It is worse than we thought – by region

Guest essay by Sheldon Walker – (agree-to-disagree.com)

The central objective of the Paris Agreement is its long-term temperature goal to hold global average temperature increase to “well below 2°C above preindustrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”.

Have a look at warming based on different areas of the Earth.

Below, is an explanation of the different elements of this bar chart.

This bar chart was made, using the GISTEMP gridded temperature series (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, ERSSTv5, 1200km smoothing).

• The Arctic region is anything north of the 66N line of latitude. The Arctic is approximately 4% of the Earth.
• The Antarctic region is anything south of the 66S line of latitude. The Antarctic is approximately 4% of the Earth.
• Land is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where you can stand without getting your feet wet. Land is approximately 26% of the Earth.
• Ocean, is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where your feet get wet, if you stand there. Ocean is approximately 66% of the Earth.

I am planning to make some more bar charts, which are even more detailed than this one. Looking at the different regions, in different hemispheres etc. I have all the data, I just need to analyse it.

To determine which 2 x 2 latitude-longitude cells were Land, and which were Ocean, I digitised a big black and white map of the world. This turned the image into 0’s and 1’s, depending on the colour on the map. 1’s corresponded to Land, and 0’s corresponded to ocean. This might not be perfect, but it looked good, and was much faster than doing it manually.

You can judge for yourself, how good my method was, for working out what was Land, and what was Ocean. The following map shows the areas that I used for each region.

The legend is:

• yellow = Arctic region

• green = Antarctic region

• blue = Ocean

• orange = Land

Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
Shellie C Correia
September 19, 2018 9:43 am

Overall, there doesn’t seem to be any “global warming”, according to the chart… just warming in some areas, as well as cooling in others. Most regions stayed relatively stable. This chart would make the alarmists extremely unhappy! LOL! Great job!

Chris
September 20, 2018 7:09 am

“Overall, there doesn’t seem to be any “global warming”, according to the chart… just warming in some areas, as well as cooling in others.”

How do you conclude that from a bar chart that shows that 98% of the earth is warming, and only 2% is cooling?

beng135
September 21, 2018 9:34 am

No, no, Chris, you exaggerated, it’s always 97%. Didn’t you get the memo?

Chris
September 22, 2018 5:20 am

Ah, yes, Beng, deflection is always good when you don’t have a real answer.

David Rapalyea
September 21, 2018 4:14 pm

Chris
September 22, 2018 5:19 am

Warm is not good if your summers are already 45C. Just ask the Africans and folks in South Asia (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh). That’s 3B+ people versus a few thousand on Greenland. Gee, which should we be more concerned about?

rbabcock
September 19, 2018 9:57 am

I would agree to your methodology of categorizing land/ocean areas, but I just can’t go with your temperature database.

First how did we actually measure the temperatures of every nook and cranny of the globe since pre-industrial levels? We are talking central Africa, all of Antarctica and huge areas of oceans.
Second how many of the temperatures are “modeled” and “homogenized” or just plain made up?
Third how many of the temperatures are adjusted from what was actually measured?
Fourth where are the error bars?
Fifth just how do you get accuracy of to a tenth of a degree?

Great exercise and I think your results would be right in the ballpark if you just had a valid set up temperature records.

Sparky
September 19, 2018 1:52 pm

Very astute. I was thinking the same. Time will tell if anyone is truly interested in the actual data sanity and it’s degree of accuracy. I suspect the error bars are 3-5X the 0.1degree measurement claims.

September 19, 2018 3:09 pm

Second line of the explanation includes “1200km smoothing”.
Perchance that includes ‘every nook and cranny’ – smoothed to a temperature seven hundred miles away.
And we don’t know – but may guess – the accuracy of sea surface temperatures, at least, more than twenty or so years ago.
Rubber buckets.
I’ve done it myself, and it probably was the least bad we could do.

But accurate, probably, to no better than one degree [C or F, and frankly, it doesn’t matter . . . . .]!

One tenth of a degree accuracy – you ARE having a laugh, aren’t you??

And then used to infill hundreds of miles around!
And this is before one even gets to the ‘m’ of modelling.

Homogenization – yes: that’s the 1200 Km smoothing.

Cheers.

Auto

Editor
September 19, 2018 9:58 am

A third of the Antarctic has warmed by 2°C?

Don’t think so …

w.

