National Public Radio (NPR) recently published an article titled “Orange rivers and melting glaciers: federal report shows rapid change in the Arctic.” Simultaneously, CBS News published “Arctic temperatures increasing at over double the global rate since 2006, NOAA report says,” while NBC News published “Arctic is again the hottest it’s been in 125 years, with record-low sea ice, NOAA report says.” All three articles promote the claim that the Arctic is warming faster than the average rate of warming for the Earth as a whole, presenting this as clear evidence of accelerating human-caused climate change with far-reaching consequences. While the math may be technically true, based on history and the scarcity of long-term data, blaming the warming on climate change is unjustified. The period of data used is just 19 years, which doesn’t meet the 30-year criteria for a climate period. Further, all three articles ignore the lack of long-term weather data to compare the present short-term trend to.
The articles cite the National Atmospheric and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Arctic Report Card and lean heavily on the phrase “since 2006,” with CBS explicitly stating that Arctic temperatures have increased at more than double the global rate over that period, while NPR frames recent observations as proof of rapid, unprecedented change. But trends “since 2006” do not meet the most basic standard for defining climate. By long-standing convention, climate trends are evaluated over 30-year periods to filter out short-term variability. A roughly 19-year window on Arctic temperature is not a climate dataset; it is a snapshot. Presenting such a short interval as definitive evidence of long-term Arctic warming is a textbook example of confusing short-term patterns with durable trends.
NBC News claimed that the “Arctic is again the hottest it’s been in 125 years” but never mentions that historic temperature data for the entire Arctic region is relatively sparse and inconsistent over the past 125 years. Also, if the Arctic was as warm as now 125 years ago and more, human climate change couldn’t have been the cause and may not be the cause for the short-term warming trend the region is currently experiencing.
The problems with these kinds of reports are compounded by the Arctic’s uniquely sparse and inconsistent observational record. Reliable, continuous surface temperature measurements across much of the Arctic are relatively recent, with large areas lacking high-quality long-term data prior to the satellite era. As the Climate at a Glance analysis “Arctic Sea Ice” explains, the Arctic climate system is strongly influenced by natural variability, including ocean circulation patterns and atmospheric oscillations, which can drive multi-decadal warming and cooling phases independent of any long-term trend. Further, it notes that satellite data show summer minimum sea ice has not decreased at all since 2007, and has stabilized after a temporary low in 2012, seen in Figure 1 below.
This is important because many claims pin other Arctic environmental changes on Arctic sea ice trends.
When you combine short records with a region known for large natural swings, it becomes impossible to say with confidence whether a post-2006 warming rate reflects a persistent climate signal or a temporary phase.
Climate at a Glance further notes that Arctic sea ice, glaciers, and temperatures have all exhibited substantial variability over historical and paleoclimate timescales, long before industrial-era CO₂ emissions. Periods such as the early twentieth century saw pronounced Arctic temperature increases comparable, in relative terms, to more recent decades. Without consistent, high-quality measurements extending well beyond the modern satellite era, claims of unprecedented warming rest on shaky ground.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Sixth Assessment Report (AR6,) is far more cautious than the media coverage suggests. IPCC AR6 acknowledges Arctic warming as a feature in models and observations, but it also emphasizes uncertainties tied to data coverage, internal variability, and the relatively short observational record in polar regions. That nuance is missing from both NPR and CBS, which instead present recent conditions as if they settle the question.
Climate Realism has repeatedly addressed this issue, documenting how media outlets cherry-pick short timeframes to manufacture a sense of crisis. A simple review of Climate Realism’s Arctic coverage shows multiple examples where “fastest warming” or “record heat” claims collapse once longer records or broader context are considered. The pattern is familiar: select a recent starting point near a cool baseline, measure to a warm endpoint, and declare a dramatic trend—while ignoring earlier warm periods and the role of natural variability. In 2022, another “Arctic Report Card” media response was thoroughly debunked in CNBC and Other Media Outlets Miss the Mark Regarding NOAA’s Misleading ‘Arctic Report Card.’
