Guest post by Verity Jones
A Tamino rant aimed at Joe D’Aleo’s Arctic ice refreezing after falling short of 2007 record (also at ICECAP) has had me smiling. Tamino’s accusation against Joe of cherry picking are centred on one of the graphs originally posted here at DITC.
“D’Aleo tries so hard to blame Arctic climate change on ocean oscillations. Part of his dissertation includes a plot of “Arctic Region Temperatures”:”
“Do you suspect that these six stations were “hand-picked” to give the impression he wanted to give? Do you think maybe they were cherry-picked? If so, you’d be right.”
Well excuse me but of course they were cherry-picked, but not for the reasons Tamino suggests. If you really want to spit cherry stones, Tamino, chew on them first.
The graph was originally posted here: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/ and here’s what I said about it then:
“Tony had found many climate stations all over the world with a cooling trend in temperatures over at least the last thirty years…
…
We were concerned that this could be seen as ‘cherrypicking’ … In many cases it was not just cherrypicking the stations, but also the start dates of each cooling trend.”
However, the story the post revealed wasn’t the one Tony wanted to tell from the original reason why the stations were chosen – the story that came out of the work was the unexpected (to us) cyclical pattern exhibited by so many of the stations across the world. The pattern matched more closely in regional stations – hence the closely grouped Arctic set in the graph above. So no, the stations in the graph weren’t meant to represent the whole of the Arctic (the original presentation of the graph is here).
But while we’re at it let’s look at a few more stations.
One of the reasons for choosing the stations we did in the graph above was the longevity of the record. This was something I had a look at in the Canadian Arctic too when comparing GHCN/GISS data and that of Environment Canada.
Tamino also berates Joe for not averaging/spatially weighting the data:
“He wants you to think that Arctic regional temperature was just as hot in the 1930s-1940s as it is today.”
If we want a simple comparison of the 1930s with the present we need stations that cover both time periods. In GHCN v2 for Canada, only one station (Fort Smith) has data in 2009 and also has data prior to 1943. Now Fort Smith is more than 1°C warmer on average in the five years 1998-2002 than in 1938-1942, but if we look at Mayo in the Environment Canada data set, it is only 0.275°C warmer in recent times when comparing averages of the two periods.
These are just two stations but such differences intrigue me. If you don’t compare like with like, how can you be sure there is no inadvertent bias? Are we comparing apples in the 1930s/40s with oranges in the 1990s and 2000s?
If we plot all the (GHCN/GISS) data (yes it’s another one of those ‘awful’ spaghetti graphs ;-0) – look at that big white gap under the plots from1937-1946.
Those years look pretty warm compared to 2000-2010, but unfortunately the data for Hay River, Mayo and Dawson does not extend to recent times. To do a comparison, you need to plot GISS and Environment Canada data together, and (as I showed here) there is a bit of a mismatch that needs to be overcome. In Dawson the 1940s are warmer; Hay River shows a slow continuous upward trend.
If you want to compare the two periods in Canada, unfortunately you mostly have to rely on combining stations, and methods for this are well documented (I’ll not go into detail here). What is still debated though is the magnitude of correction (if any) for urban warming.
Much as scientists are required to be objective, there is a need for subjectivity in looking at the surface temperature records. What has changed around this station? Why is one station producing a cyclical signal while another gives a near linear trend? Like I’ve said before, I’m a fan of a parallax view.
Canadian Arctic stations are mostly rural and very small settlements; they’re labelled as <10,000 population by GISS. Analysis by Roy Spencer showed the greatest warming bias associated with population density increases at low population density. Ed Caryl in A Light in Siberia compared “isolated stations” with “urban” where there was a possible influence from human activity. He found distinct warming trend in temperatures of “urban” stations where there were increasing evidence of manmade structures or heat sources. In contrast, he found little or no trend in “isolated stations”. Normalising the data for the isolated stations, he too produced a ‘spaghetti’ graph, which, lo and behold, also shows up that cyclical variation. Not only that, but for a lot of these stations (go ahead – call them cherry picked if you wish), the 1940s are clearly warmer than recent times.
Graph from: http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/24/the-calculations-behind-a-light-in-siberia/
So it is very clear to me that, in comparing station data, we’re dealing with cherries, apples, oranges, and probably a whole fruit bowl. Banana anyone? The problem is that Tamino and others insist on mixing it all up to make a smoothie. Now that’s OK as long as you like bananas.