John Tillman
September 19, 2018 11:16 am

Willis,

Purely coincidental that the regions in which the “data” are most cooked up happen to have “warmed” the most.

Sparky
September 19, 2018 1:52 pm

Very astute. I was thinking the same. Time will tell if anyone is truly interested in the actual data sanity and it’s degree of accuracy. I suspect the error bars are 3-5X the 0.1degree measurement claims.

Sparky
September 19, 2018 1:54 pm

Jonny “Cook-ed” up, or Mann-ifestatioons?

John Tillman
September 19, 2018 2:20 pm

Sparky,

Definitely Mann-ipulated.

Barbara
September 19, 2018 3:41 pm

UNFCCC

Background Article, 21 AUG, 2018

“Paris Agreement Essential Elements”
https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/what-is-the-paris-agreement

September 19, 2018 2:45 pm

Willis,

have a look at my map showing the amount of warming for each 2 x 2 latitude-longitude call.

Either look at the whole article : Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail

The article has the map, the legend for the map, and some description.

Or just look at the map :

Alan Tomalty
September 20, 2018 12:06 am

Antarctica has 11 temperature stations. 3 of them show warming. They represent 3% of the total land are in Antarctica. Those 3 are all on the West peninsula which is overtop of an active volcanic ridge. The other 8 stations are at the south pole(American), the Russian Vostok station , with the other 6 being near the coast in the east or northern coast as referenced in most maps. If you look at the temperature graphs of those 8 stations you will see NO warming for the last 60 years. The GISTEMP world temperature data is bullshit.

Alan Tomalty
September 20, 2018 12:18 am

There are 11 land temperature stations in Antarctica. 3 of those are in West Antarctica (3% of the total land area of Antarctica) peninsula because researchers like to do research in warmer places. Those stations show warming. There is an active volcanic ridge underneath the peninsula.

The other 8 stations are South Pole (American) ,Vostok (Russian), with the remaining 6 stations near the coat in the east and the north as referenced by most maps. If you look at the temp graphs for last 60 years you will see NO warming for any of those 8. The GISTEMP temperature data is bullshit.

Bill_W_1984
September 19, 2018 5:59 pm

-40 C to -38C ?

September 19, 2018 9:59 am

The 0 to 1.5 bin is maybe way too big, as there is a big difference (apparently) between 0 and 1.5. Otherwise a very interesting angle on the “greatest issue of our times” (apparently).

Thomas Homer
September 19, 2018 10:57 am

Good point, zero (no change) shouldn’t be lumped in with mild warming. Perhaps it could be designated as white, even if it only represents a thin line.

September 19, 2018 4:04 pm

Yes, that is the main issue. It is generally reckoned that the warming of the whole globe falls in this range, so to see where it is happening, you need to divide that bin.

September 19, 2018 4:39 pm

climanrecon,

I chose the bin sizes to match the IPCC’s central objective.

You can see immediately from the bar chart, how we are meeting or missing their goal.

More bins, means that the bar chart is more complicated, and harder to interpret. From experience, I don’t think that Alarmists can hold more than 2 things in their mind, at any one time.

I thought that it was more important to show how we are missing the goal, rather than show how we are meeting it.

Dan Davis
September 19, 2018 10:00 am

Just wondering – How do “we” know the temperature of the Arctic and the Antarctic in “pre-industrial” times?
I’d think there would have to be some accurate data to be able to make a comparison across the entire globe.

PaulH
September 19, 2018 10:34 am

Is the ocean temperature the aggregate of the surface temperatures? The temperatures 1 metre below the surface? 1 kilometre below? Or just those temperatures that lead to “more research required” and “send us more money”?

OweninGA
September 19, 2018 11:40 am

That last one has a ring to it…

OweninGA
September 19, 2018 11:38 am

Easy, we take one measurement from central England (against the wall of a house) and smear it across 10,000KM to get that it must have warmed.

Alternately we keep writing down numbers until we get one that confesses.

(do I need /sarc?)

lee
September 19, 2018 7:21 pm

Or we look at Central Australia and infer the temperatures around from Alice Springs and Darwin

John Tillman
September 19, 2018 7:40 pm

Using GISS’ “infilling” parameter, you could “record” the temperature for Boulder, CO relying on observations from Yuma, AZ.

John Tillman
September 19, 2018 7:41 pm

With 20 km to spare!

BillP
September 19, 2018 10:17 am

I find it telling that the places with the least reliable data have the most warming, i.e. the poles.

