Guest Post By Arnd Bernaerts, with sincere thanks to Verity at “Digging In the Clay” for permission to repost it here. – Anthony
With the message “The Arctic region continues to heat up” the Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010 was released by NOAA a few days ago. The NOAA home page has the headline: “Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely”.
The sections most relevant to the Arctic (strictly the Arctic Ocean) – Atmosphere, Ice-cover, and the Ocean itself are covered in p.6-26 however since the first report of its kind in 2006, the remit has become broader and now includes sections on Land (p.27-52), Greenland, and Biology (p.53-100), including Arctic Char, Goose Population, and Arctic Wildlife.
ATMOSPHERE
“The Arctic Report Card is a timely source for clear, reliable and concise environmental information on the state of the Arctic, relative to historical time series records”, proclaims NOAA (HERE), but the Report is of little help in this respect. Although the Arctic is an ocean, and the report has a section on Land, the section Atmosphere begins with the sentence: “The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900”. This is illustrated by Fig.A1 (mean 1961-90, CRUTEM 3v) that includes the North Atlantic from Latitude 60°N to 64°N, and the sea area from southern Greenland to Norway. Is that a “trick”? Comparing Figure 2 for the region north of 64°N it seems we are no warmer now (+1.5⁰C anomaly) than around 1938/39.
Figure A.1. Arctic-wide annual average surface air temperature anomalies relative to the 1961–90 mean, based on land stations north of 60°N from the CRUTEM 3v dataset, available online at www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/ data/temperature/. Note this curve does not include marine observations.
Figure 2 (Source: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic1880-2004_3.gif)
Instead the Arctic Ocean temperature situation is presented by Figure (A3) , which indicates merely an increase in annual temperature anomaly in 2009 for about one-third of the ocean space in the Canadian Basin. A separate analysis for winter and summer would be needed anyhow, and this report could have covered Nov.2009 to April 2010 already at least (see Fig.3) . Instead they talk globally:
Figure 3. GISS DJF 2009/10
“The first 7 months of 2010 achieved a record high level of global mean air temperature, but this could moderate for the rest of the year due to La Niña influences. The warmest temperature anomalies for the Arctic in the first half of 2010 were over north-eastern Canada”, which may be relevant for January to June temperature in NE Canada, but is of little concern to the Arctic Ocean.
However the report does describe an interesting phenomenon, described here in direct quotes:
- “Winter 2009-2010 showed a major new connectivity between Arctic climate and mid-latitude severe weather, compared to the past.”
- “…winds tend to blow from west to east, thus separating cold arctic air masses from the regions further south.” but “in December 2009 (Fig. A7b) and February 2010 (Fig. A7c) we actually had a reversal of this climate pattern, with higher heights and pressures over the Arctic that eliminated the normal west-to-east jet stream winds. This allowed cold air from the Arctic to penetrate all the way into Europe, eastern China, and Washington DC.”
- “This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.”
- The section concludes “While individual weather extreme events cannot be directly linked to larger scale climate changes, recent data analysis and modelling suggest a link between loss of sea ice and a shift to an increased impact from the Arctic on mid-latitude climate.”
Figure 4: Wind direction Great Britain 1939/40
Three times “in the last 160 years”! – yet the years are not mentioned, nor any historical context. Instead the section ends with the conclusion that:
“Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as Winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.”
OCEAN & ICE
In the ocean section, the authors tend to focus on 2007 to 2009, not even mentioning the winter 2009/10, or any period or month in 2010. They report that summer sea surface temperatures fell over the period, and also discuss wind driven circulation and salinity. Astonishingly, this section (a two page long text of about 1300 words) required 15 authors from 8 institutions and 5 nations for its preparation.
The one text-page long section on sea ice cover starts with the remarkable sentence: “Sea ice extent is the primary parameter for summarizing the state of the Arctic sea ice cover.”, and regards as “Highlights” of 2010:
- “September minimum sea ice extent is third lowest recorded.”
