Unanticipated Stability: Latest Polar Conditions Show No Signs Of Global Warming Melting

Weather and climate analyst Schneefan here writes of “early frost” in the Arctic and how Greenland snow and ice have grown after being hit by a “snow bomb”. This contradicts the expectations of global warming alarmists.

The polar summer this year appears to have ended prematurely. The mean temperature of the central Arctic above 80°N has remained under the long-term average over the entire summer and even dipped below the freezing point about a week earlier than normal (1958-2002 mean).

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.ph

Massive Greenland “snow bomb”

An unusually early and massive snowfall in northwest Greenland led to a record high surface snow and ice mass budget, despite the summer melt season. In one single day, 14 August 2017, the ice and snow grew by a whopping 6 billion tonnes.

The following DMI Greenland snow and ice mass budget chart clearly shows the “snow bomb” as the blue curve spikes sharply upwards. Such a spike has never been seen for this time of the year.

The upper DMI chart above shows the daily ice growth/loss since 1 September 2016 until 14 August 2017 in billions of tonnes. The lower chart shows the accumulated surface mass balance. Source www.dmi.dk/greenland-surface-mass-budget/.

Note the latest small step upward in the lower chart, which is unusual in August because it is supposed to be the melt season. The approximately 670 billion tonnes of accumulated ice mass reached last May is new record. Note that this year is some 450 billion tonnes of ice above the level of this time in 2012 (red curve).

The weather forecast for Hall Land in northern Greenland forecasts more snow on the way, after a few days of above freezing weather.

Strong Arctic sea ice growth

The Central Arctic sea ice extent this August is considerably greater than it was over the past years.

The Maisie plot shows the central Arctic sea ice extent, 14 August. This year has by a large margin the greatest extent in five years. Source: nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_plots

Passages still closed

So far this year both the Northwest and Northeast passage in the Arctic are only passable by ice breakers, as the chart below shows:

Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php

Arctic ice volume (chart, upper right) currently is within the normal range of the past years.

Southern hemisphere temperature plummeting

Globally especially the southern hemisphere 2m temperature anomaly has been in a free fall, as the following chart with 1 week projection illustrates.

 Source: karstenhaustein.com/climate.php

Poles stable over past decade

Overall, the recent early cold conditions in the Arctic of course are weather, but is weather that was not expected by many. In general the Arctic has shown unanticipated stability over the past 10 years. That’s been a real surprise to a number of global warming scientists.

 

71 responses to “Unanticipated Stability: Latest Polar Conditions Show No Signs Of Global Warming Melting”

  1. SebastianH

    1) “even dipped below the freezing point about a week earlier than normal” – it does that in many years. That hasn’t been an indication of how much ice will melt this time.

    2) the link below the temperature graph misses a “p”

    3) “Note that this year is some 450 billion tonnes of ice above the level of this time in 2012 (red curve).” – you make it sound like that number is the actual increase in ice mass since 2012. It is not and I hope you know that.

    4) “The Central Arctic sea ice extent this August is considerably greater than it was over the past years.” – why not show the graph for the complete northern hemisphere? Or something like this? http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/ … ice extent is very close to the 2012 low level and currently lower than 2016 (that links also has the Antartic sea ice extent for you, also much lower than 2016).

    5) “In general the Arctic has shown unanticipated stability over the past 10 years.” – are you sure? https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/ stability looks different than those graphs.

    See what you are doing here? You make the data appear to mean something that it does not. “Disinformer” is the right term for that behavior.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      SebastianH, why do you feel the need to try to misinform the public about the latest climate science like this? You know what the science says (you’ve read these scientific papers before, as presented here), and yet you ignore them and post your own version of the “truth”. Again, why do that?

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/07/10/3-new-papers-greenland-3-5c-warmer-with-40-kilometers-less-ice-area-4000-10000-years-ago/

      According to the latest scientific papers, Greenland has been on an overall cooling trend since 2005
      ————————————————-
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Temps-Decreasing-Since-2005-Kobashi-2017.jpg

      Kobashi et al., 2017
      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7
      “For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling.”

