Churchill is a town in subarctic Canada surrounded by the most studied polar bear population in the world. Polar bears are believed to be under threat from global warming.
On Thursday, Jennifer Marohasy, posted a note stating:
“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!”
Dr Marohasy was basing this assessment on annual mean temperature values for Churchill compiled by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) back to 1884 and Environment Canada back to 1929.
Dr Marohasy also commented:
“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 know the Arctic was influenced by El Nino events?”
I cannot help with Dr Marohasy’s last two questions, however, by excluding all the estimated values from nearby weather stations in the Environment Canada data, and by excluding years with missing months from the GISS data, the annual averages are not generally warmer for the GISS data.
I suggest that my plot of the GISS data (Chart 2), which is based on monthly averages (as opposed to seasonal averages as per the GISS website) and excluding all years for which there is not an average for each month, is the ‘best’ available temperature data series showing ‘annual means’ for Churchill.
Chart 1.
(Click on the image for a larger view.)
Chart 2.
(Click on the image for a larger view.)
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A couple things. First there appears to be a step change around the year 2000.
We know from Anthony Watt’s blog that GISS uses the local weather station record to develop it’s product, so in all likelyhood these are one and the same readings, from the same equipment.
Notice the two discontinuities, the first in the 30’s, the second in the 90’s. Both records.
So we know something happened to the thing around 93-94 ish.
So what we want to do next is examine the station history to look for station moves.
I did a google of Churchill weather station and found this picture
of a fellow setting up a weather station. It’s dated 2005.
Maybe they’re modernizing?
At any rate 2005 is off our charts, so it’s no good for us. But as luck would have it the next picture is of Alex H. reading the local paper in the outdoor john.
They have a local paper with a website called The Hudson Bay Post.
There I found out the local weather is minus eight degrees c, and that the weather station is at the airport.
Could it be that the Churchill airport was built in the 1990’s? Maybe.
But they are always resurfaceing it due to the ice cracks on the tarmac.
Another thing I found out, and this is really interesting, from a story in the HBP titled Hudson Bay & Climate Change I discovered that there are accurate temperature measurements for Churchill dating back to the 1700’s, complete with snow fall and precip readings, wind speed and direction, and general discriptions of the weather conditions.
The old timers really focused on weather there since it was a matter of life and death I suppose.
Sure would like to get a look at those.
Hey James,
There is a link to a chart of the early temp records here: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/earliest-temperature-records-from-near-the-north-pole/
Oh hey.
You already hashed this stuff out? Man you are good.
So we had global warming in the 1820’s, 1880’s, and possibly between 1915-22.
Did you by any chance send an email out to Churchill to see if some kind soul out that way could take a pic of the airport weather station?
See I was thinking of doing that, but you’re three steps ahead of me so…
Look at Mayeau go …
Jen you may have some records – but recorded exactly where and how? What standards.
Has the station moved. What enclosures were the instrument(s) in and what exactly were they?
All the stuff that Anthony Watts would go on about (but now in reverse for you guys)
Lots of airports in the 1820s?
So we are approximately where Eli suggested Jen start, and the issues have really narrowed. The next thing is to locate the metadata for Churchill (there may be more than one station mixed in there) and figure out how station moves, equipment changes and such are compensated for (homoginization). It’s fairly easy to find that stuff for the USHCN stations, but EC is more opaque netwise.
Hey. Hang on a minute!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/earliest-temperature-records-from-near-the-north-pole/
This chart of early temperatures around Churchill suggests that it might well have been warmer there several times in the 19th century than it is today on the bloody tarmac! Of course, as Luke points out no telling where they put they put weather stations in those days, perhaps too close to the dogsled parking lot.
So Eli’s right–the issue has really narrowed to the point it’s pretty hard to obfuscate the fact that even with the dramatic rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the last 50 years today’s temperature in what should be one of the most rapidly warming regions of the Earth is still well with in historically measured norms. But Eli is gonna give it a go anyway. Lend a hand with the shovel, Luke?
This reminds me of those pesky Viking dairy farmers in Greenland, they proved pretty bloody hard to homogenize into opaqueness too, netwise.
Anyone recall the definition of a hypothesis that fails to make useful predictions?
Or perhaps Wessy – maybe the thermometer was on a dark wood cabin wall or in a darker wooden box? Do you know? Obviously you haven’t done much work with old met data have you. For example in Australia there’s a about a lot of difference moving between different recording enclosures.
e.g. “Temperature records were recorded in Adelaide using both Stevenson Screens and a Glaisher stand from 1887 on. Glaisher stands were open to the south, and so influenced by reflected radiation, and often measured several degrees higher than the completely enclosed Stevenson screen, currently in use, and accepted as the standard for enclosure of temperature recording instruments for many years.”
