Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Pierre Gosselin of NoTrickZone reports on a paper that confirms the slowdown in global surface warming has not been occurring at the poles. See Pierre’s post German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon.
You’ll recall that Cowtan and Way (2013) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends were able to squeeze a few more drops of global warming trend from the data during the hiatus period by taking HADCRUT4 data and using a statistical method to infill the missing data at the poles, especially in the Arctic where polar amplification is more prevalent.
But a new paper, Geisner et al. (2015) Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data, undermines those Cowtan and Way efforts. The abstract reads (my boldface):
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (based on data from (Advanced) Microwave Sounding Unit and Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation instruments) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes cannot explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the prehiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.
There’s nothing surprising about that. We reported the same thing a year ago in the post Cowtan and Way (2013) Adjustments Exaggerate Climate Model Failings at the Poles and Do Little to Explain the Hiatus. The following graph is Figure 2 from that post.
The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here, for those who want to run through the comments.
I ended that post with:
Those who promote the Cowtan and Way (2013) revisions to the HADCRUT4 data don’t understand where the hiatus is taking place and they don’t understand the model failings at simulating polar amplification—or—they are intentionally being misleading.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
New Paper Confirms the Hiatus Is Not Occurring at the Poles, Undermining the Efforts of Cowtan and WayBetter title(?):
“New Paper Shows that Cowtan-Way Arctic Reconstruction Does Not Mitigate Global Warming Pause”
where ‘mitigate’ has the usual meaning (according to Webster): “to make (something) less severe, harmful, or painful.” The “pause” has certainly pained the warmists, and harmed their reckless planning.
All of this confusion begs the question what does the “global” in global warming refer to. There is no real answer but creative answers are born depending on who the audience is and what grant is on line.
The quibbling over what the “real” temperature trend of a particular area is to influence the elusive “global temperature” construct. If latitudes x cools, then got to find some place else that compensates with extra warming whether it be latitude y or one of the poles. Or visa-versa.
It’s a game, mostly childish, mostly a waste of resources. Stop trying to warm or cool a region through manipulating unreliable data. There has got to be more meaningful avenues for climate research. Stop the madness,
Agreed.
It is very curious that this so-called “scientific” controversy has split the protagonists into two groups according to their political and economic beliefs. The warmists tend to be socialists who favor re-distribution of the world’s wealth and privilege. The skeptics tend to be conservatives who favor national fiscal responsibility and strong national security.
Why is that so? I think it tells us 1) that this controversey is more about politics than science, and that 2) the scientific uncertainty of the CAGW hypothesis is much, much larger than its certainty.
Please leave the Poles out of this !
I am part Polish and do not want Poland blamed for any of this. We may not have invented the internet like “Climate Pope” Al Gore did, but one of our scientists did invent the Czochralski Process, without which you’d be reading this comment in a newspaper.
Also stop using the propaganda word “hiatus” — not only is this rarely used word hard to understand for a typical person — until today I thought it had something to do with an injury to the abdominal muscles — but it also implies global warming will soon resume, and people know what the future climate will be (so much warming investment bankers in lower Manhattan will be taking gondolas to their Wall Street offices, blah, blah, blah).
Since no one knows whether or not warming will continue, and no one can predict the future climate, we skeptics should NOT play the warmists game by using the “hiatus” word they have very carefully chosen for its propaganda value.
If there has been no global warming trend since roughly 1998 to 2002, then we must assume we are in a global cooling trend.
.
The average temperature is either rising or falling — it does not remain constant since Earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium.
We could be in a new cooling trend since 1998, or we are still in a warming trend and measurement errors, and/or poor statistical analysis, such as looking at too short a period, etc. is making it temporarily appear that the average temperature is not changing.
The skeptics typical focus on tiny average temperature anomalies, individual years, and very short periods of Earth’s history, are less useful than reading tea leaves in a cup (at least you get to drink some tea first, so reading tea leaves is not a complete waste of time).
My climate blog, which includes climate articles, recipes, advice for single women, and a centerfold with a big hiatus, is located here:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
Richard said:
“Please leave the Poles out of this!”
Cannot do it Richard – the Poles are everywhere – even in this debate on Canadian politics:
Rect. said:
“Chinese-Canadians whine about the Pole Tax.”
Correction Rect.:
Actually, Chinese-Canadians complain about the Poll Tax – it’s Polish-Canadians who complain about the Pole Tax.
🙂
Yeah. It’s a Canadian Poll tax alright.
But the only ones that have to pay it live north of 66.5 degree north latitude……
surely this cannot be good-
WMO-
“The aim of the homogenization procedures is to detect the inhomogeneities and to correct the series. In practice there are absolute and relative methods applied for this purpose. However the application of absolute methods is very problematic and hazardous since the separation of climate change signal and the inhomogeneity signal is essentially impossible.”
Still on the first ship sailing off into the unknown debating on where the edge of the ocean is.
One of the main arguments against anthropogenic global warming is that despite the increase in CO2 levels there has been no warming over the past 18 years. If, however, the polar regions have continued to warm then surely that tends to disprove the arguments of the sceptics?
Here is a link where you can see what is happening with Arctic temps. The data goes back to 1958, so you can see year by year the temp changes in the Arctic…http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Both polar regions combines account for less than 8% of the earth’s surface area. And only the arctic has warmed.
So.. “If, however, the polar regions have continued to warm then surely that tends to disprove the arguments of the sceptics?”
…not so much.
Well the problem is Antarctica is cooling.