      …with no net warming of the Greenland Ice Sheet in the last 90 years

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Hanna-2011.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Zhao-16.jpg
      ————————————————-
      The Greenland Ice Sheet had retreated to about 20-60 km behind its present position earlier in the Holocene (when CO2 levels were 150 ppm lower than now)

      Lasher et al., 2017
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116305650
      “Following deglaciation, the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] retreated behind its present margins (by as much as 20-60 km in some parts of Greenland) during the HTM [Holocene Thermal Maximum] (Larsen et al., 2015; Young and Briner, 2015).”

      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110003185
      The Arctic was sea ice free during summers earlier in the Holocene too, when, again, CO2 levels were 150 ppm lower than they are now.
      ————————————————-
      Not only that, but the Arctic is 3 to 5 degrees colder now than it has been for most of the last 10,000 years

      Kobashi et al., 2017
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Kobashi-2017.jpg

      Lasher et al., 2017
      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-Northwest-Lasher-2017.jpg


      Mangerud and Svendsen, 2017
      http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959683617715701
      August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP [10,200 to 9,200 years ago]”

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Svalbard-Arctic-Mangerud-Svendsen-2017.jpg
      ————————————————–
      Finally, you know that just last week there was a summarizing article here indicating that the latest scientific papers have told us there has been a dramatic deceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet melt contribution to sea level rise since the 1920s and 1930s.

      http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/07/since-1993-greenlands-ice-sheet-melt-has-added-just-0-39-of-a-centimeter-to-global-sea-levels/
      After zero Greenland Ice Sheet melt contribution to sea level rise for the 60 years between 1940 and 2000 (when human CO2 emissions exploded), there has been just a 0.39 of a centimeter contribution to sea levels from GIS melt during the years between 1993 and 2010. This was after there was a 1.1 cm contribution during the 1920s and 1930s, hence the deceleration.

      All together, the Greenland Ice Sheet has contributed just 1.5 cm to sea level rise in the last 110 years, with 1.1 cm of that occurring before 1940.

      Fettweis et al ., 2017
      http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/1015/2017/tc-11-1015-2017.pdf
      “SMB [surface mass balance, Greenland Ice Sheet] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal.”

      “Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance] anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 centimeters], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s
      ————————————————-
      With all the latest in scientific research (that you are obviously aware of), can you explain why it is you felt the need to ignore this science and post your “alternative facts”? What do we call someone who regularly tries to misinform the public, SebastianH?

      1. SebastianH

        Why are you so obsessed with the past, Kenneth? As if that would establish that the same cause is at work today. Is that the goal of these exercises?

        For all those Greenland 10000 years graphs I suggest you find out what year the most recent data point marks and compare the observed temperature change from around that time until today.

        post your “alternative facts”?

        Let’s see … 1) is easily checked and you’ll find it’s true, 2) is just a notification of a typing error, 3) notifies the author that he is implying something that the data doesn’t say and that he should make it clearer, so nobody would think that the ice mass actually gained billion of tonnes since 2012, in 4) the use of just the central Arctic area graphs instead of the complete Arctic ice extent is questioned and in 5) the claim of stability is questioned, because the ice mass has not at all been stable in the past decade.

        How are these “alternative facts” as you put it?

        1. Kenneth Richard

          “Why are you so obsessed with the past, Kenneth? As if that would establish that the same cause is at work today.”

          So noting that Greenland has cooled since 2005, that there has been no net warming on Greenland for the last 90 years, that the sea level rise contribution from the Greenland ice sheet has been 0.39 of a cm since 1940 (a considerable deceleration from the 1920s-1930s period, and zero contribution between 1940 and 2000)…all show an “obsession with the past”? The 20th century isn’t recent enough? This is such a weak “rebuttal”, SebastianH.

          “For all those Greenland 10000 years graphs”

          Those were only a small part of my response. But since I assume you are not happy that scientists have pointed out that the Arctic was 3 to 5 degrees C warmer than now for most of the Holocene, when CO2 levels were well under 300 ppm, please specifically identify the mechanism that was working in the past to cause such warming…since it wasn’t CO2. And why hasn’t CO2 been able to supersede that mechanism, whatever it is? Please be specific with describing the mechanism. Whenever I ask you to identify the mechanism that caused Arctic warming in the past, you evade. See if you can answer directly this time.

