The Oldham Skeptic has sent in more information for Coolwire 16 based on the latitude where Nansen moored his ship the Fram to pack ice north of Siberia in September 1893. Maps of the median sea ice edge for 1979 to 2000 suggest that Nansen may not have been able to drive the Fram as far north in modern times.
And if the Di Virga map is any indication, someone sailed through that region and mapped it during the Medieval warm period – www.1421.tv/pages/maps/di_virga.htm.
Hard to refute paper maps but then apparently from factor analysis of proxy data, there was no Medieval warm period.
Warwick, do you employ any kind of dodginess filter before stickng this stuff on your site? Of course an anecdote about a single location in a single year proves… that there was some sea ice in that year, but I think we already knew that. Ascribing significance to this datum is a bit like the Idsos’ hobby of cherry-picking temp data showing cooling at specific sites. Not exactly science, is it?
On a related subject, I notice that the part of your Coolwire 13 relating to Arctic temps has been demolished by an actual sea ice expert at mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/arctic-temperature-trends-and-data.html. Note that this is the very same article where I recently pointed out its fraudulent conflation of two different sea ice data sets that the author had to have known used different methodologies. I think it’s time for you to stick a disclaimer on that article, or maybe just pull it entirely. And do watch out for that Willis in future.
It’s not exactly science to include lots of urban and surburban stations in the temperature record that show a lot of warming when the rural stations do not – especially when you’re trying to prove “unprecedented warming”
If you’re referring to Bill Connelley, then you’re in for a hard time, because the only thing Connelley is expert at is revising history and deleting evidence because it conflicts with his green politics. Sometime in the New Year, Connelley is going to have the shock of his propagandist career when key evidence that Connelley suppressed gets posted all around the Internet. How appropriate therefore that he names his blog after a type of weasel. If Warwick is going to employ a “dodginess filter” then certainly Connelley shouldn’t make it here.
Do you have any evidence that a) the Oldham skeptic is Willis and b) that what was written was actually wrong then please present them. Otherwise it looks like you’re just “poisoning the well”.
Now that is interesting – an article which fraudently conflated two datasets is now used to demolish some points made in Coolwire 13. I must be missing something perhaps.
Loius, the reference is to two separate problems in the Coolwire 13 article, a) the temp data and b) the sea ice data. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
John A., I don’t understand how your first response relates to the point I was making, but as long as we’re on the subject I have read the methodology used by GISS to come up with their temp numbers, and it appears to deal nicely with any potential urban/suburban issues. Do you have any specific problems with it? Before you ask, I’m not in a position to have the same discussion about the other data sets since I frankly don’t have the time to look at everything in the field. Regarding the critique of Coolwire 13, William’s analysis of the temp data issue stands for itself. You really should read it.
To expand briefly about my point on the sea ice extent, there are two data sets maintained, one by NSIDC and the other by UIUC. While based on the same raw satellite data, they use very different metrics for deciding whether a given satellite pixel has sea ice or not. NSIDC states their metric on their site and UIUC does not, but a quick comparison of contemporaneous sea ice extent graphics on the two sites makes it apparent that the metrics are quite different. This is fair enough as far as it goes, since there’s nothing intrinsically more valid about using, e.g., 10% versus 15% coverage to determine whether a given pixel has sea ice or not. Of course these different metrics result in similar but not identical anomalies, the graphs of which are also available on each site.
Another consequence is that the two methodologies will sometimes show different record years, which is what happened this year when NSIDC showed a record and UIUC did not. In any event, the media coverage in September was about the new record set by the NSIDC data, but Willis used the UIUC data to refute it. It was only by a very unlikely coincidence that I happened to know about the difference in metrics. There was obviously some sort of discussion to be had contrasting and comparing the two data sets and talking about the overall trend, but that wouldn’t have been nearly as exciting as accusing the NSIDC scientists of being alarmists or (by implication) liars. There is no chance at all that Willis could have written that article without being aware of what he was doing. At the same time, he probably felt reasonably confident that the discrepancy would not be noticed. Bad Willis.
Regarding the Oldham skeptic, I didn’t intend to imply that she/he might be Willis. So far as I know Willis isn’t in the habit of resorting to pseudonyms. As to your threat, I’m sure William is appropriately frightened.
Thanks Steve,
I have read it. I fail to see how William’s “analysis” addresses key questions, one of which is:
Q: Why does the temperature mean from 60-90 degrees show that the 1990s were warmer than the 1930s when the same metric for 70-90 shows the reverse?
William’s reason for making such a step was weasel. As I pointed out in my reply here, Warwick has already done an analysis on the anomalous warming of Siberian stations between the 60th and 70th parallels. Perhaps you should read it.
