Arctic Temperature Reporting In The News Needs A Reality Check
Their new articles that claim the Arctic is rapidly warming. These articles are an excellent examples of the cherrypicking of particular published papers to promote the very narrow perspective of the journalists.
These include
An Associated Press news article by Randolph E. Schmid titled “Arctic reverses long-term trend”.
A New York Times article by Andrew C. Revkin titled “Humans May Have Ended Long Arctic Chill”.
The Schmid article has the text
“The most recent 10-year interval, 1999-2008, was the warmest of the last 2,000 years in the Arctic, according to the researchers led by Darrell S. Kaufman, a professor of geology and environmental science at Northern Arizona University.
Summer temperatures in the Arctic averaged 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit (1.4 degrees Celsius) warmer than would have been expected if the cooling had continued, the researchers said.
The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate. The administration-backed measure would impose the first limits on greenhouse gases and eventually would lead to an 80 percent reduction by putting a price on each ton of climate-altering pollution.”
Revkin reinforces this extreme view in his September 3 2009 article with his figure of 2000 years of Arctic surface temperatures, with each decade having the same temporal resolution as the last 10 years.
The publication of these news articles are clearly meant to influence the political process, as evident in the last paragraph, where Schmid writes “The finding adds fuel to the debate over a House-passed climate bill now pending in the Senate.”
The documentation of their biased reporting is easy to show. For example, they do not report on observational data which does not show this rapid recent warming; e.g. see that the current high latitude temperatures are close to the longer term average since 1958
The Danish Meteorological Institute Daily Mean Temperatures in the Arctic 1958 – 2008 [and thanks to the excellent weblog Watts Up With That for making this easily available to us!]
There are also peer reviewed papers which show that the Schmid and Revkin articles are biased; e. g. see
i) the areal coverage of the coldest middle tropospheric temperatures (below -40C) have not changed radically as shown in the Revkin figure; see
Herman, B., M. Barlage, T.N. Chase, and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2008: Update on a proposed mechanism for the regulation of minimum mid-tropospheric and surface temperatures in the Arctic and Antarctic. J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 113, D24101, doi:10.1029/2008JD009799.
and
ii) there is a warm bias in the Arctic surface temperature measurements when they are used to characterize deeper atmospheric warming; see
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., accepted.
At least the news Editors of the newspapers are starting to recognize that these journalists are presenting slanted news. The Schmid article appeared only on page 12 of my local newspaper.
Re: Jennifer Hubbard (06:19:18)
It is difficult to appreciate your comment without knowing more about your perspective. I welcome elaboration.
–
Lucy Skywalker, the GISTEMP graphs are not of presentation value. However, you will note that underneath them there is a “Download monthly data as text” option, which can quickly be popped open in a new tab, copied/pasted to Excel, and graphed nicely. It will be tedious work to produce presentation-quality graphics for all the sites, but if someone (else – I don’t have time for this) goes to that trouble, it will be easy to do future updates with the resultant template on-file. [Note: GISTEMP only goes back to 1880, so it will be necessary to track down original records for sites with records that go back further.]
I should clarify my primary interest in the Arctic warming of 1920-1940:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/ChandlerPeriod.PNG
There is an anti-phase relation with Antarctica (that is detectable in anomalous regional ENSO-echoes), which has been pointed out by Sidorenkov. Bob Tisdale’s post on the Southern Ocean tells the same story. The time-integrated aa index record tells the same story. Basil did a post on Hurst exponents – the paper he featured tells the same story. Ian Wilson’s recent work – same. There are just too many “same”s. Keep an eye on the message and the framing of the communications of Yu.V. Barkin if you want to get a sense of how things have to go to slowly gain acceptance. It is unlikely that we will be able to speed up the transition to appreciation of truth, but we can prepare for the day when the dishonesty-fad is torn apart by a flood of defections. (It could be many years from now, as there is still opportunity for many in the deception. The important thing during the present era is to keep interest in the truth thriving in the face of forces that are aggressively determined to thwart, suppress, deride, crush, annihilate, …)
Lucy Skywalker – a few more notes for you & the many others who are pursuing the whole truth:
Ponyavin, D.I.; & Zolotova, N.V. (2004). Nonlinear analysis of climatic time series with cross recurrence plots.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/Ponyavin_and_Zolotova_2004.pdf
The following global synchrony existed after but not before the major shift they highlight in their cross-recurrence plots:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/(J,N)o2&Pr.png
Here is the unusual event:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/1931UniquePhaseHarmonics.png
The warming in the North Atlantic coincided with Arctic melt & severe drought in North America at a time when Antarctic ice peaked and Southern Oceans were frigid.
http://i41.tinypic.com/29zxus7.jpg
[credit: Bob Tisdale]
At present, Barkin appears to be the best hope of framing communications regarding the nature of such phenomena in a manner that can reach hard-wired, closed-minded traditionalists who are more-than-reluctant to abandon their untenable assumptions.