============================================================
Stay tuned – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Rattus’s convenient silence on the 86 day 1944 voyage of the St. Roch is cherry picking, pure and simple. Picture yourself at the wheel of Captain Larsen’s wooden hulled schooner in 1944 as compared to today’s “yachts” with satellite info, radar and advanced communications. Conditions must have been auspicious to make that voyage in 86 days. And the repeat of the present day repeat of the auspicious sailing conditions merely hints at the cyclical nature of Arctic ice extent.
Not silent, not patient, not firm.
====================
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/icrutem3_0-360E_60-90N_n_sua.png
Here are all surface stations north of 60N.
Or this Central European station, Hungary:
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/ta12882_mean1a.png
The sine wave is visible in all NH records. 2000s were barely warmer than 40ties. Never seen that in the models.
– Clinton said. “I think it’s quite possible that the Maldives won’t be here in 30 or 40 years.”
Looks like somebody’s been spending too much time reading the Times Comprehensive Atlas Of The World, as rightly criticised by James Delingpole yesterday.
Tamino freaks out whenever anyone suggests that there is any similarity between the current warm period and the previous Arctic warming. I got banned from commenting on his Closed-Minded-site when trying to argue against his silly bayesian argument here: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/how-likely/
(and I don’t really mind, I prefer discussing in less sour-stomached environments, like WUWT)
Be all this as it may, summer sea ice is dropping steadily both in extent and thickness (lots of blog posts on this site that I know you’re aware of) and has been for decades. That the datasets being argued about here do not show an increase in temperature is neither here nor there. Net melting is unarguable evidence for net energy input into the system. Remember that your Gin and Tonic stays around zero degrees until the ice has melted.
And there is a plausible mechanism to account for this energy input that makes us all very uncomfortable.
@Dale Rainwater Ed and others – for all of Tamino’s “closed mindedness”, and “ranting” (let he who is without sin cast the first stone), it’s worth reading his stuff to find out what the other side thinks. It’s one of the reasons why I read both this blog and that one. Otherwise all you do is hear what you want to hear. Plenty of empires and states have collapsed because the leaders didn’t listen to what they didn’t want to hear. Gaddafi? Mubarak? I’m sure you can name a few more.
Tamino is guilty of cherry-picking as well.
But his readers will never know.
I called him out on it and he sent my responses to the ether.
So be it.
The websites that don’t block me, wither and die in viewership.
I like that.
False science should die and the only way these momo’s get away with continuing the lies is to block the real science from getting out.
I’ve quit visiting sites like SkSci and OpenMind and the others Anthony has in the blog roll.
I refuse to give them a hit.
I have Google set up to retrieve the articles on climate and carefully pick the ones I read or follow up on my site.
The media blitz that is taking place right now is absurd.
Some by us, but mostly the media that supports the propaganda from the ‘ It’s worse that you thought guys’.
I have a suggestion to make to the rest of you…
Lets concentrate on improving the understanding of the current science and focus less on the detractors. Lets these alarmists continue to rant and rave. But let them rant to themselves.
I would like to see the lot of us clean house and work towards defining the science more clearer.
Its obvious to most that the Co2 gang has lost their freaking minds, and that the general public just needs us to reassure them that the approach we take is the correct one.
Its possible I shouldn’t draw attention to this line of reasoning, because there are powers that use the information we print and use it to their benefit.
But having said that, each of us walk our own walk.
It would be a good thing to provide less information to ‘them’ regarding any progress in these matters, until such time we can effectively convey the science we support.
That is all. ; )
Prof A. Net melting is not unarguable evidence for net energy input into the system. It can just as easily be evidence of the movement of the same energy from somewhere else, with the total unchanged.
Oh, another academic here.
Whats that ground-breaking at recent modest warming up there?
http://oi56.tinypic.com/vfv70g.jpg
Whatever station is used there will be temperature differences which will not confirm warming/cooling if only because we are using a naturally controlled system with varying inputs. Using rainfall or sunshine totals will show the same. Varying weather.
This is natural and does not prove climate change only natural variability.
“it’s worth reading his stuff to find out what the other side thinks.”