So Wes, you can lend a hand to the shovel and look up the nearby data records and corroborating information instead of just flying kites. In fact Wes I think your factual data contributions here are well in the red.
e.g. “Temperature records were recorded in Adelaide using both Stevenson Screens and a Glaisher stand from 1887 on. Glaisher stands were open to the south, and so influenced by reflected radiation, and often measured several degrees higher than the completely enclosed Stevenson screen, currently in use, and accepted as the standard for enclosure of temperature recording instruments for many years.”
Luke,
Care to elaborate on that?
That much variation would need a mirror reflecting the sun directly onto the thermometer.
My experience with outside thermometers exposed to the south is always a lower reading. And that’s in Qld.
Talk about fact-free, Luke, that sounds like one of those “skanky denialist arguments” proscribed by the RC Wiki thought police and ripped off from Anthony Watts, a bloke you, btw, have so politically correctly dismissed as a tosser umpteen times in the past.
Hypocrisy to be sure, but we’ll give you a pass since you tried to use complete sentences.
Nevertheless, as Eli says the wiggle room here has gotten real narrow. We got Vikings in the dairy business a couple of degrees to north and 2,000 miles to the East in the MWP, and now we have a T record from the 19th century that implies cooling from the MWP yet it’s still has spells warmer than a modern airport tarmac station, which has been adjusted upward by GISS to boot.
OK, run that AGW apocalyptic warming hypothesis by me again, ’cause the hypo ain’t jiving with the facts, mate. 1c here or there isn’t gonna salvage your big hopes for climatological second coming by 2050. I’m from the old school, you know, where for a hypothesis to be convincing has to bear some direct relationship to observations and make useful predictions. Soooo, old fashion, I know.
Where’s Eli? How’s he hangin’ on that opaque homo equipment movement angle?
Also, mate, it’s not my job (or anyone’s for that matter) to disprove the AGW Apocalypse hypothesis. The burden of proof is upon the acolytes of the hypothesis to convince us, so mate, here’s yer shovel back. Jeez, talk about kids these day not understanding even the most fundamental rules of scientific methodology! Keep digging.
And while we are up here in the SUB-arctic, how about those Vikings, eh? Dairy cattle in Greenland. How’d they do that? Must have been those Glaisher stands.
“The Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed, but these were inadequate even during the best harvests. During the MWP, Greenland’s climate was so cold that cattle breeding and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords. The growing season in Greenland even then was very short. Frost typically occurred in August and the fiords froze in October. Before the year 1300, ships regularly sailed from Norway and other European countries to Greenland bringing with them timber, iron, corn, salt, and other needed items. Trade was by barter. Greenlanders offered butter, cheese, wool, and their frieze cloths, which were greatly sough after in Europe, as well as white and blue fox furs, polar bear skins, walrus and narwhal tusks, and walrus skins. In fact, two Greenland items in particular were prized by Europeans: white bears and the white falcon. These items were given as royal gifts. For instance, the King of Norway-Denmark sent a number of Greenland falcons as a gift to the King of Portugal, and received in return the gift of a cargo of wine (Stefansson, 1966.) Because of the shortage of adequate vegetables and cereal grains, and a shortage of timber to make ships, the trade link to Iceland and Europe was vital (Hermann, 1954.)”
Not quite a tropical paradise.
No Wessy Woo – too much time mucking around with crap met data to accept some spotty record measured from unknown sites by unknown methods. Eli said “where’s the metadata”.
Sorry chump – the emphasis is on YOU to prove these data represent anything !
Vikings – are they relevant to this region at that time? Is Hudson Bay affected by warming currents?
We’re not even up to an AGW hypothesis yet. And I don’t give a rat’s arse whether you believe that or not. Just sick of being lectured by disingenuous “reformed drunk” types. In your case “a young activist”.
Where the Vikings settled down in Canada ( New Foundland) it was well documented that it was too cold to keep any cattle.
Documented by whom Ann? I don’t recall any of those guys writing home. You guys really do carry on. I’m still waiting to see any trend lines on any of this stuff. And I’d like to see a number of trend lines and types, because it generally depends where you start them and how they are calculated as to what they say. Some of us are interested in the facts and the science, not pointless point scoring.
Graham,
This is written in the book ” Västervägen till Vinland ” ( Westernway to Vinland / Wineland”) by Norwegian explorer Helge Ingstad , probably the world’s leading expert on Vikings. He found the Viking settlements in L’Anse aux Meadows in Canada.( Funded by the National Geographic Society).
One reason why the Vikings had to give up the settlements in Canada was because they could not keep any cattle there…
Not quite a tropical paradise???
Most places with 2,000 kilometers of ice sheet at the back of the last paddock aren’t quite tropical…you got a point beyond that, Mr. Strawman?
Look, we’ve been through this all before. Greenland was once green in the fiords along the coast. Vikings had dairy farms there where you can’t farm in 2008. It was warmer than today. End of story. Big hole in the AGW Hypothesis. What part do you not understand? No way to reason around it, all Luke can do is hurl insults. Perhaps we should revisit the RC Wiki definition skanky Denialism? You blokes are adding a whole new chapter to the Denialist chronicles…
Once more time for the slow learners: A hypothesis must not only conform to direct observation but be able to make useful predictions.