Supplementary – for those wishing to see the relevant patterns before 1940:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/Pr,JN4,r..,m4..png
In the days ahead I may introduce to WUWT peculiar relations between the solar cycle, regional precipitation, regional temperature statistics, & ENSO.
Note to the wise:
Expect more questions than answers if you are on the right track in your investigation of complexity. (It is fear, not truth, that drives the masses to the embrace of those who project a simple (“everything is well-understood already”) alternative.)
Interesting reply, Paul, thanks a lot.
(1) I note you and (?)GS discussing Yu V Barkin elsewhere, and I really do understand the (generally) slow process of adoption. More than you might think. But that doesn’t mean I’m not learning in that area – I am. So I’ve scanned YVB in Google, forgotten most but not all… One more “coincidental” mention of him and I shall know it’s time to dig deeper.
(2) ha, you show up nicely my scientific inadequacy, and challenge me to learn more. I’ve checked the NASA data – really unfortunate they only go back to 1880; but learning to make Excel graphs is a project I need to take breath for! or do I do better just staying as a reporter of science?
(3) the anti-phase pattern… is this related to what I just pointed Invariance to, elsewhere, Alan Cheetham’s work?
Now like the best of scientists, I’m thoroughly a mystic at heart, and like Kepler I look for the “harmony of the spheres” in scientific realms as well as in poetic ones…
“…Look, how the floor of Heaven
Is thick inlaid with patines of bright gold ;
There’s not an orb, which thou behold’st,
But in its motion like an angel sings,
Still quiring to the young-ey’d cherubins :
Such harmony is in immortal souls
But whilst this muddy vessel of decay
Doth grossly close it in, we cannot hear it.”
Also:
Ponyavin, D.I. (2004). Solar cycle signal in geomagnetic activity and climate. Solar Physics 224, 465-471.
Ponyavin, D.I.; Barliaeva, T.V.; & Zolotova, N.V. (2005). Hypersensitivity of climate response to solar activity output during the last 60 years. Memorie della Societa Astronomica Italiana 76, 1026-1029.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/P_B_Z_2005MmSAI..76.1026I.pdf
Zolotova N.V.; & Ponyavin D.I. (2005). Recurrence and cross recurrence plot analysis of natural time series, Educational and methodical materials. St. Petersburg University Press. (in Russian)
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/ZP_methodology.pdf
(Those who can’t read Russian can at least look at the figures.)
The following will also be of interest to a subset of WUWT readers:
Zolotova N.V.; Ponyavin D.I.; Marwan N.; & Kurths J. (2009). Long-term asymmetry in the wings of the butterfly diagram. Astronomy & Astrophysics 503, 197-201.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/~ned/Zolotova_Ponyavin_Marwan_Kurths_2009.pdf
–
Lucy, Graphing in Excel is a breeze (we’re talking seconds) – no need to be intimidated …and there’s plenty of opportunity to be artistic. Feel welcome to ask the occasional question – (and don’t sit for more than 5 minutes stuck!)
It shouldn’t be too hard to track down the Arctic series online since so few countries border the Arctic and all of them are developed. If you find links, please share.
You can find the Canadian series here:
http://climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/climateData/canada_e.html
Click on the province or territory you want (on the map), switch the “Interval” to “Monthly”, click a site, and then click the ‘Bulk Data’ “CSV” hyperlink.
Hopefully it is equally easy for Alaska, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, Russia, +. (It’s probably just a matter of finding the right pathway on some government websites.)
I will likely have more to share & say about Barkin in the weeks & months ahead… (I’m still making my way through dozens of his papers…)
Thanks to WUWT for providing a place to swap notes.
Let me remind you again that a poll by Pielke, Sr. and others in 2007 showed:
No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that “global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate” – [0%].
82% expressed the opinion that the IPCC WG1 Report was accurate [65%] or actually underestimates the consequences of anthropogenic CO2-induced AGW and the associated risks [15%].
The most often chosen response in the survey was “The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.”
BTW, even the Pielkes believe in AGW as significant but they think it is less significant than most other experts. So what do you say to the Pielkes?
Of course a larger poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago of 3,146 Earth scientists showed 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 80% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent believing in human involvement.
Doran and Zimmerman conclude:
Debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
This discussion thread certainly bears that out.
Lucy Skywalker (15:29:27) “(3) the anti-phase pattern… is this related to what I just pointed Invariance to, elsewhere, Alan Cheetham’s work?”
