFM NAO brings warm, wet storms & wind from the west to the European North Atlantic & the nearby polar night of the Arctic, thus keeping winters in that area more moderately-maritime & less harshly-continental by limiting ice expansion.

    For further insight, compare with:
    a) Negative of Southern Ocean temperature anomalies.
    b) time-integrated rate-of-change of aa index.
    c) estimated specific mass of Antarctic ice.
    d) EOP (Earth Orientation Parameters).

  187. Espen (16:43:16) :

    “But I have one more question for RR Kampen: Earlier you wrote “For Holland, where I live, the GISS-data are always accurate.”

    Really? Which stations?”

    Shall we say: all?
    Warming is reality in Holland and no-one needs numbers to know it. There must plainly be error in your analysis. Warming since 1900 is over 1.5° C everywhere in Holland and there are consequences to flora, fauna and the saying ‘Every Dutchman was born on skates’. Today they are born on skeelers.

  188. Espen (15:15:30) :

    RR Kampen:

    “You write: “Of course there are several stations north of the Arctic in Canada used for the GISS dataset. No politics involved in the real world.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/”

    You wrote this as a comment to Paul Vaughan’s comment to me. Try to read my post about the GISS stations in arctic Canada again – and you will see that out of 35 stations actually used for the GISS analysis, ONLY Eureka has been reporting in 2009. Of the remaining stations, only 6 have reported in 1998-2008, and only 3 more have been reporting since 1989.

    (note: With “arctic” I here mean north of the arctic circle – not north of 60N as is also commonly used)”

    I use Arctic for polar circle too (having been up there a year of my life).
    As for the Canadian (non-)stations, I’m taking note of your and other’s info on this. I doubt that info but will have to find the evidence to the contrary.

    There can be no political reason for excluding Canadian stations this year though. Too cool a winter, spring and summer.

  189. Tamino just posted a rebuttal to Lucy’s graphs and assertion “What sudden recent warming?”

    See: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/reply-to-lucy-skywalker/

    The data presented there makes it quite clear that there IS a recent warming trend in the Arctic and why Lucy’s graphs are very misleading.

    As I said before, Tamino is brilliant at analyzing data but he has little patience for ignorance so look at the DATA he presents instead of focusing on the TONE of his message.

  190. Hmm reading Tamino I see a spoilt kid throwing his toys out of the pram. Lucy’s graphs don’t show what he wants so he says look at the ‘proper’ graphs.
    Unfortunately Lucy’s point is that the ‘proper’ graphs are wrong, deliberately biassed by grant chasing ‘scientitists’.
    Tamino proves that faked data leads to false conclusions.

  191. Espen (16:43:16) :

    You wrote: “I tried to find stations with long records in Holland, and found De Bilt (near Utrecht) which shows the same result of homogenization as the arctic cities: The temperatures from 1881 to 2009 first shows a flat trend (-0.05C/century), but after homogenization there’s suddenly a +1C/century trend!”

    I’m flabbergasted here. Where on earth did you get your data from?
    I have a graph, showing the temperature correction for De Bilt, at http://nlweer.com/img/18mrt2007a.PNG.

    It was produced by using data directly from KNMI, at http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie.

    No way you can get a trend reversal like that.

    At http://www.knmi.nl/klimatologie/onderzoeksgegevens/CNT/, again from the offical Dutch Meteorological Institute website, you can download corrected temperature data for Central Netherlands. I made a graph showing the annual average, at http://www.weerwoord.be/uploads/1592009133430.png. Temperatures are definitely rising in the Netherlands, UHI effect or not.

    Regards,
    Alwin

  192. Scott Mandia

    During most of the eight years of the Bush/Cheney administration they openly discredited AGW and were huge supporters of the fossil fuel industry. How was it then possible for American scientists to get the funding to do their research that cemented AGW during that time? How many studies from US scientists matched the Bush/Cheney administration agenda?

