Guest writer Ed Caryl recently looked at 9 “rural” stations scattered over the Arctic: from Alaska, to Canada, to Northern Europe western Russia and Siberia, and found Arctic temperatures follow the AMO, and not CO2. Read here A Light In Siberia. It’s important to note that the 9 stations were selected because they appeared to be NOT influenced by man-made heat sources.
First, here’s the AMO going back more than 150+ years. The cycles are clear to see.
The AMO shows warm periods centering at about 1880, 1940 and 2005, i.e., 60 year cycle. We recall seeing photos of submarines surfacing at the North Pole back in the 1950s, see photo left, meaning it was relatively balmy back then too, as the AMO chart suggests.
Well how do the temperature curves of Ed’s 9 untainted Arctic stations match up with the AMO? The following are the GISS graphs of these 9 stations, each shown individually. Take a look at each of them:
What happens from 1940 – 1980, a time when CO2 was increasing? What happens after 1980? How do these charts match up with the above AMO chart? Fit pretty well? It seems so.
Some of the temperature records shown above are shorter and some are longer. But they all show that temperatures between 1940 and 1980 were dropping. Remember that the Arctic is called the canary in the coal mine. When the globe cools or warms, you really see it in the Arctic, so they say.
Next Ed Caryl plotted each of the above graphs on a single chart. Ed calls these “rural” stations isolated because they are not impacted by man-made heat sources like asphalt, light bulbs, etc:
And then he normalized the plots and generated an average. He explains how here, scroll down to “The averaging of station data”. The resulting plot with a linear trend line is shown as follows:
Sure some hot-shot statisticians out there are going to say you can’t do this, or that, or whatever blah blah blah…but that’s just nitpicking. Attention to tiny detail is a later thing.
Ed’s method suffices for now to generate a good general picture. If the math hotshots out there want to do it with micrometers, no one is stopping them. I doubt the general picture is going to change that much, though.
If you look at the 9 individual plots above and imagine how a composite of all 9 would look like, it would look like Ed’s chart – common sense.
Doesn’t the shape of above curve look eerily similar to the shape of the AMO from 1920 to today? Ed thought so too, and so he superimposed the average of the 9 isolated stations and the AMO:
Gee, do you think Arctic temperatures correlate better with CO2?
Of course this is only a preliminary analysis that examined only 9 isolated stations scattered over the entire Arctic perimeter. But I suspect that if all stations were thrown in, except the crappy ones equipped with light bulbs and of that sort, you’d end up with similar results.
Could the AMO possibly drive climate? Well, the latest paper authored by Phil Jones and others seem to be hinting at this. Read my post from yesterday http://notrickszone.com/2010/09/24/der-spiegel-the-oceans-influence-greater-than-thought/.
Obvious conclusion: Trace gas Co2 drives the Arctic climate about as much as a sea breeze drives a loaded freight train.