Waxman Malarkey 3: Impact Zone Alaska

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Once again, I return to that endless font of misinformation, the Waxman Markey website. In this case, I look at their claims about Alaska. This one will be short and sweet. Their claim is that Alaska is roasting, as in the picture below:

Figure 1. The dessert known as “flaming baked Alaska”. Ice cream covered with meringue, doused with brandy, and set on fire. Sweet.

The Waxman Markey website page on Alaska  says:

Over the past 50 years, Alaska has warmed by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, much more than anywhere in the lower 48 states.  This dramatic temperature change is causing the landscape of Alaska to change faster than anywhere else in the United States, threatening infrastructure, wildlife, and Native Alaskan culture.

I fear that these numbers must from the well-known Government Misinformation Agency.

Figure 2 shows the real numbers:

Figure 2. Alaskan temperatures, as the average of all first-order stations in the state.

There are a few things we can see here. First, Fig. 1 clearly shows the dependence of Alaska temperatures on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The PDO is a long-term shift in Pacific sea surface temperatures. The PDO has a warm phase and a cool phase, as shown in Figure 3. It shifts from one phase to the other every thirty years or so.

Figure 3. Cool (positive) and warm (negative) phases of the PDO. IMAGE SOURCE

The PDO shifted to the cool phase in the late 1940s. It went back to the warm phase in 1976-77. And recently, it has gone back to the cool phase. This is clearly visible in the Alaska temperatures. As much as Waxman Markey wants to blame the shift in Alaskan temperatures on “global warming”, the science says otherwise. The changes are due to the shifts in the PDO.

Second, their claim that Alaska has “warmed by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit” is not true. The largest trend to 2009 in the Alaska temperatures is 1954-2009, which is 3.24 degrees.

I also note that they are using a very different period from the one they used in their claims about the US Northeast, where they used the trend from “the 1970’s”. Obviously, they are picking their time period to exaggerate their claims …

The main point here is that because the PDO gives Alaska warm periods and cool periods, it is meaningless to use any trend starting from a cool period and ending in a warm period, or vice versa. Yes, you can get a positive trend from anywhere on the left half of the graph to anywhere on the right side of the graph … but that doesn’t tell us anything about what’s happening.

Short and sweet.

About these ads

62 thoughts on “Waxman Malarkey 3: Impact Zone Alaska

  1. It’s so obvious there’s money in the malarkey bill. Hopefully, all these blatant lies will force jailings of these fraudsters.

  2. Willis, sorry to pick, but “endless font of misinformation,” should read “endless front of misinformation,”?

    Having lived in that north side of hell for 4 years, I can tell you that even if it were 7 degrees F warmer, during the winter, it wouldn’t make one whit of difference.

  3. I’d bet UHI had a lot to do with the increases anyway. Fairly obvious for Anchorage and the like.

    I thought the one in the far north might be real. Then I discovered Wiley Post Will Rogers Memorial Airport in Barrow. Do you think it was tarmac 50 years ago?

  4. A composite time series at all 22 1st-order stations in Alaska with a complete record from 1977-2009 shows a DECLINE in temperature over the past 33 years. The green linear least-squares trend line slopes downward which clearly indicates a small DECLINE in temperature from 1977 through 2009:

    The blue line shows the horizontal 33-year mean temperature line.

    Hopefully Rep. Markey’s staff will take the time to read the article and comments at WUWT.

    -Mark Albright

  5. One scary thought is that these falsehoods are typical of the law making ‘process’.

    It happens that engineers and scientists have become interested in this case and so the dishonesty is slightly more apparent.

    What would happen if the lies went unquestioned?

    Would health care be ‘reformed’ to the benefit of insurers and lawyers? Would bankers be subsidized to steal taxpayer money? Would wars be started and maintained on false pretexts?

    I guess we know the answers to those questions. Depressing.

  6. I’d also point out that every one of those stations is an island of energy using humanity in a sea of coldness.

    But, PDO reigns supreme.

  7. Sitka, Alaska from CRU data

    Can you say: long-term cooling?
    Melt the wax and pass the melarkey.

  8. James Sexton says:
    June 30, 2010 at 3:17 pm

    Willis, sorry to pick, but “endless font of misinformation,” should read “endless front of misinformation,”?