    I refuse to believe that there are conspiracies everywhere and that our scientists are perpetrating a hoax. Frankly, this thinking discredits ALL scientists in ALL disciplines even those that many of you quote here.

    Now I feel like throwing some cuss words around. (Just kidding.)

    I missed this comment before and now the thread is older. Your reasoning is pretty weak here. Bush didn’t have the power to stop the environmental movement just as obama doesn’t have the power to force it down our throats. They both need congress.

    Why do you think there have to be conspiracies “everywhere” just to have a system which rewards an expanded government viewpoint? It sounds like deliberate exaggeration for the purpose of discrediting rather than a real discussion. It’s completely obvious that the governments have been specifically constructed with individuals interested in their expansion of funding and control. To my knowledge, the world has never known any different form of government than one intending to expand. The IPCC is a perfect example.

  193. Phil. (08:00:50) “Really do you mean these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/aes-algr.html Why do you suggest they are not data?”

    I mean these:

    http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/altsio.co2

    They are stats (i.e. calculations made from data), not data. Artificial annual structure has been imposed.

    I suggest running some diagnostics if you have time. The “data” suggest a very interesting phenomenon that happens every January like clockwork. When I discovered this I considered the possibility that this could be an important clue about circulation near the North Pole (after reading an article about the polar vortex & sudden stratospheric warming events), but before leaping to conclusions I ran diagnostics and discovered that the interesting phenomenon was a purely artificial result of (CDIAC) processing. As is often the case, we discover something other than what we are trying to discover.

    I recommend use of the following (from NOAA) for analyses:
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/flask/month/alt_01D0_mm.co2

    A comparison/contrast of diagnostics on the 2 series would make an excellent classroom example in an intermediate level applied stats course. If I have time in the days & weeks ahead, I’ll polish the related graphics and share them.

  194. @ Jeff Id (07:56:49) :

    Republicans had a majority of the House between 1995 and 2007.
    Republicans had a majority of the Senate between 1995 and 2007 (except a tie 50/50 between 2001-2003.

    My point is that given your comment “People funded by government are going to get more money from the government if they support the governments intended goals.” “expanding the government viewpoint” would have led to anti-AGW funding which should have led to anti-AGW published articles.

    Instead, with a science-illiterate President and Congress having a majority of Republicans whose viewpoints were quite anti-AGW, AGW was cemented. Your statements have been shown to be false by the record. The real science triumphed despite the government viewpoint.

    You should read Mooney’s The Republican War on Science. BTW, I am a registered Independent and I always vote. I have voted for only two major party candidates since I have been 18: Reagan and Obama. I never voted for Gore, BTW.

  195. Scott Mandia (06:39:13) “Tamino just posted a rebuttal to Lucy’s graphs […] http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/reply-to-lucy-skywalker/ […] makes it quite clear that there IS a recent warming trend in the Arctic […]”


    Tamino: “Now it’s not just obvious. It’s startling.”

    Nature is powerful, but I’m not “startled”.


    Positive DJFM NAO brings warm, wet storms & wind from the west to the European North Atlantic & the nearby polar night of the Arctic, thus keeping winters in that area more moderately-maritime & less harshly-continental by limiting ice expansion.

    Compare with:

    …and with Tamino’s “Lat. 64N to 90N” graph here:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/reply-to-lucy-skywalker/

    Also compare with:

    1) Figures 9, 10, & 11 here:
    Carvalho, L.M.V.; Tsonis, A.A.; Jones, C.; Rocha, H.R.; & Polito, P.S. (2007). Anti-persistence in the global temperature anomaly field. Nonlinear Processes in Geophysics 14, 723-733.

    http://www.uwm.edu/~aatsonis/npg-14-723-2007.pdf

    http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/gem/papers/npg-14-723-2007.pdf

    2) Figure 7 here:
    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2005). Physics of the Earth’s rotation instabilities. Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions 24(5), 425-439.

    http://images.astronet.ru/pubd/2008/09/28/0001230882/425-439.pdf

    3) Southern Ocean SST anomalies:

    [credit: Bob Tisdale]
    (Flip it upside-down for comparison.)