In their recent scary reporting, NPR, CBS, and NBC all gloss over the fact that the Arctic is one of the most climatically dynamic regions on Earth. Sea ice extent, snow cover, and surface temperatures respond strongly to shifting winds, ocean heat transport, and cloud cover. These processes can amplify short-term warming just as easily as they can produce abrupt cooling. Treating such behavior as proof of a one-way, accelerating climate crisis oversimplifies a complex system.
By framing a sub-30-year slice of Arctic data as definitive evidence of a climate change induced crisis, without acknowledging the severe limitations of historical observations in the region, NPR, CBS, and NBC grossly mislead their audiences. The claim that the Arctic has been warming “at over double the global rate since 2006” may be mathematically true for that chosen interval, but it does not establish that a long-term climate driven warming trend exists. At best, it describes a short-term pattern whose significance remains uncertain.
This is not careful climate reporting; it is narrative-driven alarmism. Readers and viewers deserve to know that “since 2006” is not established as a climate change trend, that Arctic records are short and sparse, and that natural variability looms large in the far north, with proxy evidence suggesting the Arctic has been as warm with lower levels of ice coverage for extended periods multiple times. Without that critical context, these stories exaggerate certainty of a human cause and overstate what science can actually tell us about the Arctic.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In addition to using short-term data to make people think the climate is warming, those writers use loaded phrases like “hotter than” when they speak of temperatures that are higher than the earlier date, when in fact the temps are in a range we’d feel as cool.
Same with reports on ocean pH. They claim that the oceans are “becoming more acidic” or even “acidifying”, when in fact the pH is still in the alkaline range and are therefore becoming minutely less alkaline.
It is a fact that in soil water, the pH will not drop until all of the carbonates have been dissolved regardless of the amount of acid added. The ocean should work the same way. I have yet to be convinced that the ocean pH could possibly permanently fall with all the solid and dissolved carbonates to buffer any carbonic acid from CO2.
Grok told me that it ”takes too long” for the solid Calcium carbonate to dissolve but I did not get the chance to tell it that the dissolution of CaCO3 is directly related to a drop in pH (from carbonic acid from CO2).
Google AI said….
”The statement you provided accurately describes the buffering action of calcium carbonate in soil and seawater.
Seawater/Soil Water: This mechanism is crucial in the natural environment. Soils rich in limestone have a high buffering capacity against acid rain. Similarly, the extensive carbonate system (involving CO2CO sub 2CO2, carbonic acid, bicarbonate, and carbonate ions) acts as a major natural buffer in the ocean, helping to regulate its pH”
Therefore it is impossible for the pH of the ocean to fall.
It is not impossible for the pH of the ocean to fall, that is a misunderstanding of what ‘buffering’ means.
AI sites are not the best source, try looking up what a Bjerrum plot is.
2560px-Carbonate_system_of_seawater.svg.png
Carbonate speciation in seawater (ionic strength 0.7 mol/dm3).
An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere results in a decrease in carbonate and an increase in H+ which in chemistry is termed ‘acidification’.
Sorry for some reason this site could not access the diagram.
A compendium of all sea surface measurements since 1910 shows a slight INCREASE in pH. !!
Here’s the data for Hawaii:
Could anything else be expected from these entities which are almost guaranteed to jump on some weather occurrence as positive proof of man-made climate change while bypassing the actual facts
Canada’s CBC is in the same league since it recently aired some piece trying to convince listeners that China and India were rapidly transitioning away from fossil fuels with their expansion of renewable energies. Meanwhile it slyly omitted mentioning that the two countries were still the world’s1st and 3rd leading carbon emitters
NPR, CBS, and NBC.
Right off the top, there are likely few if any individuals at these so-called “news outlets” who would have any qualifications to scrutinize the NOAA report with any kind of scientific objectivity, and I doubt they bothered to interview anyone who does. Judging from Anthony’s writeup on these articles, these outlets do not appear to have given up on selling us the climate alarmist narrative.
I guess when President Trump has all but abandoned the CAGW narrative, these outlets feel they are obligated to do the exact opposite. And never mind where climate alarmism ranks on the American people’s list of priorities.
If and when the legacy media dies out in this country someday, I for one will not shed a tear for their demise. And I doubt that I will be alone.
The MainlyScreaming Fake News media doing what they do best: lying.
Unnamed sources not authorized to publicly speak are quoted as saying that whenever you read what they supposedly said, you will believe it because they are the secret expert sources and because it was published in a newspaper.
