Arctic Sea Ice Increases at Record Rate
Guest Post by Jeff Id on February 3, 2009
Something I’ve been interested in for the last several months is sea ice data. What makes it interesting is that as I understand it, models demonstrate the poles should be most sensitive to global warming leading the planet temp, especially in the Arctic. Recently I have been able to process the monthly and daily gridded arctic data as provided by NSIDC. The daily values allow a better analysis of trend than can be provided by the monthly data.
If you’re like me you recall the claims of fastest melt rate ever were made about 2007 , I fully believed them, because the graphs showed a much more negative value than in the previous 30 years as shown in Figure 1 below.
This effort was originally intended to investigate how bad the melt rate was in comparison to the natural variation, I didn’t get that far yet. Accessing and processing the gridded data was critical to the analysis, so I spent the time reading the literature and writing code. Having full access to the NSIDC data allows some interesting analysis, they do an excellent job on their site.
There are two primary algorithms used for processing ice data NasaTeam and Bootstrap. The descriptions of the data state the difference between the two is very small and the sets are interchangeable except that bootstrap is recommended for trend analysis in research publications. Bootstrap is only provided in monthly data format while NasaTeam is provided in both monthly and daily provided you’re willing to download over 1G of data, write code to process it, refit the land and missing data mask and sum the results. I am. Also, NasaTeam provides a near real time version of the polar ice data which has a different land mask and hasn’t been processed for missing data. This data isn’t as clean but I wanted to use it. I applied the same land mask as the rest of the series to insure that there was a consistent baseline for trend analysis. The missing data from Jan 2008 onward created noise in the series which I simply filtered out using a 7 day sliding window filter.
The mask looks like this Figure 2
The brown is land, black edges on land are coastline and light blue is the satellite data not measured. This mask is applied consistently through the entire data series. There was some question about masking on one of my other posts at WUWT where visually the land area seemed to change size, in the case of the NSIDC data they apply masks consistently except for the satellite hole and the near real time data.
The NasaTeam version of the arctic ice data looks like the plot below for 2009 (note the small size of the satellite data hole). This graph was created in R using the actual Nasa Team masks and data. I used the worst case land and polar masks to adjust the entire dataset to eliminate problems with consistency. Figure 3
Of course it’s an interesting picture, but what I wanted to know when I started this post was how bad was the worst melt rate in history and what is the actual melt area. In the plot below the arctic is losing sea ice at a rate of only 56K km^2/year. Of course sea ice area went up in the Antarctic during the same time frame though. Note the strong recovery in 08 of Figures 1 and 4, which actually exceeds values of most of the record, matching data back to 1980. Much of this is first year ice so the melt in 08 was expected to be a new record.
If you recall, in 2007 and 08 we were treated to headlines like this, which most of us accepted with a shrug.
Scientists warn Arctic sea ice is melting at its fastest rate since records began
NASA data show Arctic saw fastest sea ice melt in August 2008
Arctic Just Witnessed Fastest August Ice Retreat in History
I processed and analyzed the NasaTeam land area and missing data masks spending hours understanding different variances they list on their own website. After nearly everything I could find (except satellite transitions errors) was corrected (a different post) and corrections for variance in the measured pixel size, the final result in 30 day trends of arctic sea ice looks like the graph below (Figure 5). This graph is a derivative of the ice area plot. The maximum peaks and valleys represent the maximum rates of change in 30 day periods through the ice record.
Looking at this plot of the 30 day slopes of actual NASA gridded data, the maximum ice melt rate occurs in 1999 and in 2004 not in 2007. Surprisingly the maximum ice growth rates occur in 2007 and 2008, I don’t remember those headlines for some reason. Don’t forget when looking at the 2008 – 09 peak, the data is preliminary and hasn’t been through the same processing as the other data. From looking at the unprocessed data I doubt it will change much.
Certainly the 30 year arctic trend in ice area is downward, even the most committed global warming scientist has to admit this happens regularly in climate along with regular 30 year uptrends. The questions are, did we cause it or not, and was CO2 the instigating factor. The rapid recovery of ice levels has to have some meaning regarding the severity of the problem. This goes directly in the face of accelerated global warming and the doom and gloom scenarios promoted by our politicians and polyscienticians.