I don’t believe that there are any reliable pre-industrial temperatures for the poles and even now we are dependent on a handful of research stations that will mostly be measuring their urban heat island effect.

In the unlikely case of the data being correct, I note that 10% of the earth has experienced a supposedly catastrophic level of warming, so where are the catastrophes?

Crispin in Waterloo
September 20, 2018 2:40 am

BillP

I don’t think the estimated warming for the Arctic is out of line. Borehole temperature measurements in Canada generally support the view that the Arctic has warmed six degrees C in the past 150 years. That’s OK. I don’t have an agenda to show that is wrong or exaggerated.

It is fascinating that it can warm so much (in winter) while the rest of the world doesn’t. It is not at all like the predicted warming imagined in the 1980’s. Not even close. Those with a good memory will recall that warming was to be global with the tropics rising more than the less illuminated zones. Ha!

When the measurements contradicted the ‘hot spot’ narrative, suddenly it was ‘polar amplification’. Huh? On what basis? CO2 is warming the Arctic without a tropospheric hot spot? How?

Why doesn’t the Antarctic follow suit? This is supposed to be a global phenomenon. I guess sometimes you have to pick the facts that suit your argument.

The Paris 1.5 succeeded the Copenhagen 2.0 for a good reason: it was becoming too obvious that we were never going to get 2.0 within 80 years.

Something that makes no (arithmetical) sense to me is the “2 degrees from 1850” and the fact that AG CO2 only became meaningful from 1950. – I checked. Why should we try to drive the global temperature down to what it was in 1850? Or the CO2 concentration? Even if it was possible, why do it? What kind of frozen Garden of Eden are we supposed to be recreating? And for whom?

john
September 19, 2018 10:30 am

Firstly, I don’t believe the Antarctic warming suppositions at all with regard to any accuracy prior to the satellite era.
Secondly, if we take the Arctic warming out ( and I don’t entiirely believe those either), we are left with very little global warming at all.

After all that, any warming is predominantly represented in ever so slightly higher nighttime lows.
Zero apparent affect on storm frequency or intensity.
Zero affect on drought severity or frequency.
Sea level rise has been steady since approximately 1800 so zero affect there and no connection to CO2 levels.
Ocean Ph changes are a complete fantasy.

2.5 ppm pollutant regulations are completely unproved

The whole thing is a facade of the Eco-Socialist war on industry and Capitalism. If they succeed it is the end of the democratic West and a disaster for mankind.

Kevin McNeill
September 19, 2018 11:02 am

I have a problem with the digitized map, if the map shown in the post is the one used to determine the areas of arctic/antarctic, ocean and land then there is significant error in the calculations. The map shown is a mercator projection which greatly enlarges areas as one goes north or south of the equator. Surely some where in the netosphere there is an accurate calculation of land versus ocean based upon the actual shape of the Earth.

Stephen Cheesman
September 19, 2018 12:27 pm

The areas are not calculated from the digitized map, so not a problem.

September 19, 2018 2:57 pm

Kevin,

I only used the digitised map to determine Land or Ocean.

The 2 x 2 latitude-longitude cells were weighted by their area, so the percentages are accurate.

2 x 2 latitude-longitude cells are biggest at the equator, and decrease steadily as they get nearer the poles.

Have a look at my article : Global Warming – Did we Pass or Fail?
https://agree-to-disagree.com/global-warming-did-we-pass-or-fail

It shows a Cylindrical Equal Area map of the Earth. The amount of warming for each 2 x 2 latitude-longitude cell, is plotted on this map.

September 19, 2018 11:20 am

The article falls into a trap from a slight-of-hand employed first in the IPCC AR5 and copied by in the Paris Agreement. The Paris Climate Agreement employs a slight of hand on the . On their website they state.

The Paris Agreement central aim is to strengthen the global response to the threat of climate change by keeping a global temperature rise this century well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The slight of hand is to choose a point in time. The climate models now take many decades to achieve full ECS. Take for instance the most limited warming scenario from AR5 WG3 Chapt 6 Table 6.3. This has warming of 1.5 to 1.7 C. Yet CO2 equivalent levels of 480 to 530 ppm are sufficient to produce warming of 2.3 to 2.8C. Under this scenario, GHG levels would been falling for 30 years or more. If the models are true, the rise in GHG levels was sufficient to eventually produce 1.5C of warming in the 1990s.  The 2C warming barrier was exceeded about two years ago.

