Assuming the tipping points are correct, I see no immediate behavior by humans that could stop those changes. Greenland was once warmer and so again it may be. That would not prohibit ice sheets from forming once again. When they say something is tipping to the point that a crisis occurs that may be only by man's perspective. If the planet was beginning to cool again, that may be natural for the planet but very bad for man. Cooling has some really negative implications. I say that after two very cold months here in WI with temps falling in the minus numbers quite often. We are currently at 30 degrees which honestly feels spring like tonight. It is a matter of perspective.

According to Hansen, Greenland and Iceland are cooler now than they were in the 1940s.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040630003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431043600000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=620040300000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Greenland sea ice is normal, and was above normal most of last summer.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html

The mass of the Greenland Ice Sheet is 2.85 million km3. The graph above cherry picks three year's worth of data (2003-2005) and tries to show it as a linear trend. It is not only ridiculous to try to advertise that short time period as a linear trend, but even if it was true - it would still take 10,000 years to melt the Greenland ice sheet at that rate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet

The "U.S. Global Change Research Program" exists for the sole purpose of promoting concern about climate change. This is junk science at it's worst. Nothing but opinion, distortion and unsupportable speculation.

Mr. Anderson,
Although we might all be aware of global warming, it seems we are impervious to anything that could happen in our lifetime. Yet we do not realize it is in our lifetime we will see changes we can not pretend to comprehend. We all get a picture of some homeless man holding a sign "The end is near" and we laugh. Has anyone really studied the jetstream in the last 24 hours or the H/L pressure systems on the net? Right now I'm on the southern shore of Lake Erie experiencing a lightning storm in Feb. and it's a storm I would expect in July (of this magnitude). There has been snow but it melts the instant it touches ground. This has been gradual, but how much more gradual does it need to be. Gradual becomes increasing like gravity. And let's not forget VP Al Gore, which was privied to certain info the President's not even entitled to. Now why would he go off on this rambling of Global Warming like it was our end? Right now I've heard thunder 10X worse in the past hour than in the past 10 years. Gradual my arse.

re this posting
Baffin ice sheet current
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html
Current greenland ice area current
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.5.html
No comment

While I realize that current projections say that chances are low for a MOC shutdown, I've always found it fascinating that discussions on the potential consequences focus almost exclusively on how this would result in a colder Europe and NE US. Not to minimize the disruption this would cause to the world economy, but here's the thing for me. That heat energy that the MOC transfers poleward will still need to be transferred and will find another route. What might that alternate route be? What additional weather pattern changes would that incur? What would the consequences be or agriculture, transportation, water resources?

From the Guardian article, "The scientists also expressed concerns over the Boreal forests in the north, and have predicted that El Nino, the climate system which has a profound impact on weather from Africa to North America, will become more intense."

Based on SOI data, El Ninos and La Ninas were more intense in the 19th century, when temperatures were considerably cooler.

And what causes what? It appears to me that a higher frequency of El Ninos would contribute to, not be a cause of, rising global temperature.

The graph above shows that the Greenland ice cap diminished in size from 300 cubic kilometers to -300 cubic kilometers over a three year period.

Did the authors actually graduate from high school? This is one of the worst excuses for a scientific graph I have ever seen. The title and axes make no sense, and the reference period is much too short to be meaningful as a trend.

People who work for industry have to be correct, but government funded research often produces garbage like this.

DANGER!!! DANGER!!!

NOW FOR TODAY'S DOOM AND GLOOM REPORT, WE TURN TO An international group of climate experts have identified nine areas that are in the greatest danger of passing critical threshholds or "tipping points" beyond which they will not recover due to climate change.

I see the modelers are extremely busy cranking out the most extreme scenarios. They should take a break and let the hamsters rest a bit.

Then we have this:

"The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetrask record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A 'Medieval Warm Period' is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetraask suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.�

"The new Tornetrask summer temperature reconstruction shows a trend of -0.3 deg C over the last 1,500 years."

What's this? Arctic temperatures have actually declined over the last 15 centuries? The Greenland Ice Cap must have been totally gone back then, eh?

Sorry, bt and Bloom. You'll have to look this one up yourself.

Grudd, H. 2008. Tornetrask tree-ring width and density AD 500-2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers. Climate Dynamics, DOI 10.1007/s00382-007-0358-2.

Just thought I would point out that today high risk of severe storms in U.S. with tornadoes in early February. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Reply: February is actually noted for severe weather in the south, but this outbreak will extend be a bit farther north than usual.

So, from what I can digest from the article, the globe will be stuck in a permanent El Nino, warm AMO cycle? Interesting prediction in light of the rather weak, short lived El Nino of 2006. If I remember correctly, 2005 was one of the warmest years on record. The 2006 El Nino event was unexpected, weak, and short lived. The AMO is a 50 year cycle, with both a postive and negative phase. The AMO has been positive since 1995. The last really warm AMO was 1919-1940, and experts back then also worried about the melting artic enviorment.

I can't get past the graphic. Nice 3 1/2 year trend. Why isn't 2002 included? and what about the last two years (2006-2007)?

I'll tell you why they weren't represented in this graph, because 2002 had more melting than 2005, it would be OFF the BOTTOM of the chart.

And more recent times (2006-2007) had significantly LESS melting than 2002; and 2006 would be OFF the TOP of the chart.

So if you expand this graph from 2002-present. It would have started below the bottom (-500) (representing alarming melting) shot up at 2002 (the graph's starting point) showing a short recovery followed by increasing melting, then at 2006 it would have jumped OFF the cart to the top indicating a recovery.

The overall trend from 2002-2007 would show an INCREASE in ice mass. Of course my graph would be attacked as cherry-picking data, yet the honorable folks at the U.S. Global Change Research Program are not to be impugned so, since they represent a consensus, rigorously peer-reviewed position, where conclusions are valid as long as they meet preconceived notions regardless of the validity of their methodologies.

For an honest review of NASA's ENTIRE known recorded history of the ice mass in Greenland (20 years or so) check out this article: (NASA also used enigmatic graphs to try to show alarming melting, but under closer scrutiny, these claims were shown to be spurious at best.)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/05/greenland-climate-now-vs-then-part-ii-record-greenland-melt-area/

This article represents alarmism at its worst. It bases its doom and gloom projections on the hypothetical and unproven premise that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Reply: It is not all doom and gloom, the study also notes potential positives.

I read another article that showed, scientifically, that at least a part of the arctic circle has shown a downward temperature trend of -0.3C covering a period of 1,500 years. They can't both be correct.
You can read it here:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/04/1500-years-of-cooling-in-the-arctic/#more-305

Forecasts like this are pure speculation as the systems producing the observed phenomena are poorly understood. And when it comes to Greenland, melting ice sheets are nothing new in earth's history.

I'm a AGW believer and I understand the idea behind tipping points. But I still have a problem with the scale used on this graph. It seems to give the impression thatthe Greenland Ice Sheet is whittling away to nothing. The scale is given in cubic km. The total volume of the GIS is gien as 2.85 million cubickm in wikipedia, so if one were to graph this as a time series of total volume, with the bottom line being 0 cubic km, the dcrease would appear far less dramatic.

Dave wrote

"Just thought I would point out that today high risk of severe storms in U.S. with tornadoes in early February. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???"

And then BT and Mark came in and admonished him for confusing weather with climate... they did right?

Time to sacrifice a 40 year old virgin.

Nothing has changed since antiquity. Everytime humans THINK they've learned something new the priests convince the people it's their fault and exact treasure in order to pay for absolution.

Anyone knows an ant can't move a rubber tree plant.

Aaron

Well, the graph has achieved another "tipping point". It has turned me from an interested but critical observer into a full-blown skeptic. It is utter rubbish. They might as well have joined the first three annual top points and said that only 2005 was an anomalous year. Using four years out all known history is a classic example of cherrypicking data. In private enterprise, the authors would have been compelled to resign.

Hi cmbclean,

If you plotted the 0.00008 change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, the graph would have to be several stories high just to be noticeable.

If you plotted the claimed 0.5K rise in temperatures over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, it would similarly have to be huge to be noticeable.

AGW alarmism is based primarily on graphs of manipulated data magnified wildly out of proportion. Like those National Geographic electron microscope pictures of harmless insects, magnified about 10,000 times to look scary.