    4) Figure 1 here:
    Sidorenkov, N.S. (2003). Changes in the Antarctic ice sheet mass and the instability of the Earth’s rotation over the last 110 years. International Association of Geodesy Symposia 127, 339-346.


    Regarding blog-article titles:

    Lucy’s comment might help upset-people understand:

    Lucy Skywalker (12:07:08) [Sept. 10, 2009] “Of first importance to me was to give something that could allow folk to stop long enough to look, think, ask questions, and do some research themselves.”

    It seems we each have a different role. Inflammatory titles, themes, & controversy stimulate learning, but maybe there are alternatives for those who have already secured power and are positioned to raise the game – maybe not.

    Certainly there is no shortage of non-alarmists who know there has been warming. I’ll repeat selected excerpts from my comments above:

    =—–
    […] the author is applying the usual tactic of trying to paint all WUWT readers with the same brush – pure distortion – we are a varied bunch.

    […] a few valid points, but […] strawmen. […] WUWT readers are well-aware of upward temperature steps post-1976-climate-shift and following recent major El Ninos, such as 1998, as Bob Tisdale has very thoroughly demonstrated upon a number of occasions here.

    Alarmists seem so determined to control the framing of the strawman issue of “whether or not” there has been warming. There has been warming; there has also been cooling. There will be more warming – and there will also be more cooling.

    No amount of distortion-artist issue-frame-control weaseling can make “whether or not” there has been warming the issue.

    Let’s be clear about where humanity has failed:
    The task is understanding natural climate variations and humanity has not – stress not – made sufficient progress.

    Course: Understanding Natural Climate Variations
    Student: Humanity
    Grade: F

    Some might argue that the grade should be D. Alarmists might be willing to settle for a D (and base their understanding of climate change on that foundation), but at WUWT there are people who are willing to take the course as many times as necessary to achieve an A+.

    On alarmist sites one cannot trust that legitimate comments about natural climate variation will even make it past moderation (first-hand experience). Perhaps some perceive efforts towards improving the grade as a threat.

    When we reach the stage when ENSO forecasts work like tide-tables, we’ll be somewhere (and maybe our grade will be increased to C).
    —–=


    As for Tamino’s comments about individual stations:

    His analyses suggest he is aware of the importance of investigating the stability of parameter estimates across of a range of spatiotemporal scales, but he does make a few misleading comments that might mislead the statistically-uneducated into falsely thinking it is somehow a bit wrong to look at individual station records – a slight inconsistency in his presentation.


    Suggested:
    1) Look beyond anthropogenic computer fantasies.
    2) Read the works of Russian scientist Yu.V. Barkin.
    3) Learn about nature.

    4) Don’t expect it to be easy to sort out complexity.
    (We won’t find our way with a simple univariate extrapolation.)

  196. I’m not going to look at Tamino again tonight. I did a whole page to answer him but since then I’ve done some more really interesting stuff. Inspired by Bill Illis, I’ve now been circling Yamal. The “local” thermometer records make Yamal treerings look like another spoilt teenager. Even those with serious UHI. Coming soon at a blog near you.

    Uh, getting behind with other bits of all this now. And I missed the beekeepers meeting.

  197. I can see another long haul ahead – grasping the full Arctic record, systematically comparing Daly (I feel he used an earlier version of NASA GISS not bedevilled by homogenization) with GISS uptodate, sniffing out station problems from a distance – uh, how? But I now know that at least two stations are at airports, Longyearbyen and Gardermoen (Oslo), probably several more.

    Still working on the stuff emerging from this thread here and for Tamino, here; these pages will take time to come up to scratch.