The AGW apocalypse which is suppose to be bearing down upon us should be generating extreme temperature data in places like Churchill and Greenland well outside historic norms, not by -1c anomaly or +1c, but something big, something undeniably big that anyone can see and we can all agree upon… that is what the AGW apocalypse hypothesis predicts. And the observations aren’t there to support the predictions.
Instead we have export-economy dairy farms a thousand years ago where only ice and lichens can survive today and a 19th century T-record in Churchill with maximums beyond those of the last decade. Where’s the bloody apocalypse people???
Keep digging Luke, the burden of proof hole lies with you to show rationally how the historic record of Churchill and the MWP in Greenland fit the predictions of the AGW apocalypse hypothesis.
Sorry for the pointless point scoring Graham, I hope I have also illuminated a trend and type that has been much suppressed by the true believers.
Helge Ingstad’s book is called ” Westwards to Vinland” , and is also about archeology from the Viking settlements in Canada and Greenland.
Of course, the real reason why the Vikings couldn’t keep cattle in the land of tall forests, wine and honey was not because it was too cold more than 1,000 miles south of the Greenland dairy farms from which they hailed but because the well armed indigenous population objected to their colonialism. Without black powder the Vikings had no advantage over a much more numerous and patience adversary, otherwise the colonization of America would have well begun 500 something years before Columbus.
Hi, Anne! 🙂
Don’t you remember we went through all this back in July of 2008 and you played the same sly hand then to no avail?
Wes,
And I haven’t heard that the permafrost in the Hvalbad cemetry has melted yet either.
Here’s some meta data of a sort for the York Factory.
“Parks Canada archeologists found well preserved remains of the “Old Octagon”, constructed between 1788 and 1795 in the same spot where the Depot now stands.”
The Octagon was a star-shaped fort built of stone and brick. By 1831, after being used for only 35 years, the Octagon had to be replaced. Both the foundations and the building quickly fell apart due to pressure and heaving of the permafrost.
The current building was constructed 1831-33.
http://www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/mb/yorkfactory/edu/visites-tours_e.asp
It explains some of the gaps in the old record.
Especially worth noting “the Octagon” crumbled during one of their warm spells.
That’s right, Drongo. I wonder how they buried those old Vikings that deep in solid permafrost?
Now that’s a new bit of information, James, fits in with the old Churchill T-record, but not so well with the AGW hypothesis. Damn.
Boring Wes – we’re not talking about Greenland. How keeping on our focus in Churchhill. It’s really dishonest trying to pretend this is a discussion about Greenland.
Leave Luke and Ann alone Wes, we all know the Greenland Viking settlements on Greenland wreck any arguments these nutters can throw at you.
It was much warmer then than now but with the onset of the LIA around 1350 plus Inuit harassment and the lack of ongoing trade even the tough Vikings died out.
Luke and Ann are BELIEVERS, facts don’t count with fundamentalist fanatics, never have never will.
You would get more sense conversing with a strainer post than talking to these two BELIEVERS.
Ann, you’re really just talking about an archaeologist’s hypothesis. They don’t appear to have much of a dairy industry in NewFoundland today either, but you don’t need a dairy industry to survive, and the absence of one is, to say the least, an unreliable proxy for temperature.
The ‘consensus’ of scientific papers dealing with prior conditions in the Arctic and sub-Arctic is that ocean movements and, in particular, ocean upwellings similar to the GPCS enunciated by McLean and Quirk, as well as a host of other authors, which in turn played a part in PDO phase shift, played the dominant role in climate shifts during the holecene and recent history leading up the 20thC; here are a couple of papers;
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/288/5474/2198
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1343.abstract
And here is a paper which does a comparison between the Last Glacial Maximum, the Climate Optimum. the MWP, the LIA and the 1930 warm period and modern temperatures;
http:www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/282/5387/268 (// excluded)
The conclusions from this are;
Ocean circulation variation and particularly ocean upwelling has played and continues to be a dominant driver of climate;
PDO phase shifts have historical credence;
Current temperature and climate are not exceptional;
therefore AGW has no historical/paleoclimate support.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/polar_bear_sppi_word.pdf
“We found that spring air temperatures around the Hudson
Bay basin for the past 70 years (1932–2002) show no significant warming
trend and are more likely identified with the large-amplitude, natural
climatic variability that is characteristic of the Arctic. Any role of external
forcing by anthropogenic greenhouse gases remains difficult to identify.”
