Greenland glaciers – melt due to sea current change, not air temperature

It was considerably warmer in Greenland 70 years ago than it is today.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Alarmists think that Greenland formed in 2003 and disappeared in 2007. They have no interest in any other years.
The US Weather Bureau reported this in 1922:
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Sitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-
of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.
…he first noted warmer conditions in 1915, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that to-day the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1865 to 1917.
Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers extended far into the
sea they have entirely disappeared.”

The Oceans have it….make no mistake….they do.
Even so….in this article….we have to still tolerate the drivel:
“While melting due to warming air temperatures is a known event…”
DUH!!
When the temperature rises above freezing, ice melts.
What known “event” besides the obvious should even deserve mention here.
Also…the decline or increase of many glaciers has more to do with precipitation and not simply temperature.
At least they are trying to figure it out. And that deserves props.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

“While melting due to warming air temperatures is a known event …”
They obviously don’t understand glacier dynamics :
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OllierPaine-NoIceSheetCollapse-AIGNewsAug.2009.pdf

Aaaahhhh….nice to see some real science for a change. No mention of global warming in this discussion of changing oceanic currents?
Thanks Steve Goddard for some historical perspective on Greenland warming. But where are the temperature readings and hard scientific data that can be adjusted downward by GISS et al. to show that these eyewitnesses and their anecdotal reports got it all wrong? 🙂
Actually, I hate to play devil’s advocate here but a few posts ago we were critiquing the IPCC’s glacier ‘science’ for its reliance on someone’s MSc thesis based on Alpine ski guides’ anecdotal reports of loss of glaciers. Perhaps the difference here is that in this case, the early 20th century fishermen, sealers and other witnesses had not been propagandized by the scientistic cult of global warming and thus led to expect only one specific outcome?

Weird! I think I will have to read the article again… I did not see Global Warming or Climate Change mentioned.

IIRC, the loss/gain of Greenland ice sheet is not homogeneous.
In any event this may be another Inconvenient Truth.

Robert,
GISS stations show that most of the Arctic and particularly around Greenland were warmer 70 years ago. A quote from Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC “The current Greenland warming, while not yet quite matching the temperatures of 70 years ago,”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/21/nsidc-s-dr-walt-meier-answers-10-questions/
I made a map in another piece showing which Arctic regions were warmer 70 years ago and which were cooler, based on GISS data.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/16/nsidcs-dr-walt-meier-answers-reader-questions-on-sea-ice/

rbateman (22:14:58) “And in the broader scheme of things, if Greenland grows warmer because of ocean currents, somewhere else grows colder.”
There are two things to bear in mind with regards to this. One is that the warming of the earth that is taking place affects the oceans, not just the air. Changing ocean currents are bringing some of that heat to Greenland. So while it’s true that the heat has to come from somewhere, it comes from the same place the warm air comes from: solar energy, enhanced by the greenhouse effect.
Second, even if the earth’s climate were not warming (as it is) the melting of the ice causes warming of its own, via changes in albedo, for example. So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run.

Given the Tilsdale analysis of warm water movement (the Pacific decadal oscillation of warm water re El Nina), this is entirely consistent.

We provide an analysis of Greenland temperature
records to compare the current (1995–2005) warming
period with the previous (1920–1930) Greenland warming.
We find that the current Greenland warming is not
unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature
increases in the two warming periods are of a similar
magnitude, however, the rate of warming in 1920–1930
was about 50% higher than that in 1995 – 2005.
http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Chylek.pdf
&
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026510.shtml

This is obviously the big warming sign that the thermohaline circulation has stalled. We’ll all be dead in a few weeks, except for the lucky few who happen to be climatologists who studied in the Antarctic, who will walk across the Continental US in temperatures approaching 400 degrees below absolute zero.
Climatologists who read this site, please keep fresh batteries in your GPS units so you don’t fall through a mall skylight as you’re traversing a glacier. Mall roofs and walls are designed to withstand forces from a glacier but their skylights are not.

Yep, that letter from Sir Joseph Banks to the Lords of the Admiralty in 1817 just won’t go quietly into the night! Damn it why can’t we change historical records to suit todays arguments, grrrr!

Robert (22:32:14) :
What is the data that says the earth is warming?

Layne,
You might want to read this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/09/prediction-arctic-ice-will-continue-to-recover-this-summer/

And what do “most climate scientists” believe is the cause of shifting ocean currents? Why CO2, of course.
How dare these upstarts at Wood Hole write a paper that doesn’t blame any warming event on CO2! I am positively incensed.