Why are my conclusions different from the news reported records? I think it’s likely due to the fact that the scientists used the monthly data which is processed using a weighted filter of the daily data that incorporates a longer time frame than a single month. This means their use of the monthly data to establish a monthly trend was in error and the real record down trends were actually set in 1999, 2003 and 1984. While the record uptrends were in 2007, 2008 and 1996.
Sponsored IT training links:
If hankering after 642-591 preparation then CT0-101 online training is best answer to your problem. Just go through practice questions and pass your 1Y0-A23 exam on first try.
Pamela Gray (17:10:22) :
“Here is a question for you, which came first, waste oxygen or waste CO2, back when one-celled things were all we had.”
Neither. Arcaeobacteria are anaerobic. See for one example:
Huber, C. and Wächtershäuser, G. Activated Acetic Acid by Carbon Fixation on(Fe,Ni)S Under Primordial Conditions. Science 276: 245-247 (1997). Review (Prebiotic Chemistry) by Crabtree, R. H. Where Smokers Rule. Science 276: 222
(1997).
Origin of Life on Earth: Anaerobic C-C Bond Synthesis
http://www.csun.edu/~hcchm001/NiFeS.PDF
Arguments about CO2 toxicity bring to mind Al Sleet, the hippie dippie weatherman:
Man is just bumbling along in this world. TSWHTF long before CO2 hits toxic levels. IMO, the damage done to economies and human sustenance will crank in long before CO2 has a chance.
AGW is just the Ghost Dance, the Cargo Cult of the 21st century – magic that will prevent the future everyone sees coming, but cannot face. Like the Ghost Dance, it will not prevent the future, it will hasten it.
TallDave: there is absolutely NO global warming model that predicts dropping maxima and minima each year.
Of course not “each year,” but the IPCC report does boldly (and incorrectly) predict a shrinking sea ice trend.
Actually, the decrease we saw over the last 10 years is way more rapid than first predicted
Except there isn’t any decrease in overall sea ice, and even Arctic sea ice has recovered subtantially.
Ann’s New Friend (16:10:01) :
“How does one establish a ‘norm” at all?’
What is normal is relative to what you choose to measure.
In the AGW or Global Warming discussion, proponents of AGW tend to deny most of the pre-human climates as being relevant to the discussion or otherwise a norm to be used in comparisons of climate change. Doing so, however, denies or otherwise hides the fact that the worldwide climate has demonstrated the capacity to undergo previously unbelievable rapidity and scales of climate change without the presence or influence of humans. One of the principal arguments proposed in favor of the AGW hypothesis is the claim that only human influence and not Nature can explain a rapid change in climate in today’s world. When it is demonstrated such climate changes occurred before the presence of humans, such an argument cannot be sustained. Consequently, the question of what is a normal rate of cliamte change before and after the presence of humans is critical to determining the validity or non-validity of an AGW hypothesis and argument claiming only human influence can cause such a climate change.
Another frequent AGW argument is an urgent need to implement a precautionary principle to save the Earth from AGW before there is time enough to complete the scientific studies needed to falsify the competing hypotheses and prove the validity or non-validity of the AGW hypothesis. The AGW argument presumes warming and carbon dioxide are threats to be avoided, whereas pre-human experience during the geological time periods in which most forms of multi-celled life arose and adapted appears to indicate the opposite. What is normal in that context is arguably whatever is in the typical range of experience in human and pre-human time periods supporting our forms of aerobic life.
In other words, you determine what is “normal” by examining the time periods in which the present day life forms and their ancestors with like climate dependencies evolved to see what climates were most prevalent. The Phanerozoic Eon is most representative for this purpose, and the climates most prevalent were about 10C warmer than present with 1200ppm to 4800ppm of carbon dioxide.
mfearing (16:40:42)
We cannot afford to wait, because the politicians are enacting laws that supposedly will reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, yet will likely have a serious detrimental effect on jobs, the economy, and lifestyles.
For example, California (where I live) passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which requires by 2020 that CO2 emissions and other GHGs shall be reduced to the levels emitted in 1990. Further, this law requires by 2050 that the emissions be 80 percent below the 1990 level.
In practice, this means roughly a 30 percent reduction by 1990 compared to business as usual, and an 87 percent reduction by 2050.
This is far too serious for us (any of us) to sit back and wait for 50 or 100 years and see how it turns out, IMHO. I am working to repeal California’s GWSA, and I hope all will join me.
