Arctic GISS Temps

[IanC]

how representative are arctic temp stations? they are usually at airports and close to the only pockets of people up there. not only that but these temps are smeared over thousands of kilometres in the averaging schemes used by GISS.

here is one station-

Remote communities in the Arctic are islands of anthropogenic warmth
These communities rely of aviation as a lifeline
The weather is measured at these airports, it is required for safety
Airports release huge amounts of waste heat, from exhaust, de-icing, terminal buildings, and even tarmac in the sun.
The majority of GHCN weather stations (used by NASA GISS) in the Arctic are at airports.
Remember Nuuk and Svalbarrd’s thermometers, and then ask Jim Hansen why NASA GISS, a “space studies agency”, doesn’t use satellite data but instead relies upon a surface record that another division of NASA says likely has significant UHI effects that NASA GISS doesn’t filter out sensibly (they only allow for 0.05°C downward adjustment).

And finally, can you really trust data from an organization that takes incoming data for that station and shifts it more than an entire degree C in the past, making a new trend? See the difference between “raw” (which really isn’t raw, it has a scads of adjustments already from NOAA) compared to the GISS final output in this chart:

from the second half of this link- The North Atlantic heat is on | Watts Up With That?

there are major problems taking temps in the middle of areas containing people in the arctic. then you add weird adjustments that drive down old readings by 1C and only correct for UGI by 0.05C (if it is considered urban enough for correction that is). then use those inflated readings to guestimate the temps for a 1000km in any direction.

do we have a reliable satellite that covers the arctic and antarctic? because I'm having a hard time believing the GISS temps are accurate.

think prop wash could affect anything? nahhhh

 

[Old Rocks]

And that prop wash is melting the Arctic Ice Cap, and the permafrost?

DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?

Thus the reality is that the annual average Arctic surface temperature as indicated by DMI has risen at rates around twice the global average over the past 50 years, which is entirely consistent with other Arctic data sets, including the data from GISS. This annual temperature anomaly trend (red) gives clearer context to the Lansner chart (green).

 

[IanC]

And that prop wash is melting the Arctic Ice Cap, and the permafrost?

DMI and GISS Arctic Temperatures: Hide the Increase?

Thus the reality is that the annual average Arctic surface temperature as indicated by DMI has risen at rates around twice the global average over the past 50 years, which is entirely consistent with other Arctic data sets, including the data from GISS. This annual temperature anomaly trend (red) gives clearer context to the Lansner chart (green).

so if the DMI figures match up with the wonky GISS figures that pretty much suggests the the DMI figures are wonky as well. or are you thinking that the DMI figures are right and the GISS manipulated its figures to match up?

 

[skookerasbil]

'Cmon Ian.....you know there cant be any "real" scientists at that station!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey Ian.........check this shit out. Read the litany of BS predictions over the last 6 years by the IPCC........its a lundry list of FaIl. Hurricane predictions......ocean temp predictions........cyclonic activity.........glacier melting. None of this doomsday predictions came true.........so they hit the re-set button to cover their ass.

Fcukking brilliant shit..........they know there are hordes of people out there who can be bamboozled in a heartbeat.............

ANyway.........heres the link bro..........Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes

 

[skookerasbil]

LOL Ian............after all the lame epic fail predictions made by the IPCC, now this one is the newest.............

World temperatures will raise by 8 degrees in the next 9 years


I shit you not..................Driving Straight Into Catastrophe | CommonDreams.org


Assholes finally figured out they have to stretch their predictions out 10+ years to buy time for the wealth redistribution efforts to take root.

 

[skookerasbil]

How interesting is this?????

Here is a link to the National Snow and Ice Data Center..........funded of course by the US Governemnt. The link speaks to the question, "How do we know human activities cause climate change".

Heres the link.............

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis: Questions about Arctic sea ice


But how compelling.........look who the Data Center uses for references...........



•US Climate Change Science Program:
Website moved!

•NASA Earth Observatory, Global Warming Update:
Global Warming : Feature Articles

•Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Climate Change:
Climate Change | U.S. EPA

•Pew Research Center
Global Warming Basics | Pew Center on Global Climate Change: The Pew Center on Global Climate Change


Of course, this would never raise the eyebrows of the hard care k00ks........but for those who dont have the political IQ of a handball, its all you have to know.

 

[IanC]

Hey Ian.........check this shit out. Read the litany of BS predictions over the last 6 years by the IPCC........its a lundry list of FaIl. Hurricane predictions......ocean temp predictions........cyclonic activity.........glacier melting. None of this doomsday predictions came true.........so they hit the re-set button to cover their ass.

Fcukking brilliant shit..........they know there are hordes of people out there who can be bamboozled in a heartbeat.............