Hi Guys,

RSS January is in and the survey says. Coolest since 2000 and second coolest in 15 years. Bet GISS will say second warmest,LOL. I guess Patrick we can start using "Global Cooling Deniers", LOL pretty funny.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/rss-satellite-data-for-jan08-2nd-coldest-january-for-the-planet-in-15-years/#comments

And then BT and Mark came in and admonished him for confusing weather with climate... they did right?

Actually, the deniers are making so much noise on this thread that I haven't bothered to even read it very carefully.

it appears that AGW alarmism has reached a tipping point...the low rumble of critical science is deafening...it has become louder than the ever more desperate consensus scam machine...a reflection of the free speech opinions on this blog has made this apparent...as expected, the folks that may have bought the first bottle of snake oil are realizing it doesnt do what it was advertised to do...dubious scary stories being told thru nontransparent methodology is being exposed and cannot stand the test of truth...i wouldnt expect an easy ride off into the sunset from these dudes as the lie continues to unravel...more likely is a scorched earth policy, a namesake of the AGW battle cry...its a dastardly sham and crying shame, so much continues to be wasted...have a nice day, bros...

Patrick Henry

"If you plotted the 0.00008 change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, the graph would have to be several stories high just to be noticeable."

Where do you get thatCO2 has only risen 0.00008 %?

And at the other Pole....

By Patrick J. Michaels
Published 2/5/2008 12:07:29 AM

At present, the coverage of ice surrounding Antarctica is almost exactly two million square miles above where it is historically supposed to be at this time of year. It's farther above normal than it has ever been for any month in climatologic records.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12679

Whoa what an alarmist viewpoint.

Has anyone simply asked what the tipping point is? Not when, but what? There is no way, repeat no way, that anyone, even these esteemed climatologists, know what the tipping point of any region is. Essentially, these are guesses of what they can imagine.

This is exactly the same thing that the followers of Gore bemoan when a skeptic says that the economy will tank if CO2 restrictions are imposed.

Honestly, Brett, you could have picked me out of the auditorium if Dr. Keller had discussed climatic tipping points such as the shutdown of an oceanic circulation due to AGW. Sure it can be imagined but did anyone actually ask him how he surmised such an idea?

I mean I can posit that a pig can fly in a warming world, should I issue a press release? Maybe I could get funding.

William Wright:

While I certainly do not want to demean your backyard weather observation, I would like to point out that thunderstorms in February have happened often over my life here in the Buckeye State. And the lack of snow is not really that earth shattering. It has happened even in the colder periods of the 70's. Really, I can recall more winters looking for snow than winters being sick of snow.

The weather is not really that different now than what it was 30 years ago except that we now treat T-1" of snow as a winter weather advisory, 4" as a winter storm, 6" as a heavy snow event, rain over 3/4" as a flood threat, thunderstorm warnings as soon as red shows on a radar, and tornado warnings if nearly any rotation is seen in the sky.

Our standards and perception of a weather threat is much different than what it was just a decade or so ago. Not saying it is good or bad, it just is different. This is because we have better detecting equipment and the public has demanded greater guidance. Frankly, it tends to lead to the public's view that weather in general is more extreme.

I'm kinda shocked that ACCUWEATHER hasn't been sued yet by some moron claiming that they gave out the wrong forecast or something. Or, have they been sued? Gosh, I hope it doesn't come to that.

Along the lines of a different thread, it is an example of media bias as anything extreme garners attention. Therefore, if you can imply extreme, you garner additional advertising revenue.

Thank you Ken Clark!

Yesterday I gave an overall look at the state of the snowpack in the West. Recent drought plagued areas such as Colorado, Arizona and California are all having a great Winter so far with snow water equivalent averaging well above normal. The Northwest southeast to Utah are also having a tremendous snow year that will put a lot of water into the reservoirs come the Spring and Summer melt.

Despite all of the great news this snowpack brings, and the benefits it will give, a search of the internet finds very few articles touting this. I looked at page after page trying to find a positive story. Either there were only the negative stories about doom and gloom come this Spring and Summer in the Southwest that were penned last Summer and Fall, or there were a few articles from small publications about the good news this Winter snowfall has brought. I can only say this seems very interesting.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=forecastfox&blog=clark

Brett,
I live in ohio and 70 degrees in january and 60 in february with thunderstorms is not normal. Reply: Dave, I did not say it was normal in Ohio. I said it is not unusual in the deep South for severe weather in February. Please read more carefully. As far as I know, Ohio is not in the deep south. Brett

Veets,
If you want to talk climate just look at the average world temp. for the last 100 years or however far back it goes and see what you find. You'll find your climate, that is a warming climate.

Hi cmbclean,

I didn't say "0.00008%" I said "0.00008." If you want that in percent, it is a whopping 0.008%

The change in atmospheric CO2 concentration has been 0.00008 over the last 100 years, from 0.00030 up to 0.00038.

Scary stuff.

"If you plotted the 0.00008 change in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, the graph would have to be several stories high just to be noticeable."

Using your flawed logic, the change in total solar irradiance, going from 1366 to 1367 watts, plotted over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, isn't noticeable either.

Give it up, Patrick. The act is getting old.

MaineMan,

You're right, the temperature changes in Europe are not necessarily the most important in an MOC shutdown. Since the northward transport of heat weakens, not only does the north Atlantic cool, but the southern hemisphere should warm (the "bipolar seesaw" mechanism). Probably even more important in an MOC collapse is the likely shift in zonal precipitation bands and, as you say, its effect on agriculture and water resources.

Another point that is often overlooked is that although the odds of a MOC collapse this century are low, they start to increase substantially in the next century, under business-as-usual emissions scenarios. The world does not end in 2100.

Darren,

If you want to see how Dr. Keller surmised a possible shutdown of the MOC, read his publications and the references cited therein. Brett linked to his web site.

Ocean physics indicates that MOC collapses are possible, and observations indicate that the MOC has collapsed in the past (and quite rapidly). As Brett noted, the odds of it happening this century are estimated to be low (according to both the IPCC and Dr. Keller). But they are also not negligibly small, given the magnitude of the potential impacts.

Do not make the mistake of going from "we can't say for sure whether the MOC will collapse" to "therefore we don't know anything at all about the MOC or its threshold for collapse". And certainly don't make the even worse mistake of going from there to "therefore we shouldn't bother factoring the possibility into our decision making".

critical threshold?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot.html

Coldest Winter in 100 Years!

http://www.accuweather.com/news-story.asp?partner=forecastfox&traveler=0&article=4

Reply: PH I knew you would like that eye-catching headline! That's my brief story I posted from earlier Tuesday on the AccuWeather.com front page. This is according to the China meteorological service.

Regional climate trends, tipping points and a wet and snowy down right visious NH winter , during a moderately strong la nina no less!Fantastic snows out in the western USA, China suffering worste winter in a century, and yeah the North East I-95 corridor could use colder temps and more snow, but we been getting lots of rain and there is snow in the berkshires and catskills to be found. What does all this say about tipping points? What does all this say about weather? For me it says weather is an expression of a living THING. The earth is a living system and the atmosphere is a living thing. If this is true, then we are dealing with something that is alive with feelings, intelligence and, well, behaviors. Science and media hacks will not even consider this probability of a living planet, less a living atmosphere. Native People everywhere around the world know that weather is an expression of the living earth. Does anyone remember the Gia Hypothesis? Big conference in the 1980's with big mucky muk scientists discussing whether or not the planet is alive and if so conscious! I think it is. And yes, AGW arguement is getting a real thrashing from facts of Global Colding this NH winter!

the change in total solar irradiance, going from 1366 to 1367 watts, plotted over the last 100 years on an absolute scale, isn't noticeable either.

Hi Mark,

Fantastic! So we can agree that there is no crisis and no need for scary graphs, James Hansen, Al Gore or the IPCC.

Solar activity is much broader than just TSI. It also includes solar wind (protons and electrons) which can vary by orders of magnitude from day to day and year to year. It is very unlikely to be a coincidence that the Maunder minimum coincided with the LIA.

Sunspot number: 0

http://www.spaceweather.com/

Hi Brett,

Thanks for China post and the headline. Here is a great one from last winter

Warmest Winter On Record For Shanghai ... The Shanghai Meteorological Bureau said global warming was the culprit

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Asia_Sees_Warmest_Winter_On_Record_Tokyo_Goes_Snowless_As_Temperatures_Jump_999.html

That is a terrible graph. A tiny snapshot to bolster their believe. I don't care what side your on. It's just wrong.