George Taylor, who is a real climatologist, has already covered this issue
It’s not a threat. it’s a promise to expose his selective scholarship. As I have written before, Connelley is a political propagandist for an extremist agenda, first and foremost. I don’t expect Connelley to be frightened, for the point is not to scare but to expose what he has done to people who give his views undue and unwarranted authority.
A more germaine article from George Taylor on the issue of how you delineate where the Arctic begins affecting what your conclusions are is found here
Hmm, George Taylor a “real climatologist”? Pretty impressive for a guy with a master’s degree in meteorology. Or did you base this on his many peer-reviewed publications that don’t relate to the weather in Oregon? Oops, it turns out he’s a little thin on that count. So we should take his Arctic views seriously because…?
Offhand, regarding the 60-90 vs. 70-90 business, I think William explained very carefully what the differences are. Your denial of his results lacked any specifics. I will note that 70 degrees is rather inside the Arctic Circle, and the 60 degree line is much closer to the describing the Arctic climate zone than is 70 degrees (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Arctic.jpg), which probably explains why it’s “more usual.” That said, as the link makes obvious, the actual Arctic climate zone follows a rather wobbly line, so it would probably be best to sort the data per that zone. Looking at the map, it’s clear enough that doing so would involve many more stations than just the ones above 70 degrees, and would likely be far closer to William’s results than WE’s (since as William showed WE’s results are an artifact of the limited data available above 70 degrees). I don’t recall how the ACIA dealt with this issue, but I’ll have a look since whatever they did is probably as close to a proper scientific definition of “Arctic” as we can get. BTW, can you cite examples of the prior use of 70-90 as the Arctic climate zone? I’m hoping WE didn’t just make that up.
In any case, I will look over all of the stuff you linked more carefully and respond in more detail when I can, probably on the weekend.
P.S.: I’d watch out for weasels if I were you. As Frank Zappa once said, they may rip your flesh.
Steve Bloom:
The blog is only a couple of weeks old and Warwick has his own idiot troll to play with. Lucky guy.
Because…
“George H. Taylor is the State Climatologist for Oregon, and a faculty member at Oregon State University’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. He manages the Oregon Climate Service, the state repository of weather and climate information, and supervises a staff of ten.
Mr. Taylor is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and has received certification as a Certified Consulting Meteorologist by the Society. He also has a California Lifetime Community College Credential. He has published over 200 reports, symposium articles, and journal articles.
Prior to joining Oregon State University in 1989, Mr. Taylor operated his own consulting business in Santa Barbara, California. Previously he was employed as a meteorologist by North American Weather Consultants and Environmental Research and Technology.”
Oh great, no math comprehension either. The Arctic circle is at 66.5 degrees North, that means a) it’s closer to the 60th parallel or b) closer to the 70th parallel.
Choose one answer. Time taken 5 minutes.
William isn’t much of an expert at physics either. I think all that politicking has softened his brain.
Not too worry. The way to deal with weasels involves proper preparation, but you’ve got to watch out for the squealing and the smell.
John A – actually he has 2 idiot trolls to play with. BTW Steve Bloom has posted some pretty salient points that nobody has answered other than to attack him.
I also to see how one data point can make the case. Most of the more comprehensive surveys show losses.
Thanks (?) to Steve Bloom for ponting me for this. John A is big on noise but very very short on substance. How surprising. I await his revelations with a distnct lack of interest…
I wonder who the other idiot troll could be.
I copy this here just in case Connelley reaches for his favourite key on the keyboard (the one just below “Insert”) on his blog:
What analysis?
You present diagrams of the data showing sparsity of observations but no discussion of the known problems of including problematical data points such as the set of Siberian stations between 60 and 70N which show anomalous warming?
Like your friend Mann, you’re playing a shell game. In Mann’s case it’s “watch the bristlecone pines”, and in yours its “watch the Siberian stations with their known large UHI errors and the systematic errors in most Arctic Russian towns caused by the reporting of lower temperatures during the Soviet era so that they’d receive more fuel and food from the Kremlin”
Presenting diagrams without provenance and ruminating about “the wilder shores of skepticism” does not an analysis make.
Perhaps you’ll revert to your favoured tactic of verbally yawning and stretching, having some of your acolytes believe in your intellectual prowess that is so taxing that you can barely keep your eyes open while responding to the pinpricks of those Lilliputian skeptics.
*yawn*
“John A has responded to my blog article and has besmirched my scientific reputation in the eyes of my true believers”
*stretch*
“Well I suppose I’d better do something, shall I go for overweening arrogance or just feigned boredom and trivialisation?”
*flips coin*
“It’s landed on its edge! Again! What are the chances?”
John A: O woe is me! Connelley’s reaching coffee jar and this time its not the decaf! My doom is nigh!