R. Gates (22:32:22) : about the headline
Son, do you have a burr under your saddle?
The title of the post clearly claims to discuss the melt due to sea current change. It says nothing about the melt caused by air temperature except that the current discussion isn’t about that.
And from the 4th paragraph you quote: “scientists are just beginning to learn”
One could fix this by adding what others have known for hundreds of years

“The title of the post clearly claims to discuss the melt due to sea current change. It says nothing about the melt caused by air temperature except that the current discussion isn’t about that.”
But in fact:
“Greenland glaciers – melt due to sea current change, not(!) air temperature”
Emphasis mine. I thought R Gates quite reasonably asked for integrity — don’t distort what the science says, especially when a large part of your critique of the conventional wisdom involves attacking others for distorting the science.

Correction: Even if I mess up…I am SURE…

Robert (22:32:14) :
What is the data that says the earth is warming?
Many independent data sets, including the GISS data and the satellite records.
“So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run.
HUH? Explain yourself here. Does not follow.”
Loss of ice cover is a positive feedback, causing warming.
“Also, what about heat lost to space?”
What about it?
“Your arguments seem to be sophistry. The burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.”
You are mistaken. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim that they are sophistry, if you wish to make such a claim.

John F.:
I believe in accuracy, and so the title for this thread would have been honest and accurate if it had simply said:
Greenland Glacier melt due to sea current change
And left it at that. The way it was worded implies quite strongly that air temps were somehow proven to not to ALSO cause melting. It is misleading to have added “not air temperature”, but I undestand that I am a minority here (yes, a AGW “warmist”), and so of course the headline captures the spirit of what WUWT is all about and majority of posters here like to see….

Robert (23:18:40) :
Pure sophistry. Folks this is a spin artist at work.
[Although it is too much a compliment to use the word “artist” in this context.]
Again I cite:
Robert@ “So even if it were a zero-sum equation, unless the loss of heat somewhere else is growing an ice sheet somewhere, the exchange will lead to more warming in the long run.
And “Loss of ice cover is a positive feedback, causing warming.”
Does not follow. Non sequitur.
Really a waste of time.
DUH…..on loss of ice cover “causing” warming.
Your quotes are not even worth addressing…but thanks for the fodder.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Robert (23:18:40) :
AGW is not a proven or testable theory. It holds no value to add to the betterment of the world.
It has failed all of it’s predictions so far.
It is Pal-reviewed and hearsay.
The null hypothesis holds until something comes along that tests out.
That is how Science works.
You can always write a book if you wish to remain hypothetical.
Plenty of renowned people have done just that, and no harm done.

Robert is correct about melting ice and albedo. Its very simple, ice reflects IR radiation, darker sea absorbs it. Sun shining on ice is reflected and does not heat it much. Sun shining on dark sea is absorbed and heats it more.
So far we are at ‘just physics’. If ice retreats, warming due to IR absorption will occur. This isn’t sophistry, whatever is meant by that, but simple physics.
The implications of this however are, as usual, not simple physics. The question is whether the increased warming by radiation absorption at those latitudes is a significant contributor either to ice melt or to the warmth of the planet. And the answer is probably no.
So Robert’s point is perfectly valid, the phenomenon described is real and is occurring, its just that it is probably not of sufficient magnitude to matter. In particular, on a global scale, it is going to be minute in terms of feedback from clouds. And in terms of ice melt, its going to be minute compared to the effects of ocean currents, as this article explains.
The point is a bit like saying that when you turn on the air conditioner in a car, you will have to power the compressor, and that will increase fuel consumption. That is just physics. Well yes, maybe. But how much of a percentage difference will it make? And if you close the windows at the same time, how much effect will the lowered wind resistance have.
We are dealing with a very complicated machine here, and it is a mistake to conclude that we can tell from ‘just physics’ what, and how important, the effect of changing one input variable will be.

