Arctic (Non) Warming Since 1958

Guest Post by Steven Goddard
From time to time we hear that various places on earth have been “warming much faster than the rest of the planet – as predicted by “the models.”  One of the places commonly mentioned in that list is the Arctic, based largely on 30 years of satellite data.  Fortunately though, we are not limited by 30 years of satellite data, as the Danish Meteorological Institute has records going back to 1958 and GISSTEMP has even longer records.
Below is a visual comparison of DMI 1958 Arctic temperatures vs. 2009, showing that temperatures have hardly changed since the start of their record.

2009 Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degrees

Below is an overlay directly showing that 2009 temperatures (green) are similar to 1958 (red) and close to the mean.  Blue is mean temperature for the 41 year record.
So if the Arctic has warmed since 1979, how can it be the about same as 1958?  The answer can be seen in the GISSTEMP graph below of Godthab, Greenland.
Temperatures have warmed since the start of the satellite record, but they cooled even more between 1940 and 1980.
Everyone (including NSIDC) quietly acknowledges that most of the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now – so they shift the warming argument to the Alaska side.  However, that argument also has problems.  Alaska temperatures rose at the positive PDO shift in 1977, and have cooled again with the recent negative PDO shift – as seen below.   2008 was notable in that Alaska glaciers started to increase in size.
If you look at only one leg of a cycle, you will come to the wrong conclusion about the shape of the graph.  Thus I would argue that Dr. Spencer’s fourth order curves are much more meaningful than the nearly meaningless linear fits being used by most prominent climate scientists.  Climate is primarily cyclical, as every good climate scientist should know.
File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Vostok Ice Core Temperature Records

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ginckgo

oh great, more visual statistics.

Jeff B.

Good to see some real science whilst the Hockey Team prattles on with a fish analogy.

steptoe fan

still, the CO2 crowd can just ignore such data and with their media help, this information rarely makes the light of day to the general public .
here in Seattle, the U of Washington’s “climate” center, or whatever its called, continues to churn out PHD candidates who, for their dissertations, do work such as crafting computer models that suggest that the Cascade mountain range will be likely more snow free in the future. obscure local researchers print press releases claiming that global warming is going to be responsible for increasing allergic reactions due to pollen. the local TV media, needing to fill time, lap it up and regurgitate it.
the Seattle times, grabs such stupidity and prints it as the gospel – to the cheers of the greenies who blast those who question, as conservative, oil/coal company owners.
and if you post current science, you are immediately labeled a fool that believes just because its on the internet it must be true.
the democratic politicians in this state are ” past the science ” !

Mike Bryant

This is the perfect companion piece to “Watching the 2007 historic low sea ice flow out of the Arctic Sea”
Thanks,
Mike…

This is interesting, I suppose after spending so much time looking at the Antarctic, this is the next logical step. The lack of warming is a surprise, the fourth figure from the top is interesting too because of it’s length.
The link http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.431042500000.1.1/station.gif
Isn’t working for me.
I’ve completed a summary of the Antarctic reconstructions for those who are interested.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/05/14/antarcti-summary-part-1-a-trend-of-trends/
Between a group of us, we’ve completed nearly a hundred different reconstructions using Steig’s methods with modifications. Guess which has the highest warming trend?

DJA

Jeff
“Guess which has the highest warming trend?”
A $ to a peanut that Steig’s has the most.

Leon Brozyna

Damn!
Another inconvenient truth. That’s okay; Al knows no shame and will feel no embarrassment.
A very true statement – “Climate is primarily cyclical, as every good climate scientist should know.” What makes it such a hard concept to get a handle on is that it’s not just a simple cycle; it’s cycles on top of longer cycles on top of still longer cycles. I suspect that we’ve already peaked on this latest 100,000+ year cycle; a thousand or a few thousand years in the future, our progeny will shake their heads in wonder at the presumptive folly of imagining that mankind can really impact the climate in any truly fundamental way.

