Guest Post by Steven Goddard
From time to time we hear that various places on earth have been “warming much faster than the rest of the planet – as predicted by “the models.” One of the places commonly mentioned in that list is the Arctic, based largely on 30 years of satellite data. Fortunately though, we are not limited by 30 years of satellite data, as the Danish Meteorological Institute has records going back to 1958 and GISSTEMP has even longer records.
Below is a visual comparison of DMI 1958 Arctic temperatures vs. 2009, showing that temperatures have hardly changed since the start of their record.
2009 Daily Mean Temperatures North of 80 degrees
Below is an overlay directly showing that 2009 temperatures (green) are similar to 1958 (red) and close to the mean. Blue is mean temperature for the 41 year record.
So if the Arctic has warmed since 1979, how can it be the about same as 1958? The answer can be seen in the GISSTEMP graph below of Godthab, Greenland.
Temperatures have warmed since the start of the satellite record, but they cooled even more between 1940 and 1980.
Everyone (including NSIDC) quietly acknowledges that most of the Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now – so they shift the warming argument to the Alaska side. However, that argument also has problems. Alaska temperatures rose at the positive PDO shift in 1977, and have cooled again with the recent negative PDO shift – as seen below. 2008 was notable in that Alaska glaciers started to increase in size.
If you look at only one leg of a cycle, you will come to the wrong conclusion about the shape of the graph. Thus I would argue that Dr. Spencer’s fourth order curves are much more meaningful than the nearly meaningless linear fits being used by most prominent climate scientists. Climate is primarily cyclical, as every good climate scientist should know.
Vostok Ice Core Temperature Records
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steven Goddard (14:26:58) :
“So how come global temperatures have been going down since Beckham left?”
Where is the data indicating a decrease in global temperatures and if this is a trend, how many years has this trend continued?
storky: click
I wanted CO2 to be the cause of supposed global warming so that some restrictions would be put on the rather nasty global enslav.. errm corporations. I used to imagine those restrictions would involve a package of measures to do something about the terrible pollution then pump out.
But the arguements first, against CO2 and then Global warming just kept winning the day, so I leant that way.
Secondly, the output of the Sun is incredible. Any alterations in it are by intuition alone, going to have a major effect on the worlds climate. Just how I don’t think is flly known yet. But the Sun is far more likely to influence climate than a piddly 33% increase in CO2. The other aspects of industrialisation and capitalism produce far more serious effects such as radioactve waste and GM food etc.
Lastly the restrictions on megacorp are NOT going gto happen either from CO2 ‘footprints’ or about pollution – its the little folk that will CONTINUE to pay.
I suspect a lot of people are stuck with the initial desire I had (stated in 1st paragraph).
Well done for this site. Let the science speak and the spin cease.
All it takes to start is a few people with a fax machine and Internet access. Give the outfit an imposing name, e.g. “Scientists for Responsible Public Policy,” or “World Environmental Resource Group.” Then develop a contact list in the media (print, radio, TV, cable) and the blogosphere (including Drudge, Yahoo News, Brietbart, etc.).
Every time there is a climate-related news item, send out a press release with comments from Realist scientists. When sites like Icecap or WUWT post new developments, issue press releases trumpeting them as ‘Earth-shattering’, ‘startling’, ‘revealing’, ‘casting doubt’. “Not Melting? Scientist Says Arctic Has Not Warmed Since 1958!”
None of this would take very much money, though it would require time. Ideally the group should have a professionally-designed website, which will cost something, and a Board of Directors (preferably names not known to the average reporter as ‘deniers’, i.e. not Fred Singer or Lord Monckton, but folks with impressive and unimpeachable credentials).
TonyB is right; it’s time to take the offensive.
/Mr Lynn
storky,
Beckham’s departure from MU in 2003 correlates exactly with the recent period of global cooling. Proof positive that his presence in the Premiership was the primary cause of global warming.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2003/plot/uah/from:2003/trend
Smokey:
I asked for evidence regarding “decrease in global temperatures”
That chart looks like this. The upward trend peaked in 2005, but a substantial downward trend has yet to be established.