It’s generally accepted that the tropics have had generally stable temperatures over the last couple centuries and that the polar regions have have sustained much of the warming. That alone explains the statement that, “the Artic is warming twice as fast as the average ” .⁴
“By long-standing convention, climate trends are evaluated over 30-year periods to filter out short-term variability.”
Often said here, but not true, and citing a Heartland site doesn’t make it so. The convention is that a 30 year period is used for defining temperature normals for a bunch of sites. That is all.
For trend, you calculate it over the period you think it happened. No longer or shorter time. For sure, a short period will have greater uncertainty..
I see that further down, you claim arctic ice has steadied, citing a trend from 2007-2023. That is 16 years.
“normals” should start with capital N; it is a defined term just like “Love” as a tennis score. I don’t like the 30-year mean (average) as a “climate” thingy either, but it has been used that way too much to change it now.
That said, npr/cbs/nbc should stick to reporting on city council meetings where simpler skills will do.
Utter bullshit. Not only are 30 year periods used to define temp trends but even periods of 10 years or less. Almost daily.
You are not very good at this Nick
“Not only are 30 year periods used to define temp trends but even periods of 10 years or less.”
You seem to be totally contradicting yourself. Is it 30, or not? As I said, you calculate a trend over a period you are interested in. Of course it can be 30 years, but no-one is saying it must.
The climate scammers used 30 years initially because they knew they were taking in most of the cool cycle of the AMO.
They adapted the 30 year interval because they would not have to account for data the pre-dated satellites.l
You said it was, quote, ..”not true” that…
You were wrong. Confused?
It is whatever fits the narrative at the time, whether it is valid or not.
Yes they are. The argument is whether it is convention to use 30 year periods is the standardized climate data point, and it is because……….
Therefore, any shorter period cannot/should not be scientifically accepted or used to illustrate a trend. See above. (Unless of course someone can show that less than 30 years is long enough – that I’d love to see given they can’t even show 30 years is long enough) Neither can 1 and 1/2 data points (45 years) beyond 30 years and until a full 2 data points be officially accepted.
Personally, I believe it (10,20,30,40,50 years) to be next to meaningless but that also is not the point.
So how do you reconcile this with the use of the period 2007-2023 for ice trend in this very same WUWT article?
Because that is the period of ZERO TREND
We could of course start say 3000 years ago, and the trend would be a very positive trend.
Much more sea ice now than there was back then.
And CO2 levels were apparently a lot lower.
Just because others use 30 years is not evidence that everything must be done using 30 years.
You aren’t very good at this Nick.
You aren’t good at rememering what side you are on.
That is my argument, except that examples of people using 30 years for trends are not given, although I’m sure they exist.
Since the data you point to is not attempting to define “climate”, why should they be forced to use the 30 year standard?
bnice is pointing to a trend. Nothing more, nothing less. Your attempt to tie the two data sets together is pathetic. As usual.
You love making up rules. 30 years for temp, but anything you like for sea ice. Or something.
But who can forget the endless WUWT series on the Pause, and the New Pause. Trends less than zero over periods of less than twenty years. The New Pause started with a five year trend, in temperature.
Arctic sea extent is FAR LARGER than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years
The “climate scam” starting point in 1979 was an extreme high extent, not far down from the LIA extent that drove most Arctic sea life out of the Arctic.
And pray tell, what is the uncertainty value?
The problem with trending oscillatory phenomenon is the fact that the points chosen will dictate the trend slope. There are so many oscillations to deal with over time that “linear” trends are worthless. Orbital, PDO, AMO, Nino/Nina, sun cycles, and on and on.
Trying to “forecast” what 1/100th of a degree will change in a decade simply ignores the complexity of the oscillations that have decades, century, and millennia periods. Dealing with averages of averages is nothing more than navel gazing to find the purpose of life. Trying to eke out a 1/100th of a degree from temperatures that are at best known to 1/10th of a degree is only fooling yourself.
Trying to connect average temperatures to radiation averages is ignoring the fact that radiation is a function of temperature to the 4th power. 99% percent of the papers dealing with warming from CO2 never attempt to develop an integral functional relationship between the variables. Averages out the wazoo just won’t cut it from a scientific standpoint. There was a reason that calculus based physical science courses were required for my BS in engineering.
