What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.
By Lucy Skywalker Green World Trust
with thanks to the late John Daly and his timeless, brilliant website page “What the Stations Say” (click on Arctic map above). Click on each thumbnail graph to access Daly’s full size graph with time and temperature scales and other details. The thicker dark horizontal line across some of these thumbnails indicated 0ºC (a few of the graphs are ALL under that line). The Arctic is shown in the condition of summer sea ice (see thumbnail below) and the pale circle is the Arctic Circle. All data comes from NASA GISS or CRU originally.
Paul Vaughan notes at WUWT that he “spent a fair amount of time updating these graphs (& others of Daly’s for other regions)” using http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and adds a cautionary note: The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years.
The highly variable temperatures and amounts of sea ice in both polar regions is well-known to locals, but cherrypicked extremes have become a media weapon to scare ignorant folk with. Greenlanders today are aware of recent warming; but history, archaeology, and the Norse sagas show that Greenland was warmer than today in the Middle Ages, when crops and trees were grown there. For recent sea ice changes (since 1979) see Cryosphere Today and note that while Northern Hemisphere sea ice (at the top of the CT page) has gone down recently (but is currently going up again), Southern Hemisphere sea ice (at the bottom of the CT page) is going up, so that the overall total is pretty constant although fluctuating between summer and winter.
Finally, Jeff Id’s superb animation of recent Arctic sea ice>>
|
For those who inwardly wish the end of the world: Do not worry anymore, today you are 24 hours nearer the end than yesterday, so your life is ending!
Rejoice!
Speaking for the Polar Bear League, I would like to extend a sincere and hearty invitation to Nick Stokes and Scott Mandia to come on up and spend some time with us. We have plenty of ice for gin, vodka, or koolaid — whatever is their pleasure.
To appreciate the good life we have here, and to understand why our numbers are increasing across the Arctic, Nick and Scott should plan to stay throughout the year, for multiple seasons. That is the only way they will understand what is happening, so that they can speak more authoritatively on the topic.
So come on up, boys. Bring plenty of food, fuel, and warm clothes. We’d hate for you to lose any of that baby fat during your stay.
Oliver Ramsay (07:18:15) :
Oliver, use the ‘customize search’ on E.C. website. use the “search by name” box and put in Rabbit Kettle
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/advanceSearch/searchHistoricDataStations_e.html
data is sparce, so this may be a business running the weather station and not all observations are being done, or its a automated station with a lot of down time.
Espen (05:34:29) :
“Scott Mandia: The vikings did thrive on Greenland during the MWP. No mannomatic misuse of statistic methods applied to sparse (and partly misused) proxy data sets can erase that simple historic fact.
So the facts are: During the Eemian perid, the Arctic was much warmer than now – and Greenland didn’t melt. 1100 – 700 years ago, at least one part of the arctic was significantly warmer than now. 65 – 80 years ago, the arctic was at least as warm as now. In the meantime, the Arctic was pretty cold in the eighties and nineties. “Arctic warming” = natural variation!”
Espen, thanks for your remark and spare me the time to make it.
Our scientists can produce any temperature reconstruction but if the outcome is a hockey stick, they have neglected or eradicated history.
We have had much warmer periods in the past than we have today, end of discussion.
Smokey (07:51:30) :
Scott Mandia (07:11:43),
“When your premise is wrong, your conclusion will be wrong. And so it is when someone tries to show that CO2=AGW. CO2 does not cause noticeable global warming”.
Smokey, well said although I doubt if Mr. Scott Mandia will do anything with your insights.
What we have here is another Flanagan.
link didn’t copy well, trying again
http://www.climate.weatheroffice.ec.gc.ca/advanceSearch/searchHistoricData_e.html
Nick Stokes,
For the first station in your list, Longyearbyen, it should be noted that the station has been moved several times and some years are missing althogether. The current station has only been observing since 1975 and this siting near much open water has quite different surroundings than previous locations some km away. There exists a record for Svalbard lufthavn (Longyearbyen) going back to 1912, included in the WMO Reference Climate Station network, a list of stations that have been selected for their long observation time and high quality. It’s particularly interesting since that makes it the longest continuous record in this part of the arctic. However, the data have been homogenised using stations 10s of km away or even 100s of km away to fill in missing years. I’m not saying that the reconstructed record is badly flawed. It’s probably a very good reconstruction based on the data available. It definitely shows the trends well, but much care should be taken when comparing temperatures of different periods. Certainly it cannot be done with a 1/100 degree resolution as in your list. For instance we know that the past few years have been warm and that some years in the 30’s were warm as well, but we can’t say for sure that the past few years were warmer than the warmest one in the 30’s. It’s not unlikely, but since the station has been moved several km from a valley to a promontory, we simply can’t tell.