TonyS

These very steep downwards slopes of the Vostok ice-core graph frighten me. I can now understand why people were afraid of a new ice-age coming.

David Ball

Once again, we clearly see that we are well within natural variability. Kudos to Mr. Goddard and friends.

Jurinko

@jeff, It seems to be some tmp file generated.. go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and click somewhere on Arctic area and select a station. Ostrov Dikson is even better 😉

rbateman

With increased glaciation in Alaska, the ice will build and flow faster to the sea, in much the same way as it careened out of the Alps in the Little Ice Age.
You know what the news will be, though.
More evidence of catastrophic warming.
Soon to be on the endangered species list: Carbonated drinks.

Pieter F

This is all great data and analysis that will continue to chip away at the AGW dogma as ranks of moderate, logical thinkers move away from the fear mongering.
BTW OT: The Catlin Expedition made it to ABC’s Nightline this evening. Amongst the wow-factor of the cold (-84° below freezing) and difficulties, the report slipped in a prediction from someone at the University of Washington(?) that the Arctic could be ice-free as early as 2010 – 2016!

Flanagan

Why take only one day, or why consider the trend of one station only? Don’t you all see this is cherry picking at its best?
This is what one gets when considering the whole arctic anomaly, as compared to the global anomaly
http://i37.tinypic.com/2lrxtu.jpg
Arctic in 2008 had an anomaly which was almost 1 centigrade higher than in the rest of the world.

Well, the temperatures are widely oscillating – the noise is clearly more important than any possible trends integrated over 50 years. But the graphs don’t really show there was “no warming” since 1958: look at the accuracy.
For example, the third graph shows the red and green curves coincide plus minus 2 degrees Celsius. That still doesn’t exclude a more than 1 deg C warming of the annual averages. Again, it is likely that relatively to the weather, the warming can’t possibly influence anything we care about. On the other hand, it can still exist and be statistically detectable (which is a much weaker type of influence than an actual influence on real lives).

Lance

I may be OT or not, but the google ad ( right before the comments) is selling the book “the god who wasn’t there” This could come across wrongly as an anti Christian sentiment that might be shared on this site.
I’ve seen this ad on other sites that have alterer “political” motives and pegged them as not creditable to a clean link.
Even scientific truths dispensed with an agenda are not science. IMO
In reality, of course, this is revenue for this site and I’m thinking in the abstract, someone who might be visiting this site for the first time.
This could possibly foster the belief/connection to non/anti new testament believer conspiracy sites like similar to pharyngula http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Believer or not, it muddies credibility.
And on that note, I’ve been clicking on the top google ads and suggest others have a look at them. See what’s paying for this site, what constitutes and sells itself as REAL science .
(snip?)

Alan the Brit

Maybe it is just little old me, but graphs 1 & 4 seem similar as I draw a visual mean curve thro’ the blue squigles, although a shade flatter. Nevertheless, this info does not surprise me. Nothing tends to these days. Anyhow this will all change once the Catlin scientifically gathered data is added into the equation, you know, the one that says all the observations are incorrect & the model is right!

Steven, that’s a great summary of some real data and some real facts.
I am surprised that Jeff Id is surprised by the Greenland picture. This ought to be more well known. Go to
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
and click on the map somewhere round Canada, Greenland or Iceland. Then select a station that has a long record (unfortunatley, not very many).
You will see that it is a similar picture at many stations (Steven has not been cherrypicking), for example Clyde, NWT, Angmagssalik (Greenland), Akureyri (Iceland). The temperatures now are no higher than in the 1940s. There are also several scientific papers confirming this (look for papers by Jason Box on Greenland and Iceland) .
Meanwhile, the BBC continues with its arctic propaganda following the end of the failed Catlin survey (equipment didnt work and they only got half way), falsely claiming that their data supports the idea that the ice will vanish soon.
Time for another WUWT post on this, please guys?