“Finally, we wish to encourage a renewed archaeological search for information related to
polar bear population ecology from 1760 to 1820, when historical evidence (based on
early thermometers at trading posts of Churchill Factory and York Factory) suggests that
the climatic regimes at WH had shifted from temperate to arctic conditions (see
Ball,1995; Catchpole, 1995). Ball (1983, 1986) documented large changes and abrupt
shifts in both floral (i.e., tree line boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra) and
fauna (i.e., migration of wild geese) ecosystem responses of the Hudson Bay region that
occurred naturally as a consequence of the varying mean locations of the Arctic Front
(Bryson, 1966). Ball (1995) suggested that the three consecutive decades from 1770 to
1800 at York Factory consisted of very wet and variable winter conditions oscillating
between extremes of heavy snow versus almost snow-free conditions, which made the
thriving of wildlife populations difficult.Finally, we wish to encourage a renewed archaeological search for information related to
polar bear population ecology from 1760 to 1820, when historical evidence (based on
early thermometers at trading posts of Churchill Factory and York Factory) suggests that
the climatic regimes at WH had shifted from temperate to arctic conditions (see
Ball,1995; Catchpole, 1995). Ball (1983, 1986) documented large changes and abrupt
shifts in both floral (i.e., tree line boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra) and
fauna (i.e., migration of wild geese) ecosystem responses of the Hudson Bay region that
occurred naturally as a consequence of the varying mean locations of the Arctic Front
(Bryson, 1966). Ball (1995) suggested that the three consecutive decades from 1770 to
1800 at York Factory consisted of very wet and variable winter conditions oscillating
between extremes of heavy snow versus almost snow-free conditions, which made the
thriving of wildlife populations difficult.Finally, we wish to encourage a renewed archaeological search for information related to
polar bear population ecology from 1760 to 1820, when historical evidence (based on
early thermometers at trading posts of Churchill Factory and York Factory) suggests that
the climatic regimes at WH had shifted from temperate to arctic conditions (see
Ball,1995; Catchpole, 1995). Ball (1983, 1986) documented large changes and abrupt
shifts in both floral (i.e., tree line boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra) and
fauna (i.e., migration of wild geese) ecosystem responses of the Hudson Bay region that
occurred naturally as a consequence of the varying mean locations of the Arctic Front
(Bryson, 1966). Ball (1995) suggested that the three consecutive decades from 1770 to
1800 at York Factory consisted of very wet and variable winter conditions oscillating
between extremes of heavy snow versus almost snow-free conditions, which made the
thriving of wildlife populations difficult.Finally, we wish to encourage a renewed archaeological search for information related to
polar bear population ecology from 1760 to 1820, when historical evidence (based on
early thermometers at trading posts of Churchill Factory and York Factory) suggests that
the climatic regimes at WH had shifted from temperate to arctic conditions (see
Ball,1995; Catchpole, 1995). Ball (1983, 1986) documented large changes and abrupt
shifts in both floral (i.e., tree line boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra) and
fauna (i.e., migration of wild geese) ecosystem responses of the Hudson Bay region that
occurred naturally as a consequence of the varying mean locations of the Arctic Front
(Bryson, 1966). Ball (1995) suggested that the three consecutive decades from 1770 to
1800 at York Factory consisted of very wet and variable winter conditions oscillating
between extremes of heavy snow versus almost snow-free conditions, which made the
thriving of wildlife populations difficult.Finally, we wish to encourage a renewed archaeological search for information related to
polar bear population ecology from 1760 to 1820, when historical evidence (based on
early thermometers at trading posts of Churchill Factory and York Factory) suggests that
the climatic regimes at WH had shifted from temperate to arctic conditions (see
Ball,1995; Catchpole, 1995). Ball (1983, 1986) documented large changes and abrupt
shifts in both floral (i.e., tree line boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra) and
fauna (i.e., migration of wild geese) ecosystem responses of the Hudson Bay region that
occurred naturally as a consequence of the varying mean locations of the Arctic Front
(Bryson, 1966). Ball (1995) suggested that the three consecutive decades from 1770 to
1800 at York Factory consisted of very wet and variable winter conditions oscillating
between extremes of heavy snow versus almost snow-free conditions, which made the
thriving of wildlife populations difficult.Finally, we wish to encourage a renewed archaeological search for information related to
polar bear population ecology from 1760 to 1820, when historical evidence (based on
early thermometers at trading posts of Churchill Factory and York Factory) suggests that
the climatic regimes at WH had shifted from temperate to arctic conditions (see
Ball,1995; Catchpole, 1995). Ball (1983, 1986) documented large changes and abrupt
shifts in both floral (i.e., tree line boundary between the boreal forest and the tundra) and
fauna (i.e., migration of wild geese) ecosystem responses of the Hudson Bay region that
occurred naturally as a consequence of the varying mean locations of the Arctic Front
(Bryson, 1966). Ball (1995) suggested that the three consecutive decades from 1770 to
1800 at York Factory consisted of very wet and variable winter conditions oscillating
between extremes of heavy snow versus almost snow-free conditions, which made the
thriving of wildlife populations difficult.”
sorry about the multiple posting of the same para.
Hey Luke – I’ve found you the perfect Xmas present.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/images/2008/07/25/toaster.jpg
Very good janama; I’ll show the boys at Niche.