PH,

An increase from 0.00030 to 0.00038 is an increase of approximately 26.7%

Brett: As far as I know Missouri is not in the deep south where they were under tornado warnings. Missouri does not equal deep south. Most know that .

Reply: Yes, I agree, but I had also noted that this severe threat area extended farther north than usual. Why do you keep arguing with me on this topic? I think if you see what I wrote we are basically on the same page.
I must say, we knew yesterday was going to be a bad situation for tornadoes in that region, if not historic, but I am still in shock with amount of fatalities that have been reported (44 as of this morning). Just a terrible situation.

To George N. Interesting point of view you've got there George. The Eastern cultures in ancient times had similar perceptions. Can't say as to whether I would go so far as to consider the Earth as a living creature but I'll tell you what-Sometimes it sure does act that way! Thanks for the post. Dave.

Why is it that we have to continue to remind Patrick that Colorado is not the center of the universe? As far as China is concerned, I doubt that I can believe the Chinese News Agency, but it doesn't matter as well. Local Weather is not World Climate!!!!!
In addition, referencing useless biased websites or articles, or nitpicking points out of context is a ploy that Deniers use on this Blog to the extreme. I believe they think it makes them seem intelligent. But I am more convinced by real scientists, not you jokers. Your arguments against accumulating scientific evidence have worn thin.
Finally, as much as Patrick and his gang write, leads me to believe they have nothing else to do. Get a life guys! Better hurry, too. The end is near:)

Oleg (and anyone else confused by the graph):

Those big ups and downs represent the annual cycle. Ice (actually snow) accumulates during the winter and is both snow and ice are lost during the summer. That dotted line represents an averaging of the annual cycles. The zero point is simply centered on the data for those seven years and does not refer to some other average.

If the ice loss were to stay at this rate it would take a long time for the Greenland ice sheet to go. Unfortunately, the ice core record of the deglaciations over the last 800,000 years tells us that ice sheets don't behave like that. Accumulation is gradual but collapse is abrupt. The concern is thus that this small but definite melting trend will get larger very quickly.

JK, the graph shows all of 2002 and the first half of 2006. You need to learn to read these things. FYI, that link of yours is to a coal industry disinformation site.

Reality is a liberal conspiracy.

Scary stuff. Also scary that a 10% probability is regarded by IPCC as a "unlikely" given the high cost if it happens. If we were driving along and perceived a 10% chance of hitting a wall I think we would react!

Please check out my new blog which is focused on what we can do about climate change, both individually and collectively. http://tonysclimateblog@blogspot.com

Hi Steve Bloom,

Actually the record of "deglaciations" (i.e. Vostok) shows us that we are at the end of an interglacial and likely headed back into another ice age sometime in the not too distant future.

Your fear mongering has no scientific basis. It was warmer in Greenland 70 years ago.

Dave said

"Veets,
If you want to talk climate just look at the average world temp. for the last 100 years or however far back it goes and see what you find. You'll find your climate, that is a warming climate."

Yes the last 100 years of a planet that is how old? How many zeros to the right of the decimal point would you need to figure out what percentage of the total existance.

Ok, so now that we are basing this horrible change on such a tiny fraction of existence, without really knowing too much of a control for what standard actually is. You are assuming that this is abnormal. You can throw a ton of reports and proof that the earth is warming, but prove that it is because of man, that is the thing. It is pure speculation, and I for one, believe that the the weather/atmosphere/solar system/etc are so much more powerful than man could ever be.

The earth is warming, but we cannot do anything about it, and it will not lead to anythign catastrophic. It will cool down and you will be here blaming the foot of snow I am receiving today on the looming ice age.

The significance of the weather in China is that it reduces the chance of China cutting back on coal combustion from 0.000008 to zero.

David:

Since you have reminded us that local weather is not world climate, I suppose that yesterday's and likely today's, severe weather mean nothing. Right? So maybe it should not be discussed other than it was generally unforeseen a mere week ago in the MSM. Though I have not turned on the news this morning, I bet that at least 2 of the 3 major networks will mention the outbreak in the context of AGW or as a possible direct result.

Also, Dave mentioned that he is in Ohio and that 60 or 70 is not normal, true it is not, but it certainly is not unprecedented or historic by any means.

Why am I refuting a backyard weather observation, this is Mark and BTs job. Have at it boys.

Hi Steve Bloom,

The only person here who seems to be confused by the graph is you. It was a blatant attempt to misrepresent data and lead the reader to an inappropriate and alarmist conclusion

Steve,

"The zero point is simply centered on the data for those SEVEN years and does not refer to some other average." (my emphasis added)
but then you later said "the graph shows all of 2002 and the first half of 2006".

In actuality, (nit picking) it shows approximately the last 3/4 of 2002 and the first 3/4 of 2005 (look closely), totaling 3 1/2 years (SEVEN half year tick marks, not SEVEN years). Me thinks it is you that needs to learn to read graphs. Also note that I clearly stated 3 1/2 years in my original post.

Furthermore, the title of the graph is "Decrease in Ice Mass..." and the Y axis is positive and negative mass (increases or decreases). The positive numbers indicate that the ice mass was INCREASING and the negative numbers indicate that the ice mass is DECREASING. Therefore the 0 is not an average "centered on the data for those seven [ahem 3 1/2] years", it actually represents no change in ice mass. Again, it is not I who cannot read graphs.

FYI, thanks for the ad hominem fallacy. If there is some disinformation contained in the link I provided, I will be happy to evaluate the FACTS and make an informed opinion accordingly, based on critical thinking and scientific method, not emotional ploys.

Steve B;
You said: (to JK) FYI, that link of yours is to a coal industry disinformation site.

Are you suggesting (yet again) that funding determines validity?
Your comment suggests that Coal industry funding automatically makes the information false.

Did you read the article, and if so, can you point out what is false about it?

Does government and/or green funding also make all pro AGW information false?

Few questions.

Who says the earth even has tipping points?

What if they are mere inflection points?

Calling them tipping points is kind of like saying the earth is flat as far as I am concerned.

Hi cbmclean:

This one is for you as I know you like to find the coldest temps in the Northern Hemisphere. State low for Alaska this morning was -66 at O'Brien Creek. Fairbanks is looking at lows of -40 or colder til next Tuesday which would be 10 straight days with lows of -40 or colder. Record is 18 straight at -40 or colder. Keep in mind we may be dealing with that cold towards the later part of this month if the pattern changes.

More and more, we can draw direct analogies between people who think the earth is 6000yrs old, Heaven's gate type theories and AGW.

I think I'm getting close to my tipping point.

Beets;
Or is it officer Alexander Graham Bellsky,the first telephone pole.Global Warming has taken place,in the last 150 years, at the start of the industrial revolution so it is logical to say that man has caused this. But if man didn't cause it, Global warming still exists. Our Arctic meltdown is the best ,obvious example so far. This will take about twenty years to become more obvious. Europe will be like Canada. Why don't we thank those scientists who look for solutions, and find better and alternate energy sources. We are running out of oil, and the riots in our nation are a real scenario. Oil theft is has doubled in the last ten years. I'm sure that If Obama was elected President that he would unite all of us to resolve the coming threats.
Kipp

JK, you're right about the 3-1/2 years (*I* need to be more careful!) but wrong about the centering. Note that the graph doesn't say that the zero refers to anything else. There's nothing ad hominem about my comment re WCR, BTW. They have a long history.

The chart above and the one in the WCR article are measuring quite different things. The WCR one plots surface melt area-days, while the one above plots mass loss. Being scientifically oriented and all, I'm sure you'll know what the good reason is for the mass loss graph only going back a few years.

BTW, I notice that even WCR agrees that there's been an increasing surface melt trend in Greenland. Their argument is that such melting also occurred earlier in the century.

But actually the immediate issue regarding the graph is easy to settle: Brett, could you provide the URL for it so we can see the accompanying text? Thanks.

Reply: Here it is, about a quarter of the way down the page......

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/ocp2007/gallery-large/thumbnails/OCP07-Fig-16.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2007/ocp2007-hi-water.htm&h=318&w=350&sz=15&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=GEk0begA-FA9dM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3DUnited%2Bstates%2Bglobal%2Bchange%2Bresearch%2Bprogram%2Bgreenland%2Bice%2Bsheet%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

25 years??? Nasa says five years. Why don't they listen to NASA? Doesn't NASA know more about this?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-01-09-voa12.cfm

http://www.voanews.com/mediaassets/english/2008_01/Video/wmv/ArticTippingPoint_bb.wmv

Anyways, if you folks want to save the "Arctic Sea Ice" all you have to do is build my "TUNNELS".