For an actual peer-reviewed article on Arctic temperatures see:
Polyakov, I., et al., 2002. Trends and Variations in Arctic Climate Systems. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, 83, 547-548.
Polyakov, I., Walsh, D., Dmitrenko, I., Colony, R.L. and Timokhov, L.A. 2003a. Arctic Ocean variability derived from historical observations. Geophysical Research Letters 30: 10.1029/2002GL016441.
Polyakov, I.V., Alekseev, G.V., Bekryaev, R.V., Bhatt, U.S., Colony, R., Johnson, M.A., Karklin, V.P., Walsh, D. and Yulin, A.V. 2003b. Long-term ice variability in Arctic marginal seas. Journal of Climate 16: 2078-2085.
Polyakov, I., Alekseev, G.V., Timokhov, L.A., Bhatt, U.S., Colony, R.L., Simmons, H.L., Walsh, D., Walsh, J.E. and Zakharov, V.F., 2004. Variability of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the Last 100 Years. Journal of Climate 17: 4485-4497.
John A,
your post above clinches the argument – land based temperature records are problematical.
So the only data we should consider are the data from apolitical remote sensing devices, satellites, and then, if climate is defined as the change in weather over a 30 year period, the satellite data set is too short in time to allow any scientific conclusion to be made.
Climate sceptics 1. Others not in the race.
Yes, Louis, but we’re still waiting for Steve Bloom to admit George Taylor into the ranks of climatologists.
I’m not holding my breath.
I’ve looked up an down for the “salient points” that Ender referred to, but can’t find anything substantial that I missed. It must be old age…
Ender and Steve Bloom say that where Nansen moored the Fram in 1893 can be likened to one data point. Fine but note my question mark.
I would like to have the resources to visit the Scott Polar Institute library and to see what other records show. Maybe there is a dedicated UK reader who would like to do this. There are no doubt other polar archives.
Have you read my 4 December post “Antarctic sea ice extent, South Sandwich Islands” and Coolwire 16 pointing out that in 1914 Shackleton encountered conditions similar to 2005 and in 1912 Filchner encountered less ice. Note, “Less Ice”. Shackleton was told by whalers that 1914 was a bad year for ice, meaning sea ice was further north than normal. Is 2005 getting to be a bad year for the Warmers ?
Warwick,
How can it be bad, when the Warmers have got all bases covered? More warmth, more cold, more rain, more drought, more glacial ice, less glacial ice, you name it. I’m amazed that they didn’t go for Australia losing the Ashes, such is the power of climate modelling these days.
John A – sorry the Ashes loss WAS linked to AGW.
Nothing else makes sense.
Good site Warwick – always enjoyable when no groupthink is at play!
Loius – so what are you saying that thermometers are part of the lefty conspiracy when you say that “apolitical remote sensing devices”. Should we now go around and test all measureing instruments for political bias. And why exclude satellites as their downlink stations are in some very dodgy socialist countries.
Warwick – if you admit the data is one data point and therefore not reliable as an indicator of long term sea ice changes, why did you not say this at the start of the post. Also if you are going to use ship voyage data why not incude this:
“There has been a “striking” decline in the thickness of Arctic sea ice according to scientists who have studied data gathered by US Navy submarines.
The researchers say the average draught of the sea ice in the region has declined by 1.3 metres (4.3 ft) compared with the 1960s and 1970s. By draught they mean the difference between the surface of the ocean and the bottom of the ice pack – just like the draught of a boat.
This amounts to a 40% reduction, says Dr Andrew Rothrock of the University of Washington, Seattle, and colleagues, who report their findings in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
“We were very surprised by the amount of thinning,” Dr Rothrock told BBC News Online. “We did not expect to see such a big signal.” ”
Again it is anecdotal evidence over a fairly short timescale as there has only been nuclear subs for a while it is still better that the one that you presented.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/523065.stm
Those who know Taylor best speak (excerpt from www.willametteweek.com/story.php?story=6655):
The state climatologist does not speak for the governor on global warming, says Van’t Hof, Kulongoski’s sustainability policy advisor. “George Taylor doesn’t represent the governor’s office, and he doesn’t represent the state of Oregon,” the aide says. “The governor consistently is in favor of addressing global warming. Global warming is real and is greatly accelerated by human activity.”
Taylor’s colleagues at Oregon State’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences have grown frustrated over the years with what they consider his misunderstanding of climate-change facts. On multiple occasions, faculty members found it necessary to correct statements in Taylor’s regular “Weather Matters” column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times.
In 2004, a letter to the editor of the Gazette-Times signed by Prof. James Coakley “and all professors of the College of Atmospheric Sciences” said Taylor’s statements in the newspaper “misrepresent the widely accepted scientific knowledge concerning the Earth’s climate and global warming.”