    Having lived in that north side of hell for 4 years, I can tell you that even if it were 7 degrees F warmer, during the winter, it wouldn’t make one whit of difference.
    _____________________________________________________________________
    HMMmm, Perhaps if we move the White House, Congress and all those lobbyists to Fort Yukon Alaska we might get more realistic laws, especially if Congress was only in section during the winter. Oh and make the lobbyist offices at least 10 miles from Congressional Offices. Of course in the interest of saving energy and reducing CO2 lobbyists and Congressmen are all required to walk, not drive cars… Well that is what they want US to do isn’t it???

  9. I used to think that outright lying was not going on, but preferetial, self-serving selection. Now I think that outright lying is going on. It is too easy to get the facts straight, especially when you have staff who do that for you. Lying – or purposeful non-knowing, for political or ideological gain IS going on. “For the greater good”, I suppose the thinking goes, even if it is for the greater good of keeping the money flowing.

  10. Always double check before correcting Willis…lol – especially on the use of English.
    Sure, he tosses in a dusty Shakespearean one now and again- just cuz he likes words, which are the tools of cognition- but font is not yclept. It’s in common daily use.

  11. This warming is real. It traces back to the Tesoro sponsored snow machines at the Palins house.

  12. Sigh, ok, missed that one, font for fount. Very nice! :-) I was a bit distracted, had comm. probs with my AMR system.

    Gail Combs says:
    June 30, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    Totally agree, I was stuck at a more modern fort, but Yukon would be appropriate, or Greely or Wainwright, Richardson is for whimps, but I doubt they could play there, either. It would do this nation great good if they went up there to convene. “The government that governs least, governs the best.”—–I would attribute that quote, but there’s some discrepancy, Thoreau(circa 1849) has it in print, but I’ve seen it attributed to each Paine, Jefferson and Franklin. Apparently, we’ve forgotten what was common knowledge not only in the world of science, but government and politics, also.

  13. It would appear that Hansen might agree with you on this one.

    Or at least a GISS trend map for warming between 1950 and 2009 shows that most of Alaska is covered by the 1-2 deg C zone for warming, which is 1.8-3.6 F.

    As for the PDO, a PDO trend from 1950 to 2009 is definitely positive. A PDO trend from 1922 is just barely negative, and a trend from 1950 to 2009 in GISS shows Alaska mostly in the 0.5-1 deg C warming zone.

    From 1980 to 2009 the PDO trend is strongly negative. A temperature trend in GISS shows the southern part of Alaska cooling (faster than just about anywhere else in the world on land), and the northern part warming, and this area really stands out as the only area on land that far north that is not dominated by warming (funny enough Yamahl being another one….)

    And on UHI, satellite trends show a similar trend globally to GISS (20% lower if you pick Uah from 1980, but closer if you go with RSS, or limit to either UAH or RSS data since 1992 when an instrument change occurred)

  14. Mark Albright-Are you the Mark Albright, who was fired from your position as Wasington State’s Assistant climatologist by Phil Mote for having the temerity to tell people that the “declining snowpack” claims were not the whole story?

    If so, you sir are a true scientific hero, in my opinion.

  15. Steve, how does your graph not show Alaska warming? Looks like the anomalies have been positive this past decade when all the other profound changes (such as the sea ice loss have occurred). Also, why didn’t you include data from 2007-2009? Are you trying to hide even more warming?
    Do you really think we’re not going to see past your attempts to hide the warming that is so obvious in the Arctic?

  16. Jefferson certainly believed in small goverment. Two real quotes:

    “I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive…”

    and…
    “I think our governments will remain virtuous for many centuries; as long as they are chiefly agricultural; and this will be as long as there shall be vacant lands in any part of America. When they get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, they will become corrupt as in Europe.”

    See here.

  17. Gail Combs says:
    June 30, 2010 at 4:06 pm

    HMMmm, Perhaps if we move the White House, Congress and all those lobbyists to Fort Yukon Alaska we might get more realistic laws, especially if Congress was only in section during the winter. Oh and make the lobbyist offices at least 10 miles from Congressional Offices. Of course in the interest of saving energy and reducing CO2 lobbyists and Congressmen are all required to walk, not drive cars… Well that is what they want US to do isn’t it???