Lordy – now we’re using geese for temperature proxies. LOL
Just for the record, since Luke, et al, has conceded in their own gracious way utter defeat and pulled a runner:
Personally, I hold no emotional attachment to the pros or cons of the AGW argument. My motivation is basic human curiosity. And I love a robust exchange of ideas. Although this thread was more like shooting rabbits in barrel.
Any intelligent person can fathom the climate debate and make up their own mind about the AGW hypothesis.
Obviously we all have biases, blind spots and passions. That’s what makes us human.
I work from the position that the Earth’s climate is NOT controlled in any significant degree by AGW, because that’s what the preponderance of the evidence suggests.
Nor does the AGW apocalypse hypothesis seem to make useful predictions about the climate past, present or future. Those that it does make, that can be tested, fail. The T-record envelope of Churchill and Viking dairy farms in Greenland are but two examples of how the predictions of the AGW hypothesis have failed.
This is not the same as saying that there is NO evidence of AGW, but that the AGW signal is dwarfed by larger cyclic trends such as the MWP or the LIA. Even phenomena as minor in the big picture as a PDO shift or the El Nino of 1998 appears to overwhelm the weak AGW signal.
AGW can’t even produce modern warming in Churchill that breaks outside the 19 th century T-record. This is a serious failure in the AGW hypothesis which predicts that the warming signal in the high latitudes should appear earlier and much more robustly than in lower latitudes.
Nevertheless, if presented with a rational, transparent argument or new evidence that the AGW hypothesis (or some adjusted variant thereof) can past the tests any hypothesis must to be good science, then I am quite prepared to adopt to the AGW paradigm as the better fitting explanation of the observed data.
Can the same reasonable openness to all possibilities be said to exist on the part of those who represented the pro-AGW side of the debate in this thread?
Until new evidence presents itself, the principle of parsimony excludes any assumptions unnecessary to explain the observed climate data and that includes the AGW forcing hypothesis and its corollary forecasts of an impending AGW apocalypse.
Wes – bunk – you’ve made no formal calculations nor study of the issue. A qualitative stroll. You simply believe what you want. Whatever makes you comfortable – and arrange the material you can source to fit your perspective.
As does Cohenite – you start with the filter that only lets what if cognitively acceptable through.
Actually, Luke, you’re wrong.
If you had any rational argument or presented any real evidence at all I would be pleased to hear it and if it was even half way valid I would sincerely consider it upon my “qualitative stroll.” My perspective is a work in progress and I hope it will always be thus.
I have no emotional investment in this debate one way or the other and would be happy to concede the point to you and the theory you so ineptly defend. I simply want to learn how the climate works and have a fun, robust debate while doing so and as it stands at the moment the AGW apocalypse hypothesis doesn’t describe the preponderance of observations or make useful predictions. At least none that have been brought to my attention thus far. Thus I can not subscribe to it.
I hope that I could change that position if confronted with new information to the contrary.
I am completely baffled by people like you who seem to have no curiosity. You seem motivated by something other than a search for the truth. You don’t seem to be interested in discovery. It is as if you already know everything.
I hope that I know how to listen. I hope I never lose my curiosity or willingness to learn new things or admit when I am wrong. I hope that I don’t stop growing intellectually or spiritually.
Have you ever conceded a fundamental point on the AGW issue, Luke? Are you capable of grasping when your working hypothesis deviates from the observations?
I hope that I am.
Know what is really funny about this?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l51087083622ll24/
Oh yeah we are still waiting for a link to the metadata for the Churchill weather stations.
Eli – you’re never going to get anywhere on here with citing published journal material – even funnier due to the predilection of certain authors.
Wes has no emotional investment after all those interminable rants?
But Wes I could also say – I am completely baffled by people like you who seem to have no curiosity. You seem motivated by something other than a search for the truth. You don’t seem to be interested in discovery. It is as if you already know everything.
There would be literally tons of information that would make you more than a tad curious. And yes some evidence that doesn’t add up. But would a manevolent God make it easy for us?
Most people on here would not accept any evidence – even an ice-free Arctic as proof of AGW. It stems from a lack of willingness to believe that humans could make such impacts. IT IS NOT HAPPENING ! (EVER)
Nature has the current philosophy on this
http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/11/is_it_a_pearl_harbor_if_it_has_1.html
You may even find believers more cynical than you think http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2008/11/when_will_they_learn.php
My friends now regard me as an AGW sceptic- probably as I say “well the mainstream view is X but sceptics disregard/are critical of that evidence due to Y”
And of course there’s a lot of silly nonsense with the AGW “movement” too. And a whole bunch of devious skullduggery with the sceptics. Which it’s our moral duty to heap shit on.
But in the end it’s important to work it all through. It’s a risk management exercise.