  198. Jeff Id (07:56:49) :

    Why do you think there have to be conspiracies “everywhere” just to have a system which rewards an expanded government viewpoint? It sounds like deliberate exaggeration for the purpose of discrediting rather than a real discussion. It’s completely obvious that the governments have been specifically constructed with individuals interested in their expansion of funding and control. To my knowledge, the world has never known any different form of government than one intending to expand. The IPCC is a perfect example.

    It’s almost a “law of nature” that governments will seek to expand their role and funding. That’s what makes the US Constitution interesting is that it is largely framed around limiting government.

  199. RR Kampen: “Shall we say: all?
    Warming is reality in Holland and no-one needs numbers to know it. There must plainly be error in your analysis. Warming since 1900 is over 1.5° C everywhere in Holland and there are consequences to flora, fauna and the saying ‘Every Dutchman was born on skates’. Today they are born on skeelers.”

    Please present some hard facts – “noone needs numbers to know it” is not good enough (except if you’re more than 80 years old, then I’d listen to your first-hand experiences from the 30s and 40s).

    Alwin: “I’m flabbergasted here. Where on earth did you get your data from?”

    I got it it from GISS (I thought that was obvious, since I answered RR Kampen’s claim about the GISS data for Holland). Have a look for yourself:
    Combined GISS data: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
    Homogeneity adjustment adds a trend to the older data:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=633062600003&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    I don’t find any other dutch stations than De Bilt in the actually used GISS records, but you can have a look at Uccle (which is in Brussels), which shows a similar parttern to De Bilt and the arctic stations: The 30s and 40s were similar to recent years.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=606064470003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

  200. Tamino’s main “evidence” in his post is Barrow. Well, the name of the station in the Giss system is “BARROW/W. POS”, i.e. it’s probably the weather station at the Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport…

    REPLY: Indeed it is. I’ve verified it. It is also an ASOS intrumentation. Much of the weather data above the Arctic Circle is gathered at airports. – Anthony

  201. Espen (22:25:02) :

    “Please present some hard facts – “noone needs numbers to know it” is not good enough (except if you’re more than 80 years old, then I’d listen to your first-hand experiences from the 30s and 40s).”

    The hard facts have been presented by Alwin.
    There are four versions of the De Bilt record in the GHCN db of Nasa.

    “The 30s and 40s were similar to recent years.”

    They most definitely are not.
    The warmest 18 years in our record are 1988 or later, 2009 wil become the 19th. That will push 1934 into 20th.

    The three warmest winters since at least 1706 appear in recent years, 2007 is #1. On the other hand, 1940, 1942 belong to the top four harshest winters in the record since 1900 and 1947 was one of the coldest in the entire record.
    http://nlweer.com/png/DeBiltWinterT.png , see 1935 on 8th place – meantime 2007 (at +6.5° C) and 2008 (at +5.1° C) have pushed that one down.

    I’m 42 and I know the difference between recent years and the seventies/eighties. It is vast.

  202. Espen (22:51:29) :

    Tamino’s main “evidence” in his post is Barrow. Well, the name of the station in the Giss system is “BARROW/W. POS”, i.e. it’s probably the weather station at the Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial Airport…

    REPLY: Indeed it is. I’ve verified it. It is also an ASOS intrumentation. Much of the weather data above the Arctic Circle is gathered at airports. – Anthony

    Thanks Anthony and Espen. I knew Tamino’s evidence would have use somehow.

  203. Lucy, don’t pay too much attention to Foster (aka Tamino). He is the equivalent of a Party hack. The forum only allows cheerleaders for him and the rest of the Hockey Team. No criticism of any work produced by the team is tolerated. All critics end up banned. Lucia, a better applied mathematician by far, and a balanced person and objective thinker, is only the latest to be banned.

    You cannot rely on his statistics either. He is a reasonably competent applied mathematician, but he uses this to bamboozle. The classic example of this was in his series on PCA and the Hockey Stick. Read the last item in the series, and shake your head in amazement at how anyone who actually understands PCA could do this. Also read the remarks from Ian Joliffe about how his position has been totally misrepresented.

