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>>
|
Espen (13:14:37) :
I see we are/were thinking on similar lines. Now that I know which UK stations to look at I intend to download pre/post-homogenisation data and do linear regressions.
Every geographical area I have looked at has examples of this. Do checkout
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/08/23/gistemp-fixes-uhi-using-airports-as-rural/
Ellie in Belfast: Do tell us what you find for the UK stations!
After posting my findings about Murmansk, I checked the list of GISS stations actually used, and picked out the stations north of the arctic circle. There were only 91. However, of those 91, only the following 35 have 2009 data:
200460003 GMO IM.E.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 806 581 R A cc=222 0
200690003 OSTROV VIZE lat,lon (.1deg) 795 770 R A cc=222 0
202920005 GMO IM.E.K. F lat,lon (.1deg) 777 1043 R A cc=222 0
206740006 OSTROV DIKSON lat,lon (.1deg) 735 804 R A cc=222 0
207440001 MALYE KARMAKU lat,lon (.1deg) 724 527 R A cc=222 0
208910006 HATANGA lat,lon (.1deg) 720 1025 R A cc=222 12
214320004 OSTROV KOTEL’ lat,lon (.1deg) 760 1379 R A cc=222 0
219460006 COKURDAH lat,lon (.1deg) 706 1479 R B cc=222 0
219820002 OSTROV VRANGE lat,lon (.1deg) 710 -1785 R A cc=222 0
230740000 DUDINKA lat,lon (.1deg) 694 862 S C cc=222 65
232050004 NAR’JAN-MAR lat,lon (.1deg) 676 530 S A cc=222 14
241250005 OLENEK lat,lon (.1deg) 685 1124 R A cc=222 0
241430002 DZARDZAN lat,lon (.1deg) 687 1240 R A cc=222 0
242660006 VERHOJANSK lat,lon (.1deg) 676 1334 R A cc=222 0
243430002 ZHIGANSK lat,lon (.1deg) 668 1234 R A cc=222 7
251730006 MYS SMIDTA lat,lon (.1deg) 689 -1794 R B cc=222 10
252480003 ILIRNEJ lat,lon (.1deg) 673 1680 R A cc=222 0
719170006 EUREKA,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 800 -859 R A cc=403 0
700260000 BARROW/W. POS lat,lon (.1deg) 713 -1568 R C cc=425 40
701330000 KOTZEBUE, RAL lat,lon (.1deg) 669 -1626 R A cc=425 10
42200001 EGEDESMINDE lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -527 R A cc=431 0
43120000 NORD ADS lat,lon (.1deg) 816 -167 R A cc=431 0
43200000 DANMARKSHAVN lat,lon (.1deg) 768 -187 R A cc=431 0
28360003 SODANKYLA lat,lon (.1deg) 674 267 R A cc=614 0
10010003 JAN MAYEN lat,lon (.1deg) 709 -87 R A cc=634 0
10080002 SVALBARD LUFT lat,lon (.1deg) 783 155 R A cc=634 0
10250000 TROMO/SKATTO NORWAY lat,lon (.1deg) 695 190 S A cc=634 0
10280003 BJORNOYA lat,lon (.1deg) 745 190 R A cc=634 0
10650000 KARASJOK lat,lon (.1deg) 695 255 R B cc=634 18
10980003 VARDO lat,lon (.1deg) 704 311 R B cc=634 9
11520003 BODO VI lat,lon (.1deg) 673 144 S C cc=634 25
221130005 MURMANSK lat,lon (.1deg) 690 331 U C cc=638 107
221650004 KANIN NOS lat,lon (.1deg) 687 433 R A cc=638 0
222170000 KANDALAKSA lat,lon (.1deg) 672 324 S C cc=638 15
20800003 KARESUANDO lat,lon (.1deg) 685 225 R B cc=645 12
Ferdinand Engelbeen,
Thank you for your valuable notes.