    The better choice is Amchitka. It is an island, best known of underground nuclear bomb testing in the 70’s. Wind that starts at either pole seemingly reaches Amchitka unimpeded. So, it tends to rain sideways there. It really is a beautiful place, but you would never know because the low cloud cover and rain hardly ever stops. You also can’t drive anywhere from there.

    So, I say put the whole government in leaking quonset huts on Amchitka. Set up a few gun implacements to sink the lobbyist yaughts, and viola, 15-day congressional sessions with large incentives against grandstanding, long-winded speeches, etc. Maybe we could get some efficiency to start at the top.

  18. JeffBrown,
    So quick to try and find fault. You need to direct your questions to the Alaska Climate Research Center – as they are the source of the map – not Stevengoddard. Please let us know what their response is.

  19. @ jeff brown says:
    June 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm

    Far be it from me to to carry Steve’s water, but did you look at the graph? First, that’s not Steve’s. Secondly, it seems to go to 2009. Click on the graph, read the bottom. See, who you can yell at about hiding stuff. Poor dumb Alaskans, they don’t even know how to read their own thermometer. Is that your assertion? Or are you just being unreasonable to Steve? Personally, having lived near the Arctic for a few years, I can tell you that a little warmer up there is a good thing. Weather that’s happening or not, I can’t tell, neither can you. How do I know that? Check where the official thermometer is for that area north of the Arctic. I’d be happy to enlighten you, just ask.

  20. While we’re quoting founding fathers, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” — George Washington ……… Again, we’ve forgotten what was once, common knowledge.

  21. The PDO is also clearly seen in salmon populations. Salmon survival is extremely sensitive to temperatures at the time of ocean entry. In the warm phase of the PDO (which commenced in the 1970s) we see a strong decline in the southern populations (California and Pac NW) and an increase in the northern stocks especially Alaska. The relative geographic abundance reverses in the cool phase. A several thousand year record of the PDO is shown in the paper by Gregory-Eaves et al “Diatoms and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population dynamics: Reconstructions of salmon-derived nutrients over the past 2,200 years in two lakes from Kodiak Island, Alaska” http://www.springerlink.com/content/wx55814002x7v823/

  22. jeff brown says:
    June 30, 2010 at 6:05 pm
    > Steve, how does your graph not show Alaska warming?

    If you click on the “real numbers” link above the map, it will take you to Steve’s site, the Alaska Climate Research Center.

    There you will see the original confusion about °C and °F, but you can also read:

    The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2009) for all stations. It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2009, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.

    No one is saying the warming didn’t happen, merely that it’s step signal associated with positive PDO. We’ll be seeing the effects of a negative PDO soon enough.

  23. All Mr Malarkey er um I mean Markey and Mr Was between his ears er I mean Waxman have to do to see that their theory is nothing but **** (self censored) all they have to do is go live in Alaska.
    I was in Alaska in 2008, a fine year to be there for the first time ever.( If you like being frozen in two seconds flat) Anchorage had the third coldest October on record and Ft Yukon almost broke the record of -80F.
    Last year it wasn’t as cold, does that mean that Alaska is warming? Has anyone seen the Yukon river in June the last few years?

    You know you’re in a cold place when there is a 65+ degreeF change in temperature and it’s still only 42 degrees F.

    I’ve had several discussions with warmist about Alaska’s catastrophic warming and I just give up because they are typically basing their facts on Waxman/Markey or Hansen or Mann/Jones.

  24. Pat is very much correct about Salmon,
    I am an avid Salmon Steelhead fisherman and the local rivers and streams that feed the Lower Columbian basin had a drastic drop in Salmon in the 80’s due to the increase in El Nino activities. The last 5 years has seen a pretty good incline of both Chinook and Coho Salmonids as well as the steelhead trout.

  25. The Alaskan warming is regional. It did not warm Sitka, Alaska as much as it was from 1860 to 1940.
    100 years ago, one could make a global warming case by cherrypicking Sitka….and ignoring everything else.

  26. These people must think oscillations are just a bunch of malarkey.

    Follow the money … From your pocket to Kenya. And what does Kenya have to do with the climate?