Manfred

is the planned reduction of the bbc’s science stuff related to the poor quality of their reports ?

Reflections…
BTW any newcomer here wanting to get an overview of the skeptical Climate Science story, click my name
When I first “converted” out of AGW I thought a skeptics’ climate science wiki would be a brilliant idea. A good way to channel frustration into something of value to bequeathe our children, to bypass Connolley’s diktat at Wikipedia. At present it’s not the work I’ve got to do, but I still think it would be good at all levels.
I’d like to add to that, we really need a DUMMIES’ / IDIOTS’ GUIDE TO BASIC SCIENCE w.r.t. Climate Science. Something to hold alongside Ian Plimer. Something that an eight-year-old can understand and enjoy. With pictures. Anyone up for starting the project, perhaps together with other disaffected and knowledgeable posters here?
I ache each time I read another knowledgeable poster’s frustration with the current state of scientific knowledge. I would love to see that energy channelled constructively. Maggie Thatcher started the whole collapse, by using her science degree to push Global Warming research and freeze all other research. Al Gore brought the nonsense to its present pitch by using his science knowledge as a gag to gain Presidency of the United States of Science.
We could do a lot with just a very little good knowledge…

Despit the general impression given, the arctic is actually a weakness in the AGW argument.
Between 1910 and 1940 the arctic warmed by ~1.5 degrees. Why? CO2 was only ~300ppm in 1910. Maybe it was the sun? possibly – but then why did it suddenly start to cool in the ~1940s.
Between 1940 and 1970 the arctic cooled by ~1 degree. Why was this? Industrial (tropospheric) aerosols is the widely accepted reason. But the effect of industrial aerosols is “regionally specific” (Mann &Jones). The majority of the aerosols in the 1940-1970 period came from the NH mid-latitude regions. The arctic cooled ~4 times as much as mid-latitude bands (24N-44N & 44N-64N; see GISS zonal record) Aerosols are short-lived in the atmosphere. Most get washed out of the air by rain/snow within a few days or weeks. The cooling effect of aerosols is supposedly twofold, i.e. (i) they reflect solar radiation and (ii) they promote cloud formation. But, the reflective properties of aerosols can only operate for 6 months of the year in the arctic, while clouds in the arctic results in warmer temperatures. Many studies show that the effect of aerosols in the arctic is warming via the phenomenon known as ‘arctic haze’ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Haze ) which includes the statement: “The aerosols contain about 90% sulfur and the rest is carbon, which makes the haze reddish in color. This pollution is helping the Arctic warm up faster than any other region on Earth”
Since the ~1970s the arctic has warmed ~1.5 degrees or about the same as during the 1910-1940 period (again see GISS zonal record). Arctic warming/cooling is a significant contributor to the overall trend at the time, but there is clearly doubt about what is responsible for it’s rapid climate shifts.
The IPCC claims that it can explain the earth’s temperature fluctuations over the past century, but that it is only by including the increase in greenhouse gases can it to explain the late 20th century warming. The uncertainty (I would say serious doubts) regarding the assumed contributory factors suggest this is nonsense.
It is on issues such as this, that the AGW argument needs to be challenged
When Leif Svalgaard raises doubts about the sun’s role in climate change or I (not that I should be compared with LS **) defend the GISS temperature record, it does not necessarily mean that we support the CO2-induced warming cause. Note that in the above comments the GISS record and lack of the sun’s role have both been used to cast serious doubts on basic IPCC tenets.
** I’m sure he’s much older 🙂

bluegrue

I have made a blinker image of the DMI data, comparing the 8-year periods 1958-1965 and 2000-2007 (8 years as my graphics program only averages 2 images at a time, only up to 2007 as the image format changed afterwards).
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qmkqdj&s=5
7 pixels in the image vertically correspond to 1°C. I would estimate that on average temperatures have gone down by about 0.5°C during melt season (about day 150-240) and gone up by 3-4°C during wintertime (days 0 to 80) and autumn (days 280-365)
It would be interesting to see the data as monthly anomalies.