          “the claim of stability is questioned, because the ice mass has not at all been stable in the past decade”

          Well, it’s been cooling slightly in the last decade – along with the entire North Atlantic. So I guess if you want to call a slight cooling “not at all stable”, that’s your call. We’ll stick to the scientific literature. You go ahead and keep on posting your made-up graphs…and graphs from NASA.

          Kobashi et al., 2017
          https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7
          “For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling.”

          1. SebastianH

            So no “alternative facts” then … great.

            please specifically identify the mechanism that was working in the past to cause such warming

            I am sure whatever paper you found that in has an explanation for the warming.

            How do you explain the loss of ice mass despite the cooling, Kenneth? Any suggestions? Are the satellites fake? Is the method of measuring it fake? Or is the data itself manipulated? What is it this time?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            please specifically identify the mechanism that was working in the past to cause such warming

            I am sure whatever paper you found that in has an explanation for the warming.

            I want to know from you what you think is the mechanism that caused past warming. I already have extensive scientific evidence to support my viewpoints. I’m not asking you for information. I’m asking you to identify what you think the mechanism or mechanisms is/are causing the Arctic to be so much warmer than now in the past, or as recently as the 1920s-1930s.

            Why do you invariably refuse to answer this question? Is it that you can’t bear to acknowledge that natural factors could explain modern warming?

            “How do you explain the loss of ice mass despite the cooling, Kenneth? Any suggestions?”

            Ice melts and advances due to factors other than just air temperature, of which there has been only minor changes (a net of tenths of a degree) in the last century. There are regions of Antarctica and Greenland where ice is melting due to high geothermal activity, which, of course, may be unrelated to atmospheric temperatures. For information on this, perhaps this post may be educational: http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/22/new-paper-geothermal-heat-a-leading-driver-of-surface-temperatures/

            Why do you suppose that Greenland and the North Atlantic have undergone a cooling trend since the mid-2000s? What’s the mechanism? Will you ever answer these mechanism questions, or will you just keep on pretending that we don’t notice that you don’t want to acknowledge that something other than CO2 is a driver of climate?

          3. SebastianH

            I want to know from you …

            I want to know so many things from you that you never answer or care to elaborate. It always results in lots of quotes trying to support whatever you believe without understanding the problem / your mistake.

            Will you answer my questions when I answer yours? Or is this one of your “assignments” to distract from what the OP (me in this case) originally wrote?

            btw: You called what I wrote “alternative facts”. Why?

            Why do you invariably refuse to answer this question? Is it that you can’t bear to acknowledge that natural factors could explain modern warming?

            If natural factors could explain modern warming you could easily list them and their relative influence. I guess you disagree with Figure 8.15 (page 697 in https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf) … why? Because it is all fake and fraudulent? Or is it because you found “evidence” in some paper that you are able to believe more because it fits your viewpoint?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            You called what I wrote “alternative facts”. Why?

            Because you claimed that the Greenland Ice Sheet has been unstable for the last decade. Scientific papers indicate otherwise, or that the GIS has been cooling since 2005.

            If natural factors could explain modern warming you could easily list them and their relative influence.

            Perhaps you should take a look at today’s post: http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/17/russian-scientists-find-appreciable-contribution-from-natural-variability-solar-forcing-to-recent-warming/

            Now see if you can answer my questions: What caused the Arctic to be 3-5 degrees warmer than now for most of the Holocene? Why was the Arctic sea ice free during the summers for much of the Early Holocene? Why was the GIS 20 to 60 km behind its current extent through to about 4,000 years ago? Why did the GIS melt three times more during the 1920s-1930s than in recent decades? Why wasn’t there any sea level rise contribution from the GIS during the 1940s to 2000s…while CO2 emissions rose from 1 GtC/yr to 8 GtC/yr? What was the mechansim for all these trends? Will you ever finally identify it, or will I keep asking you and you keep on trying to evade?

          5. SebastianH

            Because you claimed that the Greenland Ice Sheet has been unstable for the last decade. Scientific papers indicate otherwise, or that the GIS has been cooling since 2005.

            The Greenland mass variation is far from stable: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/
            The sea ice index is far from stable:
            https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/ (you have to resist your urge to start the graph in 2007 here, we had that discussion before, remember?)

            Do you think these data points are “alternative facts”?

            What caused the Arctic to be 3-5 degrees warmer than now for most of the Holocene? Why was the Arctic sea ice free during the summers for much of the Early Holocene?