Rotten ice! I found it.
Little OT but found out what the infamous rotten ice really is! I gather from the link below that it is formed in cold water forming new ice, not in the breaking up of warm melting ice.
It is a normal new ice process as the ice is being formed and undergoes brine exclusion in-between the chunks of ice with little salt content in order to allow the excess salt to escape and so a solid sheet of ice can form.
Learn something new every day! Appears it isn’t something unprecedented or unusual after all as in the alarmist article month’s ago! Shame on that ‘expert’ for omitting this type of key information from his audience!
Look half way down under “formation of sea ice”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation

R Gates said:
” This kind of massaging of the actual finding of study are every bit as serious as any other kind of data manipulation…and totally inexcusable.”
———————
You did observe that this is a headline that you’re objecting to.
You’ll notice that it’s not a sentence; there is no finite verb. You should appreciate that, since you exhibit an imperfect understanding of conjugation in your comment.
Anyhow, to continue in the same fatuous vein that you initiated, I’ll suggest that this headline could just as easily be construed as ” Greenland glaciers – a study of the melt that is due to sea current change, not air temperature” as your inferred version, which goes along the lines of “Greenland glaciers- the melt is due to sea current change, not air temperature.”
Whatever!!
I agree with Jerome’s comment that this is another two month wonder about something “we’ve never seen before” because we never looked.

Steve Goddard (22:53:53) :
Yep. Saw that. Another good one. I’m hoping you’re right. I’m in the northwest, and for us, this year is much different than the last two (which produced the rebound from 2007). Hence, the reason for my apprehension.

This latest from Bjorn Lomborg is worth reading. It covers ClimateGate, GlacierGate, HurricaneGate, AmazonGate and AfricaGate.
IPCC scaremongering is destroying its credibility:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ipcc-scaremongering-is-destroying-its-credibility/story-e6frg6xf-1225831116193

@ Stevegoddards link above Monthly Weather Review:-
See extract and note the water temperatures?
“There were few seal in Spitzbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surprise the captain. He pointed out that
formerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3degrees. Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15degrees and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.
With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitsbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring.

And 4 degree Celsius is warm?
Did you ever take a dive in 4 degree Celsius water!
You will need a first aid team to get your heart beating again.

“This is the first time we’ve seen…”
How often has this statement been made in relation to weather (not climate) events.
The authors then assume that it has never happened before, and then extrapolate this event the be the norm for the future.

Impossible. Greenland ice is growing.

“A research team led by Fiamma Straneo, a physical oceanographer at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, found that subtropical waters are reaching Greenland’s glaciers, driving melting and likely triggering an acceleration of ice loss. Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. ”
That sounds like a self correcting mechanism to me.
John M Reynolds

So warmer water doesn’t heat the air above it? I must have missed when the ocean decoupled from the atmosphere.

So – the glacier/ocean interaction is not considered in global climate models.
WHAT?
Considering how much scaremongering there has been by the fantasists, over the impact of melting glaciers on sea levels I find this statement truly extraordinary. The fantasists whitter on about feedbacks and tipping points and don’t bother to include the interaction between 2 of the most significant, and therefore critical, components in the system?
Just what DO they include in their models?
Unbelievable.
I reckon I could produce a better GCM in Excel in less than a day (well maybe 2 or 3 days, then)

OT: I cannot use Tips & Notes at all these days. It locks up my whole browser. Can you perhaps install an automatic archiver to cut in at a not impossible number of posts? thanks in hope.

What’s more interesting is how complex climate “forecasting” actually is, and this paper just confirms that point of view.
The deep ocean currents drive the “conveyor belt” which brings warmer water to northern Europe. The very cold, very saline water just south of Greenland sinks very fast due to its high density and this is the “driver” – along with the deep Antarctic water it picks up on the way – for the rest of the ocean heat transport.
If the Greenland ice sheet melts too fast then the salinty drops and this conveyor switches off. Massive impacts globally from small changes one way or the other.
If you want it in a soundbite:

global warming could cause globalcooling

The “switching off” of the thermohaline currents or THC can cause the refreezing of the Arctic with all of the positive feedback that the ice albedo and other effects bring.
Check out Predictability? With a Pinch of Salt please.. Part One

Just what DO they include in their models?
Raw data fed through a grinder and poured into a mold for all I know.
Even Colonel Sanders admits there’s chicken and spices in the list.

Climate Coalition hit by defectors! That’s good news!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html?ru=yahoo&mod=yahoo_hs

Philip T. Downman (02:11:41) :
Sounds pretty right to me. Think of the iceberg tou mention cooling the NA waters. Would that tend to speed up or slow down the current, even though is’s a tiny effect?