  27. Brad,
    The PDO and El Nino are two different events. The PDO operates on 20 to 30 year time scales while El Nino cycles in less than 2 years. http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/fgz/science/pdo.php?wfo=fgz. Both influence salmon abundance. It is interesting that it was a salmon researcher -Steve Hare-that “discovered” the PDO while looking at the cyclical abundance in salmon populations. (There may also be much longer ocean cycles within which the PDO operates)

  28. Scott in VA says:
    June 30, 2010 at 6:25 pm

    JeffBrown,
    So quick to try and find fault. You need to direct your questions to the Alaska Climate Research Center – as they are the source of the map – not Stevengoddard. Please let us know what their response is.

    Yes, Jeff, we’ll be waiting to hear. If you are a sincere commenter, I know you’ll follow up on this and report back. On the other hand, if you are a troll hack getting paid by the word, you won’t even bother contacting ACRC.

  29. Willis has it right.

    It is a “font” as in “baptismal font” or “font of all knowledge”.

  30. Hmm. got the href tag wrong. My link is in the source but hidden. Doh.

    REPLY:just type in URL’s as you would a browser, WordPress will automatically make a link. Fixed – Anthony

  31. Thanks Anthony. BTW, I really enjoyed your talk in Adelaide. Sorry if we didn’t laugh at your trekkie humour. That’s just Adelaide. We laugh on the inside :)

  32. Here’s what the Apple dictionary defines as a the correct word:

    fount 1 |fänt; fount|
    noun
    a source of a desirable quality or commodity : our courier was a fount of knowledge.
    • poetic/literary a spring or fountain.
    ORIGIN late 16th cent.: back-formation from fountain , on the pattern of the pair mountain, mount.

  33. You can use either font or fount. The both come from the same latin root.

    Google searches:

    “font of all knowledge” – 132,000 results
    “fount of all knowledge” – 66,300 results

    “font of all wisdom” – 18,200 results
    “fount of all wisdom” – 48,400 results

    The scientific conclusion is, you find more knowledge in fonts, and more wisdom in founts … go figure.

  34. Doug Proctor: June 30, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    I used to think that outright lying was not going on, but preferential, self-serving selection. Now I think that outright lying is going on.

    As the old aphorism goes, “Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.” But with the present crew in Congress, my money’s on malice.

  35. @willis

    A font is either a typeface or a bowl of baptismal water. A fount is either a typeface or a plumbing fixture that provides a flow of water. Font doesn’t make much metaphorical sense in describing a stream of misinformation where fount is quite apt.

    Your ad populum appeal (logical fallacy) showing font is used more often than fount does nothing except prove that it’s a common mistake.

  36. Very interesting, Willis!

    However, in order to make the case for a long cyclical pattern work, you need a longer time series than just half a cycle. Are there some longer time series back to 1900 or so? I realize these will be mostly coastal, and so not representative of the interior, but anything would be infomative.

  37. Hu McCulloch
    A several thousand year record of the PDO is shown in the paper by Gregory-Eaves et al “Diatoms and sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) population dynamics: Reconstructions of salmon-derived nutrients over the past 2,200 years in two lakes from Kodiak Island, Alaska” http://www.springerlink.com/content/wx55814002x7v823/

    And some abstracts fro a conference of the subject

    http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yx6W7_AnpTYJ:www.fs.fed.us/psw/cirmount/meetings/paclim/pdf2009/paclim_abstracts2009.pdf+diatom+salmon+pdo+finney&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShYCOg8_Lw9ukkFV7p6aYensOwgPGD9hajoKXZXywGDsD5llvCM_fHk8jJ4DyAFooQ5MeL0VyZbfJutbvR0qk2kxEEHRwq-IrZisBDRqee9XIqRPU6w7APrAdz41FT8ef9l1VVB&sig=AHIEtbQeSazkiMN_VmXa6siaYc02sGvUDg

  38. Dave Springer says:
    July 1, 2010 at 6:26 am

    @willis

    A font is either a typeface or a bowl of baptismal water. A fount is either a typeface or a plumbing fixture that provides a flow of water. Font doesn’t make much metaphorical sense in describing a stream of misinformation where fount is quite apt.

    Your ad populum appeal (logical fallacy) showing font is used more often than fount does nothing except prove that it’s a common mistake.

    The crazy thing about language is that when a mistake becomes common enough … it becomes standard English, and it is no longer a mistake. That’s how the language changes.

  39. Definition of malarky – wind, empty rhetoric or insincere (or exaggerated) talk.

    Seems to aptly describe what Markey is trying to do. How can you tell when a politician is lying? ….