            Just to make sure, what reconstruction are we talking about here?

            If it indeed were warmer than today in the Arctic by 3-5 degrees there could be a number of reasons. Since that would mean that the Arctic warmed more than the rest of the globe it could have been some ocean currents that transported more energy than usual up there? Obviously not human emitted CO2.

            Other than that, I don’t know (can’t find the paper you might be referring to here). What did cause the temperature variations and why was the Arctic temperature anomaly so much larger than for the rest of the planet? (btw: it’s also larger than the rest today).

            I’ll have a look at your new post now …

          6. Kenneth Richard

            According to the Arctic Report Cards put out by NOAA, the average ice melt trends for the Arctic in recent years (-128 Gt/yr) have been trending back to above the 2002-2006 trend (-193 Gt/yr) after bottoming out between 2008-2012 (-367 Gt/yr).

            –193 Gt/yr for 2002-2006

            -367 Gt/yr for 2008-2012

            -128 Gt/yr for 2013-2016

            Here’s what that looks like graphed: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Mass-Balance-Loss-Deceleration-2.jpg

            The 2013-2017 trend will become even closer to positive territory than -128 Gt/yr (or in balance) when adding this year’s results, as the ice sheet is likely to be in the positive for 2017 (it was only -6 Gt for 2013).

            2014 Arctic Report CardA negligible ice mass loss of 6 Gt between June 2013 and June 2014

            Overall, since the mid-2000s, the Greenland Ice Sheet has been quite stable. So have temperatures, with a cooling trend since 2005 for not only Greenland, but the entire North Atlantic.

            Do you think these data points are “alternative facts”?

            Do you think the Arctic Report Cards that NOAA releases every year are “alternative facts”? Because that’s where these stable trends come from.

            “Other than that, I don’t know”

            So you don’t know why the Arctic was sea ice free in summers, temperatures were multiple degrees warmer, the Greenland Ice sheet was 40 km behind its present position…earlier in the Holocene? Why don’t you know the answer to this? You can’t take a stab at it? What was the mechanism that caused the Earth to experience some of the lowest centennial-scale temperatures of the last 10,000 years during the 1450 to 1900 period? What cooled it down…since CO2 rose during that time?

          7. SebastianH

            Here’s what that looks like graphed: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Mass-Balance-Loss-Deceleration-2.jpg

            Or you could just use the original ice mass graph:
            http://imgur.com/a/lxCig from https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/land-ice/

            That’s saying the same but isn’t trying to manipulate the viewer to think that somehow Greenland’s ice mass would be stable.

            Do you think the Arctic Report Cards that NOAA releases every year are “alternative facts”? Because that’s where these stable trends come from.

            That’s the same data. I am using them and you called them “alternative facts”.

            during the 1450 to 1900 period? What cooled it down…since CO2 rose during that time?

            Don’t get us started with that discussion again. It will lead nowhere without you understanding how CO2 concentration and temperatures are connected when human emissions aren’t present.

            btw: I didn’t ask “Just to make sure, what reconstruction are we talking about here?” just for fun. I can not find a credible source that says the temperatures were higher most of the time in the last 10000 years. Is the source that Easterbrooks nonsense?

          8. Kenneth Richard

            So why do you think it is that the GIS lost -367 Gt of ice per year from 2008 to 2012, but since then, it’s averaged only a little over -100 Gt per year? Why the dramatic deceleration in the last 5 years, stabilizing the yearly losses to even less than what they were averaging in the mid-2000s (-193 Gt/yr)?

            Why is the GIS going to be showing a positive balance for 2017?

            What was the mechanism causing the trend to shift towards a positive balance again (like we had from 1992-2002) since 2012? Will you refuse to answer these questions again because I have asked you to identify the mechanism for the post-2012 shift?

            By the way, why did the Greenland Ice Sheet gain mass during 1992-2002, when human emissions were exploding? Shouldn’t that not happen? And why wasn’t there any Greenland Ice Sheet melt contribution to sea level rise between 1940 and 2000, when CO2 emissions were simultaneously rising from 1 GtC/yr to 8 GtC/yr? Shouldn’t that not happen either? And why has there been no net warming in the Arctic for the last 80-90 years? And don’t you think we should have more than 0.39 of centimeter of sea level rise contribution from the GIS since 1993 overall? Why was there so much more melt contribution before CO2 emissions began exploding, as shown here…

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Holocene-Cooling-Glacier-Melt-Contribution-Sea-Level-Gregory-2013.jpg

          9. Kenneth Richard

            “…trying to manipulate the viewer to think that somehow Greenland’s ice mass would be stable.”