In 1999, another letter to the Corvallis newspaper, signed by six of the college’s faculty members, took Taylor to task for dismissing the depletion of the ozone layer as “a rather small problem.” Another letter written by a faculty member, the late Jack Dymond, observed, “First with ozone depletion and now with global warming, George Taylor continues to misinterpret the science of some of the most important environmental issues facing the planet.”
“He missed his calling as a used-car salesman,” Coakley, an expert on clouds, said in an interview with WW. “George is a nice guy, runs his shop pretty well. We’re not happy with his pronouncements. They drive us bonkers.”
“The best explanation I can come up with is, George is very tied into the conservative bent,” Coakley added. “He gets all his information from the conservative-type think tanks. George picks it up and regurgitates it. Some of the stuff is half-baked at best, but sometimes it’s so bad we have to call him on it and write letters to the editor. It’s just not right; it just counters all the evidence.”
There’s also this from Taylor’s response (www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/page_links/publications/taylor_response.html) to the article I just posted:
‘willamette week article: “Taylor’s review said the authors of the Arctic study looked at only the last 35 years, ignoring data from the 1930s that show conditions were comparable to those of today. “Why not start the trend there?” he wrote. “Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?””
“It’s not clear what report Taylor was reading. In fact, the Arctic study takes into account an entire thousand years and places the Arctic in the context of the entire globe.”
“In fact, the report does list most of Taylor’s references-among hundreds of others.”
‘taylor: My review of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was made shortly after its release in November, 2004. I reviewed a very cursory summary, and made my comments based on that summary. A longer report was issued in June, 2005, and I have not published comments on that report, but I was pleased to see that more detail and many additional references had been added. These included most of the journal articles I had listed in my review, so perhaps my review enabled the authors to bring more balance to their report. Perhaps, in a sense, I served as an unofficial peer reviewer.’
Backing off a bit, perhaps? I’m not sure what he means by more balance, but the full ACIA report supports every point made in the earlier summary that Taylor criticized. So, John A., which of the assertions Taylor made in the Arctic stuff you linked to do you think he still defends?
Hmm, it appears from www.coas.oregonstate.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=faculty.main that they don’t let George do any teaching. He’s listed under “professional faculty” with the office administrators and facilities managers.
As I also noted, George seems a little thin on peer-reviewed pubs: scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22George+Taylor%22+climate&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search. What he does have is focused on weather mapping and data, which makes perfect sense for a certified meteorologist who runs what amounts to a state weather service. He appears to have no background or experience whatsoever with respect to the Arctic.
Finally, John A., I think you need to read www.acia.uaf.edu/PDFs/ACIA_Science_Chapters_Final/ACIA_Ch02_Final.pdf, which is the ACIA chapter that makes use of your Polyakov references. They don’t appear to quite go where you want them to. Also, I see from this chapter that looking at temps from 60-90 degrees does indeed appear “more usual” as noted by William.
Louis, it might be useful for you to look over Tim Barnett’s stuff on the increase in ocean heat content. Even people like Roger Pielke Sr. who think the surface temp record has all kinds of problems point to the measured increase in ocean warming as the definitive proof of global warming.
Rather than going through your list of tittle-tattle from peer-reviewed local newspapers, let me focus upon just one statement about the ACIA:
Yes, it does. And guess what study it uses as its basis for the “entire thousand years … in the context of the entire globe”
Let me give you a hint.
I know a cloud of ink when I see it. I guess it’s no surprise that after a while you’ll try to turn every debate into one over the hockey stick, even though it has absoutely nothing to do with the points you were trying to make. BTW, are you seriously asserting that the ACIA includes no independent analysis of Arctic proxies? I haven’t looked, but that seems very doubtful.
Really, Steve, you’ve got to try a lot harder than that. You’ve made repeated empty statements on this blog without a scientilla of evidence and tried to get the rest of us to disprove those statements? Which planet are you on?
I make reference to facts. I have read the ACIA. It’s obviously beyond your meagre intellectual capacity to do the same. You make repeated appeals to your own ignorance and feelings of doubt. Perhaps this is how you approach all of science, but it ain’t mine.
Sigh. So you’ve read the entire 1,042 page scientific report? Impressive, although it should be noted that your link referred to the executive summary only for some reason, possibly because the scientific report still hadn’t been published at that time. I guess you must have read it later. But anyway, it turns out the ACIA scientific report refers to numerous other studies (the most important probably being Overpeck et al [1997]) besides the hockey stick in the section on the last thousand years (appended below). This makes perfect sense since the hockey stick is a study of climate averaged across the entire northern hemisphere and is of limited use in looking at climate in a single region; the discussion makes that very clear. So, your statement that the hockey stick was the “basis” for the ACIA’s conclusions about the Arctic climate of the last thousand years is simply untrue.