ANyway.........heres the link bro..........Hot Sensations Vs. Cold Facts - Larry Bell - The Bell Tells for You - Forbes

outstanding link.

 

[IanC]

tell me again how GISS and satellite data are the same.

check out this cool site for charting temps from all the main data centres. Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs


my apologies. I didnt add the offset for GISS. I think UAH is still considered zero but it has changed to 30 yeat trend.

 

[Old Rocks]

Unless we get another rapid freezeup in February and March, it is going to be a very interesting year in the Arctic.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

 

[westwall]

Unless we get another rapid freezeup in February and March, it is going to be a very interesting year in the Arctic.

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Ummmm, I doubt it. The extent might be lower but the density is increasing so the year after there will be more accreted to the edges. You forget olfraud, the world operates slower than you can imagine.

 

[signelect]

Even if it is warming, the economic stakes are so high that we won't do anything about it.

 

[westwall]

Even if it is warming, the economic stakes are so high that we won't do anything about it.

And what would you do about it? Devolve civilisation to pre industrial status like the Khmer Rouge? Didn't work to well for the millions that died in that particular social experiment.

 

[IanC]

This post is specifically aimed at Old Rocks,

In the past we have argued over many climate subjects and studies. I have said that the science was skewed to make an alarmist case by shoddy work and dubious assumptions. You have said that those things dont matter because the general trend behind the work is correct. We are both at least partially right but I think my position is more important than yours because data always wins in the end. Your side has used up a large amount of banked respectability that science has earned over the years, and those appeals to authority are being publically outed at an ever increasing rate. I am really pissed off at scoundrels like Michael Mann who have given science a black eye. And I think apologists like you and the myriad of academia hoi polloi have made it much worse by covering up the malfeasance and slowing down the corrections that need to be made to repair public trust.

Here is an example from pre-climategate 2006 by Mann and Jones, presented in Real Climate
RealClimate: More on the Arctic
Remember that these two are premminent scientists that the world looks to for guidance in matters of global climate. Their article called the warming in Svalbard a 5 sigma event, a one in a million occurence. But what happened when they were asked about the data they used, the methodology they used, the assumption they used? They stonewalled, lied and obscured. Just like they had done many times before. And when their work was shown to be faulty did they correct it, or just leave it to be used by others who assume that their work is reliable? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Here is the (peer reviewed) paper by W Eschenbach detailing the history of M&J2006(RC) in all its disturbing detail.https://public.me.com/ix/williseschenbach/Svalbard.pdf

from a summary at the conclusion-

The detected errors of the RC authors in the ‘Svalbard Affair’ were:

1) They exaggerated their own calculations by a factor of ten, from calculated odds of less than one in 10^5 to claimed odds of less than one in 10^6 (seemingly for shock effect).

2) They used an inaccurate procedure, calculating the sigma from a subset of the data rather than from the full data set.

3) They did not correctly calculate the standard deviation of the 1961–1990 subset. 4) Although they know that temperature records are rarely “stationary, ‘normal’” datasets, and if they had looked they would have known that this temperature dataset was not a “stationary, ‘normal’” dataset, they used statistical procedures designed solely for use with stationary normal datasets.

5) They were either “careless in their wording” in specifying three different incorrect locations as the source of their data (they twice claimed it was CRU station data, then said it was CRU 5° ´ 5° gridbox data), or they did not know the source of their data, or they were deliberately obscuring the source of their data.

6) Rather than choosing a complete record from a single station for their analysis, they used a spliced record from four different locations. This makes the result of any statistical analysis very questionable. They did not reveal this in their initial posting, and but for the prodding of Hans Erren and myself, the fact would have gone unremarked.

7) They claimed “enhanced warming in this region” and a “polar amplification” of warming. However, not only is there no polar amplification in the Svalbard record, there is no significant warming in most of the Svalbard record (1920–2006 trend is 0.04° per decade +/– 0.08°C per decade [2 SD]). Even if one were to take their numbers at face value and to ignore the lack of statistical significance, this is only 60% of the reported global warming for that period, which is the opposite of “amplification”.

8) Despite repeated requests, they never indicated the actual web address of the dataset.

is this really how you want science to be 'done', Old Rocks? can you honestly say that the work of Mann and Jones is sufficiently well done to even get published, let alone to influence the world on policy decisions concerning global warming?

heaven help the field of climate science if the govt ever gets hold of Mann's emails. it wont be pretty.

 

[Old Rocks]

Have to go to work, so will look at the article later. However, one point. If it is accurate and revelant, why not published in a peer reviewed journal, not an industry tit sucker?

Energy and Environment - SourceWatch

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics who have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.

The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits in an article published online that "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive"[3] She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?"[4]

 

[IanC]

Have to go to work, so will look at the article later. However, one point. If it is accurate and revelant, why not published in a peer reviewed journal, not an industry tit sucker?