While ever you keep the discussion at the rhetorical/political – we’re not going to get too far.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/114028240/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Abstract
Lack of historic climate data is a severe limit to advancing understanding of climate and improving general circulation models. Diaries maintained by the Hudson’s Bay Company at Churchill and York Factory on Hudson Bay are analysed to determine a synoptic climate for the decade 1720-1729, a critical decade within the Little Ice Age. Subjective data are converted by a coding system to objective numerical data for computer analysis. Instrumental temperatures were not available this early, however, wind direction, number of days with precipitation events including rain, snow, freezing rain, and hail were recorded. In addition, first day of rain in spring, snow in autumn and number of days with thunder are analysed. Weather conditions during the decade are presented for other parts of the world. Results show similarities with these climate records. Overall the conditions reflect Little Ice Age conditions. The first pentad is markedly different than the second, which has greater variation in all variables. This pattern parallels sunspot activity. The decade has a meridional pattern, however, this is more pronounced in the second pentad.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t32g2p501174p045/
Abstract Indices of summer sea ice severity in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have been reconstructed from sailing ships’ log-books. The ice record for Hudson Strait extends from 1751 to 1889. Ice records are available for two parts of Hudson Bay and these extend from 1751 to 1870. The three records were derived from the same sources but the method of derivation applied in the bay was different to that applied in the strait. The years having the five largest ice indices in each of these records were identified. Also identified were the years in which major volcanic eruptions occurred between 1751 and 1889. The number of concurrences between the years with severe ice in Hudson Strait and the years with major eruptions was significant at the 99.5% level. In the western part of Hudson Bay this significance level was 95%. The years with severe ice in eastern Hudson Bay did not concur with major eruptions.
“Know what is really funny about this?
http://www.springerlink.com/content/l51087083622ll24/
Oh yeah we are still waiting for a link to the metadata for the Churchill weather stations.”
It’s more ironic. Like who would ever guess that curmudgeons like Josh Halprin would be so enamored of their pet “the sky is falling” theory that they would project their own bosses failings into a sort of hateful grudge against Dr Ball.
I guess it’s true that you will ever be able to convince a man of facts when his paycheck depends upon not understanding.
Meta data like the name of the person who built the thermometer used to measure the temperature in 1771 – who ever would imagine such a goldmine existed?
“The instruments used in taking these observations are a barometer and thermometer of Nairne’s construction, and we have great reason to think them both very good as Mr. Wales the astronomer (who remarked the last transit of Venus at Churchill) was commissioned to send them. The thermo-meter is that termed the standard with Fahrenheit’s scale; the freezing point is at the thirty-second degree above the Cypher [5].”
Josh, if only your boss would use such dilligence. It must be depressing for Josh to read the paper of Dr. Ball, whom he has described as “needy, rapacious, reprehensible”, showing that frontier pioneers alone on the tundra were more devoted to accurate readings then the whole of NOAA and GISS.
And he researched that Springerlink when you were still popping zits in the mirror trying to think up a way to screw the public out of a living for yourself.
Not funny – ironic.
Hi Eli, glad you’re back. Luke and I just don’t seem to be getting anywhere with this.
I would like to ask you a few questions:
1. How is it that the AGW hypothesis, which predicts that the AGW warming signal will occur early and most robustly in high latitudes, seems not to be confirmed by the t-record at Churchill, since the observed warming of today is well within the historic envelope even after being adjusted upward by GISS.
The mountain of evidence to suggest that many places in the Arctic at various times were warmer than today’s climate is well documented. Churchill’s t-record is merely one of many examples we have chosen today to explore the implications that robust evidence of past warm periods have for the AGW hypothesis.
Surely, for a hypothesis to be valid it must make useful predictions that can be tested? Isn’t the T-record of Churchill at least one small step in this testing process?
2. Doesn’t the AGW apocalypse hypothesis predict that temperatures today are much higher today than over a hundred years ago, especially so at high latitudes. If they are not, doesn’t that imply that we are well within the normal cyclic temperature variations of the climate?
3. How does the AGW hypothesis explain historic global warming events (i.e. MWP) that appear to have been warmer than today, albeit with perhaps less than half the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of today?
3.Please explain why past climate conditions that were warmer than today were obviously natural phenomena, but today’s warming requires a special case theory to account for it? Why does the principle of parsimony not apply to today’s climate?
Thanks in advance, mate.
FWIW since this site now appears Rabett hostile and a long response got quashed take a look ay the graph here
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006
If you look for Canadian temperature trends they are strongly positive for the instrumental record
Also, a single station is not the world, not even northern Canada
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/trends-temperature-annual.php
Seasonal trends are more extreme
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/trends-temperature-seasonal.php
But a single stand of trees in California are?
rabett.blogspot.com/2007/05/it-writes-itself-ethon-after-sharing.html
Go figure.
Dear Eli,
This site is “hostile”? I have certainly tried to approach this debate with an open mind and a sense of good humour. I have stated repeatedly that I am willing to accept the AGW hypothesis if it can simply past the usual tests of a functional hypothesis.
“Quashed?” Is Eli charging that Eli’s posts have been censored by the moderator?
Really? That would be utterly unique in my experience with this blog. No one moderates this site for anything less than obscenities as far as I can discern. It is certainly a serious accusation to claim that a rational, on topic response to a fair query was “quashed” by the moderators of this site. Please elaborate? I would certainly support Eli in further inquiries into this issue.