Cold Englishman

This is what we got last night on the BBC news. ‘Gruelling’ Arctic mission ends.
Regarding the Catlin Mission:-
Peter Wadhams, head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge has brought forward his estimate for the demise of summer sea-ice in the Arctic
“By 2013, we will see a much smaller area in summertime than now; and certainly by about 2020, I can imagine that only one area will remain in summer.”
I doubt that I shall make 2020, but I hope that some of you younger ones, hold these idiots to acccount for their stupidity.

MattN

Anthony, If this doesn’t get your name taken in vain on RC, nothing posted here will.
Figures don’t lie, but liars sure can figure….
REPLY: Heh, they’ve already allowed comments that refer to WUWT as “Watts Up Your Ass” so I doubt they can say much worse, but they are certainly creative so maybe I’ll be wrong.
Gavin doesn’t police for decorum. – Anthony

Konrad

John Finn (02:13:01
Defend GISS? After all the hard work Anthony and his many hard working volunteers have done?
I could see a use for the GISS product, [snip – lets leave those comparisons outside of WUWT, Anthony]

DennisA

There are some excellent references at the Alaska Climate Research Centre, although they have been virtually hidden from view as younger staff have arrived on the scene. The first one is on the same page as Steve Goddard’s post and the commentary is virtually identical to 2004. The graphic presentation has changed to a Hadley style chart. The other references are no longer visible on the site.
“The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2008, 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. ” Alaska Climate Research Centre: http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/ClimTrends/Change/TempChange.html
Understanding Alaska’s Climate Variation:
“The last two complete phases of the PDO were 1947-1976 (–ve PDO) and 1977-1996 (+ve PDO). Temperatures are cooler than normal during –ve PDO and warmer than normal during +ve PDO. These anomalies are not for the most part large, but considering they are for periods of 30 and 20 years respectively, they are significant”. John Papineau PhD, National Weather Service: http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/climvar/climate-paper.html
The FANB (Fairbanks, Anchorage, Nome, Barrow) temperature record:
“the mean annual temperature from 1977 through 1998 never dropped as low as the average from 1954 through 1976, even in the Pinatubo year, and only one year prior to 1977 was as warm as the average since the 1976-77 winter. The actual change seems to have occurred late in 1976. Although 1999 was below the 1954-76 average, the FANB average rebounded in 2000 in spite of a cool fall. http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Bowling/FANB.html
Problems with the Use of Climatological Data to Detect Climatic Change at High Latitudes. Sue Ann Bowling Ph.D:
http://climate.gi.alaska.edu/Bowling/AKchange.html
“This paper deals with three examples of local variations or apparent “climate changes” probably due to urban effects, plus one possible real variation in Alaskan climate.
The Fairbanks area is subject to strong urban heat island effects (measured to be as much as 13 °C) when skies are clear in winter (Bowling and Benson, 1978). Summer heat islands have hardly been looked at, but they now appear likely to have more effect on recorded climate than do the large winter ones, which are masked by large year-to-year variability in winter and seem to be more confined to the city core.”
“Why doesn’t Anchorage show a similar effect? The most probable culprit is the Good Friday Earthquake of 1964. The earthquake leveled the Control Tower, which required that the instruments be relocated. The max/min thermometers were at Point Campbell, farther from pavement and nearer the waters of Cook Inlet, by 1971, but there is apparently no published record of their location during the intervening period.”
The Misplaced Move and the Encroaching City:
“Recorded station moves are not necessarily consistent among different sources, nor are the dates always accurate. Take the case of the downhill move at the University Experiment Station. The station list in Climatological Data, Alaska shows an elevation change from 500 feet to 475 feet in the summer of 1947. Was it real, or the result of re-surveying the area? With known current winter inversion strengths in the University area, such a move could have produced a decrease of a few degrees in recorded winter temperatures. Comparison of the University record for December and January with the Fairbanks record from Weeks Field (near where the Borough Library is now located) did indeed show either a decrease in University temperature or an increase in the Weeks Field temperature, but suggested a change in the summer of 1946 rather than 1947. The actual station history for the University Experiment Station confirms that the move was real, but it took place in 1933, 15 years before it was finally brought up to date in Climatological Data.”
The 1976 temperature step: a real change?
The 1976-77 winter in Alaska was astonishingly warm. At Fairbanks, pussy willows bloomed in November (author’s observation) and daily average temperatures never reached -30°F. Subsequent winters followed the same trend to a lesser degree, with degree days below -40°F showing a reduction quite noticable to long-term residents. An average of four Alaskan stations with good, continuous records, Anchorage, Barrow, Fairbanks, and Nome, show what appears to be a change in mean annual temperatures at around this time
A similar step change occurred in the UK CET record in 1988/9. In 1987 CET was 9.05 deg C, in 1989 it was 10.5 and in 1990 it was 10.63, a temperature which has been exceeded only once since, in 2006. (In 1949 it was 10.62). In the 22 year period from 1987 to 2008, M. Loa CO2 increased by almost 36 ppmv.
Great warming effect…..