Absolutely. You cant be a proper skeptic without knowing what you’re being skeptical about! Having said that Judith Curry’s “Climate etc” is more middle of the road with respect to the arguments and IMO a better use of one’s time. Both sides argue relatively free of moderation there. And “Science of Doom” is exceptional when discussing the science independently of any bias.
Anent Peer Review vs. Blog Review:
There is no ‘R’ in Tuktoyaktuk.
You read it in this blog first!
The only problem I have with this kind of “spaghetti” graphs is that they deceive the eye. You can clearly see how maxima and minima evolved but you have little insight what’s in between.
Verity was kind enough to cite a project we worked on-she has used it to make an excellent refutation of Tamino-I can’t praise her work enough.
My interest is primarily in History and I suspect this is a blind spot for most climate science researchers such as Dr Mann and many computer analysts such as Tamino..
It is very rare to find that modern day circumstances dont have a precedent in past ages. Sorry for the people who have seen this before but the following article puts modern arctic ice melting into its proper perspective-merely the latest in a long line of similar incidents
“Claims of unprecedented warmth and abnormal melting of melting arctic ice are unfounded if we look at history;
1 The following link describes the ancient cultures of the warmer arctic 5000 to 1000 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lithoderm/Inuit_culture
2 This relates to an Arctic culture thriving in warmer times 2000 years ago
From the Eskimo Times Monday, Mar. 17, 1941
“The corner of Alaska nearest Siberia was probably man’s first threshold to the Western Hemisphere. So for years archeologists have dug there for a clue to America’s prehistoric past. Until last year, all the finds were obviously Eskimo. Then Anthropologists Froelich G. Rainey of the University of Alaska and two collaborators struck the remains of a town, of inciedible size and mysterious culture. Last week in Natural History Professor Rainey, still somewhat amazed, described this lost Arctic city.
It lies at Ipiutak on Point Hope, a bleak sandspit in the Arctic Ocean, where no trees and little grass survive endless gales at 30° below zero. But where houses lay more than 2,000 years ago, underlying refuse makes grass and moss grow greener. The scientists could easily discern traces of long avenues and hundreds of dwelling sites. A mile long, a quarter-mile wide, this ruined city was perhaps as big as any in Alaska today (biggest: Juneau, pop. 5,700).
On the Arctic coast today an Eskimo village of even 250 folk can catch scarcely enough seals, whales, caribou to live on. What these ancient Alaskans ate is all the more puzzling because they seem to have lacked such Arctic weapons as the Eskimo harpoon.
Yet they had enough leisure to make many purely artistic objects, some of no recognizable use. Their carvings are vaguely akin to Eskimo work but so sophisticated and elaborate as to indicate a relation with some centre of advanced culture — perhaps Japan or southern Siberia —certainly older than the Aztec or Mayan”.
3 This link leads to the Academy of science report of the same year regarding the Ipiutak culture described above
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1078291
4 This interesting book refers to the Vikings living in a warmer arctic culture 1000 years ago
It is called ‘The Viking world’. It is a very scholarly and highly referenced book running to some 700 pages and deals with all aspects of the Vikings. It is good because it does not have an axe to grind, but deals matter of factly with all aspects of Viking culture and exploration.
There is a large section on their initial exploration of Greenland, the subsequent establishment of their farms there, everyday life, how they gradually lost access to the outside world as the sea lanes closed through ice, a record of the last wedding held In Greenland and how trade dried up. It also deals with Vinland/Newfoundland and it seems that it was wild grapes that helped give the area its name, it being somewhat warmer than today.
This is one of a number of similar books that record our warmer and cooler past throughout the Northern Hermisphere. Al Gore wrote a good book in 1992 called ‘Earth in the Balance’ in which he explored the changing climate that devastated the civilisations in the Southern Hemishpere.
The book ‘The Viking World’ is Edited by Stefan Brink with Neil Price Published by Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 33315-3
I suggest you borrow it from the local library as it costs $250!
5 I wrote about the The Great Arctic warming in the 19th Century a couple of years ago-it examines the period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
6) This refers to a warmer arctic 75 years ago recorded on Pathe newsreel by Bob Bartlett on the Morrisey during his journeys there in the 1920’s and 1930’s and reported in all the media.
http://boothbayharborshipyard.blogspot.com/2008/08/arctic-explorer-on-ways.html
“Diary- Wednesday, 10th August 1932
The ship rolled heavily all night and continues to do so….