- “Loss of thick multiyear ice in Beaufort Sea during summer.”
The main discussion is about the difference between 2007 and 2010, culminating in the information that:
- “Winter 2010 was characterized by a very strong atmospheric circulation pattern that led to warmer than normal temperatures.”
- “A strong atmospheric circulation pattern during winter 2010 kept most of the 2-3 year old ice in the central Arctic, and during June helped push the ice edge away from the coast.”
A post by one of the four authors, Dr. Walt Meier, at WUWT (21. Oct.): “Summer 2010 in the Arctic and other Sea Ice topics”, was more informative, i.e. mentioning the importance of bottom and lateral melt, which depends on the ocean temperatures.
WIND SHIFT
Figure 5. GISS DJF 1939/40
The report has some value, at least with a basic analysis and explanation concerning the phenomenal change of wind direction during winter 2009/2010. While it may be risky to guess about three events, I can bet on one without any hesitation, namely winter 1939/40, the first World War II winter, which has been a subject of considerable research for some time (http://climate-ocean.com/) (See Fig.5 (left)). At the end of the 1930s the NH temperature had been very high, but suddenly Europe was confronted with the coldest winter since the Little Ice Age. This included an interesting change in wind direction, for example in Great Britain (see Fig.4) during the winter seasons 1814, 1841, and 1939/40. One of the leading German meteorologists at the time, R. Scherhag explained the sudden change few years later:
“The temperature anomalies which were observed in the northern hemisphere in January 1940 can easily be explained by the occurrence of the pressure deviations.” (Richard Scherhag, 1951, “Die große Zirkulationsstörung im Jahr 1940”; Annalen der Meteorologie, Vol. 7-9, pp. 327-328). In the same way he tried to explain the Arctic warming (1919 to 1939) In the 1930s. C.E.P. Brooks (1938) felt it necessary to provide a reason: “Attributing the recent period of warm winters to an increase in the strength of the atmospheric circulation only pushes the problem one stage further back, for we should still have to account for the change of circulation.” (in: “The Warming Arctic”, The Meteorological Magazine, 1938, p.29-32.). And the answer regarding the change in circulation? It is the ocean that matters.
So here we are, 70 years later. NOAA presents a report with a fanfare, but there are few new facts, meagre explanations and claims that scare. No wonder – if we cannot explain the early Arctic warming since 1919, and the onset of the global cooling since Winter 1939/40, we are unlikely to explain convincingly the mechanisms that drive the conditions in the polar region today. The oceans should be the prime factor; instead the NOAA Report puts the atmosphere and sea ice cover first.
REFERENCE:
NOAA: “Arctic Report Card 2010”, http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/
“Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010 – Tracking recent environmental changes” Richter-Menge, J., and J.E. Overland, Eds.: Arctic Report Card 2010, (Full report)
The various essays shall cite the mentioned authors (In total about 69)
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/ (in PDF: 7.5 MB)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NOTE: The Table of Contents is only available by titles, subtitle, pages and other info added.
- Atmosphere: Arctic climate is impacting mid-latitude weather, as seen in Winter 2009-2010 , p.6-13.
- Sea Ice: Summer sea ice conditions for previous four years well below 1980s and 1990s, p.14-18.
- Ocean: Upper ocean showing year-to-year variability without significant trends, p. 19-26.
- Land : Low winter snow accumulation, warm spring temperatures lead to record low snow cover duration ; p. 27 (Vegetation 28-32), Permafrost (33-37), River Discharge (38-40), Terrestrial Snow (41-45), Glaciers outside Greenland (46-52).
- Greenland: Record setting high temperatures, ice melt, and glacier area loss , p. 53-62.
- Biology: Rapid environmental change threatens to disrupt current natural cycles, p. 63 (Summary);
- Biology Essays (p.64-101): State of Reindeer herds; Marine Mammals ; Murres; Fisheries in the Bering Sea; Fisheries in the Barents Sea; Arctic Char; Goose Populations; Arctic Wildlife.