Andrew (01:48:14) :
“This is the first time we’ve seen…”
How often has this statement been made in relation to weather (not climate) events.
The authors then assume that it has never happened before, and then extrapolate this event the be the norm for the future.
This is I am afraid the state of affairs the world over in all walks of life. I see it in my own profession too. Is this part of cognitive dissonance? I was working as a young technician at a well know international lab many years ago, I was sent “below stairs” for a year as a Clerk of Works to get site experience – what a sight & what an experience that was. I digress, upon returning to the fold of the drawing office, I prepared a specification for the decoration of an office upon completion, as I shared architectural & engineering roles in part, & used the term “mist-coat” + 2 No full coats emulsion, the “mist” being simply a watered-down emulsion coat to seal the surface of the plaster before applying the final decorative finishes. The senior architectural technician & the senior architect, both challenged my terminology as they had never heard of it before & I was therefore wrong, but despite my protestations was forced to change it to their invented term of “sealer coat”. I eventually (days later but the damage was done) demonstrated that such a term was actually in SPONS, the “bible” of quantity surveying used by all in the UK construction industry, (a copy of which was on the architect’s shelves, gathering dust one presumes although its cover was a nice bright colour)!

Sorry I forgot to add that this was a illustration of the arrogant attitude people have to things they have not seen before, the ilogical but automatic presumptious conclusions being that it has to be new!

Caleb:

“..The use of the word “disrupt” is unfortunate. It implies that a system which was stable is getting knocked out of kilter..
It is likely these events did have some effect on “a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. ” However the system simply adapted. It didn’t break down or go berserk in any dramatic way?

Perhaps it did.
Some of the paleoclimate evidence suggest that the THC (thermohaline current) which has one effect of driving heat from the sub-tropics to northern Europe has switched off and changed direction more than once in the past.
It would definitely be a strong disruption.
It might be the mechanism by which the interglacials ended and the start of the subsequent ice age.

wayne (02:10:32) :
Thank you for the pointer to the presentation. Very interesting.
Mike Ramsey

The one weakness I find in this report is that it speaks of changes in the North Atlantic Circulation but it does not seem to discuss how this current has actually changed in recent years.

I once told a distinguished engineering professor who was an expert at Greenland icecap radar imaging that the icecap sits in a bowl and can’t slide precipitously into the sea, and he had the gall to try to tell me that the topography of Greenland’s land surface was poorly known. He’d just finished pooh-poohing the 800 year lag of CO2 to temperature in the ice core record, too. This was for an audience being challenged about the hysteria by you know who.
=============================

Excellent work. We owe a great debt of gratitude to WattsUpWithThat & ClimateAudit for the work they do.
However, it is hard to keep track of all the different climate reports that have errors in them. We need some kind of web repository where these errors are indexed and a description of the errors is outlined. It is very difficult to keep track of how many contentious climate documents exist visiting the various blogs because they update so frequently.

If you see here:
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
You can see the south east side of greenland coast with positive temperature anomaly, but watch the gulf waters south of the US, whence the gulf warm current comes: cold.
It looks more like a local phenomenon perhaps related to displacement to the south of the jet stream, which is related to changes in artic pressure, detailed already by Erl Happ:
http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2009/04/05/solar-warming-solar-cooling/#comment-272
It’s the Sun Al Baby!

For anyone interested in how the ocean currents determine sea surface temps around Greenland they should visit http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/index.php and select NordAtlanten in the drop down (or just click on the map below). That said it’s worth looking just for the current image for the North Sea and Baltic which illustrates just how cold this winter has been.