Espen (13:14:37) “I first ran a linear regression on the “unhomogenized” data, and got just below zero trend […] then tried the “homogenized” data, and got a positive trend”
This is a tricky issue. You will find that the authorities even publicize such discrepancies – it’s not always hidden – (but sometimes you might have to fire off an e-mail to get the info if it is not on a website). There are legitimate reasons for homogenizing, but the methods I’ve investigated are heavily suspect. In short: It’s a messy issue because the homogenization needs to be done, but there is not always (or even generally) a problem-free way of doing it. Thus, in practice one thing one can do is what you’ve done – i.e. run analyses on both series (homog & not) and report on both — at least that empowers fair judges with awareness.
–
Re: Adam Grey (07:55:41)
Be careful with your ideas about trend analysis.
A bright Stat 101 student will easily point out that the model assumptions are not met – (and so trend analysis is garbage in this context).
I encourage you to develop the foundation you need to apply regression analysis properly. You need to be able to run diagnostics on the residuals. [Note: Most people don’t – and worse: most people don’t even know they should (let alone know how to do so properly) — included in this group: scientists – plenty of them — I can even point to examples who are top in their field (but I won’t – just being polite).]
The preceding notes have nothing to do with climate politics. This is just basic & intermediate-level applied-stats – and it is relevant for any dataset (including ones that spark controversy).
–
Adam Grey (07:55:41) “In what way did Tamino mischaracterise your remarks?”
Let me ask you this: Can you point to the context in which my quoted-words arose using the info Tamino has provided? (Note: If you point to this page, you reinforce my point.)
–
Adam Grey (07:55:41) “[…] can you clarify what you meant by, “The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years”?”
Have a look at Tamino’s notes for some insight. He does a fair job handling that (particular) issue. Time-frame & aspect-ratio can be manipulated to distort; Tamino & I agree on this. He makes the same points I have taught Stat 101 students (and I am not responsible for others quoting me out-of-context &/or misunderstanding &/or misrepresenting my words).
–
Adam Grey (07:55:41) “Do you disagree with the mainstream view that the Arctic has been warming over the instrumental record?”
Please review my comments in this thread (without assuming that the majority of people who comment here are represented by the few partisans that also comment here).
–
Re: Lucy Skywalker (13:00:44)
It is important to differentiate between solar irradiance and insolation (the latter of which is influenced by clouds, aerosols, …) [Really, that is all it takes to get the solar-nazis off our backs – they’re just looking for that differentiation – (and few are offering it (…yet)).]
–
Lucy Skywalker (12:07:08) “For the natural variations MUST be subtracted before we can have any reasonable idea of manmade cumulative effects.”
Careful here – be mindful of shared variance and the (possilby untenable, especially in a geophysical setting) assumptions which go into decompositions.
Paul Vaughan (15:31:09) :”Let’s be clear about where humanity has failed: The task is understanding natural climate variations and humanity has not – stress not – made sufficient progress.
Course: Understanding Natural Climate Variations
Student: Humanity
Grade: F”
Well said Paul. Just think if all the AGW cult had been expending all of their scientific energy [and grant money] on legitimate research of the causes, not some dead-end sidestreet of a trace-gas that is essential for life on this Earth, just think how much more scientifically advanced we would be in understanding how everything works.
And just because they accept a “D” because it passes [and gets them more grant money]…does not make it right…or scientific.
Its unfortunate…as brainwashing and mass delusion can dumb down even the brightest in the world.
Seeing the many bright minds on this site, one is given hope that cooler heads will prevail…even amidst the madness and mass deception of the new worldwide religious cult of the 21st Century: The International Church of the Great Anthropogenic Warming.
Spanish Inquisition, please step aside. The award goes to…..
And by the way: Brilliant post, Lucy. Thank you. There is nothing like real-time observation. Give ’em hell!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Hmmmm!
Not impressed with the title here.
I have now gone through the GISS data (homogenised) and differenced the monthly figures of each station then averaged over the locations in the above map. It may not be classical hockey stick but its very close:
Over 2 degC difference between 1882 and 2008
A steady rise from 1966 onwards rising to greater than 0.5C higer than 1936 temp
http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/4822/arcticstations.jpg
Uh huh….like the GISS data can be trusted….at all.
Thanks for that laugh…..