Kipp,

So, are you saying that if the Industrial Revolution hadn't occurred, we would still be in the Little Ice Age or worse?

Next statement: But if man didn't cause it, Global warming still exists.

If man didn't cause GW, then why worry about something that you didn't cause? There is really nothing you could do about it.

I'm sure that If Obama was elected President that he would unite all of us to resolve the coming threats.

Surely, you jest!! So, how is Obama going to stop non-AGW?

Please tell me this isn't serious...4 years of data??!!, with only the last year showing any noticeable decline??!!

And I have another question...why has it been determined that sea ice must be "saved" - this implies one of two things:

1. The more ice the better - so that if we were seeing these values increasing dramatically, all of the experts and scientists would be saying we are succeeding, that the ultimate goal is global cooling - OR

2. Someone has figured out the "correct" amount of sea ice there should be (along with the "correct" global temperature), and therefore we need to do whatever we can to maintain that "correct" value.

I can only assume that number 1 is a ridiculous implication, and I would certainly hope that the experts aren't thinking that way - so it would really be a great help to us skeptics if someone could provide the irrefutable, 100% certainty, scientific documentation of what the "correct" amount of sea ice should be, along with what the "correct" global temperature should be.

If you are trying to convince me to take drastic actions to cool (or warm) the planet, to do things like risk serious health problems associated with mercury in CFL's (that risk is not "concensus", by the way) with the hopes of possibly shaving a tenth of a degree off of the global temperature over the next 100 years, is it really too much to ask this question of what the temperature is "supposed" to be?

A quick aside regarding CFL's - as everyone knows (or should I say SHOULD know, because it is obvious most people don't know), we are not supposed to discard these in our normal trash. They are to be taken (i.e. DRIVEN) to specific locations for proper disposal. Talk about penny wise and pound foolish. And heaven help you if you accidentally drop and break one of these lights in your home - I'm just waiting for the lawsuits about mercury poisoning, and how the government and global warming groups knew about these very real dangers and still pushed these poison bombs on the general public.

Bob,

Thanks for the info. I know that cold weather is hard on the homeless, and indeed also with the working class, especially with high energy prices, but I love cold weather. I was reading last night about the great cold wave of 1899 in Chirstopher C. Burt's book, Extreme Weather. It was an amazing event. For the only recorded time every state in the union (excepting Hawaii I'm sure) recorded a temperature below 0 F. It reached -2 F in Tallahassee!! Also, -1 F in Mobile, 7 F in New Orleans, 7 F inCharleston, 8 F in Savannah. According to Burt

"In New Orleans, the lowest reading was 6.8, and ice flows chokd the Mississippi River and even drifted into the Gulf of Mexico. Three inches of snow fell in New Orleans and ice two inches thick formed on standing freshwater. Snow showers were reported by ships in the Gulf of Mexico...."

"On February 8, 1899, the maximum temperature climbed to only -39 in Roseau, Minnesota,the second-coldest maximum temperature ever recorded inthe lower 48 states....By mid-February 1899, the Mississippi had frozen 16 inches thick at St. Louis. washington D.C. reported -15 on February 11, the coldest modern temperature ever recorded inthe nation's capital. record coldest temperatures for over 40 major cities and four states stillstand today."

They don't seem to make themlike that anymore.

Thanks so much, Brett.

JK, here's the press release on the paper the graph was taken from. As you can see, this data only began to be collected in 2002. I can't find a public version of the 2006 paper, but the 2005 paper on the same subject has the same graph less one year. The upshot is that the zero point is indeed arbitrary and a loss has occurred in each year (and seems to be accelerating). I have no idea about the two most recent years of data, but I assume we'll be seeing another publication soon.

Brett,
Thanks for the link requested by Steve!

Steve,
The link states "decrease of 162 km3 yr-1" 162 x 3.5 = 567 km3" which over the time period shown would basically fit the trend line shown. So I would agree they centered as you say (still a weird way to depict it in my opinion). See that was fun.

At least when I was digging around trying to find more info on this graph, I found the reason for the short time scale. "GRACE is a joint partnership between NASA and the German Aerospace Center, Deutsches Zentrum f�r Luft und Raumfahrt. The satellites, launched in 2002, are managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory." -- http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/greenland_slide.html

So now we agree on everything other than the definition of ad hominem:

- marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad+hominem)

So when you say, They have a "long history" as "a coal industry disinformation site", this seems to be to be the VERY definition as shown above. Your implication is that their conclusions are suspect or invalid because of their questionable funding (i.e. poor character in your view), and is a logical fallacy.

Patrick is making stuff up again:

'Actually the record of "deglaciations" (i.e. Vostok) shows us that we are at the end of an interglacial and likely headed back into another ice age sometime in the not too distant future.'

No. The research on this says that if we leave the climate alone this would be a very long interglacial on the order of 30-40,000 more years. (I love how you just pull stuff like this out of thin air. Don't ever change, OK?)

'Your fear mongering has no scientific basis. It was warmer in Greenland 70 years ago.'

Southeast Greenland surface air temperature, maybe, and for a known temporary reason. Do you know what that is? In any case, it has nothng to do with what's going on now.

Veets: I love snow. So bring it on!

Dassen: So you live in Ohio like I do. I know it has been warm in the winter before but what has been going on here in the past ten years really has been something else. we can;t even get a decent winter anymore. I thought last year was bad. this is worse. I love cold weather so I am impartial. Also I am a little more than a backyard weather observer. :)

Hi Steve Bloom,

I had a recent conversation with Dr. Charles Keller, - a prominent AGW promoter who has been featured here several times - and he speculated that we would already be headed into the next ice age if not for global warming.

As far as Greenland goes, Godthab is on the west side of Greenland, immediately adjacent to where the NASA maps show the most summer melt occurring. According to GISS records, Godthab is considerably cooler than the 1930s.

I love these conversations with you.

cb,

That's an interesting excerpt.

I just ordered the book from Amazon. Thanks.

Steve Bloom,

With all due rspect, will you please stop playing little games and asking people to guess things? If you have an argument against a particular point, just come out and say it.

To be clear, JK, the "long history" I referred to was one of distorting the science.

The article you linked is a typical example. Maybe it's correct that one can use a lapse rate calculation to infer surface melting, but these days the data exists to actually confirm whether that's true or not for the relevant areas of Greenland. Note that the WCR article didn't go there. Also, they provided only a fragment of the relevant text. One wonders what the rest says.

Pat Michaels, the WCR principal, was involved in one of the more infamous disinformation exercises in the history of science, discussed here along with some other interesting history. Note that he subsequently resigned as Virginia State Climatologist rather than reveal his private client list as required by University of Virginia rules.

Jim (2/6 4:24 PM):

"Please tell me this isn't serious...4 years of data??!!, with only the last year showing any noticeable decline??!!"

The decline is continuous after averaging out the annual cycle. It's not a huge amount at the moment, but the concern is that it's accelerating.

"And I have another question...why has it been determined that sea ice must be 'saved'(?)"

If it disappears for substantial period during the summer, we're erasing an entire eco-system. Polar bears will starve and numerous Inuit will have to find something else to do.

Of perhaps more concern is that a warmer Arctic Ocean will lead to much more rapid Greenland melt(sea level rise) and permafost melt (release of large quantities of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than CO2).

"If you are trying to convince me to take drastic actions to cool (or warm) the planet, to do things like risk serious health problems associated with mercury in CFL's (that risk is not 'concensus', by the way) with the hopes of possibly shaving a tenth of a degree off of the global temperature over the next 100 years, is it really too much to ask this question of what the temperature is 'supposed' to be?"

There's no "ideal" temperature as such, and indeed once things stabilize a much warmer world might even be a more pleasant place to live (in some places, anyway). The problem is that the transition to such a world, especially if it's fast, will be quite unpleasant for us and even more so for the rest of the biosphere.

Regarding CFLs, as an environmentalist I agree that they're not ideal, but bear in mind that most electricity in this country is generated by coal, the burning of which emits considerable mercury. At least with the CFLs there's a chance of sequestering the mercury. The good news is that CFLs are probably transitional, and within 20 years we'll have LED bulbs that contain no mercury.