Figures on Global Temperature:
- NASA: GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_1200km _Anom D/J/F_2009/10 & 1939/40 vs 1920-1939 (prepared 25/10/10).
- Figure: Wind direction Great Britain 1939/40 is based on information from Drummond, A.J.; ‚Cold winters at Kew Observatory, 1783-1942’; (1943) Quarterly Journal of Royal Met. Soc., No. 69, pp 17-32 (prepared by: seaclimate.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Claude Harvey you are a hoot, love the humor on this site!
have to add I learned a new word today – Hansenised
ATTN: Anthony
Could it be possible for you to post some of Jim Bullis’s temperature plots? In particular the plots with a long time series?
eadler says: October 29, 2010 at 11:17 am
# (1) compares air temperature data from 60N-90N, up to 2010 from NOAA to data from 64N-90N
# (2) if the authors wanted to cover only 2009 and leave 2010
___(1) 60°N to 64°N is south of Iceland, with warm Atlantic war. Belongs Bergen/Norway to the Arctic? Here is a figure from “Jones et al dataset” 1880-2004, north of 70°N, http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/jones79_90n.jpg, which is a latitude south of the North Cap/Norway indicating even a less level of warming north of 70°N that 1939.
(2) The report’s title is: NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”, emphasis: “Update for 2010”. The section ice-cover, for example, includes September 2010.
Why didn’t they use the mean from 1979-2000, aka the so called satellite reference?
I’m guessing even them hobnob hippies got the oddity of it all to have a reference so close to home and now even if it would’ve been the more proper one math and statistical wise. But hey only the evil troll are keeping accounts. :-()
Ralph Bullis says: October 29, 2010 at 6:49 am
Cambridge Bay (cooler now than in 1929)
Ralph, I’d also be interested in seeing your results in more detail. Perhaps you have the data sets available in some handy format.
I ask because I decided to look myself a little – I looked at the climate data for Cambridge Bay (it was the first one I happened to find at the website).
I took the latest five years (2005-2009) and the earliest 5 years — both in Jan & Jul and looked at the Jan & July mean temp. (Since the early data is spotty, I kept looking until I found 5 years where the data was available. That took from 1929-1939 for Jan and 1929-1940 for Jul.)
I found the January temperatures had WARMED by 1.0 C on average, and the July temperatures had COOLED by 0.25 C on average. This would seem to indicate a net WARMING, not cooling as you reported. I strongly suspect that with my limited sample, neither of these trends is statistically significant.
Of course this is just a small sample and just two months. Did you find a statistically significant trend in the data for these sites? Could you explain your methodology for testing the trends in temperatures?
“Models suggest that loss of sea ice in fall favors higher geopotential heights over the Arctic. With future loss of sea ice, such conditions as Winter 2009-2010 could happen more often. Thus we have a potential climate change paradox. Rather than a general warming everywhere, the loss of sea ice and a warmer Arctic can increase the impact of the Arctic on lower latitudes, bringing colder weather to southern locations.”
Models ALWAYS assume that melting and warming will continue ad infinitum, thus no other result can come out.
It’s Global Warming, more global warming, and any Global Cooling is a direct result of Global Warming.
Here’s a great Holiday tip: When the guests complain it’s getting cold, don’t turn up the heater, gosh no, because warming causes cooling. Just open the front door: cooling causes warming.
Wilky says:
October 29, 2010 at 8:40 am
Doesn’t have to be dark and is well known in principle but actual amount of heat pumped from tropics to pole via ocean and air currents is largely unknown and also what factors might change the rate of transfer. See for instance “oceanic conveyor belt”. It’s also largely unknown how much heat is transported from surface to altitude by convective cells. How much cooling is provided by clouds isn’t well known either. All these things largely unknown either can or do dwarf the climate changing potential of anthropogenic GHGs.
Time to start tying the climate academic’s publicly funded salaries and grants to the accuracy of their predictions.