A Friend
September 19, 2018 11:21 am
John Tillman
September 19, 2018 12:00 pm

The observations only extend to 85 degrees, but we can add the South Pole data, which also show no warming there.

I would urge Trump to disband GISS and dispatch Gavin from NYC to the North Pole to record data there as well.

Gary
September 19, 2018 11:37 am

A problem with this bar chart is that it implies equal areas of the regions. At least they should be scaled in width to represent relative size.

September 19, 2018 3:23 pm

Gary,

the problem with this bar chart, is that YOU think that it implies equal areas of the regions.

In the article I clearly state that
– the Arctic is about 4% of the Earth
– the Antarctic is about 4% of the Earth
– the Land is about 26% of the Earth
– the Ocean is about 66% of the Earth

If I drew the bars to scale, then the Arctic and Antarctic would be so small, that it would be hard to see them.

I am relying on people to take the size of the different regions into account.

The Entire Earth uses the different sizes of regions, to calculate the correct percentages for the Entire Earth (i.e. it knows that the Arctic and Antarctic are each only 4% of the Entire Earth).

Yirgach
September 21, 2018 1:17 pm

Sheldon,
It might help to illustrate the geographical weighting by adding another dimension to your
“Percentage of Region by each Temperature Category” bar chart.
For a poorly drawn ascii art example:
|
|
|\
| > Artic Bar Chart
|/
|
|\
| \
| \
| \
| > Land Bar Chart
| /
| /
| /
|/
|
|

Clyde Spencer
September 19, 2018 11:47 am

Strictly speaking, the area inside the Arctic Circle is called the Arctic. However, the Far North, High Latitudes, and regions of tundra are also loosely referred to as the the Arctic. One of the common complaints is that the permafrost of the tundra is melting at accelerated rates. That is to say, the climate region of the Arctic or High Latitudes is larger than that which is inside the Arctic Circle. Indeed, instead of 4%, the northern region exhibiting anomalous warming is probably closer to 25%. One of the conundrums of ‘global’ warming is that Antarctica is NOT exhibiting the same pattern of warming.

Gary Mount
September 19, 2018 3:40 pm

Map of the arctic:

Alan Tomalty
September 20, 2018 12:47 am

Does it look like the Arctic is warming to you? With 2000 KM^3 more ice than 2 years ago, it doesnt look like warming to me.

Marcos
September 19, 2018 11:49 am

Why use that horrible 1200km smoothing? What are the results with the much more realistic 250km smoothing option?

MarkW
September 19, 2018 2:09 pm

You need the larger smoothing to close all the holes in data distribution.

joe- the non climate scientist
September 19, 2018 11:57 am

Katherine Hoynoe (spelling) of Texas Tech fame – has done numerous studies and the effect of global warming on the micro regional level 3-50 years out- ie Ne Maine, Central california, North dakota –

With her expertise – they got to be more accurate than next weeks weather forecast

Editor
September 19, 2018 12:19 pm

Interesting methodology.

hunter
September 19, 2018 12:37 pm

So nearly nothing is actually happening.
Climate extremists are so filled with superstitious fear of boogey men.

September 19, 2018 12:53 pm

I like your sense of humour 🙂

ATheoK
September 19, 2018 1:33 pm

“This bar chart was made, using the GISTEMP gridded temperature series (Land-Ocean Temperature Index, ERSSTv5, 1200km smoothing).

* The Arctic region is anything north of the 66N line of latitude. The Arctic is approximately 4% of the Earth.

* The Antarctic region is anything south of the 66S line of latitude. The Antarctic is approximately 4% of the Earth.

* Land is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where you can stand without getting your feet wet. Land is approximately 26% of the Earth.

* Ocean, is anything between the 66N line of latitude, and the 66S line of latitude, where your feet get wet, if you stand there. Ocean is approximately 66% of the Earth.

I am planning to make some more bar charts, which are even more detailed than this one. Looking at the different regions, in different hemispheres etc. I have all the data, I just need to analyse it.”

Why!?
i.e. Why make more bar graphs?

What you have graphed is nonsense.

A) Ocean
Prior to satellites, sea surface temperatures were measured by buckety and thermometer. All temperatures are strictly from commercial ship routes.
Modern sea surface temperatures are very shallow measurements.