In other news….even the AP is admitting some mistakes in this article. Very interesting read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090911/ap_on_sc/climate_09_greenland_s_melt
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Can anyone here point me towards sea temperatures in the Arctic area?
I am looking for those at the surface and at varying levels and that were taken both in open water and under the ice.
I wish to compare histrorc readings taken during expeditions 150 years ago with modern readings, but need a like for like basis. I also need location specific readings rather than homogenised ones.
Thanks to anyone who can help
tonyb
Paul Vaughan: “It’s a messy issue because the homogenization needs to be done, but there is not always (or even generally) a problem-free way of doing it.”
I agree, but with the low number of stations that GISS is actually using now (6262 in total, including stations no longer reporting), I don’t think it should be impossible for NASA to find out which of the “rural” stations that are actually located at urban heat islands like close to airport runways. Take Murmansk, which was founded 2 years before the record starts, and which is the only really large city north of the arctic circle. Its population has decreased sharply since the nineties, but it most probably had a strongly increasing UHI effect from 1918 until then. So how come homogenising increases the warming trend, and contributes to making the temperature trend of the 35 operating arctic stations completely useless? It must be nearby stations in “rural” areas that are placed at UHIs.
I looked at a few Swedish cities (south of the Arctic Circle) and found the same thing – amplification of a possible UHI-related trend instead of removal of it, one possible contributor here may be the Norwegian site Gardermoen which is supposed to be “rural” but which really is located at or near Norway’s largest international airport.
So, don’t you think that it would actually be better to use the data “as is” than to apply a procedure that seems to skew them even more?
savethesharks (22:31:46) :
What the article about Greenland glaciers mention is a comparison of current speeds compared to the “normal” speed of the glaciers. But they fail to ask the scientists what is “normal” in this case, the speed in 1935-1950 (probably as high as today), or the speed of 1970-1990, when ice sheet edge temperatures were lower…
Re: savethesharks (22:31:46) :
“Uh huh….like the GISS data can be trusted….at all.”
—
For Holland, where I live, the GISS-data are always accurate.
Everyone on this forum can check for their own location.
I think all will find the GISS-data for their location correct, which would be a remarkable coincidence of course 🙂
Thanks to everyone, supporters and critics alike – everything that’s been said here has been helpful to me. I shall be working on it all. I’d like to thank Jeff Id, because it’s probably because he published me that WUWT took it up. Jeff’s blog is an excellent science workshop, engineering quality. Do use him for this.
Ellie, I’m going to try and turn your Bodø graphs into a blink comparator. If it works well (I’ll post the link here) then you might like to email me a few more bad’uns you find.
savethesharks (19:23:14) “Just think if all the AGW cult had been expending all of their scientific energy [and grant money] on legitimate research of the causes, not some dead-end sidestreet of a trace-gas that is essential for life on this Earth, just think how much more scientifically advanced we would be in understanding how everything works.”
You give serious cause for reflection Chris.
The good news is that a handful of bright minds can accomplish a lot with a small budget.
–
Re: Espen (00:22:07)
The homogenization procedures I have studied are the ones used by Environment Canada (since they are the ones relevant to my research contracts). The various comments here about GISS homogenization procedures leave me with the impression that they are very different. [When an opportunity arises, I’ll look into it — thanks for the notes.]
Lucy Skywalker (12:07:08) “Of first importance to me was to give something that could allow folk to stop long enough to look, think, ask questions, and do some research themselves.”
Success.
Re: stephen.richards (08:54:51) :
“You see, oil companies don’t really care either way, they have the time and funds to change. ”
Oil companies wouldn’t want to make profit instead of funding some alternative form of energy supply just because of some outrageous climate theory? So what is happening here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/jul/01/bob-ward-exxon-mobil-climate
Paul Vaughan: Unlike some posters here (e.g. E.M. Smith) I haven’t looked into how the homogenization procedures of GISS really work, but it’s well-known (e.g. from this blog) that they adjust urban stations by values from “nearby” (which can be up to 1000 kms) rural stations. The underlying problem that creates such oddities like the adjustment of Murmansk in the wrong direction is probably that many “rural” stations aren’t really rural – a lot of them are at or very near airports.