It appears that, in 2009, President Obama will sign into law a federal version of California’s law. Meanwhile, evolving economies (India, China, for two) are churning out the CO2 into the sky. Anything we do to mitigate CO2 will be overwhelmed by their activities. Lovely, isn’t it.
For information, see this link
The warmists are deliriously happy over these anti-CO2 laws. If I live to 2020, it will be interesting to see how cold the world is, and how far in the toilet the US economy is. I do not expect to live to see 2050.
The questioning performed by Anthony and others on this site is invaluable to the goal of having rational public policies rather than draconian laws that will further cripple the US economy relative to the world.
Roger E. Sowell
Anne’s new friend says that there is a ‘fad’ of atheism amongst scientists –
“And this fad is particularly interesting from a psychological perspective because sometimes the same people who argue that there is no God and that change occurs “randomly” are the same demographic that says the climate is no longer “normal.”
Where do you get this stuff? If some scientists argue that there is no god, why do you think that there is a ‘fad’ of atheism amongst scientists? If some who argue there is no god also believe that the climate is no longer normal – so what?
Surely it might be possible to find people who exhibit one or another combination of any of the following qualities –
– is a scientist
– is not a scientist
– believes in god
– thinks belief in god is ignorant superstition
– thinks AGW is horsesh*t
– thinks that anyone who thinks AGW is horsesh*t has recently been lobotomised
– thinks that change is random (?)
– thinks that change is deterministic (?)
…..etc etc.
So what? How does any particular combination of these raise any ‘interest from a psychological perspective’ ? And how does that relate in any way to the issue at hand?
I assure Anne’s new friend that my thoughts in relation to AGW and my thoughts in relation to belief in god are entirely irrelevant to each other. I suspect that most people engaged in the issue of AGW would take the same attitude.
+12C ??? .. leaves me suspicious. And could this also be a contributor to the Jan. 09 significant uptrend in RSS?
Hmmm… Doesn’t smell right to me.
>DJ,
>Would you like to propose a wager for your confident prediction about ice?
Hunter I have proved this thread a nonsense, but you keep moving the goals posts. This thread simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic geography and climatology.
I’ll agree to a wager if you agree to compensate the victims of climate change if you are wrong. Like most sceptics there is no responsibility that comes with your advocacy of a sceptical position which has no scientific basis in the peer reviewed literature.
CO2 is not completely tasteless. The taste of carbonated water is the taste of CO2. Easily verified by venting a little CO2 from a cylinder of same and putting your tongue in the way before it has a chance to dissipate. High concentration CO2 in the air alerts you pretty quickly to its presence!
squidly (19:41:18) :
The NOAA global temperature anomaly is showing a huge +12C temperature anomaly for the North Pole. The same anomaly has persisted for the last week at least.
+12C ??? .. leaves me suspicious. And could this also be a contributor to the Jan. 09 significant uptrend in RSS?
No because RSS doesn’t use data from northwards of 82.5ºN.
And do GW proponets agree to accept responsability for the unintended consequences of their actions? Within the last three years our energy policy alone has cost the US at least 600 billion and helped percipatate the current economic crisis.
Psi (17:19:12) : “I wonder if Eskimo folk memory recalls these warmer days?”
I wintered over in Barrow a few years back, working on a project at the Iñupiat Heritage Center. I got to talking with the director and a historian at the center about exactly that. The oral tradition speaks of the days when the Iñuits hunted mostly caribou and waterfowl because the ice was not conducive to hunting seals and the whale. It was at this time some of their ancestors migrated east to Greenland. An article appearing in Nature a few years later (29 May 2008) put a more academic conformation on the oral tradition. David Cressey’s article pointed out that the Thule culture migrated to Greenland around 1000 years ago (Medieval Warm Period) leaving the present “native” population. The oral tradition and even recent memory also speak of having to move the village of Barrow every so often because the sea level was rising. My host pointed way out into the Bering Sea indicating where the borough used to be in his ancestors’ time. (And thank you for the kind comments.)
Chris Schoneveld (12:28:15) : “you and the anthropologists you quote have never heard of post-glacial rebound. Of course, those fossil shoreline indicators have moved up together with the isostatic uplift of the land. So let’s not use those observations as an argument for less ice (i.e. higher sea levels) 1000 years ago.”
