Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Fifteen years of satellite measurements have unexpectedly shown that parts of Greenland are getting colder. But the scientists who produced these results urge people to believe that this cooling trend is a blip, because climate models say Greenland should be warming.
Greenland’s recent temperature drop does not disprove global warming
January 29, 2018 – 09:55
Unfortunately, the planet is still getting warmer.
By: Charlotte Price Persson
Using satellite data, a group of scientists has studied the development of temperature over the past 15 years in a large part of Greenland.
More precisely, they looked at surface temperatures (the temperature close to the Earth’s surface) in a part of the country that is not covered by ice—around one fifth of the surface area of Greenland.
Intuitively, you may think that temperature throughout all of Greenland has been increasing, but that is not the case. When you look at the yearly average, the ice-free parts of Greenland show a slight drop in temperature between 2001 and 2015. With swings in temperature from year to year.
However, these results should not be interpreted as “proof” that the Earth is not warming, say the scientists behind the research, which is published in the journal Scientific Reports.
This is weather, not climate
You need to have thirty years’ worth of data before you can “talk about climate,” says Professor Bo Elberling, an environmental geochemist and senior scientist on the study.
So we should be wary of discussing these results in the context of climate change, says Elberling, who is head of the Center for Permafrost (CENPERM) at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
“What’s interesting here is that with these new data we have a unique description of the spatial distribution of surface temperatures across the entire ice-free part of Greenland, which we couldn’t pull out of the approximately 45 weather stations that cover Greenland today,” he says.
Read More: What makes the climate change?
Global warming is real
Professor Michael Tjernström, a meteorologist from Stockholm University, Sweden, agrees with this assessment.
The time series is too short to say anything about climate trends, he writes in an email to our sister site, Videnskab.dk.
“Give me a specific location and a short time series and you could get almost any trend. Over a large area and over longer time I’m sure Greenland is warming,” writes Tjernström, who was not involved in the study.
The results should be seen as a part of the natural swings in climate. While you might find a small drop in temperature at individual locations, the overall development is in one direction, he writes.
All scientists interviewed for this article agreed that the new study does not question the inescapable reality that the planet is getting warmer.
…
Read more: http://sciencenordic.com/greenland’s-recent-temperature-drop-does-not-disprove-global-warming
The abstract of the study;
Contrasting temperature trends across the ice-free part of Greenland
Andreas Westergaard-Nielsen, Mojtaba Karami, Birger Ulf Hansen, Sebastian Westermann & Bo Elberling
Temperature changes in the Arctic have notable impacts on ecosystem structure and functioning, on soil carbon dynamics, and on the stability of permafrost, thus affecting ecosystem functions and putting man-built infrastructure at risk. Future warming in the Arctic could accelerate important feedbacks in permafrost degradation processes. Therefore it is important to map vulnerable areas most likely to be impacted by temperature changes and at higher risk of degradation, particularly near communities, to assist adaptation to climate change. Currently, these areas are poorly assessed, especially in Greenland. Here we quantify trends in satellite-derived land surface temperatures and modelled air temperatures, validated against observations, across the entire ice-free Greenland. Focus is on the past 30 years, to characterize significant changes and potentially vulnerable regions at a 1 km resolution. We show that recent temperature trends in Greenland vary significantly between seasons and regions and that data with resolutions down to single km2 are critical to map temperature changes for guidance of further local studies and decision-making. Only a fraction of the ice-free Greenland seems vulnerable due to warming when analyzing year 2001–2015, but the most pronounced changes are found in the most populated parts of Greenland. As Greenland represents important gradients of north/south coast/inland/distance to large ice sheets, the conclusions are also relevant in an upscaling to greater Arctic areas.
Read more: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19992-w
Why do the scientists who published this data seem so skittish?
One reason may be that this study potentially undermines confidence in the methodology of the NASA GISS temperature series, one of the world’s major global temperature resources.
From the NASA website;
… Handling the Arctic
There are several reasons for the small discrepancies that exist between the three records. Most important, subtleties in the way the scientists from each institution handle regions of the world where temperature-monitoring stations are scarce produce differences.
While developed areas have a dense network of weather stations, temperature monitoring equipment is sparse in some parts of the Amazon, Africa, Antarctica, and Arctic. In the Arctic, particularly, the absence of solid land means there are large areas without weather stations.
The Met Office and the NCDC leave areas of the Arctic Ocean without stations out of their analyses, while GISS approaches the problem by filling in the gaps with data from the nearest land stations, up to a distance of 1200 kilometers (746 miles) away. In this way, the GISS analysis achieves near total coverage in the Arctic.
Both approaches pose problems. By not inferring data, the Met Office assumes that areas without stations have a warming equal to that experienced by the entire Northern Hemisphere, a value that satellite and field measurements suggest is too low given the rate of Arctic sea ice loss.