Perhaps, there is a limit to how many words a post can contain? Please try posting again in segments.
While we wait, every one should have a look a the links that Eli Rabett provided and judge for themselves the relevance of the information there within.
No doubt, the Canadian temperature trends are positive. We understand that. The modern trends at Churchill are positive in the graphs posted by Nichole Hoskins.
How do the recent positive temperature trends, in and of themselves, prove the AGW apocalypse hypothesis? Please elaborate? Certainly, Eli, isn’t simply extrapolating the recent trend slope 75 years into the future then forecasting a climate apocalypse?
The temperature information in Eli’s links might well have been provided as supporting evidence for the argument that the modern temperature trends of Canada are well with in the historic envelope of temperature ranges as deduced from the Churchill T-record and supplemental observations.
Certainly a “single station is not the world”, but Eli’s links show that an entire continental T-record does not confirm the prediction of the AGW apocalypse hypothesis, which claims that temperatures should already be at historic record highs in the sub-arctic, yet we have shown that isn’t the case.
If Eli Rabbet would be so kind to direct Eli’s attention to the few simple questions I have outlined. My hope is that by staying focused on the pertinent questions that have direct significance to the validity of the AGW hypothesis that we all might take away some new insight into the question of how climate evolves.
Perhaps Eli will even make a few converts. I know I have an open mind.
Over to you, Eli…
eli is always welcome; he keeps us on our toes and out of our comfort zone, although on reflection so does a visit to the dentist; anyway this link of eli’s is interesting;
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/trends-in-arctic-temperature-1880-2006
This looks like a classic PDO phase change graph; the clincher for me is the base period of 1961-1990 used to determine anomalies; this catches the tail end of the -ve PDO and means subsequent temperatures are stepped up and artificially higher and vice-versa for the prior temps; with 2 +ve PDO’s in the 20thC anomalous temperature trends are bound to be up; it just doesn’t mean it got hotter.
Seriously Josh, Eli is not the first person to get a comment munched by a bad connection.
Get over it.
The site isn’t “hostile” to Eli.
I am.
As a taxpayer I reserve the right to be hostile toward GISS cronies, wherever I might encounter them, in whatever disguise they choose to hide behind.
Isn’t it interesting that Hadcru “located” the missing 1910-20’s for their Arctic record. Perhaps minus Canada. During the war to end all wars for extra difficulty points! What a surprise to see that during this time frame when we have Canadians in row boats setting records on how far they can row toward the North Pole and Spitzenberg has no sea ice that hadcru finds the Arctic chilly.
Must be that darned Russian cold spot again.
Wes, but when you said
“1. How is it that the AGW hypothesis, which predicts that the AGW warming signal will occur early and most robustly in high latitudes, seems not to be confirmed by the t-record at Churchill, since the observed warming of today is well within the historic envelope even after being adjusted upward by GISS.”
and I said that
“Also, a single station is not the world, not even northern Canada”
http://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/Canada/trends-temperature-annual.php
Seasonal trends are more extreme”
You got your answer. You can see that for Canada where we have good coverage, the average trends are as predicted and from the other link the trends for the entire arctic are as expected, higher warming.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm
But during the 20s-40s Russians report
* retreating of glaciers, melting of sea islands, and retreat of permafrost
* decrease of sea ice amounts
* acceleration of ice drift
* change of cyclone paths
* increase of air temperature
* biological indications of Arctic warming
* ease of navigation
* increase in temperature and heat content of Atlantic Waters, entering Arctic Basin
So much for the Russian cold spot.
Here are some useful graphics of temperature changes in the Arctic over the last 60 years
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/CLIMATESUMMARY/2003/
And here is how hot it got in Churchill last summer
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/figmapt_e.html?season=Summer&date=2008
Oh yeah, James, what’s his name and cohenite, thanks for letting Eli know that the effort is worth it.
gee I don’t know how to say this.
I guess the thing to do is just spit it out.
Josh about Churchill’s summer, your bon-fire is on the wrong side of the bay.
Plus Environment Canada states there was a .9C increase in Canada from 1948 – 2008
http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ccrm/bulletin/figchartt_e.html?season=Summer&date=2008
If you go to the Polar Temp section of http://www.climate4you.com/ you will find the following statement.
“Graph showing monthly surface air temperature anomaly 70-90N since January 2000, in relation to the WMO normal period 1961-1990. There is no clear trend in these data, and the average surface air temperatures north of 70oN is essentially stable for the time being. “
I found a paper that looks at maritime Arctic air temperatures from 1875 to 2000. The authors noted that if you looked at the data from 1920 to 2000, the trend showed cooling.