            It would appear that that’s what you have been doing, especially considering the latest science indicates Greenland has been cooling since 2005.

            “Don’t get us started with that discussion again. It will lead nowhere without you understanding how CO2 concentration and temperatures are connected when human emissions aren’t present.”

            Let’s see. CO2 rose from 280 ppm to 296 ppm between the mid-15th century and 1900. That’s a radiative forcing of +0.21 W m-2 for that 450-year period. That should have caused a temperature increase, not a decrease during that period. So perhaps some other factors are at play. Can we assume that you believe that the low solar activity and high volcanic activity did not appreciably contribute to the Little Ice Age cooling, and that it was the CO2 concentration which caused the cooling (even though it should have caused warming)?

            “Just to make sure, what reconstruction are we talking about here?”

            You pick. There are many more.

            Lasher et al., 2017
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116305650
            “This paper presents a multi proxy lake record of NW Greenland Holocene climate. … Summer temperatures (2.5–4 °C warmer than present) persisted until ∼4 ka [4,000 years ago] … Across Baffin Bay on northeastern Baffin Island, HTM summer temperatures were an estimated ~5°C warmer than the pre-industrial late Holocene and 3.5°C warmer than present, based upon chironomid assemblages (Axford et al., 2009; Thomas et al., 2007). … Following deglaciation, the GrIS [Greenland Ice Sheet] retreated behind its present margins (by as much as 20-60 km in some parts of Greenland) during the HTM [Holocene Thermal Maximum] (Larsen et al., 2015; Young and Briner, 2015).”

            East Greenland, 2-3°C warmer (Krawczyk et al., 2017)
            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-East-Krawczyk-17-.jpg

            Northern Greenland, 2-3°C warmer
            Lecavalier et al., 2013
            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Holocene-Cooling-Greenland-North-Agassiz-Ice-Cap-Lecavalier13-copy.jpg

            Durantou et al., 2012
            http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/5391/2012/bg-9-5391-2012.pdf
            “Sea surface temperature [Arctic Ocean] between ∼ AD 1885–1935 are warmer by up to 3°C with respect to the average modern temperature at the coring site.”

            Thomas et al., 2016
            https://www.geo.umass.edu/climate/papers2/Thomas_2016.pdf
            During the middle Holocene, temperature on Greenland was ~ 2°C higher than present

            Fortin and Gajewski, 2016
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S003358941600017X
            “Although biological production increased in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time. … Modern inferred temperatures based on both pollen and chironomids are up to 3°C cooler than those inferred for the mid-Holocene.”

            Briner et al., 2016
            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379116300427
            [R]apid warming from the onset of the Holocene until ~9.5 ka [9,500 years ago], relatively uniform temperature at the millennial scale until ~7 ka [7,000 years ago], followed by ~3.5 °C temperature decline to the Little Ice Age [1250-1850 C.E.], followed by ~1.5 °C warming to today. [Today’s Greenland Ice Sheet temperatures are 2.0 °C colder than the Early and Middle Holocene]

            Spolaor et al., 2016
            https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160928083222.htm
            Researchers have found that 8000 years ago the Arctic climate was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than now, and that there was also less summertime Arctic sea ice than today.

            Kobashi et al., 2017
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7
            “After the 8.2 ka event, Greenland temperature reached the Holocene thermal maximum with the warmest decades occurring during the Holocene (2.9 ± 1.4 °C warmer than the recent decades) at 7960 ± 30 years B.P. … For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling.

            Mangerud and Svendsen, 2017
            http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959683617715701
            August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP

        2. John

          “Why are you so obsessed with the past, Kenneth? ”
          Because, those who do not learn from the past are destined to repeat it.

      2. richard verney

        And 2005 was the only time (these past 120 years) when Greenland was warmer than it was in 1940.

        Greenland today, is no warmer than it was in 1940 notwithstanding that man has emitted approximately 95% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1940..