  40. @Willis Eschenbach,

    If you can find time to defend your figures of speech, please make some time to defend your science. I noted that your p-values do not match those actually calculated from the data in the first of your Waxman Markey posts. How can you keep posting this series without addressing the evidence that you are making false claims?

  41. First, Fig. 1 clearly shows the dependence of Alaska temperatures on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

    Spilled my coffee over this one!!

    Fig. 1 is your picture of Baked Alaska. This seems not to have been picked up by previous commenters.

    In any case, this figure, as a pictorial rendition of climate trends in Alaska, is about as accurate as the Waxman Malarkey.

  42. Maud Kipz says:
    July 1, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    @Willis Eschenbach,

    If you can find time to defend your figures of speech, please make some time to defend your science. I noted that your p-values do not match those actually calculated from the data in the first of your Waxman Markey posts. How can you keep posting this series without addressing the evidence that you are making false claims?

    Maud, I’m sorry I missed your post. However, ascribing bad intention to that is a step way too far. As anyone who reads my columns knows, I attempt to answer all scientific questions. Sometimes I miss one. So sue me.

    The answer to your question is that you have not allowed for autocorrelation in your calculations. Next time, play nice instead of insulting me, and I’ll provide a more complete answer.

  43. Willis Eschenbach says:
    July 1, 2010 at 2:07 pm

    The crazy thing about language is that when a mistake becomes common enough … it becomes standard English, and it is no longer a mistake. That’s how the language changes.

    Oh, I can’t resist, even though I may be totally wrong.

    In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, several reporters referred to the decimation of the area. Decimate, I believe according to Richard Lederer, referred to a Roman Army practice of encouraging troops who hadn’t performed their best by killing every 10th soldier. That would provide the impetus to the remainder to offer more than 111% in the next battle.

    Decimation seems to have spread from New Orleans to other areas and has also remained in Louisiana – it seems the oil spill is decimating the area now.

    Hmm, I searched for Richard Lederer decimate and got http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Commonly-Misused-Words which says in part

    Oftentimes, “decimate” is misused to mean “devastate,” which means “overwhelm or lay waste to.” Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, but did not decimate its population.

    Yay. Decimate Global Warming.

  44. The only real surprise is that they didn’t somehow link Sarah Palin to The Warming. Or was she supposed to be one of its catastrophic consequences?

    I first noted Palin before she was the VP candidate because as governor she actually challenged the EPA and their bogus findings on the ‘endangered’ polar bear. As far as I know they are still in court over that. She deserves credit for that.

    Well, actually the state wildlife managers in Alaska deserve most of that credit. They make their federal counterparts look like the dim ideologues that they are. That is probably due to the fact that they actually do manage so much wildlife, very successfully, while the feds mostly manage models and their relationships with Lower 48 environmental advocacy groups.

  45. In re to font, fount, front, etc (and more than slightly OT):

    The American language, mostly an enlarged set of its principal precursor…the English language…is a dynamically growing language which for better or worse is constantly evolving. Words which may have held a single principal meaning or preferred pronunciation a Century ago have diferent meanings today. A brief summary of the problem this presents to lexicographers can be found in the definition of “irregardless” in the Eleventh Edition of the i>Merriam Webster Collegiate Dictionary which publisher I consider to be the most authorative source for the contemporary American language.

    In my middle years I was very resistant to even subtle changes in what was at the time the “accepted” definition (or pronunciation) of words. In recent decades I’ve grown more tolerant in accepting these changes…abrupt or nuanced…which leads to the irony: an accepted definition 0r pronunciation reigns supreme, until a majority of the population thinks otherwise. There is nothing so scorned by the elite as a formerly
    “correct” word which has been redefined or replaced by common usage.

  46. @ willis

    The crazy thing about language is that when a mistake becomes common enough … it becomes standard English

    Perhaps if more people didn’t accept the crazy things they wouldn’t become so common. The crazy thing about science is that when a mistake becomes common enough… it becomes settled science.

    Know what I mean, Vern?

  47. @Willis Eschenbach,

    Bad manners on my part shouldn’t be an excuse for not giving a complete explanation of the numerical disagreement in our estimates.

    As for autocorrelation, what model did you use that gave you your results? The correlograms I plotted for the time series showed no lags that were significant, with the exception of a marginally significant 8 year lag for the annual series but not the winter series.