“2.7.5. Last millennium
Over the last millennium, variations in climate across
the Arctic and globally have continued. The term
“Medieval Warm Period”, corresponding roughly to
the 9th to the mid-15th centuries, is frequently used
but evidence suggests that the timing and magnitude
of this warm period varies considerably worldwide
(Bradley and Jones, 1993; Crowley and Lowery, 2000;
IPCC 2001c). Current evidence does not support a
globally synchronous period of anomalous warmth
during that time frame, and the conventional term of
“Medieval Warm Period” appears to have limited utility
in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean
temperature changes.
The Northern Hemisphere mean temperature estimates
of Mann M. et al. (1999), and Crowley and Lowery
(2000), show that temperatures during the 11th to the
14th centuries were about 0.2 ºC higher than those during
the 15th to the 19th centuries, but somewhat below
the temperatures of the mid-20th century.The longterm
hemispheric trend is best described as a modest
and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around 1850 to
1900, followed by an abrupt 20th-century warming.
Regional evidence is, however, quite variable. Crowley
and Lowery (2000) show that western Greenland exhibited
local anomalous warmth only around AD 1000
(and to a lesser extent, around AD 1400), and experienced
quite cold conditions during the latter part of the
11th century. In general, the few proxy temperature
records spanning the last millennium suggest that the
Arctic was not anomalously warm throughout the 9th
to 14th centuries (Hughes and Diaz, 1994).
In northern Swedish Lapland, Scots pine tree-ring data
indicate a warm period around AD 1000 that ended
about AD 1100 when a shift to a colder climate
occurred (Grudd et al., 2002). In Finnish Lapland,
based on a 7500-year Scots pine tree-ring record,
Helama et al. (2002) reported that the warmest nonoverlapping
100-year period in the record is AD 1501
to 1600, but AD 1601 was unusually cold. Other locations
in Fennoscandia and Siberia were also cold in AD
1601, and Briffa et al. (1992, 1995) linked the cold
conditions to the AD 1600 eruption of the
Huaynaputina volcano in Peru. In northern Siberia, and
particularly east of Taymir where the most northerly
larch forests occur, long-term temperature trends
derived from tree rings indicate the occurrence of cool
periods during the 13th, 16th to 17th, and early 19th
centuries.The warmest periods over the last millennium
in this region were between AD 950 and 1049,AD
1058 and 1157, and AD 1870 and 1979.A long period
of cooling began in the 15th century and conditions
remained cool until the middle of the 18th century
(Naurzbaev et al., 2002).
For the most part, “medieval warmth” appears to have
been restricted to areas in and around the North
Atlantic, suggesting that variability in ocean circulation
may have played a role. Keigwin and Pickart
(1999) suggested that the temperature contrasts
between the North Atlantic and other areas were associated
with changes in ocean currents in the North
Atlantic and may to a large extent reflect centuryscale
changes in the NAO.
By the middle of the 19th century, the climate of the
globe and the Arctic was cooling. Overall, the period
from 1550 to 1900 may have been the coldest period in
the entire Holocene (Bradley, 1990).This period is usually
called the “Little Ice Age” (LIA), during which glaciers
advanced on all continents.The LIA appears to
have been most clearly expressed in the North Atlantic
region as altered patterns of atmospheric circulation
(O’Brien et al., 1995). Unusually cold, dry winters in
central Europe (e.g., 1 to 2 ºC below normal during the
late 17th century) were very probably associated with
more frequent flows of continental air from the northeast
(Pfister, 1999;Wanner et al., 1995). Such conditions
are consistent with the negative or enhanced easterly
wind phase of the NAO, which implies both warm
and cold anomalies over different regions of the North
Atlantic sector. Although the term LIA is used for this
period, there was considerable temporal and spatial
variability across the Arctic during this period.
Ice shelves in northwestern Ellesmere Island probably
reached their greatest extent in the Holocene during
this interval. On the Devon Island Ice Cap, 1550 to
1620 is considered to have been a period of net summer
accumulation, with very extensive summer sea ice in
the region.There is widespread evidence of glaciers
reaching their maximum post-Wisconsinan positions
during the LIA, and the lowest d18O values and melt
percentages for at least 1000 years are recorded in ice
cores for this interval. Mann M. et al. (1999) and Jones
et al. (1998) supported the theory that the 15th to 19th
centuries were the coldest of the millennium for the
Northern Hemisphere overall. However, averaged over
the Northern Hemisphere, the temperature decrease
during the LIA was less than 1 ºC relative to late 20thcentury
levels (Crowley and Lowery, 2000; Jones et al.,
1998; Mann M. et al., 1999). Cold conditions appear,
however, to have been considerably more pronounced
in particular regions during the LIA. Such regional variability
may in part reflect accompanying changes in
atmospheric circulation. Overpeck et al. (1997) summarized
arctic climate change over the past 400 years.