Bernie

Flanagan:
What is the actual source of your chart?

Cold Englishman: Well, I certainly hope to be around in 2020, but I think we will prevail much sooner. The Arctic heat-wave of 1920-1940 is of course well-known to real Arctic climate scientists. I reviewed 32 temperature data sets for Arctic stations to 2004 some with very long records – In 2006 I could find only one with higher temperatures in 2004 than in the late 1930s or early 1940s – that was on the eastern coast of Greenland. Since then I have reviewed dozens of papers on surface air temperature, sea surface temperatures, ice-mass, glacier speeds and sea-ice, and all show a clear CYCLIC pattern of roughly 70 years. Some Greenland and Alaskan temperatures peaked in 2006-2008, but the pattern looks set to repeat.
The latest Arctic heat wave is not identical to the last – firstly it is higher, by maybe 20% in some places, and secondly, the hot-spots are different. But one thing is clear – it is driven by two distinctive factors – a 14% increase in clouds over the North Pole and Beaufort Sea between 1980-2000, and the incursion of warm Atlantic water under the ice and into the Beaufort Gyre. The rapid summer ice loss is due to melting from above (infra red from the clouds) and below (warm Atlantic water).
The strength of the Beaufort Gyre determines how far Atlantic water penetrates the Arctic – when the PDO is warm and Alaskan Shelf winds are low, the gyre weakens and may reverse flow; when cold (since late 2006), the Alaskan interior cools, the winds strengthen and the gyre strengthens accordingly – there is a lag of a few years.
Thus, this domino effect from the Pacific will eventually reach the area between Greenland and Norway and summer sea-ice ought to return to the long-term norm (unless there really IS a strong greenhouse element – which I can’t see it greater than the difference between this warm period and the last – ie about 20%) and unless there is an even steeper decline in global temperatures due to the quiet sun effect.
On the latter – there is a body of evidence that during quiet solar periods, the jetstream is shifted along with Arctic pressure systems that lead to blocking high pressure over Iceland – sending the jetstream further south and cooling western Europe. The eastern seaboard of the USA gets a little warmer, but the mid-West suffers late springs, dry summers, and bitter winters – not good for the breadbasket of the world!
We should get to see this play out over the next five years.

