Tom Nelson points out these three related items. It seems the “pretty good proxy for climate change” is proxying the wrong message this year.
Overheated Arctic update: Nenana ice was gone by this date in 1940, but still 41 inches thick this year
21-Apr 41.4 Inches
Nenana Ice Classic Breakup dates
20-Apr 1940 1998
The Ice Classic has given them a rare, reliable climate history that has documented to the minute the onset of the annual thaw as it shifted across 91 years. By this measure, spring comes to central Alaska 10 days earlier than in 1960, said geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks — and that trend is accelerating. “The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century,” Dr. Jeffries said.
=============================================================
* That great phrase coined by Kate at Small Dead Animals
[UPDATE] I hope Anthony won’t bust me for adding a graph of the Nenana breakup dates over time. The error bar (95%CI) shows the error for the Gaussian average.
You can see the changes due to the PDO in the data.
w.
The overall trend 1917 to 2010 is toward breakup getting earlier by an average of .75 days/decade, statistically significant but not large.
From 1950 to 2010, the trend was a bit steeper, 1.2 days/decade.
From 1970 to 2010, a bit steeper than that, 1.7 days/decade.
That does seem to indicate a change, as geophysicist Martin Jeffries suggested.
Lady Life Grows says:
April 22, 2011 at 12:55 pm
“I will cite the ref you had two days ago that liberals see only the warmist evidence and never see things like this, while we see only things like this and never see the best alarmist evidence.”
Hey, here I am. Cite the evidence. I have been in Central Florida for the last five years. Can you show me some evidence of global warming here in Central Florida? Right. I did not think you could. On the other side, I can give you ginormous evidence of global cooling. How about record low temperatures for three years in a row? How about dead plants in the yard, including some ornamental trees? These are plants that have been around forever but froze over the last three years. Anyone who cares not for doomsday theories has no reason to believe that the planet is warming.
Gneiss says:
April 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm
“The overall trend 1917 to 2010 is toward breakup getting earlier by an average of .75 days/decade, statistically significant but not large.
From 1950 to 2010, the trend was a bit steeper, 1.2 days/decade.
From 1970 to 2010, a bit steeper than that, 1.7 days/decade.
That does seem to indicate a change, as geophysicist Martin Jeffries suggested.”
The average length of a warming panic is 30 years.
In Central Florida, it used to be a common saying that you need a wetsuit only November through February, the water temperature has recovered by March. Not any longer. No. Nada. The water temperature at Daytona might have recovered by mid-April. Pictures of Spring Break drunks do not count as evidence.
Great post Anthony, it is a shame that some fail to comprehend your intent. As I mentioned earlier I spent a winter at Ft McMurray and the river breakup in the spring is something I will never forget. There are probably hundreds of locations that witness the ice breakup annually.
Following site provides two videos (2007) of U of Alberta study that will help one view and understand how important this annual event is to those who live along rivers in the far northern climes. Ft McMurray is 273 miles north of Edmonton. It is a violent event!! And flooding is a concern due to ice jams.
http://staff.civil.ualberta.ca/water/FEHicks/MAGS/Athabasca.htm
Watch the short video to get a picture of how violent the ice break up really is at least on the Athabasca River in Aberta. For me this gives a perspective that the break up timing is really determined by what happens upstream if the location
AW re Tim Folkerts above… I have also noted this throughout the AGW community, a very distinct lack of sense of humor about nearly any topic. Have others taken note?
Theo Goodwin writes,
“Can you show me some evidence of global warming here in Central Florida? Right. I did not think you could.”
Global warming? Of course not. Central Florida warming, perhaps. I happen to have these ones on hand:
Panama City 1895-2008, about +.1F/decade (+.6F/decade since 1970)
Ft Lauderdale 1895-2008, +.2F/decade (+.3F/decade since 1970)
Tallahassee 1895-2008, no trend (+.5F/decade since 1970)
All these trends except Tallahassee 1895-2008 are significant.
“On the other side, I can give you ginormous evidence of global cooling.”
No, you can’t.
The daylilies tell the tale. Usually first bloom here is between the 12th and 18th of April; earliest in the past 10 years was April 7 in either 2006 or 2007; can’t recall. This year: first bloom was yesterday, April 21, second latest since we’ve been here (1993). This winter was cold; the spring has been cool to warm to capricious; the season is late by at least a week, closer to two.
I should have mentioned that the Athabasca river in Alberta flows north into colder and more frozen land. Obviously it is a different and more problematic since the ice is not flowing into areas already broken up. Thus the ice jams and potential for flooding.
THE FACTS: Unless the land it totally flat, rivers of water run downhill. The vast percentage of rivers on the planet flow in a southerly direction because the source (usually in the mountains) is to the north of the mouth.