On the other hand, GISS’s approach may either overestimate or underestimate Arctic warming. “There’s no doubt that estimates of Arctic warming are uncertain, and should be regarded with caution,” Hansen said. “Still, the rapid pace of Arctic ice retreat leaves little question that temperatures in the region are rising fast, perhaps faster than we assume in our analysis.” …
Read more: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20110113/
Infilling attempts to correct for absent temperature data in sparse regions like the Arctic. But this latest study has demonstrated … recent temperature trends in Greenland vary significantly between seasons and regions and that data with resolutions down to single km2 are critical to map temperature changes …. The NASA technique of using a single temperature station to represent up to 1200 kilometres of Arctic wilderness, then using climate models to help fill in the blanks, may be a lot less reliable than previously thought.
The world has warmed since the 1850s. But if parts of the Arctic have been cooling, when climate scientists assumed those regions were warming, the real warming trend might be less than some analysis suggest.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Worrall, the study cites satellite data. Including a picture of a ground based weather station is misleading. Looks like this is one of your “fake posts.”
Me bad, I posted a picture of a poorly sited weather station in Greenland, in a post which discusses satellite vs weather station measurements and global temperature series.
Eric, I don’t come here to look at the posting graphic. I understand that they are sometimes not fully coherent with the posting due to the time lost by looking for something exactly appropriate. I appreciate your efforts, mate. Nit-picking your efforts in a non-constructive manor would be most rude of me.
Thanks Pop 🙂
FIRST I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS!
https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2016/new-evidence-reveals-fossil-fuel-industry-funded-cutting-edge-climate-science-research#.WnDnh66nGig
Archives have been released showing that the petroleum industry was way ahead of the game in research into CO2 and warming, suggesting it could become a problem back in the 1960s.
(The USC also has documentation about petroleum’s propaganda machine that has for decades been bent on ruining the credibility, reputation and the public’s trust in the scientific community.)
And the article…
I love it when climate scientists admit to climate surprises. Instead of acknowledging that they do, in fact, have integrity, the “skeptic” community jumps on the story as if it proved weakness in their enemy’s armor without having any idea if that’s true; usually not..
A quote of a quote within the article:
“‘ ‘Therefore it is important to map vulnerable areas most likely to be impacted by temperature changes and at higher risk of degradation, particularly near communities, to assist adaptation to climate change. ….data with resolutions down to single km2 are critical to map temperature changes for guidance of further local studies and decision-making.’ ”
But the quote is summarized and misused: ” ‘ … recent temperature trends in Greenland vary significantly between seasons and regions and that data with resolutions down to single km2 are critical to map temperature changes’ …. The NASA technique of using a single temperature station to represent up to 1200 kilometres of Arctic wilderness, then using climate models to help fill in the blanks, may be a lot less reliable than previously thought.” Mere speculation.
The worst part is that the way the quote is taken out of context is highly misleading and dishonest. The abstract is about producing a map to help focus efforts in monitoring ecosystem change and community adaptation, and suggests this map should be at the resolution of single kms. It says nothing and suggests nothing about the scale of temperature monitoring for climate models.
“Why do the scientists who published this data seem so skittish?
One reason may be that this study potentially undermines confidence in the methodology of the NASA GISS temperature series, one of the world’s major global temperature resources.”
This is irresponsible and wrong, simple propaganda.
Scientists may seem skittish these days because they know any little odd finding will be blown out of proportion and/or used as false evidence, just as Worrall’s article does. Duh! How would you like it if you worked your butt off for decades to provide information for public benefit and instead millions of people were convinced you were corrupt, sloppy and/or stupid?
“…How would you like it if you worked your butt off for decades to provide information for public benefit and instead millions of people were convinced you were corrupt, sloppy and/or stupid?…”
I’d go out-of-my-way to prove those millions of people wrong through transparency instead of fighting every FOIA request and claiming everyone who didn’t buy my claims hook, line, and sinker to be “corrupted, sloppy, and/or stupid.” Or worse.
I’d go out-of-my-way to prove those millions of people wrong through transparency instead of fighting every FOIA request and claiming everyone who didn’t buy my claims hook, line, and sinker to be “corrupted, sloppy, and/or stupid.” Or worse.
There is a great deal of transparency. Datasets are freely available, especially after the problems with data availability associated with the so-called “Climategate” silliness – that was the only good thing to come out of it.
I don’t know what scientists have been calling others “corrupted, sloppy, and/or stupid” – not publicly, anyway.
It’s very hard to prove those wrong who are only interested in hearing what they want to believe, those who go to sites like this for their education about climate science without being open to opposing views.
I’m interested in other arguments, which is why I’m here. I’m searching for really good reasons I shouldn’t believe the majority, and haven’t found them yet. In the meantime, it’s hard not to comment on some of the weird things people say, especially the people playing at being climate scientists.