Allan M R MacRae

This is true – I made similar statements one year ago, on a global basis.
“No Global Warming Since 1940”
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
Excerpts:
The best data shows no significant warming since ~1940. The lack of significant warming is evident in UAH Lower Troposphere temperature data from ~1980 to end April 2008, and Hadcrut3 Surface Temperature data from ~1940 to ~1980.
Furthermore, it is clear that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from ice core data spanning thousands of years to sub-decadal trends – the latter as stated in my paper**, and previously by Kuo (1990) and Keeling (1995) .
Finally, humanmade CO2 emissions have increased almost 800% since 1940.
CO2 data from CDIAC: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/ndp030/global.1751_2004.ems
This data consistently suggests that the sensitivity of global temperature to increased atmospheric CO2 is near-zero, and thus there is no humanmade catastrophic global warming crisis.
_____________________________________

Hi Steven, Hello from France
Thanks for this update. By the way, the link (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.431042500000.1.1/station.gif) given for “Godthab Nuuk” station does not work. Here is a link that works:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

old construction worker

Flanagan, I’ll give you 1-100 odds that the Artic will not be ice free in five years and I’ll give you 1-50 odds that the North Pole will not be ice free in five years.

Steven Goddard: It’s difficult to see year-to-year variations of a few tenths of a deg k when the scale on the graph is 45 deg K. So…
Here are three time-series graphs of ERA40 Surface Temperature (and anomaly) data for the same Arctic area (80N-90N). The ERA40 data should be the same dataset used by the Danish Meteorological Institute for your daily mean temperature graphs above. I downloaded the data through the KNMI Climate Explorer website. The anomaly data has been smoothed with a 12-month running-average filter. Unfortunately, the KNMI data hasn’t been updated since 2002, but, if you’re interested in investigating the ERA40 data further, you could send Geert Jan at KNMI an email and ask him to update it.
Here’s the Arctic (80N-90N) Surface Temperature graph in deg K. The peaks and valleys are suppressed in this presentation because the data is monthly mean, where the DMI graphs are daily mean temps. As you can see, it’s tough to really visualize what’s going on from year to year:
http://i43.tinypic.com/66vgw4.jpg
And here’s the same data in deg C:
http://i42.tinypic.com/n316iv.jpg
And the anomaly data:
http://i44.tinypic.com/jr7mns.jpg

Steven Goddard
I live close to Pen Haddow in Devon. This is the headline story in todays Western Morning News. that covers our region
‘POLAR ICE CAP AT CRITICAL POINT’
http://www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/POLAR-ICE-CAP-CRITICAL-POINT/article-991466-detail/article.html
Despite mind numbing temperatures, the fact that ice melts in summer, that they mistakenly set off across first year ice, that they didnt make their objective because of severe weather, this is being portrayed as a huge success and proof that the ice could melt this summer. Sheer propaganda.
It is about time we were more proactive as a collective organisation of sceptics, instead of making our individual complaints within forums that agree with our own view point.
Can we develop the mechaniosm (without the right wing or BIg Oil connotations) whereby we despatch our own press releases- based on facts and science- and sent them to the thirty or so key media (many of the rest pick it up from these sources)
We are currently being marginalised by the media who believe what they are being told and rarely know the real facts.
Tonyb

Brian Johnson
Neville

@Lucy
The book you are looking for came extremely highly recommended by Professor Bob Carter the other day, who said if there’s only one book you read this year it should be Ian Wishart’s new book Air Con. I don’t think he was dissing anyone else, it’s just that Air Con is so comprehensive but so easy to read.
The book is similar to Plimer’s in its coverage, but as a journalist Wishart writes on a level that’s easy for anyone to understand but without sacrificing any of the science or the significance.
I’ve read it now, it’s a fantastic book, and I see someone else has given it five stars on Amazon so presumably others share my opinion.
There’s a preview been released which will give you some idea of his writing style:
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/05/air-con-book-debuts-at-1-on-bestseller-list.html
From memory, Aussie Joanne Nova has also done a little skeptic’s guide booklet that kids could read, so there’s two titles worth exploring.

