Subarctic Temperatures (Part 3): A Note from Nichole Hoskin
Posted by Nichole Hoskin, November 29th, 2008 - under News, Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
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.)
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.