Speaking of Canada: Do you have any idea why there is only one single reporting Canadian station left in the GISS data set that is north of the arctic circle? Yesterday I filtered out all 91 “actually used” (see: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/station_list.txt) stations that are north of the arctic circle. I then looked up all these stations and made a note in the list if the last year of reporting wasn’t 2009. Here’s what I got for the Canadian stations – this is the relevant part of the original station list, and I have put a star and a year on the left hand for those stations that haven’t been reporting in 2009. And as you can see, that leaves only Eureka covering all of arctic Canada!
*1990 710510000 SACHS HARBOUR lat,lon (.1deg) 720 -1253 R A cc=403 0
*1997 710720006 MOULD BAY, N. lat,lon (.1deg) 762 -1193 R A cc=403 0
*2008 710810005 HALL BEACH,N. lat,lon (.1deg) 688 -812 R B cc=403 10
*1989 710810010 MACKAR INLET,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 683 -857 R A cc=403 0
*1991 710820000 ALERT,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 825 -623 R A cc=403 0
*2008 710900006 CLYDE,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 705 -685 R A cc=403 8
*1989 710910000 LONGSTAFF BLU lat,lon (.1deg) 689 -751 R A cc=403 0
*1989 710920000 DEWAR LAKES,N lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -712 R A cc=403 0
*1989 710930000 CAPE HOOPER, lat,lon (.1deg) 685 -668 R A cc=403 0
*1989 710940030 BROUGHTON ISLAND,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 675 -638 R A cc=403 0
*1960 710950010 POND INLET,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 727 -780 R A cc=403 0
*1976 710950030 ARCTIC BAY,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 730 -851 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719110000 SHEPHERD BAY, lat,lon (.1deg) 688 -934 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719110010 PELLY BAY,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 684 -897 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719110020 GLADMAN POINT A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -978 R A cc=403 0
719170006 EUREKA,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 800 -859 R A cc=403 0
*1978 719170010 ISACHSEN,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 788 -1035 R A cc=403 0
*2008 719240005 RESOLUTE,N.W. lat,lon (.1deg) 747 -950 R A cc=403 0
*2008 719250005 CAMBRIDGE BAY lat,lon (.1deg) 691 -1051 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719250010 JENNY LIND ISLAND A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 687 -1017 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719250020 BYRON BAY A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 688 -1091 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719370000 LADY FRANKLIN lat,lon (.1deg) 685 -1132 R A cc=403 0
*2008 719380005 COPPERMINE,N. lat,lon (.1deg) 678 -1151 R A cc=403 8
*1989 719380010 CAPE YOUNG A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 689 -1169 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719480000 CAPE PARRY,N. lat,lon (.1deg) 702 -1247 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719480010 CLINTON POINT,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 696 -1208 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719480020 NICHOLSON PENINSULA,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 699 -1290 R A cc=403 0
*1969 719480030 HOLMAN,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 707 -1178 R A cc=403 0
*2008 719570006 INUVIK,N.W.T. lat,lon (.1deg) 683 -1335 R A cc=403 0
*1977 719570020 FORT MCPHERSON,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 674 -1349 R B cc=403 0
*1989 719570030 AKLAVIK A,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 682 -1350 R B cc=403 0
*1989 719570040 TUKTOYAKTUK,NW lat,lon (.1deg) 695 -1330 R B cc=403 0
*1989 719680000 SHINGLE POINT lat,lon (.1deg) 690 -1372 R A cc=403 0
*1989 719680010 OLD CROW A,YT lat,lon (.1deg) 676 -1398 R A cc=403 9
*1989 719680020 KOMAKUK BEACH A,YT lat,lon (.1deg) 696 -1402 R A cc=403 0
Canada and Greenland are indeed a part of the world, but they are not the whole world.