The first three months of this year rank as the 9th, 8th and 10th warmest since 1880
Hey, Steven Goddard (07:58:55)
That graphing system is a great toy. I especially like the way linear means make the data look more impressive. And of course, if one cherry picks data like you did from the lower troposphere, instead of land and sea combined, one can make some assertions than mean relatively little.
Here’s a chart I built:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1959/plot/gistemp/from:1959/trend
KBK (19:18:39):
As you seem to recognize, the crux is that an independent power source is necessary to effect true feedback. There simply are no power sources or power-multiplying mechanisms naturally available on Earth. That is not to say that its dynamic response to insolation is neatly predictable. It is chaotic. And, of course, with the workings of the hydrological cycle and the biosphere, the Earth is an time-varying, adaptive system. There indeed may be dynamic “attractors” that tip the response toward one mode or another. Nevertheless, everything derives its power from the Sun. My entire objection is to the misapplication of the concepts (and formulae) of feedback systems in trying to explain the complexities of climate by speciously multiplying the available power.
Well, storky me boy, notice in the chart you provided @10:30:19 that for several years temps have been going down. Thanx for verifying that fact for everyone.
You can see what’s happening from several different points of view:
click1
click2
click3
click4
click5
Got lots more if you want ’em.
lwtc247 (04:53:12) :
“I wanted CO2 to be the cause of supposed global warming so that some restrictions would be put on the rather nasty global enslav.. errm corporations.”
Which goes to show that fabricated science cannot replace legislation. Real pollutants, particulates, CO, SO4, etc must be regulated. Where the AGWs went way wrong was to assume they could bamboozle the public (and honest science) into accepting that man-made CO2 would cause a climate catastrophe. That was hubris on a global scale.
We still need restrictions on the rather nasty global enslav..errm guv’mnet.
storky,
You seem a bit confused. You asked about the downwards trend since 2003 (which I provided) then you decided you didn’t like that, so you pulled out the upwards adjusted Gistemp map since 1950.
We all know that Hansen wants us to believe the world is heating out of control. You don’t need graphs to demonstrate his belief system, and you shouldn’t keep changing the subject.
@ur momisugly John S. (10:52:37)
Consider a climate system whose output is temperature, and where the output is a function of input temperature but with multiple weighted time delays relative to the input. Some with short delays, e.g. cloud formation due to evaporation and some with very long delays, e.g. carbonate rock formed by organisms finally subducted, decomposed, and returned to the atmosphere via volcanic action.
Solar energy is the energy source for this system, but it’s not the input.
And in tangentially related events, it appears possible the “second year ice” phenom is starting to kick in abit from NSIDC and IJIS the last couple days. Still likely to be significantly less severe than “first year ice” falloff, but it is likely 2.5 more months before we can say that for sure.
I also happened to notice today that NSIDC’s main page is touting their April 4th booga-booga, but oddly enough the May 5 “slow start to melt season” article did not make the front page.
“The first three months of this year rank as the 9th, 8th and 10th warmest since 1880”
Erm . . 8th, 9th, 10th warmest? Sounds like a cooling to me.
Woops, I should clarify my statement of (10:30:19) : “The first three months of this year rank as the 9th, 8th and 10th warmest since 1880”
it should read:
The first three months of this year rank as the 7th warmest January, 9th warmest February and 8th warmest March since 1880.
Anyway, why stop at 1959? 1790 was the warmest winter on record along the East Coast of the US.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/25/philadelphias-climate-in-the-early-days/
Steve Goddard (12:02:44) :
To add to this, I’d say why do we stop at the 20th century? Why not 100, 200, 400 and 500 million years ago when it was on average 10 C hotter and thousands of ppm of CO2 in the atmsphere? Funny how, even with all that CO2 there were still ice ages periods. Moreover, even with rises in CO2, there were still cooling.