Poor predictions, reduced salaries and grants.
Good accurate predictions, a rise in salaries with bonuses.
Just like people in real life and in the harsh business world have to accept if they want to make a living.
And no crap wanted or needed on academic freedoms and the rights to pursue one’s own interest, blah blah! particularly when it is totally at other’s expense.
In a cold hard light, climate scientists unlike many other branches of science, have added little to our society but they have been the cause of and have created very serious divisions and enormous and unnecessary strife and angst within our society that far outweighs any contributions that they may made to the advancement of our society and knowledge.
If all climate scientists just disappeared tomorrow, I doubt that within a couple of months, anybody would seriously miss them or perhaps even note their absence.
Maybe he was just trying to say that nothing is ever going to be the same again. And of course he’s right.
To Tom Folkerts: your sampling is probably of too short a duration to be very meaningful. I looked at the Environment Canada data for each year from 1929 through to 2007. I plotted monthly averages for all of the years for which data are available (there are some years, early on, when data were spotty). That said, it is clear from the data that the temps for years circa 1929 are very similar too, if not warmer than, 2007.For the data, try: http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climateData/monthlydata_e.html?timeframe=3&Prov=CA&StationID=1786&Year=2010&Month=10&Day=28
Look towards the bottom of the page, look at “Navigation Options” and click on “CSV”. That should give you the monthly raw data since 1929. Good luck!
Sorry – that should have been from Ralph Bullis, not Bullise. Silly fingers.
ArndB says:
October 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm
eadler says: October 29, 2010 at 11:17 am
# (1) compares air temperature data from 60N-90N, up to 2010 from NOAA to data from 64N-90N
# (2) if the authors wanted to cover only 2009 and leave 2010
___(1) 60°N to 64°N is south of Iceland, with warm Atlantic war. Belongs Bergen/Norway to the Arctic? Here is a figure from “Jones et al dataset” 1880-2004, north of 70°N, http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/jones79_90n.jpg, which is a latitude south of the North Cap/Norway indicating even a less level of warming north of 70°N that 1939.
(2) The report’s title is: NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”, emphasis: “Update for 2010”. The section ice-cover, for example, includes September 2010.”
One part of my comment is that the 64-90N data on the graph that you quote, only goes to 2004. It isn’t only a difference between the latitude of 60 versus 64. If one looks at the GISS data for 64-90N on their web site, you see that 2005 has an anomaly of 2.14C and all the years since 2002 have anomalies that exceed the value of 1.38 given for 1938 except for 2004.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
This shows that the recent warming has lasted far longer and exceeds the peak year of 1938. It seems to me that the data you are using is designed to deceive people and cloud the issue.
Since you portray yourself as such an expert, it makes me suspicious that you wouldn’t check the most recent data, since the topic of your post was the 2010 update, and you complained that some of the data only went as far as 2009. To me this seems an unlikely to be an oversight on your part. Could you explain why you did that.
Ralph,
Thanks for the link to the data. I had missed the little “CVS” link at the bottom of the pages.
I looked again at Cambridge Bay and did a regression analysis of the mean temperature for each month using Minitab.
CAMBRIDGE BAY
Mean Temp (°C)_JAN = – 67.28 + 0.01750 YEAR P = 0.261
Mean Temp (°C)_FEB = – 96.35 + 0.03180 YEAR P = 0.057
Mean Temp (°C)_MAR = – 43.82 + 0.00697 YEAR P = 0.641
Mean Temp (°C)_APR = – 56.62 + 0.01777 YEAR P = 0.213
Mean Temp (°C)_MAY = – 24.32 + 0.00756 YEAR P = 0.558
Mean Temp (°C)_JUN = – 22.51 + 0.01247 YEAR P = 0.229
Mean Temp (°C)_JUL = – 2.12 + 0.005352 YEAR P = 0.554
Mean Temp (°C)_AUG = 10.25 – 0.001795 YEAR P = 0.839
Mean Temp (°C)_SEP = – 22.87 + 0.01148 YEAR P = 0.276
Mean Temp (°C)_OCT = – 42.14 + 0.01570 YEAR P = 0.300
Mean Temp (°C)_NOV = – 83.37 + 0.03050 YEAR P = 0.033
Mean Temp (°C)_DEC = – 107.1 + 0.03938 YEAR P = 0.017
Notice that 11 of the 12 months show a positive slope = warming. The statistical significance of many of the months is poor, but:
* the two month that are statistically significant show strong warming.