Trend 1929-2008 shows some cooling over Greenland and a small part of the Arctic indeed. Globally temperatures have risen.
http://www.weerwoord.be/uploads/159200910410.gif
To–
Espen (03:59:55)
Here is a satellite pic of Eureka–
http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?lat=79.98000336&lon=-85.93000031&zoom=8&pin=Eureka%2c%20Nunavut&type=hyb&rad=0&wxsn=0&svr=0&cams=0&sat=1&sat.num=1&sat.spd=25&sat.opa=85&sat.gtt1=109&sat.gtt2=108&sat.type=VIS&riv=0&mm=0&hur=0
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=346&page=98
Appears to be a bit of icebreaker activity in the 30 miles closest to Eureka-but even with that– the
sea ice area is over 90 percent ice.
Try zooming out for perspective–
Also
more sea ice pics (reposted from above for
the convenience of those who do not wish to
“waste” their tme searching this thread or
messing around with this picture stuff}
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009253/crefl1_143.A2009253000000-2009253000459.250m.jpg
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009253/crefl1_721.A2009253000000-2009253000459.500m.jpg
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2009253/?multiple&resolutionlist
Every picture
belies claims that current sea ice in
canada archipeligo is only 30 percent
(YOU KNOW–FROM THOSE CUTE
POLAR SEA ICE GRAPHS
ALWAYS BEING BRUTED ABOUT).
NO OPEN WATER
AT ALL IN THESE HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SHOTS OF
SNOW SNOW COVERED SEA ICE IN THE CANADIAN ARCHIPELEGO–the sea ice may be thin and new –but that just shows how cold it is there now–
and that the melt is over–pics refute
GRAPHS and claims that the melt season is not yet finished.
And icebreakers–
Remeber these ships are in almost constant movement and are contstanly
disturbing the surroundingg water and ice–
and they stop for only short periods(minutes or hours)–
icebreakers–sEPT 2009–
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/3897312741/in/photostream/
This particular pic makes obvious the rapid (almost instant)
refreeze of disturbed water-ice near the icebreaker–
notice the really dark shiney smooth water within 20 feet near the ship–
that is calm smooth mirror reflective water–(there is no wind in this pic-
so the ruffled surfaces are all ice)–AND
WATER APPEARS NOWHERE ELSE IN THIS PIC–
and EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE PIC IS ICE–refrozen or otherwise–
the white stuff is snow covered or frost covered ice–
the semiclear greyish mottled(with streaks and curved lines) between the boats is
fresh frozen —
if you never have been on a large area of ice(even a lake) get someone
who has, to interpret it for you–
once you have been on ice it is easy to recall and relate features–
Here are more icebreaker pics SHOWING
the rapidky refreezing and reconsolidating ice–
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page2/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/cutterhealy/page5/
OF COURSE SOME WILL DEMAND ENDLESS REPETITIVE EXPLANATIONS TO
GENERATE AND INFLICT
CONFUSION AND BOREDOM ON OTHER READERS who might be interested
in the ICE pictures.-
NUCLEAR ICEBREAKERS–
http://www.barentsobserver.com/next-generation-nuclear-icebreakers-gets-funding.4582270-116320.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Russia_Tests_Nuclear_Icebreaker_On_Open_Sea_999.html
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/our-fleet/kapitan-khlebnikov
RUSSIA APPARENTLY DOES NOT ANTICIPATE
AN ICE FREE ARCTIC–and obviously
russia intends
to dominate the arctic over the
delusional blabbermouths who can talk a snowflake
to earth but cannot figure out what happens
when lots of snow flakes get together–
———-
by the way–speaking of graphs–
delusional is the only word for anyone that
puts any trust in those things–
for example– here is a comparison
of the most looked at graph in the warming debate–
the same graph archived from a year ago–
compared with todays publication–
http://polardefenseproject.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/nsidc-records.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
what a joke–
why would anyone believe that the comparison curves of the
2007 to 2008 curves are any more accurate this year than last??
Last year the curves almost intersected in sept–
this year the the 2007 2008 lines are suddenly
moved more than 400k kilometers apart.
The comparison is very clear(keep looking at it
the difference will become clear)
—
likewise why would you believe that this year’s 2009 sept
ice area graph is any more accurate–
it too could be off by 400k kilometers–and probably will
change by 400 k by next year in order to make next year’s
graph more warmest friendly.
It boggles the mind to try to plumb
the depths of statistical contortions
and outright perjury disgorged by the warmer accolytes.