I’ve had a look at most of the data availble for the reconstrction of the series and made some preliminary notes at http://voksenlia.net/met/lyr/ (in Norwegian).
Re: Nogw (07:49:45) :
“For convincing everybody not to use fossil fuels, which they produce and sell?, that would be extremely crazy.”
No, that’s what the Gore-lobby is trying to do. I asked whether oil companies wouldn’t try the same campaign with the opposite message, and I hope to find out if they do and how they do it.
Kampen,
Oil companies exist to make a profit as do carbon traders, governments, reseach establishments, universities, plastics companies, power stations, farmers, schools, hospitals, road builders, environmental orgs, etc. All of them have an interest in not supporting AGW but that is not how it works. All companies search for profits through whatever avenue or opportunities open up to them. Researchers and enviromentals, however, are stymied, all of their funding has to come from businesses interested in maintaining the AGW theology. If it falls so do they. You see, oil companies don’t really care either way, they have the time and funds to change. SO watch out for the lies and exaggerations and where they come from, that will tell you who is desperate.
Nice work lucy!
A few years ago I searched for the (raw) data of all circumpolar stations over 66.6N with sufficiently long records. About 70% were warmer to equal warm in the 1935-1950 period than in the current period. 30% are warmer in the current period, mainly in Eastern Siberia and Alaska.
The same for Greenland, I plotted all stations around the inland ice up to 2005 here.
Main conclusion: (summer) temperatures 1935-1950 were higher than in current period, so the ice edge melting then was (probably) higher than today. Despite the far higher CO2 levels these days…
Next time my bills are due, I think I will send in a proxy.
GCM’s are good for the money and Global Warming made me do it.
The Greenland temperatures plot didn’t come through, here is the URL:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/greenland_temp.html
RR Kampen (02:14:00) :-Well, John Daly is deceased so I wouldn’t expect he’d be updating the charts frequently anymore.
For everyone-you might enjoy my comments on Jeff Id’s thread on this:
“I notice at least two distinct “subclasses” of histories-which I will refer to as “Alaska type” and “Greenland type”. Alaskan type stations:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/g-alaska.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/st-paul.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/bethel.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/talkeet.gif
Show sudden shifts around 1976 consistent with the PDO:
http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/img/pdo_latest.png
Greenland type stations:
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/ilulissa.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/bodo.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/iceland.gif
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/vardo.gif
All distinctly resemble:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/RS_Greenland_files/image013.gif
”
and
“4-Well, El Nino’s have notable effects in Alaska, and the effect of the AMO on the Arctic was recently noted:
http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf
I imagine that both effects are very important as a whole.
A very good place to correlate indices with surface temperatures is:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/data/correlation/
“
Scott, you say that AGW is real and WILL get worse. Could you please show credible data that shows that what is happening now is caused by AGW and not the type of natural variation that does happen regularly without Anthropogenic CO2. I find it incredible that you as a scientist aren’t embarassed not only by the pronunciations of the AGW industry but also of your personal blind faith in it. This trading of graphs and trendlines is also puerile, we know that there has been some warming but it has been trivial, benificial, probably not global and gives no indication of disaster to come as it has never come before whatever the models say. The climate is a fairly stable self regulating entity, strong in negative feedback and it has kept the earths climate almost perfect for millions of years regardless of the CO2 level in the atmosphere. If the temperature changes upwards we will manage it, if sea levels rise as a result over time we will manage it, if it changes down then you guys will get your wish of the removal of a large part of the world’s population by starvation. Surely deep down you must have massive doubts now about AGW and must be shocked about the arrest in surface temperatures. You must also realise that there is going to be no reduction in CO2 and even if we eliminated it there would be no effect on climate. I believe that what we are seeing is a politico-scientifically induced beginning of a purely voluntary collapse of Western civilisation on the basis of something that has a weak basis and on the scientifically naive precautionary principal. What we actually know and understand about climate wouldn’t fill the back of a postage stamp in comparison with the libraries that we would fill with our ignorance on the subject. Government should act on this basis not on what they see on the stamp.
Jeff-id is pissed: This is a must read
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/jeff-id-is-pissed.html
Scott,
If they use garbage proxies, which seems to be the Mannian school of science tradition, then the results of those studies are garbage, as well.
To Scott Mandia (07:11:43) :
Scott,
[I am happy that you visited my site because one must always consider the “other camp’s” position when debating.]
I agree, that’s the only way.
[You need to understand the context of those statements … We cannot afford a “wait and see” approach.]
Once upon a time we entered a warming period. It was easy to point at the warming and blame Man for it. As the warming trend became more and more tenuous and the public has become more and more tired of the subject, they have had to manipulate data, and exaggerate the symptoms of warming until reaching a point of no return.