The glacier continues its disturbances. No real bergs break off but great sheets of ice slide down into the water and cause heavy seas. About noon, the entire face of the glacier, almost a mile in length and six or eight feet deep slid off with a roar and a rumble that must have been heard at some distance. We were on deck at the time for a preliminary report like a pistol shot had warned us what was coming. The Morrissey rolled until her boats at the davits almost scooped up the water and everything on board that was not firmly anchored in place crashed loose. But this was nothing to the pandemonium on shore. I watched it all through the glasses. The water receded leaving yards of beach bare and then returned with a terrific rush, bringing great chunks of ice with it. Up the beach it raced further and further, with the Eskimos fleeing before it. It covered all the carefully cherished piles of walrus meat, flowed across two of the tents with their contents, put out the fire over which the noonday meal for the sled drivers was being prepared, and stopped a matter of inches before it reached the pile of cement waiting to be taken up the mountain. Fortunately, in spite of heavy sea, which was running, the Captain had managed to be set shore this morning so he was there with them to help straighten out things and calm them down.”
7) This period was also recorded in a more scientific fashion in this free online book on the Arctic warming 1919-1939 written by my colleague Dr Arnd Bernaerts who examined the last great warming -prior to the modern one- in great detail.
http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html
The arctic has periodically warmed to greater amounts than today. A reduction in ice extent in that brief moment in time since 1979 is of no consequence if you look at the historical record of this region.It would appear that the advent of satellite monitoring coincided with a 100 year peak in ice levels.
tonyb
Prof A
Given that nearly every believer site I have been on, blocks and bans anyone who posts ideas not from the religion ! but Anthony’s site along with the likes of Bishop hill and other non believers seem to allow counter arguments and some real nasty zealots to post I think stones and glass houses is a better term !
@- Robert Austin says:
September 20, 2011 at 9:39 pm
“Rattus’s convenient silence on the 86 day 1944 voyage of the St. Roch is cherry picking, pure and simple. Picture yourself at the wheel of Captain Larsen’s wooden hulled schooner in 1944 as compared to today’s “yachts” with satellite info, radar and advanced communications. Conditions must have been auspicious to make that voyage in 86 days. ”
Conditions were not auspicious all over the Arctic that year.
While Capt Larsen was taking the best part of 3 months to get through the NW passage arctic convoys were struggling through some of the worst weather encountered in the NE passage taking supplies to Russian forces in one of the worst winters on record. Even in the summer there were problems getting to Archangel, some of the convoys and escorts had to stop at Murmansk.
Unlike the present the NE passage was definately NOT passable, the exceptional ice conditions across N Canada were balanced by exceptionaly cold conditions across N Russia.
Not the exceptional ice-free conditions seen on BOTH sides of the Arctic ocean at present.
The RCMP St. Roch was a double layered wood hull w/steel reinforcement. She was a motor powered vessel, not a sailing vessel (although she does appear to have a rudimentary rig). Crikey in 2009 a Wetsnail 42 (a slow but very seaworthy sailboat) made the passage in one season.
http://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/page216.htm
climatereason says:
September 21, 2011 at 3:57 am
Thank you for taking the time to post the best set of links on Arctic melt and history I’ve had the pleasure of reading. It’s information like this, clear, well documented, and well researched which allows me hope that, over time, I can keep my grandchildren out of the hands of the propagandistas. I’m making progress in general science and math, but I’ve needed help in the area of history. Thanks again!
Thanks to Anthony for making this all possible!
@Izen:
Seems that the testamony of the people that were there is in conflict with your statements:
“The northwest passage is suitable for summer traffic by wooden vessels” according to Staff Seargant Henry Larson.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bidkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jHsNAAAAIBAJ&pg=968,1250469&dq=arctic+record+%7C+melt&hl=en
Also, why are you pointing out how bad the weather was in the winter in the NW Passage?
When I saw Tamino’s comment on cherry picking by Joe D’Aleo I went and read his full post. It really was more of an attack than a reasoned comment. I agree with Verity completely that you must use what data you have. Especially the temperature record data. I did a regional study on NM temperature and found very few sites that had data longer than 60 or 70 years. I found about 10 sites that were about 100 years and 100s that were 60 years or less. In the final analysis I found exactly the same pattern that she (actually Tony) found. If you take regional data and plot it with her “spaghetti” pattern the alignment is very good (much less noisey). There seems to be a slight phase shift throughout the Northern Hemisphere and over periods of 30 years (or more) there is a complete out of phase shift between the NH and the SH. Urban heat island effects of data from increasingly urban areas tends to blur the data more. It is all there without any fancy filtering process whether Tamino wishes to acknowledge it or not. Thank you Verity and Tony.