Bla bla bla.comes deep from Kristi,
“There is a great deal of transparency. Datasets are freely available, especially after the problems with data availability associated with the so-called “Climategate” silliness – that was the only good thing to come out of it.
I don’t know what scientists have been calling others “corrupted, sloppy, and/or stupid” – not publicly, anyway.”
Your ignorance is complete since you are unaware of the well proven evidence of corrupted data sets and that Climategate exposed the unethical behavior of scientists who were not being honest or transparent in their claims. It is in their own HANDWRITING!
It is clear you never read them.
GISS is the most corrupted temperature data set there is. It has been shown many times in blogs that it is garbage.
Better if you stop making yourself look foolish with your bot like replies.
Kristi: “the so-called “Climategate” silliness”
Allllrighty then. No need to read any more of your posts. Say hi to Peter Gleick for me.
What the oil industry knew and didn’t know has been thoroughly discussed.
1) They published all of their work at the time. Nothing was hidden.
2) They were saying then the same thing they are saying now. That the science behind the CO2 scare is speculative and not of sufficient quality to draw any conclusions from.
This so called scientific community has been saying that their is no need for debate because the science is settled. That they get ridiculed every time a new paper shows that the science is not in fact settled, is hardly surprising. They have no one to blame but themselves for claiming a certainty that they could not support.
“may be a lot less reliable than previously thought.”
At least they are finally moving over to the position that skeptics have been pointing out for 30 years.
So much for the claim that the science is settled.
“This so called scientific community has been saying that their is no need for debate because the science is settled. ” That’s absolutely ridiculous. There’s always debate within the scientific community. The science is not “settled,” it’s always improving. But debating whether the world is warming and whether we have anything to do with it is a waste of time. Better to debate the sources of uncertainty (meaning variability in predictions), particularly the role of water vapor flux.
‘What the oil industry knew and didn’t know has been thoroughly discussed.” Really? By whom? When? Why then don’t people take into account that there has been a massive propaganda campaign to discredit climate science?
Exxon’s executive would not tell their own shareholders what their scientists were finding. You think they told the public? Maybe some results were published, but not all.
“[A] 1968 report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute (API)… stated that carbon dioxide emissions were accumulating in the atmosphere faster than natural processes were removing them and the probable explanation was fossil fuel emissions. The report warned that rising carbon dioxide levels would result in increases in temperature at the Earth’s surface and that significant increases in temperature could have numerous consequences, including causing ice caps to melt, sea levels to rise and oceans to warm.”
The (unpublished!) report is here: https://www.smokeandfumes.org/documents/document16
Sure, the FF industry was saying the evidence was uncertain. That’s exactly what they wanted people to think, and that’s what they’ve spent millions of dollars on propaganda trying to convince people that’s the case – very successfully indeed.
“But debating whether the world is warming and whether we have anything to do with it is a waste of time.”
That’s the strawman version of what sleptcs want to debate. As has been said here and on other skeptic sites, we accept that the world is warming and that human eissions are a factor in it—maybe the major factor. What’s debatable is how much of a factor our emissions play, how much warming there will be in the future, and whether it is rational to spend money on wind and solar power.
Wow, we have a new true believer missionary, who knows if he (she?) insukts, yells and echoes climste hyoe enough we will convert.
+1,000
In the immortal words of Stephen Schneider,
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
So IOW, it’s OK to hide your doubts and uncertainties, exaggerate, and make deceptive public statements to promote “belief” in poorly supported pseudo-science. The pseudo scientists who promote AGW manure deserve all the ridicule they get.
(I sure wish it were possible to reply directly to all posts!)
Roger Knights: “As has been said here and on other skeptic sites, we accept that the world is warming and that human eissions are a factor in it—maybe the major factor. ”
I wish that were generally the case! Not in my experience of skeptic sites. I was hoping this one was different, but I haven’t seen overwhelming evidence of it.
“What’s debatable is how much of a factor our emissions play, how much warming there will be in the future, and whether it is rational to spend money on wind and solar power.”
Our emissions are the factor we can control. As you say, they are a factor, and to me the data suggest they are likely a major factor, in global warming. How much warming there will be in the future is at least partly dependent on emissions. I realize there is uncertainty associated with how much warming there will be, but all we have are various climate models to estimate this. The debate seems to be not about quantifying the warming, but whether to trust the models. If the models are dismissed as useless, what other basis of debate is there? People can think of simpler models that come up with other answers, but why should they be considered more reliable, especially if not tested?
Whether it is rational to spend money on renewables is dependent on but separate from the science. In order to answer the question, it’s necessary to have as complete a picture as possible of the potential risks of doing nothing to lower emissions. I don’t see that aspect of the debate here at all. There are people who think warming would be a good thing, or that high atmospheric CO2 is good because it will help plants grow.