Regarding CFL disposal, there are plenty of other common items used by most households (e.g. old paint and spray cans) that can't be placed into garbage cans, so the CFLs can be disposed along with those. At this point there are collection/drop-off programs for household hazardous waste in most places around the country. One of the advantages of CFLs is that there won't be many to dispose of on a household basis; e.g. a household with 20 bulbs might have to replace one or two per year.

JK,

Thanks for posting the interesting link at http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/11/05/greenland-climate-now-vs-then-part-ii-record-greenland-melt-area/

While the data was gathered by weather balloon rather than satellite, it makes sense to me that if a balloon showed 40 melt-days at 10,000 feet in 1961, and satellites only show 30 melt-days now, it is no disgrace to question the assertion that the current warm period is "unprecidented."

I wish I had more time to delve into this stuff. I really appreciate the people who save me time by giving links. I wish alarmists would give more links, even if the links are to Realclimate.

Bloom,

You don't really believe this do you?

If it disappears for substantial period during the summer, we're erasing an entire eco-system. Polar bears will starve and numerous Inuit will have to find something else to do.

You do realize that polar bears are basically a subset of grizzlies (brown bear) and can actually mate with grizzlies (they are known as "pizzlies"). Polar bears have been around for at least a 100,000 years and have survived numerous interglacials, the Holocene Climatic Optimum (8,000 years ago), the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) and the warming of the 20s and 30s. These periods (and many others too numerous to mention) were as warm as or warmer than today. Why, all of a sudden, are they in such dire straits?

Hi cbmclean,

Looks like Tok,Alaska has reported in at -70.2. This temperature has to be verified but if correct would be the coldest in Alaska since Jan 1,2000 when -72 was reported at Chicken. Amazing stats about the Feb 1899 cold outbreak. I believe Tallahassee actually had blizzard conditions with a 15 degree and wind and snow on the afternoon before the -2. Brett do you think you could do a comparison between the 1899 and 1985 cold outbreaks. Examples would be where did the air actually originate from the Yukon or Siberia, etc.? (Reply: Sorry Bob, I just do not have the time to do the research for that.) CB the 1985 outbreak I believe Knoxville had the low for the nation at -24. It was -25 just west of Asheville at the same time, so this was actually colder than the 1899 outbreak for the Smokey Mountain Region.

Kipp said

"Beets;
Or is it officer Alexander Graham Bellsky,the first telephone pole."

Did you just call me a telephone pole??? I don't know if I should be insulted by that...

So the earth has been warming for 150 years you say? What was it doign 151 years ago?

We are making rash conclusions based on such a small amount of data. I am a Democrat, and my beliefs would have me voting for Hillary, but I am so afraid of her policy regarding AGW that I might not even vote, or maybe I will vote for Unity08 :)

BTW, JK, thanks for following the link and seeing the details for yourself. Sometimes I over-anticipate that new particupants on ths forum will be like existing ones whose sole purpose here seems to be to keep anyone from getting informed, but in this case I'm happy that my pessimism went unrewarded.

PH: I meant to type "southwest." Thanks for pointing that out.

Paul, I suspect that the polar bears won't go extinct in the wild very soon since a remnant population could survive in north Greenland for a while (IIRC presently too cold for them) so long as some summer sea ice continues to form there. The point I was trying to make is that the now-extensive Arctic ecology will have nearly ceased to exist under such circumstances. Of course even if the north Greenland summer sea ice goes the polar bears won't go entirely extinct as they seem to do just fine in zoos.

To the extent that surviving polar bear populations could blend into the brown bear population as the latter expands north, what's left after that won't much resemble polar bears.

Caleb, there's no discussion of weather balloon data in that article. The 1950s paper cited (incompletely) by WCR was based on an extrapolation to all of Greenland of lapse rate data (we don't know what data exactly since they didn't say) from a single site. As I noted, it may or may bot be valid, but the key point is that it would be asy to check against comprehensive modern data.

Also, I provide lots of links. I hope you read them.

Dave:

I am glad to read that you a more than just a backyard weather observer. Nothing worse than that according to some of the AGW ilk.

But seriously, the last 10 years of winters have not been much different than the previous 10. Except for the fact that the state has endured deeper, more expansive snow events. The warmth is similar to what I can recall from the 80's and 90's and even some of the 70's. And, the cold periods are much colder and of longer duration.

Sure, I bet if you run the actual numbers, it might show a little warmer but as I have often mentioned, I soundly feel that this change is instrumentation not earth induced.

cb, I ask those questions when I think somebody is just making something up.

Providing the information to PH would be a waste of time, but I'll happily answer you. See this paper (scroll down to the links for "20th century industrial black carbon emissions altered Arctic climate forcing").

The other thing to note regarding Greenland temps is that southwest Greenland has warmed less than the rest over the time (since the '50s) when data from more than just those stations has been available. Interestingly this is in agreement with the models. The upshot is that it's hard to make a case for the rest of Greenland having been warmer in the 20s and 30s (although even if true it would have no particular implications for the present).

PH, that absent anthropogenic influences we're headed into another glaciation is wholly uncontroversial. The only question is when. This can be established by analyzing the ice core record in combination with the orbital forcings. The peer-reviewed calculations show that we're in a long interglacial. I'm not aware of any disagreement with those results.

JK, I fear your definition omits an important proviso -- "when the opponent's character is irrelevant to the discussion."

If I say "Officer Smith's testimony should be discarded because Officer Smith admits to being an adulterer and we all know adulterers can't be trusted", Officer Smith's character flaw is likely to be irrelevant to the case.

On the other hand, if I say "Officer Smith's testimony should be discarded because Officer Smith has admitted receiving bribes from the accused", then Officer Smith's character flaw is far more likely to be relevant.

So when you say, They have a "long history" as "a coal industry disinformation site", this seems to be to be the VERY definition as shown above. Your implication is that their conclusions are suspect or invalid because of their questionable funding (i.e. poor character in your view), and is a logical fallacy.

If Chrysler Motor Company owns and publishes a magazine called "Automotive Safety Review" (fictional name!), and that magazine concludes -- after an in-depth review of 47 different automobiles -- that Chrysler vehicles are 73% safer than every other car on the road, then it is certainly not a logical fallacy to suggest that "Automotive Safety Review" is unlikely to be an objective source.

Surely we can agree that the restaurant "reviews" published in those little free give-away restaurant guides are likely to be bogus. You know, the ones where the only reviews that appear are for restaurants who buy advertising, and the feature article happens to be for the restaurant that bought the back cover.

When someone has the time to personally verify and replicate the research of a technical publication, then it's far more reasonable to ask that the resulting opinion be based on the facts as presented. Most of us don't have the luxury or expertise to review all that research ourselves.

When we rely on another body to conduct our review on our behalf, the objectivity of that body becomes acutely relevant.

The coal-industry funding of the body in question is rather more like the latter, don't you agree?

Darren:Sure, I bet if you run the actual numbers, it might show a little warmer but as I have often mentioned, I soundly feel that this change is instrumentation not earth induced.

I have to disagree but your entitled to your own view.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Now you say that southwest Greenland is cooling. I'll accept that for the sake of argument (even though it is incorrect), but the NASA maps show that essentially all of the melting in Greenland is on the Southwest side.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/greenland_melt_fig5.JPG

So if southwest Greenland is cooling, and that is where the melting is going on - what then is the problem? Additionally, that region is cooler than it was in the 1930s. The entire Greenland melting panic appears to have no factual basis.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=431042500000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

Furthermore, ice along the western part of Greenland is at very high levels - well above normal.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.4.html

As far as I can tell, the AGW movement is no different from the Bolshevik revolution. It is based on misinformation and the goal is too take control of the government and economy, strip people of their freedoms, and jail dissidents.

PH, as you know the those stations are right on the coast at sea level. The ice is melting elsewhere. What are the temps there? And the sea ice levels have what to do with the ice sheet melting? Try to make a case that's not riddled with holes.

BTW, I would agree with you that *probably* the ice in that area was melting as much in the '20s/'30s as now. It's just that it's not really possible to prove it at this point.

We know why it was warmer in the southwest in the '20s/'30s and that the cause of that warming went away. Even assuming a higher amount of melting in that area at the time, what does that say about current melting, especially since it's going on all over Greenland except at the highest altitudes?

The Greenland melt link stopped working. Here is the original NASA map showing the majority of melting in the southwest - which Steve Bloom says is cooling.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/178064main_Tedesco1_lg.jpg

As far as I can tell, the AGW movement is no different from the Bolshevik revolution. It is based on misinformation and the goal is too take control of the government and economy, strip people of their freedoms, and jail dissidents.