Um…
Given that the USA East Coast is having record cold and massive snow as very very cold Arctic air flows down over them… just how can that Arctic air be warmer than in prior years? The Arctic is NOT presently “warm”, it is darned cold. Freezing happened fairly fast this year, and the usual winter Arctic Blast is colder than for a very long time.
It’s just crazy talk to assert that a warmer Arctic is involved. In anything.
A colder Arctic and the faster flow rate of heavy frozen air out of it is causing Boston to turn into a snow bound icicle and most of the North East to be setting records for cold and snow; but that has nothing to do with warming, of any kind and in any place.
It’s the CO2. Turning into dry ice. Very cold. Unprecedented. What else could it be?
/s
The only measurement we should watch is unadjusted Valentia. Dropped the pick near the lighthouse once when I was a yachts person. Golly, it’s rural out there!
Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Reason for Highest Antarctic Sea Ice in recorded history all months of the year, and reversal of Global warming
Mechanism 1)
Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice
Mechanism 2)
Summer temperatures in Arctic polar region does remains below 0C, due to a significant increase in Arctic cloud cover in the summer months. See 2010, 2013, and 2014. Note those specific years are the only years in the data base were this phenomena is seen which explains why multi year ice is increasing. Note Mechanism 2 is likely related to, caused by mechanism 3.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice, Arctic winter ice, and Antarctic Sea Ice All months of the year, and Reversal of ‘Global’ warming
Mechanism 3)
Solar magnetic cycle affects
The latitudinal regions of the planet that warmed in the last 150 years are the same regions of the planet that warmed in the past during a D-O cycle. It is known that solar magnetic changes correlate with the past warming and cooling cycles.
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
http://www.climate4you.com
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
I consider myself a skeptic, but my take away from the post is the concession that the poles are rapidly warming. Not withstanding prior contradictory reports of no or little warming. Interesting passage from contest to concession and more noteworthy than “it wasn’t the warmist claims of missing data.”.
But the reality is the SOUTH POLE is not warming.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/antarctica_white_paper_final.pdf
The data shows clearly that Antarctica is NOT warming. That is the reality.
I understand that a recent paper was published which said that tha arctic has had regular warming events over many years so cannot be indicative of anthropic warming
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-on-the-sensor-issue/#more-5949
I expect there was much less ice in the Arctic in the early 1940’s than today.
We know that 1934 was the warmest year in the lower 48 states of the USA.
We also know that 2008 was no warmer globally than 1940. See
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
We also know the story of the good ship St. Roch:
In 1940-1942 the St. Roch became first vessel to complete a voyage through the Northwest Passage in a west to east direction.
In 1944, she became first vessel to make a return trip through the Northwest Passage, through the more northerly route considered the true north west passage, and also the first to navigate the passage in a single season.
Why compare to 1979-1980? After WW2 there was ~30 years of moderate global cooling that ended in ~1977. Lots of sea ice then.
Try comparing today to 1940-45.
Then please recognize that humanmade CO2 emissions have increased ~800% since ~1940. And it is no warmer today than in 1940.
Please tell me again how CO2 is driving catastrophic global warming.
Also, since CO2 lags temperature at all measured scales, please tell me how the future drives the past.
Regards, Allan
*****************************************
St. Roch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Career
Launched: 1928 at Burrard Dry Dock Shipyards
Fate: Designated a Canadian National Historic Site at the Vancouver Maritime Museum in 1962
General characteristics
Displacement:
Total Length: 37.8 m
Length, waterline:
Beam:
Draft:
Mainmast,height from deck:
Foremast,height from deck:
Propulsion: Sails & a 150-HP diesel engine[1]
Sail area:
Mainsail area:
Crew:
The St. Roch is a Royal Canadian Mounted Police schooner, the first ship to completely circumnavigate North America, and the second sailing vessel to complete a voyage through the Northwest Passage. (It was the first ship to complete the Northwest Passage in the direction west to east, going the same route that Amundsen on the sailing vessel Gjøa went east to west, 38 years earlier.)
The ship often was captained by Henry Larsen.[1] The ship can now be found at the Vancouver Maritime Museum in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada and is open to the public for scheduled visits.
History
1928 – constructed in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada at Burrard Dry Dock Shipyards
1929-1939 – supplied and patrolled Canada’s Arctic
1940-1942 – became first vessel to complete a voyage through the Northwest Passage in a west to east direction
1944 – became first vessel to make a return trip through the Northwest Passage, through the more northerly route considered the true north west passage, and also the first to navigate the passage in a single season
1944-1948 – patrolled Arctic
1950 – became first vessel to circumnavigate North America, from Halifax, Nova Scotia to Vancouver, British Columbia, via the Panama Canal
1954 – returned to Vancouver for preservation
1962 – designated a Canadian National Historic Site at the Vancouver Maritime Museum
Allan, I agree. I live near the hub of North America and we have had some warm and cooler decades over the past century, but the record is clear, the most recent 25 years, (That we are told are so unGodly hot), the average temp over the past 25 years is exactly the same as the first 25 years of the previous century. But, we have a small urban heat island impact here – that is the key.
I’m astounded that so much emphasis is put on what happened in the past decade or two. It is Geology 101 that a human lifespan is a blink of a blink of a blink of an eye, in geologic time. Has the arctic and the rest of the oceans warmed in the past half of my life, (I’m 56) and if they have, it is man made causation? Really? 310 million cubic miles …MILLION CUBIC MILES…of ocean water warmed (or did it)…because I drive a Yugo and have a few electric light bulbs on at this late hour. Only the ignorant would buy that baloney.
The headline on this posting conveys the opposite of what the data conveys.