Then there are the economic questions of the relative cost of renewable vs. fossil fuel energy. This is a huge topic in itself, requiring consideration of global markets, environmental and human costs of different energies, technological changes, America’s role and reputation as a global leader, etc. There is also a moral factor: are we going to choose to be responsible for America’s contribution to current and anticipated problems due to climate change, or are we going to decide the matter based on purely selfish arguments? For us to have stayed in the Paris agreement would have cost less than $6 per person. The goals for carbon emission are non-binding, so even if we did nothing, we still could have signed. But that would have meant acknowledging that AGW was real.
Maybe it’s because I’m relatively new to the site, I don’t know, but I haven’t seen much discussion of policy issues..
Kristi Silber.
A real scientist has never been quoted publicly stating the word “Potentially.” Sorry for your luck…
“Archives have been released showing that the petroleum industry was way ahead of the game in research into CO2 and warming, suggesting it could become a problem back in the 1960s.”
So they were ahead of their time in speculating?
Speculation is not a crime. Besides, they were not the only people speculating about CO2 and the atmosphere at the time.
People have been speculating about humans and the Earth’s climate for many decades. They speculated that humans were causing the Earth to cool when the 1940 to 1980 cooling trend kicked in. Then, when the warming trend from 1980 to present kicked in, they did an aboutface and speculated that humans were causing the warming because of CO2.
Bottom line: Speculation is not a crime. The fossil fuel industry certainly had no evidence that CO2 would cause the Earth’s climate to change. They didn’t have any evidence, and noone else has any evidence either, to this very day.
No evidence. Then or now. The fossil fuel industry is off the hook.
Research is not speculation. See above post.
You can believe what you want, and I’m sure you will continue to do so regardless of the evidence.
The projection is strong with this one.
Kristi continues her pretzel logic,
“Research is not speculation. See above post.
You can believe what you want, and I’m sure you will continue to do so regardless of the evidence.”
100+ Climate models for year 2100 are examples of speculation, surely you knew this? They are not testable or falsifiable, which is why there are many skeptics who are not convinced by the shoddy unverified research you seem fond of.
They don’t create evidence either since they are built on assumptions, speculation, incomplete understanding on what drives weather and climate with a smattering of data embedded in them.
Surely you know how poorly supported they are?
Sunsettommy – ‘100+ Climate models for year 2100 are examples of speculation, surely you knew this? They are not testable or falsifiable, which is why there are many skeptics who are not convinced by the shoddy unverified research you seem fond of.”
Climate models ARE tested. “Surely you knew this?” I guess not, which means you haven’t the knowledge to justify disparaging them as mere speculation.
“Kristi Silber January 31, 2018 at 6:13 pm
Sunsettommy –” ‘100+ Climate models for year 2100 are examples of speculation, surely you knew this? They are not testable or falsifiable, which is why there are many skeptics who are not convinced by the shoddy unverified research you seem fond of.”
Kristi writes,
Climate models ARE tested. “Surely you knew this?” I guess not, which means you haven’t the knowledge to justify disparaging them as mere speculation.”
=========================================================================
Wow, really wow….!!!
Your ignorance has reached world class level.
Do you know that ALL science research claims has to be falsifiable or reproducible in real time to be considered a working hypothesis?
AGW doesn’t even reach the level of Hypothesis because you can’t test those long term models. Ever heard of The Scientific Method?
This is year 2018 which means we have no data for 82 years of the future. It is indeed speculation since there has been ZERO demonstrated forecast skill for those models, which if you bothered to read in the IPCC has several emission scenarios in them. which is the correct one, Kristi?
Snicker………
I brought up Falsifiable and testability, which those 100+ models lack, you ignored it, why?
I brought up the IPCC always wrong/failed Per Decade warming prediction/projections since 1990, how come you ignore it?
That’s only if the data shows cooling. In the other direction, it only takes one year of an El Nino, a large fire, a large flood, or a strong hurricane that hits land before you can talk about climate change. so basically, you need 30 years of data to argue against climate change but only 1 year of data to argue for it. Isn’t it interesting how that works?
Not strictly ture, if you do have 30 years, a number which has no meaning, they you will be told you need more. For one feature of climate ‘science’ is the ever extending deadlines of doom.
The fact that is means they will not be around to be asked why they got it so wrong, is merely ‘lucky chance’
Sneaky way of reporting on Greenland cooling without getting fired. Lots of papers are exactly like this. The paper says “omg, global warming” so they can keep their jobs but the data presented in the paper says “nothing much is actually happening”.
Geez, you put a lot of effort into intentionally misunderstanding people so you can think poorly of them.
What your evidence for your claim, Kristi?
Bill Ellis, is a well educated man in the field of science.
Try writing a paper that is explicitly counter to the climate consensus, backed with data, and see what happens.
Bill Illis has credentials and achievements. What do you bring?
Sunsettommy,
Just because I didn’t see your replies doesn’t mean I’m ignoring you.