* the one month that shows cooling is the least statistically significant of all.
* having 11 of 12 show the same sign is itself statistically significant.
I then did a regression for the annual mean (averaging the mean temp for the 12 months). This was done only for 1948-2009 because years before then were missing data, so the annual mean is not valid.
Annual Mean = – 74.41 + 0.03026 YEAR_1 P = 0.000
Since 1948, the temp has been rising at 0.03 C/yr. The p value of 0.000 suggests that this upward slope is undeniable.
I also looked at Fort McPherson. Interestingly, the one month that showed a declining temperature was again August (but again, this was not statistically significant). The statistical significance tended to be a little better than for Cambridge Bay – perhaps because the record was longer.
There is one concern about the Fort McPherson data. One set of data runs through 1977. Then the station moved and data was available starting again in 1981. If the new station was in a warmer location (or the instrumentation was calibrated differently), this would artificially make the slope positive. I have no way of knowing these details.
eadler says: October 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm
# (3) “One part of my comment is that the 64-90N data on the graph that you quote, only goes to 2004”
# (4) “all the years since 2002 have anomalies that exceed the value of 1.38 given for 1938 except for 2004. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt
# (5) “you complained that some of the data only went as far as 2009.
__(3) And you have not said what temperature data from the North Cape/Norway down to Bergen. Stockholm and Helsinki have to do with the Arctic. The Fig. 2 is based on Giss data, and surely as “correct” as the Report figure. See the significant differences to the corresponding figure in:
REPORT 2006 (which shows also a line based on 19 stations –red-): Figure 6: Arctic-wide and annual averaged surface air temperature anomalies (60◦–90◦N) over land for the 20th century based on the CRU TEM2V monthly data set. HERE http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/rich2952/rich2952.pdf
__(4) the link provided includes SST, while the Report Fig. A.1 expressly excludes SST (caption: “Not this curve does not include marine observation“). The Report is about the ARCTIC!
__(5) The report’s title is: NOAA: “Arctic Report Card: Update for 2010”, emphasis: “Update for 2010”. “FOR” means for 2010, and not 2009, for example. NOAA annonce that the year 2010 is analysed “relative to historical time series records”.
The Report says: “This change in wind directions is called the Warm Arctic-Cold Continents climate pattern and has happened previously only three times before in the last 160 years.” Three times “in the last 160 years”! – yet the years are not mentioned, nor any historical context. They know the years, and are not putting the three numbers in the report. Unbelievable. Here they could have shown that they are able to provide a historical context, and to inform the general public, and the scientific community timely? Do you know the years?
“Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely”
We already have returned to previous arctic conditions, and we will again. Warmish, coolish, warmish, coolish…
Ralph Bullis says: Oct. 29, 2010 at 6:49 am
“In fact, the only locality that I could find showing a steady, long-term increase in temperature was Fort Liard.”
That’s because no one has homogenized the date yet. In fact most of the world hasn’t homogenized the data yet and the US via Hansen has manipulated their tiny part of the world temperatures to affect the entire globe. What a bunch of silly gooses!
eadler says:
October 29, 2010 at 11:17 am
“This ruse should be transparent to any objective person.”
++++++++
Eadler, the ruse is transparent to this objective person. In fact several ruses one of which you cite:
“The combination of an increase in the amount of melt water from the sea ice cover and CO2 uptake (acidification) in the ocean caused the surface waters of the Canada Basin to become corrosive to calcifying organisms.”