Very simple.
Take a sinewave.
Start at 90 and extrapolate to the left. Flat line parallel to 0.
The go to 180 and extrapolate up
What do you get?
A hockey stick.
For “climate trend” you use the basic novel definition of climate interval, 30 years.
Yes, trends can be across any defining interval. But when “climate” is appended, 30 years becomes the evaluation period.
So it was hotter 126 years ago, was it?
What a pack of fools! They are probably delusional enough to believe that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter, but are too gutless (or embarrassed) to actually say such a stupid thing!
Who cares what these nutters think? Only the ignorant and gullible believe their rantings. Unfortunately, this group includes most politicians, who are voted into power by other even more gullible and ignorant constituents.
Life goes on – quietly laughing for me.
I think what The mean is hotter than the period of time we feel we have reliable data for, which is 125 years. What is not stated is that they BELIEVE conditions 125 years ago were stable and represented very very long term conditions. Neither of which is true.
This goes to my conviction that the Climate Change activists see “today” as Special, and history is irrelevant because of A-CO2, today’s CO2 physics is also Special because it’s a, A-CO2.
“Because I just told you it is.”
Svensmark noted another, related, phenomena that affects temperatures in the antarctic, and that is that ice in the polar regions typically reflects more sunshine than the cloud cover, creating what he said was called the antarctic anomaly where, assuming variable but uniformly global cloud coverage, the temperature changes in the antarctic follow an inverse pattern of change, increasing in the antarctic when the temperatures decrease globally and vice-versa.
Subsequently, if Svensmark’s observation about the antarctic anomaly is correct, if cloud cover in the polar regions are at a relative high compared to past years, you would expect the temperatures to show a slight increase or pause.
So, it seems to me that when I look at that temperature graph showing a pause in decline, that since 2006 that, in addition to the slight warming, there was likely an increase in the cloud cover that brought that pause about.
From Wikipedia: The origin of the International Geophysical Year can be traced to the International Polar Years held in 1882–1883, then in 1932–1933 (and, most recently from March 2007 to March 2009).
I know, I know….. Wikipedia, but these events did take place.
But I wonder where the records of these ‘International” years are now.
A few days ago, the temperature in the Yukon plunged to a record low of -55.7° C. Maybe this signals a start of cooling trend in the Arctic.
I don’t understand why we have to discuss this issue. The earth is a sphere, the sun is a sphere. The sun provides the earth with heat and energy. Nearly all the heat and energy from the sun is received at the equator and mid latitudes. Heat moves from hot areas to cold areas naturally. Since the poles and high latitudes receive less energy/heat than the equator and the mid latitudes heat will naturally move to the poles and the high latitudes. This is not a mystery it is nature. If the poles and high latitudes didn’t gain heat and energy that would be a problem.
Well of course that’s how nature used to work, Bob.
But apparently, since humans started doing stuff that introduced extra poofteenths of CO2 into the air, everything that nature meticulously set up has been undone.
So now we have to believe that everything we observe weather-wise is
“through the looking glass”.
“ Further, it notes that satellite data show summer minimum sea ice has not decreased at all since 2007, and has stabilized after a temporary low in 2012, seen in Figure 1 below.”
That refers to sea ice extent, extent and sea ice area have been at the lowest values for the date for about 100 days this year. Also sea ice volume has been consistently low this year.
Everything about Arctic sea ice is in the top 5-10% of the last 10,000 years
Extent and modelled volume are still at levels FAR ABOVE the Holocene norm.
Yeah there was so much ice around 8,000 years ago that Britain wasn’t an island and when that ice melted it flooded Doggerland to a depth of 40m! So the first 20% of that period had far more ice than now.
PIOMAS since 2011… ZERO TREND.
If you look at the graph I provided you’ll see that this year’s minimum volume was about half the 2004-2013 average.
..but no lower than the minimum in 2012…
Yes it was according to DMI
One year does not make a trend.
Far more sea ice now than for nearly all the last 10,000 years.
Blimey, if this trend continues, one day the World will be back to the Holocene Thermal Optimum 6-7000 years ago.