I should have put a link for the graph: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1644060/posts
“storky, You seem a bit confused.”
Hardly.
“You asked about the downwards trend since 2003 (which I provided) then you decided you didn’t like that. . .”
“If you’re claiming that Lower Tropospheric satellite data is representative of “GLOBAL” temperatures, you’re full of crap”
“so you pulled out the upwards adjusted Gistemp map since 1950.”
. . . Since 1959, 50 years of data placed with a linear mean. I stated that “linear means make the data look more impressive” and demonstrated it by selected the full range of combined land and sea data available from that source which is more representative of global values.
We all know that Hansen wants us to believe the world is heating out of control. You don’t need graphs to demonstrate his belief system,
You’re funny! You cherry-pick data to make a point contrary to scientific consensus and accuse me of devotion to superstitious beliefs. So what is the theory for this “global cooling” and what is the forecast for the next 50 years. You can’t have a scientific theory without predicted outcomes! So what are they?
“. . . and you shouldn’t keep changing the subject.”
I get to pursue whatever tangent topics are presented by your replies. If you want me to stick to the topic, do so yourselves.
“TonyB is right; it’s time to take the offensive.
/Mr Lynn”
Some impartial funding would help. From a non-aligned educational source would be best, e.g. Sloan Foundation. Other suggestions?
“Anyway, why stop at 1959? 1790 was the warmest winter on record along the East Coast of the US.”
Because statistical data analysis requires that data must be gathered using similar means.
In industrial statistical process control we have an adage: 3M – meaning Man, Machine, Method. Change any one of those in the production process and subsequent data can no longer be evaluated with that gathered previously – the previous data chart ends and a new one begins. No legacy data can be included or evaluated in combination with the new statistical analysis charts.
That is why modern weather data only goes back to 1879. That was when measuring instruments calibrated against global standards were first established for recording weather data.
That is also why little satellite weather data predates 1979. Though there have been several weather satellites launched earlier, 1979 was the year the first three GOES satellites became fully operational and data from one could be compared for accuracy against the other two.
Yes 1790 was very warm in Philadelphia and in the early 1800’s the Arctic ice retreated dramatically suggesting the North West passage might open: but alas it all froze up again before the Royal Navy could explore it. Other demands on the service.
The trouble was the Artic ice is only open for some ten to fifteen years at a time for reasons unknown and back then it took a while, years, to appreciate from reports what was happening and organise an expedition: by which time it was too late. The ice had closed again.
Only in the 20th century between 1920 and 1940 was it possible to get more accurate reports of what was happening. This time round the reports are more detailed and quicker.
But we still don’t really know what is going on.
Kindest Regards
storky (12:55:17) :
So basically what you are saying is to forget the climate events of all the past Earth history because we didn’t have instruments to measure the temperatures back then. Yet, you accept Mann’s Hockey stick graph derived from proxy data and questionable statistical manipulation? Un[self-snip]ably unbelievable!!!
“So basically what you are saying is to forget the climate events of all the past Earth history because we didn’t have instruments to measure the temperatures back then.”
No, Ray, that’s not what I’m saying. I must state, however, you’re quite adept at employing logical fallacies. That one being the non-sequitur.
Yet, you accept Mann’s Hockey stick graph derived from proxy data and questionable statistical manipulation?
Yep, especially when the error margin and confidence intervals reflect the aggregated data sources.
Meanwhile, the guys that told you the Mann-Bradley-Hughes’ “Hockey stick” graph was wrong, McIntyre and McKitrick, have had 3 out of 4 of their data reconstructions deemed statistically invalid.
Un[self-snip]ably unbelievable!!!
Belief has got nothing to do with it.
Whoops, again I forgot to include the point of my reply.
When gathering data using similar means the error margins are small and the confidence intervals are very high. When aggregating data using multiple methods, you pay a penalty in both the margin of error and confidence interval. As long as the trend demonstrably and significantly outperforms the margin of error, then the study is valid and useful.