Chris, interesting that you should raise that. Dr. Vivian Gornitz looked at the predictions of sea level rise made in the late 80s and 90s and found that the majority of them required serious correction for PGR, diminishing the severity of the predictions. She also pointed out that some of the sea level rises that were touted publicly as evidence of rapid global warming did not compensate for the opposite of PGR—peripheral bulge subsidence. Greenland’s PGR has not been as significant as say Sweden as it is still largely glaciated. Also, the photos I’ve seen of the northern Greenland habitation sites and ancient sea shores are substantially higher than the meter I mentioned, more than adequately compensating for what PGR did occur in northern Greenland. If you require evidence of higher sea levels a thousand years ago in areas not affected by PGR or peripheral bulge subsidence, there are many—California, the Mediterranian, and Brazil among them. Rhodes Fairbridge and his famous sea level curve of the late Holocene used several reference points to show a higher sea level world wide during the MWP. I WAS warmer with higher sea levels during the MWP.
What can be learned from the last 30 years? Should not the last 90 years be in focus? There was a strong warmin starting in the late 1910s. The matter was already raised in a lecture held in Edinburgh by Jules Schokalsky* on Arctic warming in the year 1935, as discussed at http://www.arctic-warming.com/
*)Schokalsky, J.; ‚Recent Russian researches in the Arctic Sea and the in mountains of Central Asia’, in: The Scottish Geographical Magazine, Vol. 52, No.2, March 1936, (p. 73-84), p.77.
Tom,
I would ask you to prove your theory of the air tight room, and as you are the only ‘expert’ on this subject please feel free to be the ‘subject’ of the experiment ? (after all who can ridicule personal experience?) I am sure that all here at WUWT will await your publication.
Jack Linard (11:56:02)
nice try Jack
Alg (01:59:12) :
“There was a strong warming starting in the late 1910s.”
Yes, and just about then Solar irradiance began to rise: click
P Folkens
You are quite right about previous higher sea levels.
The following link leads to a graph produced by a Dutch Govt organisation-the Dutch certainly know a thing or two about the subject and confirm sea levels are stable and are somewhat lower than during the MWP.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
There are a variety of places in the UK showing sea levels higher than today without complications of glacial action or deposition. These include the landing place of Julius Caesar two thousand years ago and William the Conqueror in 1066. This set in place the building of a number of castles with sea access. This links leads to a 1913 book on Harlech castle-one such building. Suggest select b/w pdf
http://www.archive.org/details/merionethshire00morr
Extract
“In 1409 an attack was
made upon Harlech, led by Gilbert and John Talbot for
the King; the besiegers comprised one thousand well armed
soldiers and a big siege train. The besieged were
in the advantageous situation of being able to receive
their necessary supplies from the sea, for the waves of
Cardigan Bay at that time washed the base of the rock
upon which the castle stands. Greater vigilance on the
part of the attacking force stopped this and the castle was
surrendered in the spring of the year.
A remarkable feature of the castle is a covered
staircase cut out of the rock, defended on the seaward
side by a looped parapet, and closed above and below by
small gatehouses. This was the water-gate of the fortress,
and opened upon a small quay below.”
The following pictures show the current location of the sea with the castle now high and dry.
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/morfaharlech.jpg
sea in far distance from harlech castle
http://westwales.co.uk/graphics/harlech.jpg
and this
http://www.buildmodelcastles.com/html/castle_history.html
very good item about Harlech
http://www.walesdirectory.co.uk/Castles/Harlech_Castle.htm
Sea levels AND temperatures were higher in the MWP and the Roman warm periods and presumably other extended warm periods.
TonyB
DJ wrote:
“I’ll agree to a wager if you agree to compensate the victims of climate change if you are wrong.”
That just “begs” the response, “I’ll agree to a bet when you warm-mongers agree to compensate the victims of mitigation efforts if you are wrong.” (I’m sure others will respond similarly, as they have in the past when DJ’s objection has been raised.)
************
I think it would be an excellent idea for the partisans of both sides to be able to bet against the other side. But arranging such bets on an ad hoc, one-to-one basis imposes a high overhead (making bets that are under $1000 (say) impractical), a high risk of non-payment, a great potential for foot-dragging “denial” in the event of a loss, a great potential for inter-personal nastiness during the negotiation and afterwards, etc.
What’s needed instead is a neutral venue where betting can be done impersonally, in small amounts, at a low overhead, with assurance of being paid (or at least getting ones money back in the event of a “draw” or “inconclusive”), etc.