Robert (21:47:39) :
“At that single station, I’m sure it was, but over Greenland as a whole? The anomaly over Greenland from 1999-2009 appears significantly greater than that present from 1930-1940, using the “Global Maps from GHCN Data” feature”
Now that’s an interesting question. Why not have a look at this ‘interactive map’ which shows the warming/cooling trends in the GHCN raw dataset from 1910 to 1940 and then click on the ‘dark red’ dots for the Greenland stations.
GISS raw data trends 1910 to 1939
GISS raw data trends 1910 to 1939
Here are the GISS raw/adjusted temperature charts for four Greenland stations that show the warming/cooling trends for the full 1880 to 2010 period, the 1880 to 1909 period, the 1910 to 1939 period, the 1940 to 1969 period and finally the 1970 to 2010 period.
GodThab Nuuk
Jakobshaven
Upernavik
Angmagssalik
Now I don’t know about you but it sure looks to me that for most of these Greenland stations the rate of warming between 1910 to 1939 is greater than or as great as the warming between 1970 to 2010?
Now look back at the 1910 to 1939 interactive map and have a look at the Icelandic, north Norwegian and other stations thar are affected by the ocean currents in the Nordic Seas. Spot anything?
Stykkisholmur
Reykjavik
Akureyri
Jan Mayen
Isfjord Radio
Bodo Vi
Tromo/Skatto
Vardo
Again I don’t know about you but it sure looks to me that for most of these Nordic Sea stations, as with the Greenland stations, the rate of warming between 1910 to 1939 is greater than or as great as the warming between 1970 to 2010?
Now how can that be when the late 20th century warming is supposed to be due to CO2 and other anthropogenic GHG emissions? Isn’t the recent 2007 low in Arctic sea ice extent supposed to be due to global warming because of man’s contunued reliance on fossil fuels? I wonder what the Arctic sea ice extent was back in the 1920s/30s? I wonder what was happening to those Greenland glaciers back in the 1920s/30s when the warming trend was greater than it has been in the late 20th century?
Now hands up who still thinks that an odourless, colourless trace gas vital to the continued existence of life on this planet determines our climate rather than natural cyclc ocean currents like the PDO/ENSO/AMO//NAO?

Re: Roger Knights (03:24:26):
Air Temperatures were not part of the study, had nothing to do with the study, were not considered, and should not have been put in the title. The title as worded implies an “discovered exclusion from cause”, of air temperature and that is not at all, in any way what the Woods Hole team was investigating or found. It’s a misleading headline, period.
And while I recognize that WUWT is not necessarily friendly to ‘warmists’ like me, I would hope that hyping of headlines beyond the actual content of a study would cross the line. But apparently not. Finally, as we January 2010 saw record warmth in the troposphere which is consisent with AGW models, I have yet to be offered one shred of evidence that warming is not occuring. The slowing of the rise in global temps over the past few years is exactly what would be expected during a solar mimimum and extended La Nina, and now that we’re headed toward a new Solar Max, the march upward in temps is continuing exactly as AGW models would posit. If the world is not warming, why the new record high temps?

Jacob Coburn: Of course it’s possible, but you then need to explain why those currents were just as warm, or maybe even slightly warmer, 60-80 years ago (and even warmer 1200 years ago).
Btw. I should have included this link in my previous note about the temperature record from the area near the Helheim glacier:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
As you can see, the last few years were all within the same range as the whole 1930 – 1960 period, with one single exception (2003).

R. Gates (23:32:58) : Regarding your contention that “It is misleading to have added “not air temperature”“; it appears the air and water temperatures are simliar, ie. slightly above freezing, and the air is so only seasonally. Considering the difference in mass between air and water, the effect of air is insignificant, making the statement “not air temperature” true.
This also responds to Nick (02:06:43) : So warmer water doesn’t heat the air above it? a typically specious statement.

Don’t worry. A thousand years from now, tree-ring data from Bolivia will prove that this “Arctic Warming Period” was a myth.

I just looked on the Accuweather Global Warming site where they say the warming is Sub tropical .Catchy title wouldn’t you say. The funny thing is this report was done back in July of 2008 through Sept.

Am I right to conclude from this story that only those parts of the glaciers that are already largely submerged in the deep fjords are subject to melting due to warm currents? So the melting of that ice would hardly contribute to sea level rise. Also only a fraction of the kilometers thick Greenland ice sheet is located in a position where water is in direct contact with the ice. So isn’t this whole story a storm in a teacup?

My favorite caveats!!!!…”suspected mechanisms”….”difficult to confirm”?
And, of course the obligatory career enhancing ……“We need more continuous observations to fully understand how they work, and to be able to better predict sea-level rise in the future,” says Straneo.
These guys at Woods Hole are soooo gooooood.