Bill Illis said the data presented in the paper say “nothing much is happening” in terms of global warming. This is not what the data suggest at all – they don’t address the question. On both the pro- and anti-AGW sides, too much emphasis is placed by the media and individuals on local and short term variation, extrapolating it to argue that it is evidence for their argument that AGW is or is not happening. That’s not a valid interpretation. Variation is expected.
It seems that many in the public judge the debate based on the assumption that the majority of climate science is corrupt, based mainly on two incidents, “Climategate” and the claim that data was mishandled in the the Karl, et al. paper. The urge for deniers to believe there was misconduct is so strong that they won’t accept the results of 8 investigations into Climategate. Nor will they believe the scientist who attacked Karl that he didn’t claim the research was done wrong, only that the data were not archived properly.
Then there are the multitude of claims that data have been manipulated fraudulently. The problem here is that the reason for and method of adjustment are never addressed; it is merely assumed that it was wrong to do so.
Likewise, people will attack climate modeling without knowing anything about it – most importantly how the models are tested. Many don’t know the possible repercussions of climate change.
“AGW is a CONJECTURE at best since it can’t be properly falsifiable under normal science research. The evidence you seem to be a thrall over,are based on climate models that have been wrong for 27 years running.”
This is an example of the lack of knowledge of climate science and scientific method that I’m talking about. There are many ways of falsifying AGW theory. For instance, one could show that one of the basic mechanisms thought to be influencing climate has been completely misunderstood. One could show that the climate models are unstable, producing extremely unlikely results. Or, the globe could fail to warm for 30 years despite rising CO2 and accounting for natural variation (solar oscillations, for example).
For a model to be wrong for 27 years, it would have to be at least 27 years old. Climate modeling and data have improved greatly in the past 27 years; judging all models by the accuracy of the old ones is not valid. Apart from that, what is the test of “wrong” to you? You seem to think the models are falsifiable, so what has proven them false? Keep in mind that the “pause” would have to continue for it indicate that warming has changed its course, but it has not.
It is not my responsibility or desire to try to convince others of anything. I know from experience that is not worth the effort. What I would like to do is convince even a few to be a little more skeptical of the claims of those who wish to refute AGW. I would like to encourage people to explore the topic independently, learn more about it before making decisions.
Most of all, I hope that some might come to question the idea that climate science is corrupt and untrustworthy. I want people to be aware that there has been a long, well-organized effort explicitly designed to exaggerate the uncertainty of climate science and question the credibility of scientists, and the effort has been directed at the Right. To me this has been irresponsible, anti-democratic and harmful to our nation even apart for its effects on the AGW debate.
“The [petroleum] industry’s own scientists were internally warning of climate
dangers by the mid-1990s, as evidenced by a leaked draft
document by a team headed by a scientist at Mobil that
was distributed to other major fossil fuel companies in
1995 (Figure 8, p. 26, Appendix G, p. 44). As that internal
document from 1995 unequivocally states: “The scientific
basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of
human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate
is well established and cannot be denied” ”
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
(…This was written in 2015; more supporting evidence has come to light since)
Those laymen who believe AGW is speculation believe so not because they reject the science behind the models; they haven’t the knowledge to evaluate them, which is no fault of their own. The complexity of climate science is well beyond those who aren’t active in the field – including me. But as a scientist myself who has investigated many, many claims made by skeptics, i can at least appreciate the way words have been twisted, false assumptions made, evidence ignored and scientists vilified by those pushing an agenda of denial. I’ve also seen evidence for the enormous conflict of interest in a denier community that has received so much funding from the fossil fuel industry. I’ve read an original memo discussing in detail the propaganda campaign they initiated.
i choose to trust the vast majority of climate scientists (and NOT the media alarmists!). Out of all the claims of scandal and corruption, there has not been one that has been justified once investigated. Errors have been uncovered, but nothing amounting to scientific misconduct. If there had been, careers would have ended – the scientific community will not tolerate fraud, cannot afford to do so when so much is at stake.
“Trust has been eroded to the point where it is an issue for our long-term future.”
– Shell CEO Ben van Beurden
Wow Kristi, fails to answer a very simple question. My eyes almost bleed trying to find it in your long winded comment.
First of all this is what Bill Illis stated,
“Sneaky way of reporting on Greenland cooling without getting fired. Lots of papers are exactly like this. The paper says “omg, global warming” so they can keep their jobs but the data presented in the paper says “nothing much is actually happening”.”
A clear statement that even a cavewoman can understand what his point is.
Your reply,
“Geez, you put a lot of effort into intentionally misunderstanding people so you can think poorly of them.”
Your reply didn’t disprove anything he stated. Which is why I asked you to back up your claim against him,
Sunsettommy writes,
“What your evidence for your claim, Kristi?”
Your reply is all over the map, while failing to answer my simple question.