    And all this was in defense of th MBH Hockey Stick, a lost cause if ever there was one, and one that is immaterial to the total theory by the admission of the theory’s own advocates. So why exactly does it have to be defended in every last detail to the bitter end? Because Mann is on the team, and Party dogma is one and indivisible, you buy it all or you are a heretic.

    All that will happen on OpenMind is that you will come in for personal abuse of a wholly irrelevant sort, suggestions about your funding (as if funding by George Soros was somehow from the Angels). OpenMind is basically a waste of time if climate is your concern. Its denizens are not people who are thinking about climate, but are people for whom personal abuse on internet forums is an important source of emotional release. In this I would include Foster himself, who colludes where he does not participate.

    You might wonder why Foster bans critical comments, and wonder does he not realize that this makes his blog boring and lowers readership. The answer is that its not boring to him, and he is not interested in readership. What he wants, and what he gets, is a chorus of people spouting personal abuse following his leadership. He likes it. Weird but true. We however don’t have to go anywhere near it, and should simply ignore him and his crew.

    So, post one response for anyone who may be interested, and then move on.

    By the way, your main point is right. Natural variation over the centuries is the real question about both ice cover and temperatures in the Arctic. We know enough to be skeptical about the apocalypse, but not enough to be certain either way about the exceptionality of recent trends. This is the rational and balanced view of the facts and observations we have. But such positions do not lend themselves to generating personal abuse, so they will never find a voice on OpenMind.

  204. Paul Vaughan (01:33:27) : “That’s pretty serious contrast.”

    – but Milano Linate – an airport in a huge city – is even stranger:
    Unhomogenized:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=623160800000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Homogenized:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=623160800000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    My car broke down on the Autostrada near Milano Linate on a hot summer day, so I know how hot asphalt can get in that place ;-)

  205. Paul Vaughan (01:33:27) & Espen (22:25:02)

    Re alteration of De Bilt record after GIStemp homogeneity adjustment.

    That is one of the worst I have seen, but results like this are all over GIStemp. I don’t know which is worse – homogeneity adjustments for UHI that CAUSE a warming trend, or rural stations that aren’t rural, are warming and aren’t adjusted.

  206. Michel, I know. I never read Tamino normally. But I felt that a response from me was necessary for the record. So I read his three posts about me (wow – fame at last!) but ignored all comments.

    I thought he was downright stupid, shooting himself in the foot, to say “I don’t believe you!” when I said I knew perfectly well that the Arctic had been warming a bit recently. I laughed, it was just funny.

    I’ve done what was needed and have returned to the real science. Like Anthony does – note with what tender loving care he responds to some of the folk that hack off the rest of us. It can take time but I only do what I need to feel clean again! And curiously, the magical Universe often throws me gifts from such unlikely sources.

  207. Serious suggestion:
    In pondering issues with station records, consider very carefully what might be temporally confounded with any urban heat island (UHI) signal. (I would suggest thinking about varying oceanic-continental contrast, particularly in winter, in conjunction with awareness of north-south asymmetry & counter-balanced oscillations of Earth’s shells, particularly the multidecadal ones along the dominant north-south axis.)

    While it is essential to have watchdogs keeping an eye on data integrity, that might be pennies, nickels, & dimes compared to the big natural factors towards which science has barely turned an eye.

  208. Ellie in Belfast (12:09:56) “rural stations that aren’t rural”

    I found it amusing that they have Agassiz, British Columbia, Canada listed as “rural”. (Someone should look at a topo map. I have a hunch that a lot of the folks confusing the climate discussion have never lived in & around mountains and moved up & down them regularly for years throughout the seasons.)