What utter, total rubbish. The (very slight) CO2 uptake by the (slightly) fresher water but offset by a (slightly) higher temperature has (microscopically) lowered the pH of the water making it (microscopically) more neutral (not even a tiny bit acidic) and has absolutely nothing to do with ‘being corrosive to calcifying organisms’. Good heavens. did they skip Grade 9?
Your points are completely neutralised by repeating that bilge in your comment.
There’s more. The Arctic land temperatures (just taking measurements and not estimating them from faraway points) have, on balance, not meaningfully increase in a century and in fact, on average, might even be dropping. Well, if you live in the Arctic and the air temperatures over land are dropping, what is one to conclude? It is getting (slightly) colder. The land temperatures in the Antarctic are dropping too (slightly). There are a whole lot of reasons why sea ice ebbs and flows (literally).
When the ice melts and the sea temps rise because it picks up solar radiation more efficiently, it also radiates that heat into the sky more efficiently as soon as the sun sets. Note that we repeatedly are told how the heating increases, but not how the decrease that inevitably follows works more efficiently too. It is an auto-correction provided by the Heat God and was put there to neutralise the efforts of ‘tipping point people’.
Alarmism is characterised by repeating the parts about heating and avoiding objectivity in the presence of us, the observant, hence the pointlessness of the ruse.
__eadler says: October 29, 2010 at 6:22 pm
# (6) “One part of my comment is that the 64-90N data on the graph that you quote, only goes to 2004”
___(6) The Figure A.1 (above) of the Report 2010 is not only questionable with regard to the inclusion of latitude south of 64°N, but also with regard to the time span. The Report-Fig. A.1 actually cover only the time period from 1900-2007, and neither 2008, nor 2009! Why? To find out it is necessary to make a printout, and draw a line, and count he years from 2000 onwards.
Even not less telling is the already mentioned Figure from JONES (above, http://seatraining.net/2a_ArctWarm_Jone.htm ) calculating the Arctic temperature north of 70°C, which indicate an about 1°C higher temperature in 1939 than the one shown last, the year 2004 (or 2003?).
The Report Figure A.1 indicates that only since about 2000 the temperature was higher as around the year 1940, which actually means, that the inclusion of latitudes that belong not the Arctic, even in a wide sense, make a significant difference.
Is this a polite brush off or Dr. Judith Curry is indeed moving away from the consensus science?
From Climate etc.
vukcevic | October 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The long term AMO follows the Arctic temperatures with approx 3+ years delay (time it takes for the Arctic ice to move from the Fram to Denmark Straits). On the other hand Arctic temperature closely correlates (R = 0.9434) to the average of the Arctic GMF
curryja | October 29, 2010 at 5:43 pm |
ok, this is really interesting.
The Report Card for Greenland states: ‘Greenland climate in 2010 is marked by record-setting high air temperatures, ice loss by melting, and marine-terminating glacier area loss.’
but on further reading:
‘A combination of a warm and dry 2009-2010 winter and the very warm summer resulted in the highest melt rate since at least 1958’
and:
‘an area and duration of ice sheet melting that was above any previous year on record since at least 1978.’
Since at least 1958 and 1978? What kind of science is it that is concerned with ‘record-setting’ when the records are curtailed such that previous peaks in a cycle are not included? Most of the air temperature stations on Greenland do not have long records, and although NUUK shows a monthly record high in 2010, other stations close by do not. Also, why does the report not use Angmagsallik and Godthaab – both of which have very long records and are part of the GISS data base?
This report has the look of something aimed not at scientific interpretation among peers, but communication to the media and hype.
Vuk etc. says:
October 30, 2010 at 3:56 am
Is this a polite brush off or Dr. Judith Curry is indeed moving away from the consensus science?