Temperatures are much warmer in the NW Atlantic this year: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2010/02/17/nl-cains-cancelled-170210.html

“Almost all of us skeptics at this site acknowledge that after the MWP (medieval warm period) there was an LIA (little ice age) since which time (1600’s or so) there has been a long term trend of global warming, with various cycles of warming and cooling related either to solar cycles or ocean oscillations or both superimposed. So we expect that “baseline” temps a hundred years ago may be slightly cooler than current temps (although we have also learned that upward measurement bias in temps due to siting and urbanization issues mess up the data).”
Some people acknowledge that there is a warming trend, and some (like the person who challenged me on it) do not. Once we agree that there’s a warming trend, the question is what is causing it.
While the UHI has been proposed as a cause of measured warming, the data has stamped rather heavily on that supposition:
Assessment of Urban Versus Rural In Situ Surface Temperatures in the Contiguous
United States: No Difference Found
THOMAS C. PETERSON
National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, North Carolina
(Manuscript received 26 May 2002, in final form 23 February 2003)
ABSTRACT
All analyses of the impact of urban heat islands (UHIs) on in situ temperature obser vations suffer from inhomogeneities or biases in the data. These inhomogeneities make urban heat island analyses difficult and can lead to erroneous conclusions. To remove the biases caused by differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting, a variety of adjustments were applied to the data. The resultant data were the most thoroughly homogenized and the homogeneity adjustments were the most rigorously evaluated and thoroughly documented of any large-scale UHI analysis to date. Using satellite night-lights–derived urban/ rural metadata, urban and rural temperatures from 289 stations in 40 clusters were compared using data from 1989 to 1991. Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures. It is postulated that this is due to micro- and local-scale impacts dominating
over the mesoscale urban heat island. Industrial sections of towns may well be significantly warmer than rural sites, but urban meteorological observations are more likely to be made within park cool islands than industrial regions.
So the UHI does not appear to be a significant source of measured warming. And obviously the satellite data shows warming as well.
As to whether this is a normal recovery from the LIA: to resolve that, there’s no getting around the hockey stick (which is to say, temperature reconstructions of the last 1,000 years). While there are a few scientists who still believe in a global MWP comparable to present warming, for the most part, the reconstructions agree that the 20th century warming is anomalous in the last thousand years.
While some people use the data on the MWP to argue for an as-yet unknown natural process causing the warming, I feel this is a non-parsimonious explanation. We know GHGs cause a greenhouse effect — that has been known for a couple of centuries, since long before any “controversy.” We know that, because of human activity, there are more of these GHGs in the atmosphere than there used to be. The most commonsensical explanation is that the GHGs and the warming are connected, not seperate, phenomena, and since we know what’s causing the elevations in GHGs, the warming is most likely the effect of that increase.

“Melting ice also means more fresh water in the ocean, which could flood into the North Atlantic and disrupt a global system of currents, known as the Ocean Conveyor. (Jack Cook, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)”
Yeah, and the tooth fairy might leave a million dollars under my pillow.
Can they demonstrate an historic precident for such disruption, aside from the Lake Agassiz or Baltic floods?

vigilantfish (21:55:27) :
“Actually, I hate to play devil’s advocate here but … MSc thesis … the early 20th century fishermen, sealers and other witnesses …”
An MSc thesis is drawn from papers with either derived or first hand data, and there is a selection process involved. The fishermen and sealers provide first hand data, and they are directly concerned about where to find their money.

Robert,
Please explain exactly how the data was homogenized by Patterson at NCDC – we are all intensely curious as to how this process is carried out… As you are doubtless aware most of us are skeptical of the processes used and the agenda of those who are performing this work.
Homogenization is a process invented for creating a stable configuration in milk, in which fat globules are evenly suspended throughout the lighter skim-milk. For those of us who have had the privilege of drinking unhomogenized milk in the past, there is a clear recognition that the raw product is very different from the homogenized version, with a lovely layer of cream that floats on top of the milk. Is the milk identical to the cream? Hardly! I suspect that the term used in Peterson’s paper to describe the manipulated data conveys a confession as to how well the results reflect the reality conveyed by the actual data record.

“Please explain exactly how the data was homogenized by Patterson at NCDC – we are all intensely curious as to how this process is carried out”
I’d suggest reading the paper — no doubt it has a methods section.
Looking at the abstract, it appears that in referring to “Homogenization” he’s talking about what the medical literature usually calls regression analysis. In lay terms, that means taking into account all the other things that can mess with temperature readings “differences in elevation, latitude, time of observation, instrumentation, and nonstandard siting,” to isolate the supposed UHI effect.
“As you are doubtless aware most of us are skeptical of the processes used and the agenda of those who are performing this work.”
I think genuine skepticism is directed at things we want to believe in — things that further your own “agenda” of discrediting the theory of AGW. The capacity to doubt your own theories, and imagine you might be wrong, is the characteristic of a truly skeptical mind. Being intensely suspicious of those that tell us things that we don’t want to hear is an example of confirmation bias, not skepticism.

