Near-Arctic Temperatures (Part 2)
Posted by jennifer, November 27th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
There are no roads to Churchill – a town in northern Canada on the shores of Hudson Bay. This remote outpost is known as the polar bear capital of the world. Polar bears have become something of an icon for those concerned that we have a climate crisis. Indeed Al Gore in his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, suggested polar bears are already suffering from global warming.
It is warming in Churchill. At least thermometer temperature data from both Environment Canada and NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) indicate that it has been warmer since 1998 – but the annual mean is still below zero!
[Click on the charts/graphs for a large/better view]
The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) don’t collect any data as such rather they collate data from other sources. So, I’m curious that they haven’t included the last two years of data from Environment Canada.
I’m also curious to know why the GISS data for this site shows an annual average that is consistently warmer than the Environment Canada data. And why the data gaps? There is no GISS data for Churchill from 1994 to 1996 and also from 1911 to 1931? And why the step change in temperature since 1998 - I didn’t known the Arctic was influenced by El Nino events?
I have previously suggested that in the future, satellite data (as opposed to data compiled from thermometer-based weather stations), will be recognised as more reliable for understanding global temperature trends.
However, there will always be a need for quality data from specific sites.
Churchill appears to have the very earliest records for the near-Arctic and back to 1768. But again, why the discrepancy between GISS and Environment Canada data?
*************************************
The picture of the bear is from the US Fish and Wildlife Service with thanks.
The graph of Churchill Annual Mean Temperatures (1929-2007) based on Environment Canada data was drawn by Nichole Hoskin with data provided via Steve McIntyre – much thanks.
Click on the graphs/charts for a better view.
********************************
UPDATE SATURDAY
Charts rescaled by John S.
Advertisement
109 Responses to “Near-Arctic Temperatures (Part 2)”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 » Show All
” But again, why the discrepancy between GISS and Environment Canada data?”
Oh, that ones easy. Because the commies have infiltrated the scientists and are planning to take over the world using the IPCC and bring capitalism crashing down, and send everyone to a gulag.
SJT, I don’t believe you.
Oh, so you’re a part of it too, are you?
Jennifer:
Perhaps a simple explanation is available. What appears to be a simple error in data processing maybe a simple defense mechanism to preserve the status quo. Consider the primary effects of producing data which falsifies the AGW theory has on GISS—the billions of dollars funding climate studies would dry up, and they would be out on the streets. When one’s salary is on the line, a nudge here and there is justified in the eyes of government bureaucrats.
They are obviously not scientists, which requires a philosophical self-discipline to seek the truth, aka Sir Karl Popper, regardless of the consequences. A Ph.D does not a scientist make.
Willi
Sorry but Churchll, Manitoba is NOT the Arctic. It’s more than 500 miles south of the Arctic Circle and represents the extreme southernly limit of the range of the polar bear. If you want the Arctic, try places like Inuvik, Alert or Iqaluit.
Well among other things the vertical scale of the EC graph is a lot bigger than that of the GISS graph otoh the horizontal scale of the EC graph is larger than that for the GISS graph. Also, clearly there is smoothing in the EC graph and not in the GISS graph. Also, EC fills in station data that is missing with data from nearby stations. GISS does not for the station data, but, of course, you should have seen that on the EC and GISS web sites. Check whether that was done for Churchill and get back to us. It would also be useful to correct the other things.
Finally, while there are no roads, there is a railroad which makes Churchill one of the busiest ports in Canada during the summer as grain from the prairie is hauled in and shipped out.
Really Jen, I would expect better of a real estate agent or a used car saleswoman.
Like Eli - I am gob stopped - two different graphs - different x and y axes, one data set smoothed…
No checking of site history.
Doesn’t pass the giggle test.
Jennifer: It’s not only GISS that shows an amplified temperature after the 97/98 El Nino. So does AHU MSU:
http://i34.tinypic.com/2cxasl3.jpg
It also shows up in the third version of the Smith and Reynolds SST data (ERSST.v3):
http://i33.tinypic.com/72uaz6.jpg
Gavin Schimdt in a post at RealClimate had this to say: “Whether the warming is from greenhouse gases, El Nino’s, or solar forcing, trends aloft are enhanced. For instance, the GISS model equilibrium runs with 2xCO2 or a 2% increase in solar forcing both show a maximum around 20N to 20S around 300mb (10 km)…The first thing to note about the two pictures is how similar they are. They both have the same enhancement in the tropics and similar amplification in the Arctic.” So El Ninos have the same effect as doubling CO2 or a 2% increase in solar irradiance. CO2 hasn’t doubled. There hasn’t been a 2% increase in solar irradiance, unless there’s been a significant decrease in cloud cover. I guess that leaves El Ninos as the cause of the recent bout of Polar Amplification.
SJT you have lost it see what happens when you get of your prayer mat. How about cuddle up to a cute Polar Bear? They get to a 1000kg and 3.7 metres but they don’t hurt humans. This is the Goracle believe me my son.
Eli and Luke,
You need to study the data a bit more closely!
The graphs/charts give an overview - indicating a similar trend from both GISS and Environment Canada data.
The actual numbers, used to create the charts, are mostly, not always, quite a bit hotter for GISS.
Take 1998: GISS -4.27, EC -7.5
Take 1997: GISS -7.04, EC -13.1
But not so much difference for the last two years:
Take 2004: GISS -8.06, EC -8.8
TAke 2005: GISS -5.84, EC -5.3
Any ideas? Who appart from Environment Canada would GISS be getting their data from? Also why the gaps?
Thanks Bob for the explanation re. El Ninos.