Energy and Environment - SourceWatch

The journal Energy and Environment is a social science journal published by Multi-Science. The journal's editor is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, a reader in geography at the University of Hull in England and climate skeptic.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. Its peer review process has been widely criticised for allowing the publication of substandard papers.[1][2] Numerous climate skeptics and contrarians have published in the journal and these studies have later been quoted by Republican critics of global warming science such as Senator James Inhofe and Congressman Joe Barton.[1]

Climate change skeptics who have been published in this journal include Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Ross McKitrick, Stephen McIntyre, Ian Castles, Roger Pielke Jr., Willie Soon, Madhav Khandekar, Craig Loehle, Steve McIntyre, and Indur Goklany.

The current editor of Energy and Environment Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen admits in an article published online that "the journal I edit has tried to keep this debate [climate scepticism] alive"[3] She also states elsewhere I'm following my political agenda -- a bit, anyway," ... "But isn't that the right of the editor?"[4]

hahaha, that's funny. using the 'why don't you publish in a mainstream journal excuse'. and then saying the offbrand jounal is somehow more political than the brand journals. hahaha. do you have your eyes superglued together and your ears filled with wax? how can you ignore the climategate evidence of peer review (pal review) dishonesty involved in climate science?

BTW- there is a fresh scandal erupting over peer review that I will make a thread about when it settles down. short version: 'audit team' debunks 'hockey team' paper on Antarctica despite massive harrassment during peer review. the journal put the lead author of the original paper as the lead reviewer of the rebuttal (unheard of!). the peer review then forced a change of methodology (amongst 88 pages of criticisms) and the paper was finally published as an 'improvement' rather than a critique. Then the lead author/lead reviewer publically criticizes the rebuttal paper for......you guessed it......the change in methodology that he personally demanded to be made!

Another one of Old Rocks' heroes shows his integrity is lacking, and displays the BAMN transgressions used to prop up the crumbling edifice of Old Boy's Club of climate science.


rebuttal paper-http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/

O'Donnell's response to RC- http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-duplicity/

 

[IanC]

still no response to why your heroes Mann and Jones used funky methods and faulty data to make exaggerated claims of warming in the arctic Old Rocks?

 

[IanC]

so Old Rocks- what do you think of the latest scandal of bad methodology with Steig09? and the 'unusual' peer review of the rebuttal?

 

[Old Rocks]

This is not GISS, but what they are stating is just as important. And the Arctic is warming, and changing weather patterns. Deny all you want. The readings from the satellites of several nations, the scientists of the nations that are circumpolar, are all stating the evidence is stark and overwhelming. Very rapid and major changes are occurring in the Arctic. Changes that are affecting, and will further affect us all in the near future.

Warming North Atlantic water tied to heating Arctic

Warming North Atlantic Water Tied to Heating Arctic
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2011) — The temperatures of North Atlantic Ocean water flowing north into the Arctic Ocean adjacent to Greenland -- the warmest water in at least 2,000 years -- are likely related to the amplification of global warming in the Arctic, says a new international study involving the University of Colorado Boulder.

Led by Robert Spielhagen of the Academy of Sciences, Humanities and Literature in Mainz, Germany, the study showed that water from the Fram Strait that runs between Greenland and Svalbard -- an archipelago constituting the northernmost part of Norway -- has warmed roughly 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century. The Fram Strait water temperatures today are about 2.5 degrees F warmer than during the Medieval Warm Period, which heated the North Atlantic from roughly 900 to 1300 and affected the climate in Northern Europe and northern North America.

The team believes that the rapid warming of the Arctic and recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent are tied to the enhanced heat transfer from the North Atlantic Ocean, said Spielhagen. According to CU-Boulder's National Snow and Ice Data Center, the total loss of Arctic sea ice extent from 1979 to 2009 was an area larger than the state of Alaska, and some scientists there believe the Arctic will become ice-free during the summers within the next several decades.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just one of the affects that are currently known.

Warming Waters Further Imperil Atlantic Cod: Scientific American

Atlantic cod is yet another species being threatened by climate change.

According to a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, warmer summer waters off the Norwegian coast are dwarfing the growth of the fish.

The researchers culled data from surveys dating back to 1919 along the Norwegian coast of the Skagerrak, a triangle of water between Norway, Sweden and Denmark.

Over 91 years, ecologists had carefully measured and recorded the sizes of Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) in the fall. Lauren Rogers, a researcher at the University of Washington and lead researcher for the study, compared these records with data on seasonal temperatures, year by year.

In times when summer temperatures peaked, researchers found juvenile cod -- born in late winter -- to be smaller than usual. The research team found a 3.1 percent decrease in length for every 2-degree-Celsius increase in summer temperatures.