They use the “it’s warming faster than anyone ever knew” because they are out of time. It’s over for the hoax. Even the OMB knows the science isn’t there. It’s been a carbon TAX and RATION scam from the beginning. Bill Clinton tried a straight carbon tax and was defeated way back in 1992.
Does this mean they won’t TAX carbon anyway, the urge is strong, so who knows.
BUT — This will go down in history as a huge black mark for science in the public’s eyes. The real problem with doing science by government grant. I note Steve is now doing everything in the open, I would encourage others to follow his lead. Software, methods, results, conclusions — make it all open.

Claude Harvey

The version of the Vostok Ice Core Temperature Record presented here clearly shows CO2 variations trailing the temperature variations, particularly on the upticks. Other versions of the chart, with its 450,000 year scale, do not consistently show this visual effect, with the explanation by skeptics being that the lag was only 800 years (ocean effect) which would not be apparent on such a scale. That leads me to suspect the chart presented here has been tampered with for dramatic effect. Explanation?

Flanagan (00:52:50) :
I just checked all the stations in Greenland with data from the 1920’s up to present and there is a similar picture – therefore it is somewhat disingenuous to say that the data is cherry picked.

Steven Goddard

TonyB,
That Hadow interview was hilarious and will be remembered – thanks.

Pen Hadow and his team have revealed alarming new evidence that the shrinking ice cap has reached a critical point – heightening fears that global warming is spiralling out of control.
……
During the expedition, they worked in temperatures of minus-46C with a wind chill factor on occasions down to minus-70C.
“I think the abiding memory of this expedition has been the desperate struggle and effort required,” said Mr Hadow.

Steven Goddard

Flanagan: You wrote, “This is what one gets when considering the whole arctic anomaly, as compared to the global anomaly.”
And you linked one of my graphs:
http://i37.tinypic.com/2lrxtu.jpg
The graph is Figure 5 from my post “Polar Amplification and Arctic Warming”:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/polar-amplification-and-arctic-warming.html
Please list the source of my graphs when you use them. A link would be nice, too.
Thanks.

Bernie: You asked Flanagan for the source of the graph he linked. As noted in my comment to him above, it’s one of mine. Here’s another link to that post:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/07/polar-amplification-and-arctic-warming.html
Regards

Steven Goddard

Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC wrote this on WUWT a few months ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/21/nsidc-s-dr-walt-meier-answers-10-questions/

The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago, is part of a global warming signal that for the foreseeable future will continue to increase temperatures (with of course occasional short-term fluctuations), in Greenland and around the world. This will eventually, over the coming centuries, lead to significant melting of the Greenland ice sheet and sea level rise with accompanying impacts on coastal regions.

This GISSTEMP derived map shows that most of the Arctic was warmer 70 years ago.
http://docs.google.com/File?id=ddw82wws_20d886qwcz_b
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/16/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-answers-reader-questions-on-sea-ice/

Shawn Whelan

The Hudson Bay company has extensive records of the climate in the Canadian north. Conveniently ignored.
The first long-term studies of climate change took place along the coast of Hudson Bay at places like Churchill and York Factory. They are part of the longest and most comprehensive set of weather observations in North America, if not the world.
As part of daily activities at any Hudson’s Bay Company trading post, weather patterns, rainfall, and casual observations were recorded and eventually archived by the company. In fact during the early 1800s, there were at least three times as many weather stations in Northern Manitoba as there are today. There is even evidence that a weather station was planned for Cape Merry in the mid-1700s.
Weather records for York Factory and Churchill date all the way back to 1714 and 1718, respectively. The Hudson’s Bay Company kept accurate records to assist in their business decisions regarding the fur trade. Their archives contain journals from over two hundred trading posts throughout the Canadian northwest.

snip
We seem to be running in roughly forty year cycles of warming and cooling – within a longer term warm period. This century has been marked by a warming period (1910-1940) followed by a cooler period through to the 1970s. The latest warming trend began in the late 70s, early 80s.
http://www.polarbearalley.com/hudson-bay-post-climate-change.html