There is an abundance of evidence from the Arctic that
summer temperatures have decreased over approximately
the past 3500 years. In the Canadian Arctic, the
melt record from the Agassiz ice core indicates a
decline in summer temperatures since approximately
5.5 ky BP, especially after 2 ky BP. In Alaska, widespread
glacier advances were initiated at approximately
700 ky BP and continued through the 19th century
(Calkin et al., 2001). During this interval, the majority
of Alaskan glaciers reached their Holocene maximum
extensions.The pattern of LIA glacier advances along
the Gulf of Alaska is similar on decadal timescales to
that of the well-dated glacier fluctuations throughout
the rest of Alaska.
There is a general consensus that throughout the
Canadian Archipelago, the late Holocene has been an
interval of progressive cooling (the “Neoglacial”, culminating
in the LIA), followed by pronounced warming
starting about 1840 (Overpeck et al., 1997). According
to Bourgeois et al. (2000), the coldest temperatures of
the entire Holocene were reached approximately 100 to
300 years ago in this region. Others, working with different
indicators, have suggested that Neoglacial cooling
was even greater in areas to the south of the Canadian
Archipelago (Johnsen et al., 2001).Therefore, even if
the broad pattern of Holocene climatic evolution is
assumed to be coherent across the Canadian Archipelago,
the available data suggest regional variation in the
amplitude of temperature shifts.
The most extensive data on the behavior of Greenland
glaciers apart from the Greenland Ice Sheet come from
Maniitsoq (Sukkertoppen) and Disko Island. Similar to
the inland ice-sheet lobes, the majority of the local glaciers
reached their maximum Neoglacial extent during
the 18th century, possibly as early as 1750. Glaciers
started to retreat around 1850, but between 1880 and
1890 there were glacier advances. In the early 20th century,
glacier recession continued, with interruptions by
some periods of advance. The most rapid glacial retreat
took place between the 1920s and 1940s.
In Iceland, historical records indicate that Fjallsjökull
and Breidamerkurjökull reached their maximum
Holocene extent during the latter half of the 19th century
(Kugelmann, 1991). Between 1690 and 1710,
the Vatnajökull outlet glaciers advanced rapidly and
then were stationary or fluctuated slightly. Around
1750 to 1760 a significant re-advance occurred, and
most of the glaciers are considered to have reached
their maximum LIA extent at that time (e.g., Grove,
1988). During the 20th century, glaciers retreated rapidly.
During the LIA, Myrdalsjökul and Eyjafjallsjökull
formed one ice cap, which separated in the middle of
the 20th century into two ice caps (Grove, 1988).
Drangajökull, a small ice cap in northwest Iceland,
advanced across farmland by the end of the 17th century,
and during the mid-18th century the outlet glaciers
were the most extensive known since settlement of the
surrounding valleys. After the mid-19th century
advance, glaciers retreated significantly. On the island
of Jan Mayen, some glaciers reached their maximum
extent around 1850.The glaciers subsequently experienced
an oscillating retreat, but with a significant
expansion around 1960 (Anda et al., 1985).
In northeastern Eurasia, long-term temperature trends
derived from tree rings close to the northern treeline in
east Taymir and northeast Yakutia indicate decreasing
temperatures during the LIA (Vaganov et al., 2000).
Variations in arctic climate over the past 1000 years
may have been the result of several forcing mechanisms.
Bond et al. (2001) suggested variations in solar insolation.
Changes in the thermohaline circulation or modes
of atmospheric variability, such as the AO, may also have
been primary forcing mechanisms of century- or
millennial-scale changes in the Holocene climate of the
North Atlantic. It is possible that solar forcing may
excite modes of atmospheric variability that, in turn,
may amplify climate changes.The Arctic, through its
linkage with the Nordic Seas, may be a key region
where solar-induced atmospheric changes are amplified
and transmitted globally through their effect on the
thermohaline circulation.The resulting reduction in
northward heat transport may have further altered
latitudinal temperature and moisture gradients.”
*sigh* still referring to multiproxy studies which can’t be replicated. Sad.
Read Bürger, G., and U. Cubasch (2005), Are multiproxy climate reconstructions robust?, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L23711, doi:10.1029/2005GL024155 and call me in the morning.
*yawn*
Why anyone would quote the Mann Hockey Stick without laughter is completely beyond me. Certainly the ACIA is definitely the slickest and most risible attempt to connect studies by a very small number of people whose work cannot be replicated because they’ve refused any access to their data and methodology, and whose studies are riddled with proxies which are almost certainly wrongly dated or have non-temperature sensitivities that render their conclusions invalid. Every single study quoted by the ACIA has serious issues of methodology – but of course Bloom won’t exmamine that.