Didn’t Bill Nye say that global warming was going to screw up the thermohaline circulation and maybe even shut down the Gulf Stream?

ZOMG… Could Bill Nye be wrong? Could 100,000 to 1 Richard Lindzen be right?

” savethesharks (23:41:23) :
Pure sophistry. Folks this is a spin artist at work.”
I know you intend this as a criticism of me, but given what follows, it reads more like a disclaimer for the rest of your post.
Reply:This is a warning to be savethesharks and Robert. Tone it down. Personal attacks on other commenters are strongly frowned upon here. And as always. I don’t care who started it. ~ ctm

Robert,
“So the UHI does not appear to be a significant source of measured warming,”
Unconvincing argument since it uses the same homogenisation that have been criticized in the CRU and GISS reconstructions. In othe words – a tautology.
Fact: Raw data from rural sites do not show a warming trend in the lower 48 states, whereas raw data from urban sites do.
“While there are a few scientists who still believe in a global MWP comparable to present warming.”
A few – like 805 Scientists from from 478 research institutions in 43 different countries contributing to a body of knowledge over 50 years in the making. In would be more accurate to point to the few scientists who don’t believe in a global MWP.
“for the most part, the reconstructions agree that the 20th century warming is anomalous in the last thousand years.”
In order to accept the evidence of a few debunked hockey stick studies while willfully ignoring the mountain of contrary evidence suggests a mind that is closed to facts.
“While some people use the data on the MWP to argue for an as-yet unknown natural process causing the warming, I feel this is a non-parsimonious explanation.”
Some people argue that because compute models cannot reproduce 20th century warming without CO2 forcing and feedbacks, then AGW must be real. I call that an argumentum ignoratium. If, as nearly everyone willing to open their eyes can see, climate has varied constantly and unfailingly on every time scale, without human caused CO2 driving it, then this “unknown” mechanism must, in fact, exist. If it existed then, then it must exist now.
The scientific method is actually pretty simple. Observations tell us that climate has varied and was warmer 1000 years ago during the MWP, the Roman warm period before that and the Minoan warm period before that. You start by trying to reject the null hypothesis – that modern warming is different from any of the others such that another explanation is required. The null hypothesis can only be rejected if the hockey stick reconstruction was real, something even Phil Jones is trying to distance himself from. That’s why the MWP was called “putative,” – it knocks a pillar out from the AGW hypothesis.

“”” vukcevic (12:12:08) :
George E. Smith (10:15:19) :
“So I wonder what Svend Hendriksen (A Nobel Peace Prize Winning Glaciologist, who lives in Greenland) thinks about this research. I am sure he is familiar with the basic variables of this location and situation.”
Mr Hendriksen appears not only be top Nobel Peace Prize Winning Glaciologist, but also interested in art controversies:
extract: Greenland Art Review © 2010
Published 14-02-2010 11:21 by S. E. Hendriksen
Was ‘Art fraudsters’ self-deceived?
If Svend Erik Olsen and Jannie From the ‘art scammers and fraudsters’, so their plan is only starting to take shape now that the trial is over. If they have a ‘plan’, then it is so advanced a few people have noticed it yet. Eastern High Court misunderstood the matter entirely, but is an excellent means for couples’ ‘future’ claim of 30 million. Sterling …
(google translation)
Med venlig hilsen
Greenland Art Review
V/ Svend Erik Hendriksen
Nobel Peace Prize 1988 (Collectively) etc
http://www.glar.gl/ “””
Svend is a very nice chap; and very knowledgeable about glaciers both in Greenland where he lives most of the time; but also in Antarctica. And since those polar orbit satellites fly over both, he can get pictures and stuff from either end of the earth dropped down to him when the bird goes over his place. And he lives out in the boonies, not some bustling big city with traffic lights. He can also educate us on just what those breaking up Antarctic ice shelves are really doing; and the stuff he has sent me in the past suggests they break up all the time. The piece of the most recent big fuss Wilkins break-off; has a nearby thinner piece that clearly broke up around 50 years ago; and is still recovering its former thickness.