  209. Espen (11:47:50) “Milano Linate – an airport in a huge city – is even stranger:
    Unhomogenized:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=623160800000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

    Homogenized:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=623160800000&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1

    I’ve seen some stations for coastal British Columbia, Canada that also reverse trend after homogenization (in documents I received by e-mail from the provincial government, if I remember correctly). If I have time, I’ll try to dig through the archives…

  210. Re: Espen (16:12:27)

    Thanks for those notes on alpine sites in Europe Espen.

    A few years ago I received the green light to do a study of climate across an elevation gradient in my area, where we have strong winter “Arctic Outflow” winds that *blast* through the mountain valleys to the coast. Such cold, clear winter conditions alternate with more dominant episodes of wet, warm(ish) winter weather dominated by the Pacific (i.e. from the other direction – it’s like a fight between air masses on either side of the mountain range that runs along the whole west coast of North America). Relationships between precipitation & temperature *literally flip over* with the winter alternations (easily revealed using coplots). I know from first-hand experience that there are dramatic variations at mid-elevations as the snow-line fluctuates. (There can be 5 metres of snow at 1000m elevation while there is none at sea-level – the snowline fluctuates on about a ~weekly timescale.)

    Regrettably, there just aren’t enough stations across a range of elevations to reflect what outdoor enthusiasts know about the band of sensitivity, so what is “just common sense” to hikers & skiers doesn’t even exist quantitatively-speaking (i.e. in official records). Additionally, there are very serious problems with the very few non-sea-level monitoring stations that exist. I had such absolutely undeniable evidence of severe problems (physically impossible events) that the government official I contacted immediately admitted to very serious quality control problems.

    I was quite disappointed, as I know from first-hand experience that there is a prominent mid-elevation signal. I am left pondering alternate means of studying the historical variations in the pattern. One possibility might be to construct an index of historical Arctic Outflow frequency via careful conditional-analysis of sea-level stations, but that is going to miss a lot of useful info (for example about variation in the patterns of orographic effects) and involve error.

    We’re stuck working with what we have. It’s probably worth the painstaking effort as these Arctic Outflow events are associated with large-scale northern-hemisphere winter patterns – so any major shifts in regional signal patterns might yield insight into events of global significance, for example the anomalous 1920-1940 interval (including the severe 1930s North American drought).

    The story of the “big warming” at Spitsbergen provides a good example of how much intuition we can develop about statistics (including averages) by focusing on sensitive locales (that amplify signals).

  211. Thanks again for the reply. Of course you must realize the house and senate were split pretty closely and many republicans are pretty liberal. The point was that major support would be required to eliminate the MASSIVE funding for envirowhackos and also that it is quite obviously a politicized issue.

    I’ll never understand why people voted intentionally for socialism in the past election- it’s beyond my ability. It’s also difficult to believe a neutral position when voting for an obvious extremist like our current president. However, we’re way off topic now.

  212. You know, I’ve got one more comment.

    expanding the government viewpoint” would have led to anti-AGW funding which should have led to anti-AGW published articles.

    This is faulty logic. You have missed the obvious, Bush did not support AGW, however the funding comes through science foundations all naturally seeking to expand their funding and grant money. While there is resistance from the sane people on earth, there was no attempt to stop funding of AGW. Instead IT WAS EXPANDED massively!

    How can you think the government so monolithically follows the top guy? Govts always seek more growth and more funding as long as it is in any way possible to continue. Bush was an alleged conservative who allowed expansion of the central government more than any previous president allowing the corrupt banks to run over us lowly taxpayers in the single largest theft in history. He made no effort to shrink govt.

    This is a very strange discussion. I’ll leave it alone now Anthony. Sorry for the OT.

    REPLY: Let’s leave the discussion, end now. – Anthony

  213. First he has a go at Lucia, then at Lucy. (And bans both)

    Using The Team copyrighted statistics, I’d say the trend is pretty clear.

    Lucy is a fine name btw, especially since it is also my daughter’s name!

Comments are closed.