It’s going to be a piece of work sorting through that:
“Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
…so no comment at this time.
What I will say for now: Be alert for a see-saw relationship between the North & South Pole at a variety of time-scales (including decadal). (Also: Watch out for arguments to the contrary that are not telling the whole truth.)
Scott Mandia (16:31:49) :
Not to beat a dead horse, but how many of those climate scientists think the consequences are likely to be catastrophic and think it’s worth draconian measures to change the World’s economy?
Even Joel thinks climate policy is likely to be “distasteful”.
Do you? And do you think there’s enough evidence of impending catastrophy to merit forcing citizens of democratic countries to live with “distasteful” policies?
@Scott Mandia (16:31:49)
Nice. Now could you perhaps give us some instances in recent scientific history where polls would have shown the vast majority of scientists taking what ultimately proved to be the wrong side of an issue or theory?
John M,
Many folks believe that conservative stakeholders would be much more amenable to AGW if it didn’t require the economic regulations which are likely not going to be cheap. These folks’ core belief is less government regulation of business and of their lives. I can certainly understand their position. I am not an expert in solving the problem but I think we are remiss if we deny that there is a big problem to be solved simply because admitting it means accepting a price tag we do not like.
This same “debate” happened with the cause of the ozone destruction but fortunately a relatively cheap solution was offered so all nations were able to sign the Montreal Protocol in a timely fashion.
So in the end, it comes to down to good old-fashioned $$$ that motivates folks to ignore the obvious evidence for AGW. As a parent of two small children, I often wonder what the world would be like if we treated the world as our child instead of as our bank account. If so, I think we would be moving forward instead of standing still.
DaveC,
No, but I am confident there are proportionally very few. Scientists by nature are very skeptical and usually hesitate to be “convinced”. More importantly, scientific progress cannot be made if we refuse to act for fear of a mistake.
That’s a false analogy. I can influence how my children are raised a lot more (at least for now) than I can the world’s climate.
In addition, I don’t have to force another family to live the way I want them to live in order to raise my kids the way I want to raise them.
And all this is predicated on the premise that the climate is changing catastrophically (I presume that’s what you mean by a “big problem”), not just by a minor warming.
Just because you say it’s so doesn’t make it so.
John M says:
Actually, I think you are quoting me out-of-context. If you look at the full context of what I was saying when I used that word, I was talking about the fact that there are some people who, because of their political philosophies, find the policy implications particularly distasteful (and hence that it is not surprising that these people then convince themselves that the science isn’t correct so they have an easy way to argue against these policies).
I don’t think that I would say that I personally find the policy implications “distasteful”, although there are certainly certain aspects of the policy implementation that I might apply that to (e.g., how the apportioning of the emission credits get politicized). And, certainly, there will be a certain amount of sacrifice on all of our parts. However, I think there will also be great opportunities for people who develop the new technologies that will transition us to a low carbon society. And, in the end, I think that once things get rolling, the costs will be lower than most people expect…and certainly far less than the fear-mongering (shall I say “alarmism”?) that one often hears from the crowd who is talking about emissions reductions leading to the destruction of our industrialized societies. [In fact, I sort of find such talk amusing, since many of the very same people who say that believe that the market system can handle any problem…presumably including running out of fossil fuels. But they somehow feel that it can’t handle what is essentially creating an artificial scarcity of fossil fuels by putting a tax or a cap on CO2 emissions. The only difference that I can see as far as the market is concerned is that this artificial scarcity gives the market more options since in this case one can still use fossil fuels if one captures the emitted CO2.]
Scott, have you been in the Ivory Tower? I have. Right in the middle of research. Please believe me. It is a dog eat dog world where anything goes to prove your point. Seldom have I seen a scientist who is the head of a department be described as a skeptic. They usually are at the head because they sold their product better than the next guy in a white coat. There is a very fine line between a snake oil salesman and a scientist. You need to take your rose colored glasses off and view the world in its harsh light.
Joel, there are also many who very much like the idea of dictating how others will live their lives and pay their taxes. No, not like, they absolutely wallow in it and this is the crux of the matter. Also remember that the people driving the issue, the political left, could not drive the agenda via the ballot box where they had become a busted flush so hijacked the eco movement.
Just remember that there is no evidence of AGW above a very circumstantial, unscientific and inconsistent level. How can all of this hysteria, propaganda and often blatant lying be generated on the basis of climate models that can be debunked in 5.
Lucy, 2 last notes:
1.
You will find notes related to our exchange and a link to Bob Tisdale’s Southern Ocean work at Paul Vaughan (13:07:02) [Aug. 25, 2009] here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/22/spencer-something%E2%80%99s-fishy-with-global-ocean-temperature-measurements/
(If/when reading that, keep in mind that Antarctic Bottom Water is not included in surface measurements.)