(Rolling my eyes)
Yeah yeah yeah, and your momma wears combat boots.

Jeesh

Hi Steve Bloom,

There is only one permanent weather station on the Greenland ice sheet. Last July, the average temperature was 11F. The warmest it got was 29F.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/7/8/MonthlyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

The Summit Camp is typical of the ice sheet. It is on the extremely flat, high altitude plain of ice which dominates Greenland geography.
http://www.summitcamp.org/images/summitmap
http://www.summitcamp.org/Sections/VirtualTour/bighouse

Given the current temperature regime, the historical record, and the low total melt rate - I see no basis for believing that Greenland is headed for a meltdown any time soon. It is much more likely that it will cycle back into a cool period.

Brett, I did not say Greenland is cooling. Would you kindly excise that comment by PH? Thank you.

Steve: Of the many PH comments, which one in particular are you referring to? (time and header please)

It turns out Brett blogged the surface melting study last September. In the comments, PH :

"That doesn't say anything about the net balance during the year. If 30 inches of snow fell (average for the Greenland ice cap) and 1 inch melted - that is a net accumulation."

Now, when confronted with evidence of the mass loss, he refers to the melting study.

As the phrase goes, consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

I've probably linked this recent comprehensive study of Arctic temperatures before, but it seems appropriate to do it again. South Greenland is noted to have not warmed as much as other regions, but the rest of Greenland has. The abstract:

"A detailed analysis of the spatial and temporal changes in mean seasonal and annual surface air temperature (SAT) in the Arctic is presented mainly for the period 1951-2005. Mean seasonal and annual homogenized and complete series of SAT from up to 35 Arctic stations were used in the analysis. The focus in this paper is on the 11 years 1995-2005, a period which saw dramatic warming in the Arctic (>18C for annual values in relation to the 1951-90 mean). An abrupt rise in SAT occurred in the mid-1990s and was most pronounced in autumn and winter (>28C). The greatest warming in the period 1995-2005 occurred in the Pacific and Canadian regions (>18C), while the lowest was in the Siberian region (0.828C). This period has been the warmest since at least the 17th century. In particular, 2005 was an exceptionally warm year (>28C in relation to the 1951-90 mean) and was warmer than 1938, the warmest year in the 20th century. The seasonal and annual trends of the areally averaged Arctic SAT for the periods 1936-2005, 1951-2005 and 1976-2005 are positive, with the exception of winter and autumn for the first period. The majority of trends calculated for the last two periods are statistically significant. While there are varying opinions about the forces driving the present warming, it seems likely that the marked rise in SAT in the mid-1990s (mainly from 1994 to 1995) was caused by (i) a set of natural factors, (ii) non-linear effects of greenhouse-gas loading, or (iii) the combined effect of these two groups of factors."

I bolded the parts PH will care about the most.

And of course this last summer set a new record for high Arctic temperatures, consistent with the sea ice loss.

Bloom,

Sometimes I have this feeling that you don't read through these threads. You tend to be more of a knee-jerk reactionist.

For instance, you say, The point I was trying to make is that the now-extensive Arctic ecology will have nearly ceased to exist under such circumstances.

Did you not read what I had written? Polar bears have been around for at least a 100,000 years and have survived numerous interglacials, the Holocene Climatic Optimum (8,000 years ago), the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years ago) and the warming of the 20s and 30s. These periods (and many others too numerous to mention) were as warm as or warmer than today.

And as I asked before, why all of a sudden are they in such dire straits when they were perfectly capable of surviving the past 100,000 to 250,000 years with fluctuating climates?

Steve Bloom said that SW Greenland has warmed less. Just to clarify what he said. He is correct that he did not say that Greenland cooled.

I am sure it was a misunderstanding.

Paul, we don't know for sure how summer sea ice habitat was available to polar bears in those past periods, or if during the Eemian they were as dependent for survival on that habitat as they are now, or how close they may have come to extinction in the past. What we do is that they're dependent on it now and that most of it may disappear (enough to endanger the species per the ESA) very soon.

The point I was making about the ecology is that the Arctic ecosystem is much more than the handful of "charismatic megafauna" such as the polar bears. There's a whole lot else there that will disappear with the sea ice (although much more than just sea ice habitat is implicated).

Brett blogged on one of these effects last summer.

Paul, there is more than a little evidence that the high Arctic (the northernmost islands west of Greenland) is warmer now than previously during the Holocene, including the three you named. This is some of it. It doesn't completely prove that extensive summer sea ice persisted in that region throughout the Holocene (since water temps are also important for sea ice), but it does seem to make it inappropriate to assume otherwise without very good evidence.

Hi Steve Bloom,

The great thing about GISS and EOS reports is that they tend to exaggerate data towards the global warming point of view. Thus I frequently frame my arguments using GISS and EOS because they are the most "conservative" and are accepted by the AGW community.

For example, Hansen's own GISS data (for the bulk of continuously reporting sites) shows no warming in the Arctic relative to the 1930's. This puts people like you in a very difficult position when arguing, because you can not impeach my sources.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Why do we need a study to analyze a small set of data, which is readily available from a source you trust?

Please look through Hansen's data for all stations in the Arctic with contiguous temperature records starting at 1920 or earlier and ending at the present. There aren't that many (a couple of dozen maybe) and they are easy to find. The majority show the 1930s as warm or warmer than the present.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/

OK, PH, let's see some numbers to back your claims. Don't forget to delete all the station data from below the Arctic Circle. IIRC that would include two of the three Greenland stations that you love so much.

But before you do, maybe try to explain what it would show if the entire Arctic during the '30s was approximately as warm as the present. Recall that we know the reason for the 1930s warmth in the North Atlantic zone (black carbon emissions), and that it's not a major factor in the present.

Hi Steve Bloom,

There have been numerous studies recently describing "dirty snow" and "Arctic haze" heating up the Arctic.

In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the observed change, the scientists determined.
http://www.physorg.com/news100354399.html

POLLUTANT HAZE HEATS THE ARCTIC
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006051022278.html

Here is the long term arctic station data.

Jokkmokk
Godthab/Nuuk
Turuhansk
Reykjavik

Bogucany
Murmansk
Ostrov Dikson
Bodo Vi
Haparanda
Hatanga
Kirensk
Tura
Akureyri

Angmagssalik
Tromo/Skatto
Vardo
Kanin Nos
Vitim

Hi Steve Bloom,

Re: Black Carbon "not a major factor in the present" - You should have done a little more homework.

From Hansen

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2005/2005_Koch_Hansen.pdf

"our results suggest that these distant source regions are probably significant contributors to Arctic BC abundance. The existence of substantial contribution from distant sources is supported by observations such as large BC amount at midlevels of the troposphere, so there is evidence supporting a prominent role for southeast Asian sources in the Arctic. The timing and location of Arctic warming and sea ice loss in the late 20th century is consistent with south Asian sources. According to Baumgardner et al. [2004], BC concentrations in the UT/LS over the Arctic seem to have doubled between 1980 and 1995 (although they also indicate that the early data are highly uncertain). BC emissions from developed
countries have declined and aircraft are apparently not to blame. However, during this time BC emissions from China and India have nearly doubled [Novakov et al., 2003]. Also, the model indicates that most of the concentrations in this region of the UT/LS are from south Asia."

I think you should also have read a little more carefully the article (uncited by you) you are presumably using to back up your statement that "Recall that we know the reason for the 1930s warmth in the North Atlantic zone (black carbon emissions)".

From McConnell et al (2007) which I believe is probably your source (although correct me if I am wrong - with a citation)

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/~mflanner/ppr/Mccnnl07.pdf

"At its maximum from 1906 to 1910" - The "its" being referred to is BC and you'll note that the maximum BC forcing occured quite a few years prior to the 1930s.

If you look carefully at the graphs, you'll note that the estimated amount of BC, and estimated surface radiative forcing drops during the 1930s and is not significantly greater than the late 1990s - the 1930s after all did see the Great Depression and substantially less industrial activity in North America and Europe.

Moreover, the BC effect as detailed by McConnell et al was a major factor from 1880 through 1950 (again, peaking 1906-1910) and, according to Hansen (2005), has in the past 2 decades once again become a factor so it is more than a little misleading to try and isolate BC as the major cause of the anomolous warming in the 1930s given that it reached its peak over 20 years prior to this and at the same time claim that it is not a factor now.

But nice try.