It is clear that you can’t dispute Bills line you babbled over:
“The paper says “omg, global warming” so they can keep their jobs but the data presented in the paper says “nothing much is actually happening”.”
You never read the paper he comments on, he has since that is part of his work. He works in the field seeing this phenomenon which is why he made that comment, it is from his personal experience as a researcher.
It is obvious you have NEVER read and studied Climategate, I have the Book that covers all of the released e-mails. There was a lot going on behind the scenes you clearly don’t know about.
Your lie is evident, maybe due to ignorance or willful denial:.
“then there are the multitude of claims that data have been manipulated fraudulently. The problem here is that the reason for and method of adjustment are never addressed; it is merely assumed that it was wrong to do so.”
No they AVOID explaining their numerous changes to the point that in the GISS dataset, the well known cooling trend from the 1940’s to the late 1970’s has almost completely vanished. But was very prominent back in their 1981 chart, It was about a .5 F cooling over that time, now almost zero today.
I LIVED through the 1960’s and 70’s reading and hearing about the obvious global cooling trend. Global cooling was real and long lasting. The media was filled with it and even a quite a few science papers were published about it.
Your next set of babbling is plain dumb because climate models you are fond of has not been validated, how can you when you have 82 years of missing data…….. How do you test for 82 years of the future that hasn’t happened yet?
Please don’t continue to be this illogical.
“Likewise, people will attack climate modeling without knowing anything about it – most importantly how the models are tested. Many don’t know the possible repercussions of climate change.”
No they are NOT TESTABLE!
Think Kristi, think!
You can NOT test what is incomplete and lacks demonstrated forecast ability. The very existence of over 100 SEPARATE models based on SEPARATE emission scenarios that runs to year 2100, with large temperature range on guessed emissions of the future. show they have no idea which one if any are credible.
It is playstation pseudoscience operating right under your nose. The fact that you can’t see it exposes your lack of understanding about what is really going on.
By the way Kristi, there are many here who comments who know a LOT about those models you are poorly defending. as many are scientists or have science background, some of them even worked in past IPCC reports.
Bill Illis January 30, 2018 at 4:08 pm
“Sneaky way of reporting on Greenland cooling without getting fired.”
WR: Indeed, I have seen that more often. The researchers have to speak ‘the magic words’ for future funding and publication. But in the same time the researchers feel the need to reveal the truth and they do it in this way.
Are they grazing large herds of cows and sheep on lush Greenland pastures and making grass hay sufficient to keep them healthy every winter again? Are they raising grains… and grapes again? If not, it is still colder than the ‘Eric The Red’ extended viking settlement era. Next…..
I don’t think the Norseman was growing grapes in Greenland, although they might have been in Vinland which is likely in Canada.
They did have cattle, sheep, goats, so there must have been lots of fresh grass for at least part of the year.
The proof that Greenland was once warmer is finding old settlements and artifacts being uncovered by retreating ice. Its hard to argue with that, but I expect the alarmists do.
“More than 2,000 remarkably well-preserved hunting artefacts have emerged from melting ice in Norway’s highest mountains, dating as far back as 4000 BC.
The incredible finds were made by ‘glacial archaeologists’ in Jotunheimen and the surrounding areas of Oppland, which include Norway’s highest mountains.
They looked at the edge of the contracting ice and recovered artefacts of wood, textile, hide and other organic materials.
Included in the archaeologists’ haul is a ski with preserved binding from 700 AD – only the second one to be preserved globally – as well as a Bronze Age shoe from 1300 BC.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5298649/2-000-artefacts-Norway-insight-mountain-life.html#ixzz55ijCilud
We did not have that many government subsidized Teslas here back then, you see…..
Some years ago, a son and I camped in remote SW Greenland (taken in by boat, with tent and food, and collected several miles along the coast 5 days later – awesome). Where I was, nothing was lush, there were no cows sheep grapes or whatever. Just dense clouds of man-eating mosquitoes and midges. It was very much summer-time, but the nights were stunningly cold. I think it would take an awful lot of AGW (Anthropogenic Greenland Warming) to get a grape to grow there.
That sounds like an amazing adventure!
If temperature data is unreliable because of the lack of coverage and the issues with in filling places like Greenland and Russia etc how accurate is the data being used to support the global warming scam. If you extrapolate this to the lack of reliable observations in the oceans which is 70-80% of the globes surface it’s easy to see how the error bars could be greater than the 2 degrees of global warming that will fry us. The lunacy of these data records and the method of using the nearest weather station can be seen if one looks up the difference in temperatures that may exist in suburbs which may be less than 10 kilometres apart. The confirmation bias which inflicts the warmists who publish this data ensures that it’s accuracy is very much in doubt.