2.
Eventually (months from now) I may need to make graphs for a number of Arctic, Southern Ocean, & NorthEast Pacific sites. I’ll let you know if/when this happens. In the meantime, please feel welcome to request Excel tips.
Scott, here are testimonies from many top scientists (including Nobel prizewinners) who always were, or who became, climate skeptics. Scientists move from warmist to skeptic; never the other way round AFAIK. Ask yourself why. Many here were once warmists on what looked like good evidence, myself included.
Paul, thanks for all those notes. I see we crossed posts. For now I’ve simply copied them to look at later, as I need to attend to replies on today’s thread! You can always email me at the website if it’s OT for WUWT.
Lucy Skywalker says:
Not according to the STATS poll carried out by Harris Interactive:
Sorry…I accidently left out the link for the poll results: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Joel, you keep posting that lame poll, which also says:
The poll wording is atrocious, no doubt at the instigation of the organization that paid for the original push poll.
To recap: the large majority of scientists do not understand the extent [if any — the poll didn’t ask that] of AGW. Is it 98%? 60%? 0.00031%? They don’t say. And most scientists freely admitted that they don’t even understand the evidence. Anthony has probably forgotten more about the climate than these folks ever learned.
You’ll have to come up with a lot better poll than that one.
Which reminds me, how’s that article coming along?
Joel Shore (20:15:19) :
So as long as we’re on the general subject of polls, how do you think the general public feels about how “distasteful” your version of climate policy would be?
I know, I know, the general public is too stupid to realize how serious the problem is and has been manipulated by all the Exxon money and Fox News.
I can’t stand Fox News, Exxon doesn’t pay me squat, but I’ve seen no evidence that CO2 is a problem, at all.
Smokey:
That poll also shows that a total of 85% of the scientists surveyed believe that global climate change will pose either a very great danger (41%) or moderate danger (44%) to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years while only 13% see relatively little danger.
And, of course, you can always play the game of dismissing the mountains of evidence concerning the scientific viewpoints on AGW just as you dismiss the evidence on AGW itself. You can say that any poll that shows results that you don’t like is biased (even if done by an organization who, if anything, leans right..and with a methodology for selecting the scientists surveyed that probably included more “skeptical” views that if they had restricted their sample to scientists actively working and publishing on global climate change). And, you can say that all 13 of national academies of science for the G8+5 nations, plus the AAAS, the APS, the AMS, and the AGU have all been taken over by a small band of AGW-believers that their membership somehow voted for even though the membership of all of those organizations feels differently.
It is impossible for me to argue against such logic. You are basically just not convinceable. So, why should I waste my time trying…And, furthermore, why should I let you dictate to me what I should do (e.g., about writing that article)? You won’t even stop posting misleading graphs after I call you out on them and explain very explicitly what is wrong with them.
Joel. Please.
What ‘mountains’ of evidence? Computer models?
You don’t admit it, but what you really mean is ‘evidence’ other than empirical, real world evidence; flimsy evidence. In many cases, fake evidence.
GCMs are not physical evidence.
Papers hand-waved through the climate peer review process are not empirical evidence.
Year-and-a-half-old push polls are not empirical evidence, and a lot has changed since then.
Real world, empirical evidence shows that as the Earth cools, CO2 continues to rise. That is real evidence, and it trumps polls, computer models, and the cronyism endemic to the corrupt climate peer review process.
Your whole argument always comes down to an appeal to various authorities. As time goes on, it is more and more clear that those authorities are wrong.
Also, there are plenty of comments from others all over this site who say they originally accepted the CO2=AGW conjecture, but then rejected it as they got up to speed on the subject. The comments of AGW believers who later became AGW skeptics has been ramping up. But where are all the comments from those who were skeptics, but then became AGW believers? I can’t recall any [although I don’t read every post]. Got any? Show me.
As usual, you are the one out of step with almost everyone else. I really don’t know what you think you’re accomplishing. Aren’t you just wasting your boss’s time here?
It appears that you really believe you know something that we don’t. Please tell us the way things really are, Joel, without simply referring to what others say.
I look forward to your article. If you have what it takes to stand and deliver. Do you?
You are not verlikely to find such people frequenting this site.
Again, this is a conclusion that is true on this site. In the larger scientific community, I am not out of step with almost everyone else, in fact, quite the opposite.
That is a fair question and one that I have certainly asked myself from time-to-time. There are people here who disagree with me on the science but have still expressed that they find value in my contributions. And, I guess I find value in reading what people here write and in learning more about the science and how to communicate it in order to respond to what people write.
Good answer in your last paragraph, let’s leave it at that for this very interesting thread. I’m moving on to the current articles.