Which means you purposely ignore a great bulk of the Earth’s surface, the oceans. Where NOAA changed the measurement scale to joules, so they could show impressive numbers for their measurements.
NOAA was hoping that no-one would quibble about the use of joules.
This temperature increase of joules includes surface measurements.

Convert the heat content joule back to temperature and the alleged increase is a fraction of a degree. Well within margins of error; making the ocean temperature increase statistically zero.

Then you have the gall to claim oceans make up approximately 66% of the Earth.
Courtesy NOAA:

“The ocean covers more than 70 percent of the surface of our planet.”

The errors contained in just one of your ‘bars’ overwhelms and prevents rational discourse. This isn’t about “agreeing to disagree”! This is about getting the facts correct before starting a discussion.

Each of your other bars contain substantial and egregious errors.

September 19, 2018 3:55 pm

ATheoK,

I never said that the oceans make up approximately 66% of the Earth.
Yes you did.
No I didn’t.
Yes you did.
No I didn’t.
Yes you did.
Oh I’m sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Just the five minutes. Thank you.
No I didn’t.
Yes you did.
No I didn’t.
Oh look, this isn’t an argument!
Yes it is!
No it isn’t!
No it isn’t!
It IS!
It is NOT!
No I didn’t!
You DID!
No no no!
You did just then!
Nonsense!
Oh, this is futile!!
No it isn’t!
Yes it is!
I came here for a good argument!
AH, no you didn’t, you came here for an argument!
Well! it CAN be!
No it can’t!
An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
No it isn’t!
Yes it is! ’tisn’t just contradiction.
Look, if I *argue* with you, I must take up a contrary position!
Yes but it isn’t just saying ‘no it isn’t’.
Yes it is!
No it isn’t!
Yes it is!
No it isn’t!
Yes it is!
All right then, my good man, you have had your 5 minutes.

I did say the Ocean makes up approximately 66% of the Earth.
And I said that the Land makes up approximately 26% of the Earth.
And I said that the Arctic makes up approximately 4% of the Earth.
And I said that the Antarctic makes up approximately 4% of the Earth.

Now, Antarctica (the continent), is made up on ice on Land.
And the Arctic is made up on ice on Ocean.

So if we add the Arctic to Ocean, we get 4% + 66% = 70%
And we add the Antarctic to Land, we get 4% + 26% = 30%

Are you happy now?
No I’m not.
Yes you are.
No I’m not.
Yes you are.
No I’m not.
Yes you are.

RACookPE1978
Editor
September 19, 2018 6:14 pm

I did say the Ocean makes up approximately 66% of the Earth.
And I said that the Land makes up approximately 26% of the Earth.
And I said that the Arctic makes up approximately 4% of the Earth.
And I said that the Antarctic makes up approximately 4% of the Earth.

Now, Antarctica (the continent), is made up on ice on Land.
And the Arctic is made up on ice on Ocean.

So if we add the Arctic to Ocean, we get 4% + 66% = 70%
And we add the Antarctic to Land, we get 4% + 26% = 30%

Effective quarrel. Thank you. (Maybe). 8<) Now, let me add sum salt to BOTH of your wounds. The Earth, as a sphere, has some 514 Mkm^2 surface area at sea level. At Maximum in March each year over the Equinox, the Arctic Sea Ice covers some 14 MKM^2. (Using area, not extents). Between Oct-Feb, no part of the Arctic sea ice receives any measurable solar radiation. Do you agree with this?
At Minimum in Sept each year at the other Equinox, the Arctic Sea Ice covers some 4 MKM^2. (Using area, not extents). Between July and Oct, no substantial land ice is illuminated in the northern hemisphere except Greenland (2.06 MKm^2, an area not varying with time.)

Therefore, do you agree that: across the entire northern hemisphere of 261 Mkm^2, an ever-decreasing, smaller percent of the total area is covered by sea ice between June-July-August each year as the Arctic sea ice retreats each day, and the sun falls ever lower in the sjy each day?

In the southern hemisphere: 514/2 = 261 Mkm^2 total area.
The Antarctic land area = The Antarctic ice area = 14 MKm^2
(Do we agree that this Antarctic land ice area does not very with Day-of-Year?)
At Maximum in Sept each year, the Antarctic Sea Ice covers some 17 MKM^2. (Using area, not extents)
At Minimum in Feb each year, the Antarctic Sea Ice covers some 3 MKM^2. (Using area, not extents)

Do you agree that, at maximum Antarctic Sea Ice in Feb (continuously illuminated 24×7 hours per day), that there is more Total Ice Area in the southern hemisphere than all other land area area combined>?