Bernie
Hmmm. I think Tamino does it properly. It is fun to search for “cooling trends”, and to pontificate on temperature trends and changes to population density. But, you see a trend because it is there now, not because it will be there in future. Just because you’ve thrown a die 4 times and its come up 6 each time, does not mean that the next throw is likely to be a 6 (presuming you’ve checked the die for bias).
Anyway, the problem of classifying weather stations as “increasing population starting from a low base” and various other possibilities is that you need to develop algorithms to do your classification, not use “human judgment”. And, you should choose the algorithm for sound reasons, not just because it fits in best with the pattern you think you’ve seen.
@John Brookes
Tamino can do it “properly” or any way he wishes, but see my reply to Robert.
And just how does one develop algorithms? I seem to remember the starting point is quantified knowedge and measurement. And that is just my point – when you do actually go and look at the stations (for example Anthony’s Surface Stations project) and classify them, you have a starting point for your algorithm. Just a starting point mind. You still have to assign values to the differences in the classifications. The starting point of such a classification is both objective and subjective – there is subjectivity and human judgement in all good science (it’s called experience). If I take two stations, here are the differences and how the surroundings have altered over the years; I think this difference might cause a big effect, but I have to be objective in the way I measure any effect.
Verity Jones,
Tamino has responded
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/09/21/fruit-loops/
“Normalising the data for the isolated stations, he too produced a ‘spaghetti’ graph, which, lo and behold, also shows up that cyclical variation. Not only that, but for a lot of these stations (go ahead – call them cherry picked if you wish), the 1940s are clearly warmer than recent times.”
His method is crap. Seriously, there are well-documented techniques that work effectively for this type of situation to combine station data. See Tamino’s method or RomanMs/Nick Stokes. The normalization process used there is not an effective technique and is filled with holes. If you took the time to actually look into the issue rather than blindly accepting other results you would know that.
Robert So Tamino is now comparing breakfast cereals is he?
If you took the time to actually look into the issue rather than blindly accepting other results you would know that.
Spending a substantial proportion of my spare time in the last couple of years looking at this stuff is the reason why I am able to see past the methods. Combining station data, whether done by Tamino, or Jeff Id and RomanM is fine if you are working with data from stations where you can stand over the quality of the data. If you combine data from stations with a strong warming trend with those that have a sine wave and no overall trend, you will get the graphs they all produce.
Suppose you have a region with two stations – one with a sine wave, one with a warming trend, each representing the same area – which one better represents the temperature of the area? is one ‘right’ and one ‘wrong’, or is the average of the two the true temperature of the area? You can do all the theorising about right and wrong methods you wish but unless you look critically at the two stations and account for how and why they differ (as any good scientist should) you can use a “crap method” or an “effective technique” but the result will still be garbage.
Robert Austin says:
September 20, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Rattus’s convenient silence on the 86 day 1944 voyage of the St. Roch is cherry picking, pure and simple. Picture yourself at the wheel of Captain Larsen’s wooden hulled schooner in 1944 as compared to today’s “yachts” with satellite info, radar and advanced communications. Conditions must have been auspicious to make that voyage in 86 days. And the repeat of the present day repeat of the auspicious sailing conditions merely hints at the cyclical nature of Arctic ice extent.
For which there is no evidence! Joe’s cherry picking notwithstanding, the constant trotting out of a newspaper article about the 1922 Arctic ‘melt’, like Joe refers to a small region of the arctic, and completely ignores the freeze up in the region of the Bering strait. Anthony no doubt recalls my pointing that out here last year.
Regarding the St Roch, the first trip took 28 months and involved being frozen in like Amundsen. The NW passage has been navigable by yachts for the last several years, 1940 was not as clear as this year and was an isolated event.
spangled drongo says:
September 20, 2011 at 8:58 pm
And even with all this modern technology they didn’t sail, they motored. And no doubt the frequency of Arctic icebreakers charging about, also helped a little.
Not at all, check out the sailing schedules and routes of the ice breakers in the NW Passage!