They are commanding billions of people to
dress in bikinis
when they know that even mukaluks wont be warm enough–
to survive in the looming freeze–
they are sending billions of unprepared and unwarned
victims to certain death–
they are a pack of slimey genocidal sbs.
bill (12:59:47) :
Vincent (11:40:46) :
“The total energy on earth = total energy arriving (TSI) – total energy leaving
If TSI is constant then the only way of changing earth energy is by changing energy leaving.”
“bill, I think you’re not taking into account the same thing that the entire alarmist crowd ignores: clouds. A change in cloud cover changes the energy arriving. And it doesn’t take much of a change in cloud cover to have a really big effect.”
Clouds do make a difference, but my point is that chaos theory accounts for a changing climate even without clouds or any other variable that effects insolation. I tried to explain this in my previous post. Basically what happens when you drive a chaotic system is that it NEVER converges to equilibrium. It is like a pendulum that always overshoots the equilibrium point, except that in a chaotic system it is attracted to another equilibrium point. As this movement occurs, the radiative balance is constantly shifting from positive to negative. There is no need to argue for energy storage.
Why don’t people get this?
RR Kampen (06:34:23) “Canada and Greenland are indeed a part of the world, but they are not the whole world.”
Physical Geography 500 – Lecture #1 – Sentence #1:
The stability of parameter estimates should be investigated across a range of spatiotemporal scales.
Also, I see no reason to not include a spatial axis that runs from the centre of the Earth out into space, rather than hopelessly focusing on only the surface.
We must develop an understanding of complex spatiotemporal turning points. It is not enough to put all our eggs in the basket of global-scale-only surface-only univariate linear extrapolations. The model assumptions are untenable and way too much is at stake.
Suggested: Read Yu.V. Barkin.
– –
Espen (03:59:55) “Do you have any idea why there is only one single reporting Canadian station left in the GISS data set that is north of the arctic circle?”
The only comment I’m going to offer is that there are some very weird politics involved.
I’ve done Bodø blink comparator, Ellie.
It’s on the Circling the Arctic web page, together with more material inspired by replies here.
Ferdinand Engelbeen (00:24:00) :
savethesharks (22:31:46) :
What the article about Greenland glaciers mention is a comparison of current speeds compared to the “normal” speed of the glaciers. But they fail to ask the scientists what is “normal” in this case, the speed in 1935-1950 (probably as high as today), or the speed of 1970-1990, when ice sheet edge temperatures were lower…
Very prescient observation, Ferdinand.
As you know, the time spans you mentioned correspond nicely with the warm and cool oscillations of the Atlantic Multidecadal.
Agree with you that they lack the insight to point out what you have here.
Thanks for the comment.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Lucy, I had a chance to look at this (which you inquired about in a recent WUWT thread):
“Earth’s Magnetic Field and Climate Variability”
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/EarthMagneticField.htm
My main concern about what is presented there:
More explicit consciousness needs to be devoted to the possibility of lurking & confounded variables. [Imagine there is a lurking (you don’t know about it – maybe it’s hiding in the bushes where you can’t see it) variable that is driving both of 2 confounded variables, so it may appear [to those not devoting chronic vigilant attention to the possibility of lurking & confounded variables] that one of the 2 confounded variables is driving the other. 2 unrelated people may work the same shift on opposite sides of city; it could be erroneous to think person A is causing person B’s work schedule — more likely their schedules are both being driven by the day (and society’s conventional adherence to daily-structure tradition).]
Useful clues are assembled on Cheetham’s page [thank you very much Alan] – and I would advise investigators to consider what is posted there in conjunction with Barkin’s work. Barkin has a missing link. It might not be long before people start cluing in that this could be a reason for a natural hockey-stick-blade.
You may want to think about how Barkin & Cheetham’s work is related to Scafetta’s model in his February 2009 presentation…
Tell me one point please.
Does the red arrow in Jeff Id’s animation of Arctic sea ice denote the wind direction, or that of ice barycenter change?
Thanks.
The above-mentioned “wind direction” actually means “wind direction and (average) velocity”.
Thanks again in advance.