“So I wonder what Svend Hendriksen (A Nobel Peace Prize Winning Glaciologist, who lives in Greenland) thinks about this research. ”
The Nobel Prize for 1988 was awarded to “UN Peacekeepers.” I sincerely hope Mr. Hendriksen does not puff himself up in the manner being done on his behalf here.
Speaking as a winner of Time’s “Person of the Year” (2006), I think that calling Mr. Hendriksen “Nobel Peace Prize Winning” is extremely silly, even if it’s technically true.

kim (05:09:33) :
I once told a distinguished engineering professor who was an expert at Greenland icecap radar imaging that the icecap sits in a bowl and can’t slide precipitously into the sea, and he had the gall to try to tell me that the topography of Greenland’s land surface was poorly known. He’d just finished pooh-poohing the 800 year lag of CO2 to temperature in the ice core record, too. This was for an audience being challenged about the hysteria by you know who.
=============================
The ice is also heavy enough to make its own topology – which is probably more important over larger areas.
It’s a bit like lying in bed. If you notice, everything is uphill from where you’re lying. Even if you move.
Spooky…

Cadae (02:01:38) :

O/T – Neuralgate ?

The IPCC are using neural networks to prove Al Gore warming? priceless!
(I did my degree project on those little babies – a waste of time for future benefit, but I really did think they were going somewhere)

“”” Robert (14:17:13) :
“So I wonder what Svend Hendriksen (A Nobel Peace Prize Winning Glaciologist, who lives in Greenland) thinks about this research. ”
The Nobel Prize for 1988 was awarded to “UN Peacekeepers.” I sincerely hope Mr. Hendriksen does not puff himself up in the manner being done on his behalf here.
Speaking as a winner of Time’s “Person of the Year” (2006), I think that calling Mr. Hendriksen “Nobel Peace Prize Winning” is extremely silly, even if it’s technically true. “””
Wow ! who would ever have imagined that; fancy the Nobel Peace Prize committee actually awarding that prize to “UN Peacekeepers”.
Much better of course that they award such a prize to the Commander in Chief of US military forces; who held up acting on the request from his Commanders in the field to send reinforcements to Afghanistan in the ongoing WAR there; until the Norwegian Committee had made their well reasoned selection; a candidate who in fact hasn’t raised a finger to assist those innocent victims of a cruel war in Africa; the very people I believe that in 1988 those Nobel Peace prize winning “UN Peacekeepers” were sent to aid. How many US troops perished while the CIC was awaiting his annointment; after serving a whole month in his new job ?
And yes Svend was one of those.
Of course, once the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner had gathered up his Norwegian booty; he then chose to finally order those much needed US “peacekeepers” into battle in Afghanistan.
No Svend is quite circumspect about his role; but I find your comment to be sillier than his award.
Perhaps the similar award to a pompous goofball like Al Gore is more deserved and less silly than awarding that prize to actual “peacekeepers.”

“Robert (14:17:13) :”
Please address me as “Former Time’s Person of the Year, Robert.”

IF this has been mentioned before-I’m too tired to check I just came back from
a 300mi round-trip in my old van in need of attention..
Ok what about the AMDO and the apparent cooling of the Gulf stream is that
happening as some in Europe have been speculating, and if so, that would change this warming scenario..

JER0ME (15:49:51) :
Cadae (02:01:38) :
O/T – Neuralgate ?
The IPCC are using neural networks to prove Al Gore warming? priceless! (I did my degree project on those little babies – a waste of time for future benefit, but I really did think they were going somewhere)
I read a study back in the early 1980’s about the a US military attempt to train a neural network to discriminate between NATO and Warsaw Pact tanks.  They used photographs.  When the system was tried in the field it failed.  After some analysis, the researchers concluded that, because the pictures of NATO tanks were almost always taken in bright sunshine while the soviet tanks photos were almost always taken in cloudy weather, the neural net was distinguishing between tanks with shadows vs. tanks w/o shadows.
The project was abandoned.
Mike Ramsey

Finally. Field research. And with seals, which is way, way, cool. Funny that. How come we didn’t get the whole meal deal with this expedition? I wanted to see their heart rate, when they peed, and all that. I wanted to see the day to day treacherous trek to the land of ice! I wanted daily updates by the insurance company! I’ve been robbed. Where’s the PR man?!?!?!?

DennisA (07:40:17)
WOW – hadn’t seen that before. Another excerpt:
The warming of the Arctic Ocean has happened before, in a pattern that scientists call multidecadal variability. Since Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen first recorded Arctic Ocean temperatures in the late 1800s, the temperature of the Arctic Ocean has been higher than average during two periods: from the 1920s to about the 1950s, and from the early 1980s to the present.