See: Igor V. Polyakov, Roman V. Bekryaev, Genrikh V. Alekseev, Uma Bhatt, Roger L. Colony , Mark A. Johnson, Alexander P. Makshtas, and David Walsh, ‘Variability and trends of air temperature and pressure in the maritime Arctic, 1875 – 2000’,
http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/warm/warm_apr02.pdf
Since the start point of the data can dramatically affect the trend, we need 100+ years of data to be able to compare the present to the past accurately.
Thank you, Eli, for your concise reply to my question below:
“Doesn’t the AGW apocalypse hypothesis predict that temperatures today are much higher today than over a hundred years ago, especially so at high latitudes. If they are not, doesn’t that imply that we are well within the normal cyclic temperature variations of the climate?”
Eli’s reply:..”the average trends are as predicted and …the trends for the entire arctic are as expected, higher warming.
That’s a fine statement Eli although too vague to disagree with. But focusing on a few decades of rather ordinary t-trend hardly validates the AGW apocalypse hypothesis in the context of the last century of data, or even more, if you go back to include the Medieval Warm Period. In fact, it is the weakness of these recent warming trends that are causing some doubts.
The important prediction made by the AGW apocalypse hypothesis is that the trend should be well outside historic envelope.
To offer us solid evidence that the whole of arctic Canada is still much cooler in 2008 then when the Vikings had dairy farms on neighboring Greenland doesn’t advance the hypothesis that we are on the verge of a climate apocalypse.
2. So, Eli, how does the AGW hypothesis explain historic global warming events (i.e. MWP) that appear to have been warmer than today, albeit with perhaps less than half the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of today?
The CO2 levels are the clue. Warming is caused by increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, that’s the AGW hypothesis in a nutshell. So what does this hypothesis predict we will find when we look at past temp records during periods of low atmospheric CO2 levels?
3.Please explain why past climate conditions that were warmer than today were obviously natural phenomena, but today’s warming requires a special case theory to account for it? Why does the principle of parsimony not apply to today’s climate?
Eli, I’m sure you would agree that for a hypothesis to be validated it must make useful predictions that can be transparently and reproducibly tested.
These are a few of the fundamental questions that must be addressed honestly and rationally by any investigation of the AGW hypothesis. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation for all this.
Thanks in advance for taking time out to help us out.
Wes stop baiting the “Eli”, you know there can be no doubts allowed, and heaven forbid you expect logic or keeping it simple stupid to be viable in the AGW theory. SORRY DID I SAY THEORY, should be fact shouldnt it Eli. Even Obama is stating it as fact and beyond conjecture.
Mind you oh great one, are you able to answer any of Wes’ questions?
Importantly have you considered Nichole’s excellent point about how much data should be looked at to form a trend? Does history count for anything, or should we just “reconstruct it” to suit our post modern world in which the apparently overriding paradigm is humans are stuffing up the planet and must be stopped?!!
Ernst-Georg Beck discussed this recently.
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/wcmsmimefiles/Arctic_102008e_824.pdf
“Conclusion:
The news item:“ Arctic air temperatures climb to record levels“ is selective science and wrong because the Arctic Ocean ( covering an area of more than 50% of the Arctic circle) has been left unconsidered.
The NOAA study summarizes: „5°C record levels in temperature in autumn“, presents the averaged temperatures only on land stations and discusses melting sea ice as a cause! This is pseudoscience.”
Very interesting paper, Nichole. Comments, Eli?
Eli Rabbet must be away on business. I hope Eli gets a chance to post a thoughtful reply to this thread soon, ’cause I also have to leave on business.
Check back with ya later. I am most curious to see Eli’s explanation for all this is.
“2. So, Eli, how does the AGW hypothesis explain historic global warming events (i.e. MWP) that appear to have been warmer than today, albeit with perhaps less than half the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of today?
The CO2 levels are the clue. Warming is caused by increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, that’s the AGW hypothesis in a nutshell. So what does this hypothesis predict we will find when we look at past temp records during periods of low atmospheric CO2 levels? ”
CO2 is not the only forcing, and climate has changed before for several reasons. At present, CO2 is the most significant forcing that is acting on the climate. This is not necessarily the state of forcings at other times in history. Which I would think is obvious. Through the long history of the earth, there have been many, quite dramatic, changes in the whole way the climate is configured and acts. To compare apples to oranges is not going to get you anywhere.
SJT, you missed the point by a few hundred million years compounded by at least one logical fallacy and an unwillingness to submit the AGW hypothesis to the test proposed…
If your hypothesis is that “At present, CO2 is the most significant forcing that is acting on the climate,” then that hypothesis makes a perfectly clear prediction about the recent past assuming that the laws of physics remain constant over time. (duh.)
At times of lower atmospheric CO2 levels the temperature should be lower.
The Earth has a “long history” as you point out and the climate has been “configured” differently over this past 4 billion year history, however, we have only been discussing the last 100 to 1,000 years at most, barely a nanosecond in geological time. You can’t pretend we are “comparing apples to oranges” or the whole concept of a climate or “climate change” is rendered meaningless.
Is this the best that you can offer as an argument, mate?
Where’s Eli Rabbett?
I am so disappointed.