Damo, I linked the McConnell paper above. Note that it discusses forcings and not temps. Note also that forcings have a lagged effect on temperature; otherwise we would have seen a serious temp bump around 1910 with that 10 w/m^2 forcing from BC. Since as you point out the 1930s saw a decrease in emissions, the fact that 1938 was the warmest year of that period in the Arctic also implies a lag.

That said, I don't think a formal detection and attribution has been done for the 1920-1940 Arctic warming (noting that it wasn't regionally uniform), but there doesn't seem to be any other explanation out there aside from BC (possibly enhanced by the NAO).

Regarding the present role of BC in the Arctic, I should have said not "the" major factor. Also, I was referring to the portion of the Arctic adjacent to the Atlantic, which likely is getting a smaller proportion of the BC relative to a century ago.

Try to do what, BTW?

Or as little as a third, PH. Did you have some point to make?

I see that a majority of those stations are below the Arctic Circle. What are your criteria for including them as opposed to others? Also, what algorithm do you propose to use for extrapolating the data from those stations to the whole Arctic? I assume you know that just averaging them without doing that is a wasted exercise.

Also, aren't you forgetting my question?

Hi Steve Bloom,

"We would have seen a serious temp bump around 1910" and "the 1930s saw a decrease in emissions, the fact that 1938 was the warmest year of that period in the Arctic also implies a lag" - both are contingent upon a) the time lag argument is correct and b) the belief that nothing else could have caused the anomolous warming of the 1930s (and not just 1938 which, BTW, is in a statistical tie for warmest "ever") or that the rise in temps prior to the 1930s wasn't itself in fact the 1906-1910 "bump" you speak of.

I'm not saying that the latter is the case, just that it should be considered and certainly if you are going to state with such certainty that "Recall that we know the reason for the 1930s warmth in the North Atlantic zone (black carbon emissions)" - a statement based on your thoroughly convincing scientific argument "but there doesn't seem to be any other explanation out there".

The time lag argument is not particularly convincing in this case for a couple of reasons:

1. All things being equal, if the time lag argument were true, one would expect a time lag between BC RF and 1930's temp to also be in effect during 1985-Present. Hansen (2005) is pretty clear on the absence of a time lag and notes how the recent rise in Artic BC tracks very closely to recent Artic warming. From Hansen: "the past three decades show significant decreases in sea ice thickness and extent". And "However it is interesting that these decades (the past three as above - Damo) correspond to the increases in BC from south Asia" - I've taken the liberty of editing the intervening sentences as they are not relevant and to save space.

2. If there were a time lag on the order of ~30 years, it would be reasonable to assume that it would also be in effect through the remainder of the century - which it is most clearly not. BC emissions began drop to in the 1930's, blipped marginally upward in the 1940s and then fell radically off post-1952 and did not start to rise until the early 1980's - which nicely corresponds (sans time lag) with the mid-century cooling period and subsequent warming period.

So no significant time lag, and certainly not a 30 year lag.

BTW - Hansen's paper specifically notes the BC increase in the North Atlantic zone so it doesn't really matter whether you were referring to the entire Artic or just a cherry-picked portion of it.

No cherry-picking whatsoever, Damo, since I was focusing on that region only due to PH's broken-record insistence that those three Greenland temp stations are the important thing to look at. He's been going on about them for months.

On the rest, I'll reply in more detail later, but you understand that the lack of a lag means that the huge BC forcing circa 1910 did essentially nothing. That can't be true based on more recent work, so a lag seems reasonable to posit. Also, the local temp rise began more around 1920, so the lag would be rather less than 30 years. Finally, IIRC the mid-century cooling occurred from about 1945-1951 and then was more or less flat for the following 25 years (globally; no time to look at the Arctic).

Hi Steve Bloom,

If you measure from the start of the peak period in BC emissions (1906) to the start of the temp peak (mid-30s) you would be left with a lag of 30 years, not twenty. Arctic temps actually dropped in the 1920s.

I agree with your comment re: mid-century cooling - that was my point. The period of mid-century cooling closely corresponds to the dramatic decline in BC emissions post 1950 and even more so when you note a drop in BC emissions around 1945 rising slightly toward the end of the decade. This correspondence, as well as that described by Hansen between BC and Arctic warming in the current period does not display a 30 year lag and not even a 20 year lag. In addition, you'll note that BC emissions actually dropped in the latter half of the 1940's before rising slightly in 1949/1950 and this also corresponds to a dip in Arctic temp.

Re: "the lack of a lag means that the huge BC forcing circa 1910 did essentially nothing" - a closer look at the Arctic temp vs. BC record shows that it is entirely possible that it did indeed do something.

Although I've been as limited as I suspect you are in the time required to look deeply into Arctic temp records, I have come across a couple which show a correlation between BC emissions from mid-19th century to 1910 and which, interestingly enough, indicate that the peak Arctic temp was hit somewhere between 1945 and 1950 (differing sources, cited below, one showing 1945 and the other 1950).

Estimates show a total rise in Arctic temp between 1850 or so and the present of ~1.5C with ~0.6C of this occuring between 1910 and the present - which would indicate that ~0.9C of arctic warming occurred between 1850 or so and 1910. This again closely corresponds to the increase in BC circa 1850 to 1910. It would seem reasonable to posit that this is the "bump" you were looking for.

So, since we have an anomolous warming period where Arctic temps exceeded those of of the current warming period (approx 0.6C higher) starting mid-1930s despite lower BC levels, a roughly immediate arctic temp response to BC prior to this Arctic warming period (1850 to 1910), a close match between the dramatic post-1950 decline in BC emissions and the mid-century Arctic cooling period, and a close match between the post-1980 doubling in BC emissions and recent Arctic temp increases, the anomolous and unexplained mid-30s to 40s Arctic warming period is quite a fly in the ointment.

It would seem then to be more reasonable to posit that some "other" agent, rather than a unique to the 1930s lag, was acting in conjunction with BC emissions during the mid-30s to 1945/50 which, albeit at lower levels, were still contributing in perhaps a more minor manner to drive the mid-1930s to 1945/50 temperature spike. I use the term "other" as I honestly don't know what it could be and would prefer not to speculate on either what this agent was/is and, indeed, if another agent was in fact even involved at all.

But all of this taken together does lead to some interesting questions.

Peak Arctic temp 1950: http://www.geo.arizona.edu/dgesl/research/regional/arctic_system_variability/arctic_temperature_record.htm

Peak Arctic Temp 1945:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/980112DD.html

Damo, see what I believe is still the canonical 20th century Arctic trend plot here (page 35) and note that they show the distinct warming trend as being from about 1920 to 1945. The comparatively flat trend between 1905 and 1920 still seems inconsistent with an immediate effect of the intense BC forcing at that time. Assuming that the 19th century warming was weighted toward 1900 doesn't seem to resolve that inconsistency.

OTOH, the surface records of that period were sparely scattered around the perimeter of the Arctic and may not have been well-placed to measure the BC-induced warming. By contrast, I suspect the recent immediate warming trends noted by the BC reseachers were measured much more directly.

It's been noted that a significant present Arctic warming effect is from warm water coming from the south. That would be related to GHG-induced warming at lower latitudes and seems unlikely to have been much of a factor a century ago. Even though the BC forcing in 1910 was large, it may not have been enough to immediately warm the entire region.

So IMHO the lag still seems to be the most likely explanation.

Anyway, this whole discussion is only slightly better than a hand-wave, so I'll just cut to the chase and ask one of the researchers.

Hi Steve Bloom,

One more wave of the hand before you ride off into the sunset.

Your belief in the "canonical" 20th Century Arctic Trend Plot aside, I prefer to use the temperature record actually cited by the IPCC, NOAA, CRU, virtually every other climate change research organization, and which was peer reviewed and published in Science Magazine, and whose lead author was the Head of the NOAA Paleoclimatology Program. That would be the first link I gave you and which reproduced the temp record from Overpeck et al, 2007.

Overpeck gets around the problem in other "canonical" temperature records which use "sparsely scattered" instrumental temperature stations by using a "compilation of paleoclimate records from lake sediments, trees, glaciers, and marine sediments" and his data shows a distinct and steep rise in temperature through the 1906 to 1910 period and beyond to 1920 when it decreases until ~1930.

So again, no significant lag.
I find it interesting and somewhat convenient that the link you have provided shows the current Arctic warming as greater than that of the 1930s period despite it being commonly accepted that this is not the case and despite Overpeck's conclusion that "from 1840 to the mid-20th century, the Arctic warmed to the highest temperatures in four centuries".