*sigh* Maybe Bloom will start quoting the IPCC TAR verbatim. That’ll help.
What Bloom can’t manage with argumentation he can make up with verbosity and attempts to browbeat others to join his delusion.
*sigh*
The ground shifts yet again. Every time I refute one of your assertions, you ignore the refutation and move on to a different subject. I see now why William characterized you as mostly noise and little substance. Has it ever occurred to you that you will convince absolutely no one with such an approach? Steve M. at least manages a rhetorical style that doesn’t cause people to suspect he has some kind of mental illness.
P.S. — If you would actually read the ACIA section, you’ll notice plenty of references to studies that aren’t of the multi-proxy variety. Are all of those also invalid? Don’t bother answering.
*sigh*
If you’re going to quote large sections of a report, then the first thing you should do is check that the studies cited actually bear the weight of the conclusions. You’ll quote the conclusions of the Mann Hockey Stick analysis with its denial of the global reach of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and then deny that the ACIA hangs its arguments on them.
Unfortunately those conclusions have already been discredited. Therefore what you’ve quoted is meaningless rubbish (in a lovely presentational format)
Both you and Connelley are too lazy to go and do the necessary analysis. It’s not my responsibility to rouse you from your intellectual torpor.
As for the ground shifting, you’ve danced around the subjects of George Taylor’s classification as a climatologist, the Mann Hockey Stick, the validity of multiproxy studies, whether trees are a temperature proxy and whether William Connelley abuses history for political purposes. With fancy footwork like that I would suggest you get in touch with Riverdance.
John A., of course this is a quibble, but if you actually read the quoted text you’ll find it states that hemispheric studies such as Mann et al aren’t especially useful in discussing Arctic climate. “Regional evidence is, however, quite variable.” As well, the ACIA seems to have no problem with the LIA (again noting the regional variability): “Although the term LIA is used for this period, there was considerable temporal and spatial variability across the Arctic during this period.” The references to the hemispheric studies are simply to establish the context for the more detailed discussion of Arctic climate. That said, of course you are compelled to conclude that once a scientist, or in this case hundreds of scientists, quote the hockey stick with anything but disapproval everything else they say must be wrong.
P.S. — A quick note just to remind you that Mann et al was a hemispheric study, not a global one.
*sigh*
Unfortunately you fail to recognize where such a quote comes from: from a previous study by Michael Mann where he makes the early claim (widely ignored at the time) that the Little Ice Age and MWP were not temporally identical in all parts of the world.
MBH98 was Northern Hemospheric only. MBH99 added a few treering sites in the SH (which made no difference to the results, since Mann’s methodology mined for bristlecone pine hockeysticks anyway) and it was that study which was inveigled into the IPCC TAR.
The ACIA mined Mann’s already flawed work, but what do you care? Never mind the complete lack of movement, it’s got lovely plumage…
This is beating a dead horse, but the quoted passage includes lots of other studies pointing to regional variability, most if not all of them far more specific to the Arctic than MBH. You could read them.
P.S. — Point taken on MBH 99.
Steve Bloom
The point at which I take as the start of pack ice is the mauve area which indicates 100% ice cover
Interesting to look at individual regions in the Arctic when looking at extent. Currently, the negative anomaly is less than it was last year at this time. Interestingly, there was a slight downtick since a couple of days ago, almost too much of one to reflect actual data. I looked at the individual areas and it was clear that most of the downtick came from an odd downward step in the East Siberian Sea. Could be an error. Also notable things are that when one looks at the extent sat images from each year’s mimimum, it is clear that there is sort of a lobe of extended ice that slowly rotates around the pole. Whereas, some years ago, at the minimum, the ice edge was near to the Russian shore and far from the North American shore, right now the situation is reversed. With the non lobate part of the overall ice mass now in the warmer Eurasian half of the Artic, I’d have to imagine that it is even more receded than it would be in its America facing position of yore. Once the lobe gets over into the area north of Greenland, and the anti lobe is further east, I’d imagine the overall extent may be greater at the minimum. If I were a young PhD candidate, I would drill down on all this.
Latest Anchorage ice desk forecast progs ongoing new ice growth and ice encompassing Wrangel within 5 days. There may be an offshore wind later in the forecast period but that is not certain. We may be at this year’s minimum now.
My goodness, Steve S., the yearly minimum on 8/22? A month early? I don’t think so. You may want to check past data and see when the earliest prior minimum was recorded. You can keep up with the exciting finish to this year’s melt here, BTW.
How come actual visible satellite pictures don’t match up with the ice records from the UIUC dataset and the NSIDC dataset.