    2. Rob Mitchell

      The United States National Ice Center supports the idea that the Northern Hemispheric ice is running right along the most recent 10 year average.

      http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/index.html

      http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/sea_ice_only.jpg

      The seems stable to me!

      1. Rob Mitchell

        Make that, “That seems stable to me.”

  2. Colorado Wellington

    How can it be right if it contradicts the CO2 hypothesis?

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Observed data must be changed to fit the models. Give it time.

      Just a few months ago, DMI changed their baseline period from 1990-2013 to 1981-2010 so as to show less of a positive SMB anomaly for 2017. And its still setting growth records. So it’s only a matter of time before the data are changed again. The models can’t be wrong. Only the observations.

      Back in 1987, global temperature data sets showed 0.5 C of warming between 1987 and 1950.

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-0.5C-1880-1950-768×751.jpg

      That warming didn’t fit the narrative, of course. So it was removed.

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NASA-Global-Surface-Temps-1987-1880-1950-0.5C-768×514.jpg

      http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/NOAA-Data-Manipulation-No-Warming-1880-1950.jpg

      1. SebastianH
        1. sunsettommy
          1. Kenneth Richard

            Cool the past, warm the present. That way they can create a linear trend out of an oscillation, and obliterate the connection to solar forcing…

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Total-Solar-Irradiance-NH-Temperatures-1700-2000s.jpg

          2. sunsettommy

            Here is one more chart, Seb will fight even thought it is from NCAR and GISS:

            https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/PaintImage78.gif

        2. Kenneth Richard

          Is that so?

          http://imgur.com/a/oksOx

          Another fabrication from SebastianH, indicating he’s eager to engage in the same dishonest data manipulation as NASA.

          SebastianH, notice that in my graph, the starting point (1880) is in the same spot. In your fabricated graph, you make the starting point (1880) about 0.5 C lower for the 1987 graph than the 2016 graph. And then you hope that no one will notice this little “trick” of yours. I’ve informed you of this “mistake” at least 2 or 3 times before…and yet, despite knowing that you’ve started the ’87 graph data point a half a degree lower, you’ve chosen to make another attempt to misinform, hoping that it might slip past detection this time around.

          You have just illustrated quite effectively what your side, and you, are willing to do with data manipulation.

          1. SebastianH

            Sorry, but why do you think that both graphs should start at the same temperature? What happens if we start from the year 1900 in both graphs and draw it the way you did it? Does the comparison change by doing that? What makes you certain that you didn’t manipulate by falsely combining both graphs?

          2. Kenneth Richard

            “Sorry, but why do you think that both graphs should start at the same temperature?”

            Um, because the 1880 temperature is the starting point for the instrumental record, and the starting point doesn’t change over time unless it’s been artificially manipulated. Why do you think the starting point should be a half a degree different? Could it be because you want to conceal the half a degree of erased temperature?

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/NASA-Hansen-81-1.jpg
            According to NASA (1981), the NH warmed by 0.8 C between 1880 and 1940 and cooled by 0.5 C between 1940 and 1970. What happened? Why did that disappear?

          3. SebastianH

            Someone edited my reply without making it clear. Pierre, was that you?

            Anyway, you didn’t understand what different baselines mean for the woodfortrees graphs and maybe you don’t even understand the concept of baselines for anomalies.

            I tried to make that clear to you by asking you how the graph would change if you ignored the data from before 1900 and matched both lines for that starting point. Different baselines, different results.

            When adjusting data you don’t generally adjust them so the starting point of your time series doesn’t change. When you figured out how to best measure temperatures after 100 years and want to adjust the records, then you’d naturally adjust other values towards your current implementation of measuring temperature and not the other way around. Wouldn’t you agree?

            But of course this is explained in detail in the FAQs of those services providing these temperature records. But I guess that is all fake to you anyway, right?

          4. Kenneth Richard

            I’m sure this isn’t the last time you will make the 1880 starting point -0.5 C lower for the 1987 graph than for the 2016 graph so as to attempt to make it look like the data wasn’t manipulated. In the process, you have yourself manipulated the data by removing 0.5 C from the 1880-1950 trend, just as NASA did. Thank you for yet again illustrating that you cannot be trusted to honestly disseminate data. Apparently you think you’re “winning” by fabricating. Most people would understand that it’s only hurting your case further.