Such a venue already exists. Bettors “bid” for bets at odds that sellers offer, in terms of any number of small-amount “contracts.” This has the effect of causing the odds offered to adjust quickly to reflect the money placed on each side of the bet. One of the additional advantages of this site’s method is that a person can cash-out or reduce his bet if he changes his mind, or has an emergency for which he temporarily needs money. (Of course, the “house” takes a cut as its commission when this occurs.)
The site already has a category for climate-related bets (click “Climate and Weather” in the menu on the left side of the screen). Its current bets relate only to whether laws regulating CO2 emissions will be passed in five countries. It also has bets relating to numbers-of-hurricanes and snowfall-levels in various cities, here:
http://www.intrade.net/market/listing/showEventGroup.faces?eg=508
It deals mostly with political and economic events, like the price of gold in the future, etc. That sort of question is easier to settle, because of its sharp Yes/No boundary, than questions like whether arctic sea ice has retreated, sea levels have risen, global temperature has risen, glaciers have retreated, etc. It would be very desirable if Intrade could be persuaded to add these fuzzier sorts of bets. It would do so only if the bet could be settled by reference to a data point from an agreed-upon “authority.” It wouldn’t want to have to serve as an arbitrator or interpreter of the fine points of the question.
There are downsides (and disagreements) to every authority, and downsides to every indicator of global warming (arctic ice, sea level, etc.), and to every data point regarding that indicator. But that problem can be easily finessed if Intrade were to provide a dozen (say) separate questions relating to the matter. That would allow bettors who don’t trust the indicator or an authority cited in certain questions to bet on the other questions where they believe those are more reliable. And it would allow the question of overall global warming to be distributed over several data points, reducing the risk that an anomalous reading in one indicator or data point would improperly answer the question. By employing a majority vote among indicators, a bettor could compensate for the weakness of each of them.
I therefore suggest that a new thread be set up here (or somewhere else on the Internet–or in many sites) where a preliminary set of betting-questions can be proposed and their wording thrashed out. Once these have been debugged sufficiently that lots of folks on both sides have said, “I’d bet on that question,” then Intrade could be approached by e-mail and asked to start taking bets on one or more of those questions. I think it would be a good idea to start small, with only a couple of questions, and to approach Intrade with a statement endorsed by leading names on both sides of the debate that they are prepared to abide by the settling of the bet in the manner described. One can suggest a contract to Intrade by e-mail here:
markets@intrade.com
Here’s another link, this one giving access to a pageful of contact information (by mail, fax, etc.):
http://www.intrade.net/faq/contactUs.faces
Intrade desires more respectability, visibility, and trading volume. By adding bets on the impact of the highly contentious matter of climate change, it would be performing a great social service. It would also thereby get lots of visibility, as its site would surely be regularly alluded to during online exchanges whenever a disputant is tempted to say, “Put your money where your mouth is.” Finally, once people register with the site, some will no doubt be tempted to place bets on the hundred or so other propositions on offer there. So Intrade will do well by doing good.
Intrade has been in business since 1999, and the predictions of the odds set by its markets in choosing winners of elections have been more accurate than those of pollsters. It’s been widely cited by political pundits as having a high accuracy rate.
Intrade is located in Dublin, Ireland and can’t accept payment from US credit cards. One has to set up an account online (there is a real-time online assistant to help step one through the process), then mail them a check, and then wait ten days for it to clear. In the interim, you should “learn the ropes” by making play-money bets in its training-wheels section, on it “Labs” tab.
Here are links to the sections of Intrade’s site where the details of participating are discussed. (NOTE TO MODERATOR: Delete the remainder if it seems like too much of a “plug.” I’m just trying to be helpful with all this info.)
About Intrade: https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/help/general.html
Rules: https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/help/index.jsp?page=rules.html
Safety & Security: https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/home/safety_and_security.jsp
Help & FAQs: https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/help/index.jsp?page=general.html
Rates & Fees: https://www.intrade.com/jsp/intrade/help/index.jsp?page=general.html%23fees
Forum (where bettors can argue for their positions: it’s pretty spicy): https://www.intrade.com/forum/
Chris Schoneveld (12:28:15) :
“So let’s not use those observations as an argument for less ice (i.e. higher sea levels) 1000 years ago.”
The sea level is independently confirmed by a number of sources to be higher than at the present time on three occasions in the past 7,000 years, including the Medieval Warm Period ~1000 years ago . One of those sources is the Dutch National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management (KNMI), who conducted studies in support of their responsibility for protecting Dutch lands below current sea levels.