Moreover, the link you have provided gets the 1906-1910 period wrong as evidenced by the link below - from Polyakov et al 2003 (and also cited by the IPCC) - and which also supports Overpeck's contention that the mid-20th century Arctic warming is greater than that of today.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/warm/warm_apr02.pdf

The Polyakov data shows a steep increase in Artic temps through until 1910, relatively flat from 1910 to 1915, a drop from 1915 to 1920, and a rise beginning in 1920. Interestingly, although the peaks, troughs, and increases/decreases shown by both Overpeck and Polyakov roughly match, they are seperated temporaly by ~5-10 years with Overpeck's lagging the Polyakov by ~5-10 years (i.e. his peak for temps is ~1945-1950 as opposed to 1938/40). This I would imagine can be attributed to the use in the records presented by Polyakov of "sparsely scattered" coastline instrumental records which "may not have been well-placed to measure the BC-induced warming".

Temporal gap aside, what both links I have provided have in common is a rise in Arctic temperatures which corresponds to the peak in BC emissions (1906-1910), a lack of any significant lag, and a determination that the unexplained and anomalous mid-century Arctic warming period was warmer than the current warming period.

BTW re: "it's been noted that a significant present Arctic warming effect is from warm water coming from the south". With Hansen's suggestion that BC also contributes a significant warming effect to recent Arctic temperatures (with current BC levels roughly approximate to where they were in the 1930s), increases attributed to the generalized effect of increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations, decreased albedo effect, etc., the Arctic must be a very crowded place what with all the "significant warming effects" jostling for elbow room. Its a wonder its not 10C warmer up there and amazing that its not warmer than the 1930s.

Damo, that's Overpeck *1997*, so it misses the entire last (warmest) decade. Similarly, the Polyakov paper only includes data through 2000. Just out of curiosity, why would you prefer them to the later ACIA plot (which was produced by a larger group of scientists)?

That aside, the Polyakov paper looks to me to have the same circa-1910 lag issue as the ACIA plot, although I agree with you that the Overpeck one doesn't.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Oh, I'm not happy either with fact that it was 1997 but, unfortunately, it appears to be the most recent and comprehensive analysis of Arctic temperature which is not reliant upon what you so correctly characterized as "sparsely scattered" coastal stations. I don't think it is reasonable or accurate to make assumptions re: the overall Arctic temperature anomalies and correlations with BC effects based on data which by its very nature does not include data from the Arctic interior - particularly as this is the area most likely to be effected by BC (BC on snow/perennial ice).

BTW - have a more careful look at the Polyakov paper. It distinctly shows a rise 1906-1910 with the drop occuring a year or two after this BC peak period - which is entirely consistent with no lag and with the peak within a peak fact that the maximum for BC emissions occurred 1908.

As to why do I prefer them? Well, I've noted the first reason (more comprehensive data sets from Overpeck), the second is that both were peer reviewed and cited by the IPCC, NOAA, etc., and the third is that the primary question at hand is the 1930-1940/45 warming period so the additional 3 years included in the ACIA (their data only runs to 2003 and not 2007 so we are a little short of "decade") are not particularly relevant.

In reference to 1930s-40/45 vs. the current period, I prefer to use sources other than ACIA as they are very much in the minority when it comes to claiming that the current Arctic warming exceeds that of 1930s - 40/45 - with most of the peer reviewed plots I have seen noting the opposite.

And finally, despite your hand waving, this has been a useful exercise in at least one respect. Not one of the articles I have come across since beginning this back and forth with you attributes anomalous Arctic warming in the 1930s primarily to BC - despite your claim that we "know" that BC caused the 1930s warmth in the Arctic. Even McConnell et al limit their comments on BC contribution to generalized warming during the 1860-1951 period while noting significant BC increases 1906-1910 and, signficantly, not even once suggesting that BC was the primary cause of the anomalous 1930s warming.

So rather than persist in claiming a "lag" in BC effect in order maintain your original stance, it would be perhaps more appropriate for you to simply concede the point so that we can move on.

Nice try, Damo.

You're really straining re Polyakov circa 1910. The trend changes you're referring to are tiny. It's not as if the BC emissions fell off a ledge in 1910 or so.

The ACIA had much more peer review than an individual paper could ever get.

Re the present decade vs. the 1930s, you've descended into silliness. What other recent paper reviewed studies? This one (which I've linked here before)? And of course the IPCC, NASA, NOAA and the Hadley Center all agree that the last decade was warmer. The fact that you cited Overpeck and Polyakov as showing something that they literally couldn't show is indicative.

Hi Steve Bloom,

Just realized that your **s around 1997 were pointing out a typo in my post and were not there simply to emphasis the date - I mistakenly indicated 2007 as the date of Overpeck et al. I was aware it was 1997 and the 2007 was an actual honest (typo) mistake.

Hi Steve Bloom,

I'm really straining? That statement alone strains credibility. This discussion started with your claim that BC emissions were the primary cause of warming in the 1930s and that they are not a factor in current warming.

I've pointed out to you, with citations, that you are incorrect - both in regards to the BC effect in the 1930s and in the current period and your response is to invent a 30 year time lag to avoid admitting the error (or that you simply made up the BC emissions explaination - which is ironic given your accusations of same re: PH) and you have repeatedly misread the provided graphs to try and maintain this fiction of a lag.

In actual fact, even the ACIA report you cited (see Figure 2.6) shows an increase in annual temperature anomalyies until shortly after 1910 and then a drop until 1918. Even if this were not true, as you have noted, "sparsely scattered" coastal stations are largely useless for measuring BC effect in the interior - which is why I have repeated now for the third time that Overpeck's overall Arctic multi-proxy reconstruction is more reliable.

As for BC emissions not dropping of a cliff - they didn't climb up one either and, in any case, what does it matter. You are the one arguing that BC caused the warming so the magnitude of the drop in BC and any lack of exact correspondence to the magnitude of temp decrease is your problem not mine.

Not one of the papers I have come across (or I suspect you have come across else you would have cited them) suggests that the anomalous 1930s warming can be attributed to BC, not one suggests any sort of lag mechanism and, in actual fact, the paper detailing historical BC emissions and their impact on Arctic temperatures also does not suggest that they are responsible for anomalous 1930s warming or that there is a lag effect. And you have not produced anything which would do so either.

So, rather than simply continue this endlessly with your repeated "it must have been some sort of lag", perhaps you could cite a paper which attributes 1930s warming to BC and which describes exactly what sort of lag effect BC on snow/ice and its associated decreased albedo could create which would delay its major effects by 30 years rather than just keep repeating the same innane and unsubstantiated statement. And bear in mind that doing so would refute Hansen's contention so you may want to step carefully or you may be black-balled over at Real Climate.

If you can't, then admit your error and we can move on as I've wasted enough time on what is obviously a pointless exercise given your inability to cede a point made perhaps in haste, perhaps out of misunderstanding, or perhaps to mislead - but a point nonetheless on which you are cleary wrong.

Damo, I already said I was writing one of the scientists to ask about this. The rest of what you write is just a repetition of previous arguments, although I do wonder why if you weren't confused about the Overpeck and Polyakov dates you tried to use them to claim that the 1930s were warmer than the last decade. At least you don't repeat the claim again. Admit no error and move on, eh?

Steve Bloom,

You are again missing the point - perhaps deliberately. I am not disputing the ACIA temperature anomaly for the current period, but their temperature anomaly (and its minimization) for the 1930s warming period and as such the additional 6 years of data in the ACIA plot is not the issue. Unless you would like to try and claim that the plotted temp increase in the ACIA report exceeds 0.5C between the high point of Overpeck's 1990s decadal anomalies and the "warmest decade" (although I don't think 1997 to 2003 quite makes it to a decade) ever, the far more comprehensive Overpeck data set for the 1930s show greater warming during this period. Unlike you apparently, I can actually compare two separate graphs.

As for my typo with the date of publication for Overpeck et al (and not btw for Polyakov despite your trying to slip it in), the date is clearly noted on the bottom of the page I linked you to and very clear in the study itself and I made an inputting error while blogging in haste. Whether or not you believe this is neither here not there - although I understand that, given you complete lack of any sort of substantive argument, you would try grasping at these sorts of straws.

As for "asking the scientists" good luck with that - although I really don't expect a response from you when they (if they respond at all) tell you that the notion of a lag or that BC was the major cause of Arctic warming is an idiotic assertion.