            Pirazzoli, 1990
            0.5°C rise between 1880 and 1950” … has been removed by NASA. There is now no warming between 1880 and 1950.

            http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/SLR-0.9-mmyr-acceleration-and-0.5-C-temp-rise-to-1950.jpg

          5. SebastianH

            So you can’t acknowledge that different baselines lead to different graphs. Fine…

            So you will continue to post graphs that look like this (with the gistemp temperature “clearly” being 0.5 degrees warmer than RSS) instead of this (baseline adjusted)?

            Just asking to make sure whether or not to trust any of your graphs in the future.

          6. Kenneth Richard

            “So you can’t acknowledge that different baselines lead to different graphs. Fine…”

            It was widely discussed in 1987 that the temperatures had risen by 0.5 C between 1880 and 1950. Now it’s 0.0 C. A half a degree was removed by doing the same sort of data manipulation that you just did. And you want me to acknowledge that your data manipulation is “right”??

  3. Craig King

    How confusing. Does this mean our Climatologists ® don’t really have much forecasting skill or has the Arctic gone rogue?

    Mr Haddow will be sad.

  4. mwhite

    Well this lot are going to find out how much ice there is(or isn’t)

    https://www.facebook.com/ArcticMissionUK

    Progress and map here

    http://www.arcticmission.com/follow-arctic-mission/

    1. Green Sand

      To be fair they have now announced they are not trying to go to the actual north Pole. But just going to the ice edge to see what is there. Something fishermen and whalers have been doing for, probably, millennia. So what’s all the fuss about? Funding and book deals? No, pure science!The gullible rent seeking MSM claim.

  5. sunsettommy

    Sebastian,

    the Arctic is right on the TEN year mean:

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/images/sea_ice_only_small.jpg

    From here,

    http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

    1. sunsettommy

      Another ALL GISS “data based” chart:

      https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/NASASurface2001-2016.gif

      Look at the 1880 start point,very different.

      1. SebastianH

        The GISS website seems to be currently unavailable. But here is their FAQ: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/#q203 (archive.org link)

        1. sunsettommy

          You are desperate here,Sebastian.

          What I posted are indeed GISS charts,here is one from 1999 they posted:

          I went to get that chart to discover that they BLOCKED it out at the wayback machine!

          Here is a post at WUWT showing that GISS has been changing past history of charts because they were inconvenient:

          Climate FAIL: GISS is presenting 2012 US temperature as ‘off the chart’, while preventing older data from being archived

          “5. Why does GISS block the archiving of such important resources like the global temperature data they produce by such public domain services like the Wayback machine? Could it be they don’t want inconvenient comparisons like this one below to be made with their graphs?”

          https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355

          At one time,Dr. Hansen even WROTE that 1934 was slightly hotter year than 1998, but now that was erased too,as shown here:

          “McKintyre notified the pair of the bug; Ruedy replied and acknowledged the problem as an “oversight” that would be fixed in the next data refresh.

          NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.”

          Now go click THIS at the link below, NASA has now silently released corrected figures

          http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8383

          It is GONE!

          GISS sanitizing the past.

  6. sunsettommy

    Here is a quote from a GISS PDF,that has since been erased,you see that by clicking on the PDF link:

    “The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.”

    http://www.storm2k.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=1589445&sid=00e592c78de0522bf56a7ae1c812ac6c#p1589445

    I know this true because I READ what DR. Hansen posted over 15 years ago that he stated that 1934 was barely the warmest year on record.

    1. SebastianH

      You do realize that what you are complaining here has nothing to do with the GISS time series for global temperature, do you?

      1. sunsettommy

        Sebastian ignores the evidence of what Dr. Hansen said in the past,including that inconvenient chart.

        You have nothing to counter with or you would have already done it,instead of this deflection.

        Never once said whether it was regional or global,the point was that Dr. Hansen erases inconvenient charts,even GLOBAL ones,that show a very different picture than the current much warmer ones.

        1. SebastianH

          Never once said whether it was regional or global

          Your entire quote is about the U.S. temperature record.

          1. sunsettommy

            Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

            You are pathetic as usual. Here is that quote right above your comment,which is indeed US. Annual chart.