ABC Australia just aired this. watch or click on Transcript at bottom of text:
29 Jan: ABC Foreign Correspondent: On Top Of The World
Is the world going mad when Greenlanders fight drought and brushfires and catch warm water fish? A decade after discovering a farming boom in Greenland, Eric Campbell returns to see how locals are facing up to climate change…
ERIC CAMPBELL: Thomas Juul-Pedersen is a senior scientist at the Greenland Climate Research Centre.
THOMAS JUUL-PEDERSEN: “The ice sheet has always been melting, there’s always been a melting season, but that melting season seems to dramatically increase. So it starts melting earlier, and the melt continues for full into the autumn every year. And last year there was a very high melt season for instance and it started very early. It is telling us that climate change is real. There’s no doubt about that”.
ERIC CAMPBELL: Climate change sceptics do cast doubt, pointing out that the cap grew slightly this season thanks to record snowfall. But that was caused by record hurricanes. A series of superstorms in the Caribbean sent record precipitation all the way to the Arctic.
THOMAS JUUL-PEDERSEN: “It’s the same trend you see not only in Greenland, but in many places around the world where more numerous hurricanes, larger hurricanes, droughts, floodings – all these things – it’s all signs of a changing climate. The ice sheet is comprised of old snow, so when new snow or more snow on it will of course increase the mass of the ice sheet, but if that is followed by increased melting as well in the following years, then it will go away as well”…READ ON
http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/on-top-of-the-world/9371502
“And last year there was a very high melt season for instance and it started very early. It is telling us that climate change is real. There’s no doubt about that”
Maybe no doubt to a one-track mind, but increased geothermal activity could account for that.
‘Several Thousand’ Hot (60°C) Springs ‘All Over’ Greenland Melt The Ice Sheet From Bottom Up
http://notrickszone.com/2018/01/24/groundbreaking-agw-undermining-study-greenlands-warming-ice-loss-due-to-geothermal-heat/#sthash.vMvYeqHU.dpbs
For all interested, the geothermal heat flux values mentioned in the article above are very similar to those beneath the area feeding the Thwaites, Crosson, and Dotson glaciers in Antarctica (see map below). Climate scientists say that their ice shelves are melting due to AGW. There is a recently discovered cavern underneath the Dotson ice shelf that runs its entire length and is about 15 km wide and 200 m high. An expedition is currently in Antarctica to send drones underneath the ice shelf to explore it and gather data. Should be interesting to hear what they find.
Point of interest: On the map above, between the -120 longitude and the label that says ‘Thwaites Glacier’ you will see 3 white dots forming a triangle. Those are volcanoes, and that is the area of the Dotson Glacier,
“Give me a computer and an adjustment algorithm and you could get almost any trend. ”
There …. fixed it to what he meant to say
Obvious question: Did the satellite temps match up with the readings of the 45 weather stations?
That is, did we need the satellite “thermometers” to tell us that the ice-free part of Greenland was slightly cooling?
Greenland cooling:
http://www.thegwpf.com/content/uploads/2017/07/Greenland-cooling.png
He didn’t reference this paradigm: “You need to have thirty years’ worth of data before you can “talk about climate,”
If they have a good 15 years, how many stations do they have at 20, 25, 30? I want to see the supplementary material before I believe the only thing they did was back off of proclaiming.
We need 30 years of weather data to disprove Global Warming.
They prove Global Warming with untested models!
If the news is “bad”, you need thirty years’ worth of data; if the news is “good” for climate alarmism, 30 minutes of a weather event will do.
What’s wrong with this guy? Why hasn’t he adjusted the data to get the required result? Someone send in the hockey team!
** Kristi Silber
January 30, 2018 at 4:01 pm
FIRST I DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS!
https://www.ucsusa.org/press/2016/new-evidence-reveals-fossil-fuel-industry-funded-cutting-edge-climate-science-research#.WnDnh66nGig
Archives have been released showing that the petroleum industry was way ahead of the game in research into CO2 and warming, suggesting it could become a problem back in the 1960s.**
There is nothing in the article substantiating that CO2 causes temperature increase. Nothing but SPECULATION.
It’s not supposed to do so. It’s reporting about other research, not speculation. Why would the API commission a report of speculations? Maybe you are reacting to scientists’ wishy-washy way of saying things, avoiding words like “prove” and using words like “could” because scientists are always aware of the uncertainty inherent in all science – it’s part of what makes science such a wonderful tool that it never claims to “prove” anything, but is always open to alternative and refinement. “‘…no doubt that the potential damage to our environment could be severe’” is a pretty strong assertion for a scientist, I’d say.
Fifty years of research and evidence, and still people think it’s speculation!
Come on Kristi, what are you saying?
You here to make a defense of something you have no clue about?
Not once have you made a coherent argument on anything. You have been ignoring me, which is increasing my suspicion that you are bot running on a program to waste time with your inane comments.