At least one archaeological textbook states that in that time frame ‘some parts of north America were probably uninhabitable.’
No electricity, no air conditioning? Have to find a punkah wallah.
There is solid evidence that the Arctic Ocean was ice-free in Summer during the HTO. Strangely, this did not result in the extinction of Polar Bears.
NOAA has been called out on their temperature models, especially as they tried to alter the data set to exclude the warmest period in the 19th century that occurred in the 1930’s. Pulling and stretching the models about in order to fit the propaganda isn’t science.
The longest data set is in the midlands, England. It has been running since the 16th century to the present. It shows no anomalies whatsoever in the modern period. The mean of which is steady and fluctuates in a very short band.
The IPCC is a gravy train and every one on it knows it. So now it’s a question of protecting the narrative rather than the earth. Nothing has been done for the plastic islands floating about the Pacific. Nothing has been done regarding the pollution from Fukashima and now our broke gov’ts want more nuclear power stations.
“Plastic islands floating about the Pacific”
Man, you have to ease off that Koolaid.
Can you walk on The Great Pacific Garbage Patch?No, you cannot. Most of the debris floats below the surface and cannot be seen from a boat. It’s possible to sail or swim through parts of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch and not see a single piece of plastic. You will, however, notice that the water is not clear and looks rather like a cloudy soup. That’s because those microscopic pieces of plastic will be all around you.
Every now and then, you’ll find some bigger pieces like abandoned fishing nets or buoys, sometimes shoes or even TV screens.
https://www.seasandstraws.com/great-pacific-garbage-patch.html
And > 30% of the plastic detritus apparently comes from China, and the rest from the Asian region in general.
So when you call for “something to be done” about this, maybe you should translate your demands into Mandarin, Indonesian, Malaysian, etc etc
Man, you need to get down from that high horse of yours. My point was that the plastic was there and is not a mirage. You just confirmed my point for me.
Not even close to approaching an ISLAND though, which is how you termed this bit of pollution.
Exaggeration is what the eco-loons do, not realists.
There never were any plastic islands in the Pacific.
The “pollution” from Fukushima was never a problem and never needed to dealt with.
The was some radioactive “pollution” from the Fukushima accident. Some cesium isotopes ended up in the ocean.
It was never about protecting the Earth.
Time and again, UN officials stated it was not about the environment, it was about changing world economics.
Even satellites don’t fully cover the Arctic and antarctic since they don’t cover past 80 to 85 degrees latitude.
Not true, this map shows the area missed (black circle) which is very much less than you claim.
I’m confused about the sea ice anomaly graph: if the anomaly is the deviation from the “norm”, what is the “norm” and where is the data justifying the norm? Then, how are the first years ABOVE the norm/average?
The graph looks like a card trick, don’t look at what the magician might have up his sleeve.
According to the figure it’s relative to the 1981-2010 average minimum (6.4 million sq km).
The question still, what is the “norm.”
Just like what is the climate optimum?
Are we moving away from the optimum or towards it.
How is 1850 justified as a starting point?
All good questions that seemingly have never been answered.
Oh, fwiw, 1847 was the first modern oil well in Baku and 1859 was the first oil well in Pennsylvania. The Drake well in PA is used to mark the start of the petroleum era.
Coincidence?
This questions has been ignored for decades. It should be one that is most important. Like it or not, one can not make a logical projection of what the issue is.
The AMO and the Arctic are normally warmer during centennial lows in solar activity.
As I’ve mentioned before, Arctic warming may be due to an internal cycle driven by the physics of H2O and the geography of the Arctic. Cyclic Arctic warming and cooling also affects the rest of the planet. This shows up nicely in the AMO index.
According to the AMO this cycle moved into its warm phase starting in the mid 1990s. Given the typical 60-70 year length of the full cycle, we should soon see a transition to the cooler half of the cycle. When that occurs it will lead to about a 0.5 – 1.0 C cooling of much of the northern hemisphere. Global temperatures will also see a significant drop.
This winter has seen some colder air in the US, Canada and Russia. This was also quite common during the 1960s and 1970s during the global cooling scare. It was also part of the cool phase of this cycle. If this becomes more common it will be interesting to see how the climate cult responds.
good grief! another case of cherry picked data to “prove” AGW