The High Arctic region of Northern Greenland has evidence that the Arctic Sea was partially or completely ice free for a period of time during the human habitation of the area by the Independence I culture. This evidence includes a beach ridge which is reported by the NGU during IPY research to be formed only by sea wave deposition indicative of a partially or wholly ice free Arctic Sea.
DJ (21:08:18)
DJ,
Would you like to propose a wager for your confident prediction about ice?
Hunter I have proved this thread a nonsense, but you keep moving the goals posts. This thread simply demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic geography and climatology.
I’ll agree to a wager if you agree to compensate the victims of climate change if you are wrong. Like most sceptics there is no responsibility that comes with your advocacy of a sceptical position which has no scientific basis in the peer reviewed literature.
The only thing you’ve proven, DJ, is that you are an AGW True Believer. “Victims of climate change”? What nonsense! You seem to think that climate has never changed before, which is absurd. Man has always managed to adapt, and is in a much better position to do so today, but not if he gets sidetracked and suckered by this AGW . “Peer reviewed literature”? Please. You ‘re talking about people who think getting rid of the MWP is science. Indeed, the fraud, deceit, and grant-grubbing has become epidemic. AGW “science” has become a self-perpetuating, festering stink hole, with hugely negative consequences already, and even greater ones likely if the fraud isn’t uncovered, and stopped. Fortunately, more and more scientists are now dissenting from the AGW claims, and blogs such as this are helping to get the truth out.
We know the climate warmed last century by about .7C, and this obviously has affected the arctic. Now, we appear to be cooling, and the ice appears to be responding, with it’s own variations due to such factors as winds, and currents. The likelihood is, with a negative PDO, and extremely quiet sun, we will have cooling conditions for 30 years, or possibly more. Arctic ice will respond gradually to that, with less summer melt, and increased mass during winter. Whatever we do WRT C02 will not impact climate except as “noise”, but increased C02 would actually be, and has been, a benefit, by benefiting plant growth, and thus food supplies. A cooling climate will, of course, have a negative impact on food supplies. We should, in fact, be preparing for a cooling climate, not wasting precious resources on this AGW foolishness.
You have presented your argument in scientific terms, but please don’t allow Al Gore to qualify it.
mfearing, the tit for tat and angry posts are EXACTLY what happens in the lab, and especially between competing labs amongst the Ivory Tower folks. Been there. Read “Molecules of Emotion” By Candace Purt. Such a good book. I have lived a tiny fraction of her experiences in the lab. It ain’t pretty and nice. However, I believe the verbal fist fights advance scientific discovery, contrary to your, may I assume, inexperienced opinion. Consensus is a thread killer, let alone a science killer.
Ron House:
It is at the concentrations likely to be found in the atmosphere.
The point I was trying to make is, it’s in no way noxious and cannot be regarded as a ‘pollutant’
Smokey (03:40:36) :
Alg (01:59:12) :
“There was a strong warming starting in the late 1910s.”
Yes, and just about then Solar irradiance began to rise: click
As I told you before Judith Lean, the author of that reconstruction, no longer supports it and has published a revised version. If you want a graph of the currently accepted position I suggest you contact Leif. Continuing to refer to data you know to be incorrect undermines you credibility.
The claim that „Solar irradiance“ ( Smokey (03:40:36)) may have caused the “The strong warming starting in the late 1910s.” did pay little attention to a basic fact that the dramatic warming 1939-1949) showed up in the winter temperatures only. There is little sunshine north of the Polar Circle during the winter season.
Phil.,
Please stop pontificating. The chart in question was constructed from NOAA data: click
If you have a problem with the NOAA and the NCDC, take it up with them. And if Ms Lean has now recanted, one can only speculate why. Peer pressure? Withholding of grants? Simply winging it the first time around? Marching orders from her boss? Failure to “adjust” data?
I was simply providing the chart so everyone could see that the planet began warming in this cycle during the early 1900’s, and that the likely cause was the Sun, rather than changes in a minor trace gas.
Notice also in the same chart that similar frigid events like what we’re now experiencing correspond to past declines in Solar irradiance [Wolf Minimum, Dalton Minimum, etc].
Feel free to believe whatever you want to believe. I posted the chart because it’s of interest to me, and I thought it would be of interest to others. If you have a chart showing something completely different regarding Solar irradiance, by all means, post it for us and we can discuss it.