Bob Tisdale (04:24:45) : The graphs of this post must be complemented with the graphs in the links you give.
Nothing has changed! Surprising indeed. (Except…some wallets..and bellies 🙂 )

pyromancer76

TonyB (04:36:16) : “It is about time we were more proactive as a collective organisation of sceptics, instead of making our individual complaints within forums that agree with our own view point.
Can we develop the mechanism (without the right wing or BIg Oil connotations) whereby we despatch our own press releases- based on facts and science- and sent them to the thirty or so key media (many of the rest pick it up from these sources) ”
I think this is an important purpose, although any such effort will be maligned. As a non-scientist/engineer/computer-model specialist, I can’t be much help, but whatever I could do….Steven Goddard’s post (and thank you), many of the posts from WUWT, could form a basis for the effort. However, anything like this organized in a competent fashion would be expensive in many ways. Just listen to Anthony about how much this blog alone has “cost” him. Lucy Skywalker’s efforts and Nevelle’s assistance to build a bibliography are very important, too. Ideas from these could be sent to school districts. And so on, and so on. It ain’t easy.
I personally believe big-money from the left — wherever that is located — has bought mass media, many academic institutions, most “scientific” publications and is trying to ensconse itself in government in a permanent fashion. Corporations simply buy onto/into any trend they believe will bring them profits. Cap-and-trade seems to be the chosen vehicle at present. All efforts to the contrary are essential.
Knowledge about both Arctic and Antarctic, if it could be disseminated widely, couldn’t hurt, especially on a blow-by-blow basis; each false report is immediately followed by the truth in similar specificity. And this “organization of skeptics” would need its spokespersons to personalize the science. Steven Goddard, are you ready for the BBC?

Richard M

Flanagan,
If the Arctic is truly 1C warmer now I imagine the Caitlin crew is extremely thankful. Just imagine if they had to suffer through -41C temps instead of the pleasant -40C temps they encountered.

Ed Scott

Al Gore 1984
[snip -video removed – I don’t want this sort of hype on the blog, sorry. – Anthony]
Can Big Brother be green? Absolutely. If carbon dioxide were the planetary poison that global warming alarmists claim, then every aspect of our lives would be fair game for government control: the homes we build, the cars we drive, the light bulbs we use. Even the number of children we have—because lets face it; any reduction in CO2 that we achieve will be more than offset by the households our kids will create when they grow up.
There are already proposals in Congress and federal agencies to vastly increase taxes and regulations in order to address the so-called global warming crisis. But as a growing number of scientists are openly declaring, there is no crisis.

GW

Two things of interest from the graphs, if someone would care to address :
1) Why have the Alaskan glaciers grown this past season, whereas they did not back in 1999 ? Or did they, and it went undocumented or unreported ?
2) From the Vostok Ice Core Graph, it appears that climate and ice ages are predominantly governed by the amount of atmospheric dust. Is it documented whether the dust was volcanic in origin, or surface – from the huge Asian and African deserts, kicked up by atmospheric wind patterns ? Any correlations with significant asteroid impacts ?

steve
Glad you enjoyed the newspaper article.
You responded to a post from Flanagan with a link to:
Dr. Walt Meier from NSIDC wrote this on WUWT a few months ago.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/21/nsidc-s-dr-walt-meier-answers-10-questions/
This shows a map with dots whereby some temperatures are warmer than 70 years ago-some the same.
As a Brit I trend to think of Alaska as cold-with some parts very cold
so I was intrigued to compare this map with
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/13/90-of-the-last-million-years-the-normal-state-of-the-earths-climate-has-been-an-ice-age/
So the warm South West of england seems to shatre something with most of Alaska-it didnt glaciate during the last ice age. In other words some parts of Alaska are historicaly and currently warmer than intuition might indicate.
Have you-or anyone-an explanation for this? Height? Affect from a current? Micro climate?
Thanks
tonyb