I believe that AGW proponents have put themselves in a very difficult position in which there are only two real alternatives:
a) Either they are wrong, and we should certainly do nothing.
b) Or they are right, and we are dead, no matter what we do.
There is no third alternative: At our current stage of technology we cannot stop the burning of fossil fuels. PERIOD. If we do, we will collapse civilization and those countries that aren’t fool enough to suicide will conquer us (and continue burning fossil fuels anyway).
Increasing taxes and creating a whole new financial business in carbon trading is NOT a solution. It will do nothing to reduce CO2, it will only cause capital transfers to companies and countries that know how to benefit from the scam, but no economical (or environmental) benefit.
[As I have mentioned before, my goal is to move the debate from Is there AGW? to What are the implications of AGW and what are we going to do about it?]
If that is so, there are some things that we might do:
1) Stop scaring the public.
2) Stop fueling money to schemes that won’t work such as taxes, regulation and subsidies for non-feasible renewable energies.
3) Start investing money, science and technology resources in “cleaner”, more effective energy sources, or in real world solutions to counteract the future warming (if it does in fact occur).
Or, in other words: Send policy makers home and let the ingenious people try to make good money on a potentially huge business opportunity.
And remember, if you were right and we can’t really “wait and see”, we are dead. Let’s both hope you are wrong on this one. Are you willing to bet?
wow, thanks, Anthony! hadn’t expected this and I only just found out. Will post again later when I’ve read the comments properly.
Just for now: John Daly died in 2004 which is the chief reason that records are not right up-to-date of course. But the little bit missing since then still does not explain the latest Hockey Stick’s blade which appears to start from before 1900.
BBC world ran a TV article today on the crisis in the scientific peer review process because of corruption and fraud. Well who would have thought that could be possible. Apparently it wasn’t only the climate change papers.
oh yes, and I want this “audited”, I promise to deal with every criticism that has some foundation, since I believe this evidence is so plain stunning, so I want it checked.
NH Sea ice extent increased again in Jaxa’s daily update.
So we have an increase on Sept 4th and 8th and it should only be a few days till the minimum is reached.
We will have to wait until near the end of the month to say so for sure since there are some years that the minimum was not reached until the 3rd week of September but last year the minimum was reached on September 9th.
I keep hearing that it was warmer in the Arctic in the ’30s. While it’s clear that the summer melt is currently typical compared to the last ten years, I keep coming back to this plot at Cryosphere:
Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent
which shows that the summer extent is about 60% of what it was as recently as 1970.
What is the data behind this plot? Is it considered to be bogus?
Scott Mandia,
You have received a large number of replies. As someone who enjoys the math in climate papers, I find it amazing that CPS methods are used at all. We are not on opposite sides of the AGW issue although we may be as to what we should do about it. I’m only on the side of reasonable science.
The Arctic paper is a complete nightmare. There is no verification that these are actually temps and only by random chance could these averaged squiggles be related to temp in history.
Assuming these squiggles are temp, I wonder if you have any opinion on the use of CPS in scaling non-perfect data?
Here’s a link to help explain my view:
.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/hockey-stick-temperature-distortion-posts/
In particular part II
Scott:
You can’t move the debate away from “Is there AGW”, because all of the credible evidence says NO. But you choose to ignore that and move on. You can’t skip the most important part of fixing a problem, and that most important part is finding out if there even IS a problem.
I’d hate to have you as my car mechanic, you’d be replacing parts that have nothing wrong with them. I’d REALLY hate to have you on my jury, you’d be the one saying “guilty” even when there are 24 witnesses saying otherwise AND someone else confessed.
You can’t “move the debate”, because you lost step one. You also can’t replay the Superbowl because you lost 44 to 8, and you can’t “proxy” in the touchdowns you “should” have had during the game.
Thanks for bringing this group with you, Lucy, I’ve been very entertained this morning.
Nick Stokes.
I would have responded on the CA BB, but cant register. Anyway, you used
GISS data for your regression, pulling the data from a posted table. The
Issue is this table relies on GISTEMP. E.M. Smith has had some rather interesting things to say about the processing that code uses. Personally, I found the code to be a mess and the critical components ( station reference method and the bias method) where not well documented or very understandable. That doesnt make it wrong. Since you have the math abilities it might be intersting to have a look at the data going back to the real source.
GHCN. Have a look at the multiple versions of stations here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/findstation.py?datatype=gistemp&data_set=0&name=&world_map.x=373&world_map.y=4
Further to my question, to the left of the plot on the main page there’s a link to the University of Illinois Sea Ice Dataset:
Dataset 1870 – 2008
The last link in the set, “seasonal sea ice extent timeseries”, appears to be
date / annual / season1 / season 2 / season 3 / season 4
The last couple of entries in the plot don’t match the data. Also, they haven’t plotted points since 2006, it seems.