Alan Tomalty
September 20, 2018 12:40 am

“at maximum Antarctic Sea Ice in Feb”
Shouldnt that be minimum?

OweninGA
September 20, 2018 6:57 am

Mods -> somewhere in RACookPE1978 September 19, 2018 at 6:14 pm there is a missing /b tag. It does make the rest of the posts very readable from across the room though.

NorwegianSceptic
September 20, 2018 12:08 am

Where do I send payment for another five minutes? 😉

Alan the Brit
September 20, 2018 12:15 am

Great comment! Good old MPFC!

OweninGA
September 20, 2018 5:37 am

ahh, a show that seniors at the Beeb have said could never be made today. You’d have to replace the cast with at least one lesbian, one south Asian, one east Asian, and one African or west indies person in order to get a green light for production.

Whatever happened to just entertaining the public?

ATheoK
September 19, 2018 1:38 pm

Ms. Emotional pleas, vicious insults against people she disagrees with, and she believes communication is all that is needed to convince skeptical audiences.

Basically, you accept her word and swear to never doubt even the slightest; otherwise it will be inquisition time.

That knocks out any possibility of Hayhoe getting a long distance prediction even close. She is still predicting the Medieval Warm Period was strictly regional.

Steven Fraser
September 19, 2018 2:57 pm

I interpreted the earlier post as sarcasm.

Alan Tomalty
September 20, 2018 12:58 am

Even with sarcasm ATheoK post is still relevant

son of mulder
September 19, 2018 1:38 pm

What definition of ocean by depth is used or does it just refer to surface temperatures.

John Tillman
September 19, 2018 1:52 pm

Son,

To GISS, “surface” means varying depths of ocean, depending upon method of water collection, measurement and “adjustment”, but at a more standardized elevation above the land surface, assuming an actual recording station was used, rather than a number simply being made up, then of course also further adjusted.

Titanicsfate
September 19, 2018 2:35 pm

I thought the central objective of the Paris Agreement was Marxist redistribution with the UN in charge of the money.

michael hart
September 19, 2018 4:33 pm

Indeed it is, Titanicsfate.

But it generally doesn’t go down too well when Marxists tell their victims what they have in store for them. Some other story has to be presented as the reason for removing your freedoms and material goods. Only a few of the climatariat are foolish enough to blow the gaff and actually tell the truth.

At the time it struck me as slightly remarkable that the totally arbitrary 2.0 degree limit was all of a sudden changed to a 1.5 degree limit on the say so of bureaucratic negotiators, without any reference to established “scientific” imperatives from the IPCC or anywhere else. That ought to tell the unconvinced what the game is really about.

OweninGA
September 20, 2018 5:42 am

I never understood the 2C boogie man anyway. Life flourished in the geological past with much higher temperatures and much higher CO2. No tipping point (except maybe to snowball earth conditions) has been seen in the entire geologic record. If anything, we are in a CO2 starved period.

dennisambler
September 20, 2018 3:02 am

From 2004, Alaska Climate Research Centre at Fairbanks. Some of Alaska is within the Arctic Circle, it would be reasonable to assume the situation would be applicable to the rest of the Arctic. (If Hansen can do it so can I!). It is constantly claimed “the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet”, implying linear increase, which is not the case.

“Alaska’s first-order observing stations since 1949, the time period for which the most reliable meteorological data are available. The temperature change varies from one climatic zone to another as well as for different seasons. If a linear trend is taken through mean annual temperatures, the average change over the last 6 decades is around 3.0°F. However, when analyzing the trends for the four seasons, it can be seen that most of the change has occurred in winter and spring, with the least amount of change in autumn.

Considering just a linear trend can mask some important variability characteristics in the time series. The figure at right shows clearly that this trend is non-linear: a linear trend might have been expected from the fairly steady observed increase of CO2 during this time period. The figure shows the temperature departure from the long-term mean (1949-2014) for all stations.

It can be seen that there are large variations from year to year and the 5-year moving average demonstrates large increase in 1976. The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2014, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations.

The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase. Synoptic conditions with the positive phase tend to consist of increased southerly flow and warm air advection into Alaska during the winter, resulting in positive temperature anomalies.”