AGW is a CONJECTURE at best since it can’t be properly falsifiable under normal science research. The evidence you seem to be a thrall over,are based on climate models that have been wrong for 27 years running.
If you are real, make cogent replies in YOUR OWN words.
Kristi,
You are a long winded troll.
You reference stuff that does not say what you claim and you ignore counter evidence to the religion you are pimping.
I find you be as annoying as a Jehovah’s Witness banging on my door on a Saturday morning, but you are much less polite with your repetitive droning of the same disproved points.
What are you trying to accomplish?
**while GISS approaches the problem by filling in the gaps with data from the nearest land stations, up to a distance of 1200 kilometers (746 miles) away. In this way, the GISS analysis achieves near total coverage in the Arctic.**
Should be, “In this way, the GISS analysis achieves warming in the Arctic when there is no evidence.”
Greenland is abnormally cold this winter!
Most “climate modelers” and all glaciologists fail to understand that Summit Greenland is above 3000 meters msl, i.e. Greenland is a giant mountain! At more than 3000 meters above msl it is dang cold and dry at Summit and that will always be so at least for the next 100,000 years!
Ha ha
In this short 1-page report of the cooling of Greenland’s habitable area they repeat the panic-stricken mantra “but but global warming is still real!” TEN TIMES. This polemical hysteria reaches the level of self-parody.
Can you blame them when they know that their research will be picked up and picked at and misinterpreted by people on sites like this?
Ha ha ha,
you completely misunderstood, Ptolemy’s comment.
You write like a stupid bot.
Some people have no sense of humor.
Cooling Greenland temp trends is consistent with Greenland’s NET Ice Mass increasing by 44 billion tons in 2017, which NOAA suggests is the first time in 100 years this has occurred. (which is a VERY difficult claim to prove)…:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/greenland-ice-sheets-2017-weigh-suggests-small-increase-ice-mass
Anyway, once the AMO and NAO ocean cycles enter their respective 30-year cool cycles in early 2020’s, Greenland’s temps will continue to decline for many decades to come.
The 50~70 year Grand Solar Minimum event starting from 2020 will also likely add to Greenland/global cooling until the end of this century.
CAGW is so busted… It has become a joke.
I just ran a small statistical experiment with Excel that had, in my opinion, a very interesting result. I started by entering “1.00” in cell A1. In cell A2 I entered “=A1 + randbetween(-5,5)/10”, which gave me a random number between -5 and 5, then turned it into a decimal by dividing by 10 (randbetween returns whole numbers between your bounds).
I then copied that cell and pasted it into cells A3 through A7280, which I believe is the number of stations in the NOAA GHCN, from whose data NOAA determines the GHCN v3 monthly data. That gave me 7280 random numbers in the range -1.5 to 1.5, which is a fair representation of historical average global anomalies. None of the real values have gone above or below ±1.0, but having the slightly larger range just adds some inertia to the average, which is fine. Then I copied those numbers into a text editor and back into the document again to get rid of the embedded formula but keep the values. Finally, I copied the values into column B as well, so that I had two identical columns of numbers, and two identical average calculations for each column. I formatted the numbers to two decimal places.
Now I had my setup. My goal was to find out how many stations had to get “hotter” to bump up the “global” average for the 7280 stations. I increased the value in a column by 0.05, which seemed to me to be a reasonable average monthly anomaly increase for an individual station.
To cut to the chase, I only had to bump up 450 station out of 7280 by 0.05 to get the “global” average up to 1.01 from 1.00. That represents only 6% of the total number of “stations” in my “network” that had to increase by only 5/100ths of a degree to “warm” the Earth by 0.01 degrees.
Can “warming” that affects only 6% of stations truly be “global”? Couldn’t it be just as likely that a few “hot spots” are getting smushed into the global average and making the world appear to be warming? The “warming” I generated is within the error boundaries of these measurements (±0.5 C), but is still representative of what we see in the literature every month.
Going to have to spend some more time looking at these numbers. Who knows what else is hiding in there?
Very interesting.
Thanks for pursuing this.
Please keep us informed.
Look at the time series illustrations of GMT on the NOAA site. Warming is happening all over, though not all uniformly and synchronously.
Who or what are you replying to Kristi?
Sunsettommy
Give Kristi a break bro!
Generally speaking it is no doubt correct that Greenland has been warming and melting – hardly surprising at the peak of the AMO wave when a strengthened Gulf Stream has been bringing warmer water to Greenland. If course, what goes up must come down. As the AMO imminently starts its descent, all this will be reversed.
If you read what she said to Bill Illis…………, plus she doesn’t debate anything, all while she is incoherent most of the time.
OT but it was just announced on the nightly TV news that some South Australian towns today had their lowest ever summer maximum temperature. Just weather I guess. These will be homogenised out of the historical data sets no doubt.
Jennifer Marohasy has documented the editing of data by the CSIRO to hide declines and fabricate increases quite well.