If the source of a river is at a higher elevation than the mouth, that river will run from the source to the mouth. However, if that (higher) source is to the south of the mouth, that river will then flow to the north (downhill).
Below is a partial list of rivers (length listed when known) that do just that. We haven’t listed rivers that run to the northwest, or rivers that don’t meet the exact requirements
Athabasca Alberta, Canada, 765 miles
Gneiss:
Satellite temperatures vs CO2.
More satellite temps vs CO2.
Still more satellite temps.
You can apologize to Theo any time.☺
icecover writes,
“I have also noted this throughout the AGW community, a very distinct lack of sense of humor about nearly any topic.”
You must be reading the wrong blogs.
But did any of the regulars here see a joke, before Anthony declared his post was one?
What a debacle!!!
Gneiss says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:33 pm
And I’m sure those trends were from raw temperature data taken at rural sites.
Gneiss, all of your temperatures are actually evidence of UHI.
In 1895 Tallahassee’s population was less than 3,000. It is now growing at a rate of 12% per year and is now 180,000+ people.
Maybe you could find some non-growing cities ….
I have added a graph to the head post showing breakup dates. One of the reasons it’s so hard to predict is that it depends on mechanical factors (thickness of ice vs. amount of water in the river) that may have little to do with temperature.
w.
Gneiss says:
April 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm
Sorry, but you can’t compare trends of different lengths like that. Doesn’t work, bad math, no cookies.
The trend in general was warmer to 1940, cooler to 1970, warmer to 1998, cooler since then … and the trend for the last 20 years is about zero.
w.
@Theo Goodwin says: April 22, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Hey, Theo!
You’re allowing your judgement to be clouded by logic again!
Now, if you used post-normal logic and paid more attention, you’d remember that things getting cooler are yet another sure-fire demonstration of warming.
And silly stunts like taking photos of a tripod on a frozen river aren’t “good proxies” past a certain date (to be plucked out of thin air) but are incontravertable proof of hyperthermalist doom when melting occurs an earlier date.
Simples!
Once you realise this, I’m sure you’ll be ecstatic that the great wad of your tax dollars that get thrown to those who promote the cAGW agenda and subsidising crackpot schemes to save the planet will be helping to keep that little tripod standing a just couple of seconds longer every year! (Using a cherry-picked and ‘homogenised’ trend line, of course!)
Probably NOTHING?
I’ve been waiting for the forgotten name of that town from last year! Nenana, how could I forget that? N..vowel..n..vowel..n.vowel. Got it. Now if I can’t remeber it again next year, I am getting older.
Just put in my 2 bucks in for a breakup of yesterday… guessing about what ice is going to do and when always ends up leaving me way way off the mark. ☺
Gneiss says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:52 pm
“You must be reading the wrong blogs.”
OK. Name one funny warmist blog.
w. says:
Nice graph, it’s always quicker to assimilate what’s going on with a graphic. Also good to see gaussian filter for smoothing. However, I wondered how you got it to run to then of the data, an 11year filter should stop in 2005.
We aren’t using some Mannian padding techniques are we?
To look at the data I’d guess you have padded the incomplete data by padding with the last value repeatedly. This gives the false impression of a levelling since 2005 whereas the data appears to continue downwards.
Jimmy Haigh says:
April 23, 2011 at 2:34 am
Gneiss says:
April 22, 2011 at 6:52 pm
“You must be reading the wrong blogs.”
OK. Name one funny warmist blog.
RealClimate is a joke.
😉
Is that your graph Willis? Link to data source anywhere. I’ve only found bits of it and in a messy html table I don’t want to waste time collating by hand.
rgds/
Ice thickness is a measure of the winter temperature (and duration) and the break up date is more related to the spring conditions than ice thickness:
2000 – Apr 13 – 36 inches: break up May 1
2001 – Apr 16 – 33.5 inches: break up May 8
2002 – Apr 29 – 42 inches: break up May 7
2007 – Apr 11 – 46.5 inches: break up Apr 27
So yes – “it’s probably nothing” 😉
Thanks for this post,
For the first time I went to Small Dead Animals. c/- of the ‘Its Probably Nothing* comment.
Kate runs one of the best blogs I have ever read (besides your et al Anthony).
What a hoot, this clever and gorgeous gal Kate has great insight with cutting edge commentary.
Willis writes,
“Sorry, but you can’t compare trends of different lengths like that. Doesn’t work, bad math, no cookies.”
I’m curious where you got this “math” rule from. Can you cite the source?
“The trend in general was warmer to 1940, cooler to 1970, warmer to 1998, cooler since then … and the trend for the last 20 years is about zero.”
So you refute me by comparing trends of length 45, 30, 28, 12 and 20 in one sentence?