From Climate etc.
vukcevic | October 29, 2010 at 5:33 pm
The long term AMO follows the Arctic temperatures with approx 3+ years delay (time it takes for the Arctic ice to move from the Fram to Denmark Straits). On the other hand Arctic temperature closely correlates (R = 0.9434) to the average of the Arctic GMF
Ice moved from the Fram to the Denmark strait in the last month, where does the 3 years come from?
ArndB says: October 30, 2010 at 3:19 am
# The Report-Fig. A.1 actually cover only the time period from 1900-2007, and neither 2008, nor 2009.
Correction: The Report Figure A1 includes the years 2008 and 2009. A comparison between the Figures A1 for 2008, 2009, and 2010, indicates that the temperature pick was in 2007, and that the temperatures decreased in a straight line during he last two years by 1°C. While I regret my previous remark in this respect.
Kindly note that the Section Atmosphere states (first paragraph): The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900 (Fig. A.1). Actually the temperature (2009) is lower as, at least, two time around the year 1940, the NOAA claims seem not be well founded, when said:
____Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely
____Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion.
ArndB says:
October 30, 2010 at 6:36 am
“ArndB says: October 30, 2010 at 3:19 am
# The Report-Fig. A.1 actually cover only the time period from 1900-2007, and neither 2008, nor 2009.
Correction: The Report Figure A1 includes the years 2008 and 2009. A comparison between the Figures A1 for 2008, 2009, and 2010, indicates that the temperature pick was in 2007, and that the temperatures decreased in a straight line during he last two years by 1°C. While I regret my previous remark in this respect.
Kindly note that the Section Atmosphere states (first paragraph): The annual mean air temperature for 2009 over Arctic land areas was cooler than in recent years, although the average temperature for the last decade remained the warmest in the record beginning in 1900 (Fig. A.1). Actually the temperature (2009) is lower as, at least, two time around the year 1940, the NOAA claims seem not be well founded, when said:
____Return to previous Arctic conditions is unlikely
____Record temperatures across Canadian Arctic and Greenland, a reduced summer sea ice cover, record snow cover decreases and links to some Northern Hemisphere weather support this conclusion.
The 1 Deg. C decrease between 2007 and 2009 is actually within the noise that is present in the data, and does not indicate any trend at this point. The data around 1940 represents a maximum temperature prior to 2000. The average anomaly for the nine years 2001-2009 on the GISS record is 1.48C. The comparable period starting from 1937, the hottest 9 years in the 20th century, has an anomaly of
.89C.
What NOAA says is on target. The last 9 years have been in the Arctic have been 0.6
C hotter than the hottest period of the 20th century. We are not going back to the nominal temperatures we have seen in the 20th century given the conditions that they state.
Tim Folkerts;
Annual Mean = – 74.41 + 0.03026 YEAR_1 P = 0.000
Since 1948, the temp has been rising at 0.03 C/yr. The p value of 0.000 suggests that this upward slope is undeniable.>>
And so it is. Of course your time slot being 1948 to 2009 begins at the tail end of a global cooling period (according to GISS and HadCrut) and ends at the end of a warming period (according to GISS and HadCrut). So if I accept your figures as 100% accurate, I conclude that the warming period had a slope of .o3 degrees per year. Throw in the 20 or 30 years of cooling before that via a guestimate based on the global record, and oops we’re down to between 0.0 and 0.1. Now that’s not really fair, so let’s go right back to the late 1800’s and do a guestimate based on the global record again and now we’re back up to .02 degrees per year. Of course we could go back even further to the MWP and guestimate from there and we’d wind up with -0.2 degrees per year. I know, I know, they say the MWP was a local event confined to Europe, and these are temperature records from North America. Wait… what was that article I just read in a newspaper… Oh yeah… some receding ice in Canada’s far north has exposed primitive hunting sites that were clearly in use before being covered with ice, the tools and weapons left behind are being dated but intitial estimates are… well lookey thar. MWP. Then there was that tree ring study of ancient oak trees in the Red River Valley in Canada and lookey thar. MWP.
Nice analysis. Lousy perspective.