    When I added the 8 year lagged temperature to the annual models, the yearly trend for 1895-2009 was unchanged at 0.007 °F / year (p = 0.04). For the 1970-2009 period, the trend attributable to year alone decreased to 0.03 °F / year (p = 0.01), and this is clearly a conservative estimate since the lag term absorbs some of the trend. For the winter data, there’s no significant autocorrelation, so my results are unchanged.

    As before, I’m making all of my work public, and I’m asking that you do the same.

  48. Maud Kipz says:
    July 2, 2010 at 9:17 am

    @Willis Eschenbach,

    Bad manners on my part shouldn’t be an excuse for not giving a complete explanation of the numerical disagreement in our estimates.

    What barn did you grow up in? On my planet, people who walk in the door and start the conversation by insulting other people don’t get good treatment. Generally, they get shown the door immediately.

    And if they do want to stay and enter the discussion, an apology is considered good manners and the first step to repairing the damage done.

    Instead, you just come back and demand that I deal with you, as if I owed you something. Sorry, Maud, that doesn’t work with me. Go play with the AGW crowd, they specialize in your kind of casual abuse, they many not even notice yours.

    PS – Try the method of either Quenouille or Nychka for dealing with autocorrelation, that’s what I use.

  49. @Willis Eschenbach,

    Try the method of either Quenouille or Nychka for dealing with autocorrelation, that’s what I use.

    Thanks for your kind and to-the-point response.

    I didn’t think to correct for AR1 non-independence in the residuals because the data do not suggest that there is any, with the exception of the weak signal at 8 year lag in one of the two series.

    With your mention of Nychka, are you suggesting that the corrected sample size

    n_e= n * [1 - rhohat - (0.068/sqrt(n))] / [1 + rhohat +(0.068/sqrt(n))]

    be used? When I run that analysis, I get significant trends for the annual means, both full (p = 0.05) and 1970-2009 (p = 0.01) and trends that are not significant for the winter means, both full (p = 0.07) and 1970-2009 (p = 0.09). The p-values you give for these trends are p = 0.06, not given, p = 0.06, and p = 0.12, respectively. I still don’t know why are figures are in disagreement.

    From Nychka et al. (2000):

    However, to date a correct treatment using maximum likelihood or Bayesian approaches requires specialized statistical software [...] By comparing this approach to the more sophisticated maximum likelihood estimators we find negligible difference.

    In 2010, using (the freely available) R, the MLE approach is much easier than kludging around with Nychka. Directly adding an AR1 term, I get p = 0.04, p = 0.02, p = 0.06, and p = 0.06 for the four time series. This agrees with the admission in Nychka et al. (2000) that “when the ADJUSTED effective sample size is large, the coverages may become somewhat conservative.” This is the case with this data, where the number of samples is large and the estimated lag-1 autocorrelation is low.

    tl;dr Thanks for citations. Annual data may have autocorrelation but it doesn’t matter. Winter data doesn’t have autocorrelation but assuming it does weakens the tests just enough to miss significance. Our numbers still disagree. I’ve shown where mine come from. You haven’t. Your claim that “there is no statistically significant trend anywhere” is falsified.

  50. Maud Kipz says:
    July 3, 2010 at 10:24 am
    “[...]
    I didn’t think to correct for AR1 non-independence in the residuals because the data [...]
    from. You haven’t. Your claim that “there is no statistically significant trend anywhere” is falsified.”

    That’s not a person. It’s a Perl script.

  51. @DirkH,

    Please don’t derail.

    I can try to fix up anything I didn’t explain well enough, if you’d point it out.

  52. Alaska has station data extending back to 1899, and the unhomogenized data shows a clear PDO signal, and very little else (no warming trend). I wrote a report on this, and you can find a summary posted on ICECAP at:

    http://icecap.us/index.php/go/new-and-cool/alaska_trends_station_data_vs_ipcc1/

    If you’re a glutton for data and detail, the entire Alaska report is posted as a PDF at:

    http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/cakn/Documents/2008reports/CAKN_Climate_Data_%20Analysis_%20Keen_2008.pdf

    Or, go to…

    http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/cakn/reportpubs.cfm

    then…
    .Reports and Publications
    .Monitoring Reports Environment
    .Climate
    .Climate Data Analysis of Existing Weather Stations in and around the Central Alaska Network 2008

Comments are closed.