Here are two actual satellite pictures from the Beaufort Sea.
It looks to me that the ice extent is greater on July 25, 2006 than July 25, 2005. In addition, the ice extends right up to the coast in these pictures but does not appear to be so in the UIUC dataset and the NSIDC dataset
earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/natural_hazards_v2.php3?img_id=13738
RE: “NSIDC dataset” = agenda driven absolute rubbish
Also I noticed their highly unethical use of “median” extent – medians – in home prices – and in the typical litany of “guilt inducing” negative statistics spewed by the Left in order to undermine the confidence of Western, capitalist society – are always guaranteed to tweak the emotions of the masses. Medians tell me what? They tell me where the furthest outliers are. Big deal.
Just noting that arctic sea ice has already starting freezing back in Barrow Alaska.
www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/sea-lake-ice/barrow_webcam.html
So much for “the polar ice caps are melting” and “the polar bears are drowning and starving” stories.
The Arctic Coast of Alaska has had a series of Cold Fronts, hence the combined push of older ice and formation of new. There are progged to be a couple of Warm Fronts with SW winds over the remainder of this week. Guidance from the ice desk at Anchorage NWS is that this will be *the* opening for this year, after that, ice and misery until next year.
Just a suggestion, but start looking at what the plasma people are up to.
Louis, great idea. By the way, in a recent post at RC (which actually made it past the censors) I explicitly called upon the IPCC to include plasma physicists for the 2007 update.
Steve
Yes that would be interesting but knowing the system and the guys I am connected to, it will be difficult.
Incidentally NASA noted that hurricane Katrina was associated with an extremely large electrical potential – some 6-8,000 volts. So instead of looking at a meteorological map with its high and low pressure cells but as high and low voltages, new explanations might be called for. This is merely looking at the same stick but at its other end.
The line of reasoning I am pointing to here is that as we have not worked out how to spin air to produce an electrical field, is it possible that it is the electrical current/field that is actually spinning the air producing the hurricanes and other vortices in fluids, whether liquids or air? If so this will turn climate science on its head and as a by result totally demolish the inanities of AGW.
Louis – considering the dipole moment of water, and the general dielectric nature of the atmosphere, I would think what you have described to be a highly productive line of inquiry. Intuitively, I’d have to say, there must be some degree of interaction between the terrestrial weather, solar weather, and terrestrial electrodynamic/electromagnetic systems capable of being a causitive factor in atmospheric disturbances. To think that only thermal energy due to incident straight beam photons, and reradiated long wave radiation, would drive things as much as claimed by some seems a bit short of reality. What a wonderful and frustrating machine this planet is!
Steve,
impetus for this line of inquiry occurred a couple of months ago when I was sent some recently translated Russian papers on kimberlite generation and peturbations in the earth’s electric field – being familiar with the plasma theories and Birkeland currents etc, I instantly recognised that the vortices which we know tunnel downwards to form kimberlite diatremes is caused by enormous electrical currents, not by some mysterious vortice inducing property of CO2 super-saturated kimberlite magmas derived from the upper mantle.
It is off thread here, but as electrical forces are some 10E39 larger in effect than gravitational ones, then their absence as a natural physical force behind geodynamics and climate staggers the mind.
Cocked Eyed bills and Willy Willys are also associated with very high electric potentials and the difficulty with these things is because of their erratic movement, getting experimental data remains a very risky and frustrating business.
I can relate a correspondence with a Dutch climate scientist who pointed out that while we know warm oceans are a necessary precondition of the generation of hurricanes, what climate science has yet to figure out is how the next step occurs – warm ocean to the generation of a vortex which forms the hurricane. Add electricity to the equation and what was intractable becomes plausible and of the head-slapping Ahhhhh! Of course type of reaction.
Early days though Steve, and heretics have to run through the gauntlet before progress occurs.
Kimberlite deposits are caused by electrical vortices ???
I thought they resulted from magma intrusions that originated deep in the mantle. Or in other words, volcanoes that have a very deep magma source.
Strange as it may seem but kimberlites are not your usual volcanic rocks – and while you are correct that they originate deep in the mantle, magma is essentially plasma – plus the fact that the geometry of the diatreme itself, and the way it is excavated by a downward tunnelling mechanism suggests larke Bireland currents are possibly responsible.
The diatreme walls have interesting structures on them, as if they were machined by some sort of vortex.
And NO one has observed a kimberlite eruption, so the science is a bit difficult but Barbara Scott-Smith, Roger Clement et al have published pretty good papers on the problem. The problem is that the inferred forces which caused the kimberlites to initiate deep down in the upper mantle are not presently operating, and that makes it even more difficult to understand.
However the theory is a little controversial and it might need another decade or so before geology starts to consider it.