            “The U.S. annual (January-December) mean temperature is slightly warmer in 1934 than in 1998 in the GISS analysis (Plate 6). This contrasts with the USHCN data, which has 1998 as the warmest year in the century. In both cases the difference between 1934 and 1998 mean temperatures is a few hundredths of a degree. The main reason that 1998 is relatively cooler in the GISS analysis is its larger adjustment for urban warming. In comparing temperatures of years separated by 60 or 70 years the uncertainties in various adjustments (urban warming, station history adjustments, etc.) lead to an uncertainty of at least 0.1°C. Thus it is not possible to declare a record U.S. temperature with confidence until a result is obtained that exceeds the temperature of 1934 by more than 0.1°C.”

            The very first comment about GISS charts was also about US temperature data:

            “http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/16/unanticipated-stability-latest-polar-conditions-show-no-signs-of-global-warming-melting/comment-page-1/#comment-1226778

            Another US chart,in my next comment

            http://notrickszone.com/2017/08/16/unanticipated-stability-latest-polar-conditions-show-no-signs-of-global-warming-melting/comment-page-1/#comment-1226786

            the next comment finally covers the planet, but since your comment was a pure DEFLECTION to WHY I was posting all these charts,it was your way to avoid the obvious that GISS on regional AND global levels they were changing their charts over time. That they were also deleting some of the PDF’s that contained those charts.

            Sebastian had written this desperate deflection that didn’t address my comment he was responding to at all:

            “You do realize that what you are complaining here has nothing to do with the GISS time series for global temperature, do you?”

            Again and again, you fail to post an actual counterpoint my sources comments, just your stupid deflections. My assertions were based on the fact that GISS were over a period of 36 years changing their chart over and over to make it appear warmer than it really is.

            You are a dishonest person.

          2. SebastianH

            Every time I reply to you it ends in something that is hard to understand. What are you complaining about? That adjustments improve over time? That old graphs aren’t available on current websites (the world wide web wasn’t around in 1981)?

            Do you think you are particularly clever pointing this out and claiming that it’s all fake? 😉

            I don’t need a counterpoint … a counterpoint to what exactly? The graphs change because of adjustments being made. You see that as a problem, so compile your own index and see if you can get to a consistent temperature time series without adjustments.

            You know … GISS isn’t the only temperature time series. Others compile those too from the raw data and the results are pretty similar.

          3. sunsettommy

            Another counterpoint free crap from you,Sebastian. Why don’t you slink away?

            You NEVER address the obvious point that they keep changing the data and baselines over the years. They eliminated the WELL DOCUMENTED large cooling trend from the 1940’s to the 1970’s,which you have completely ignored.

            This is pathetic once again.

  7. sunsettommy

    Here is a report on the many DR. Hansen charts in one place,but the links for the posted charts at the NASA website has been deleted,even his own PDF links that contains these charts are deleted. PDF’s!

    This chart came from his own PDF presentation,that has been deleted:

    http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp_files/image015.gif

    Here is the full report at Al Cheethams site,

    Hansen’s Global Temperature

    http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp.htm

    It is clear GISS is hiding their past inconvenient history.You have been shown hard evidence,don’t bother trying to lie about it.

    1. SebastianH

      I think you need more tinfoil for your headwear. We are everywhere controlling everything, hiding things from you and manipulate data. We are the greatest conspiracy that ever existed on this planet /sarcasm off

      Seriously, the raw data is unchanged. Download it and compile your own temperature index. The skeptics true temp index if you will … let’s see if it is better than what scientists all over the world are doing with the available measurements.

      1. sunsettommy

        I think you need a better counterpoint,since you didn’t provide one.

        It is clear that you can’t answer my use of GISS only charts,to show the obvious changes they made over the years. You are the one who resist the evidence from Dr. Hansen himself.

        All the while they are deleting even PDF’s of their presentations. But Yonason found one still alive that COMPLETELY supports my narrative. Notice that you IGNORED it,because it doesn’t support your self lies and delusion.

        You are as usual running on nothing.

        1. SebastianH

          A counterpoint to what? Your paranoid behavior?

          Do you mean the presentation from this website? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/2007/

          What exactly does that support?

          What are my self-lies and delusions? Have you read the FAQ? https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/ What points are unclear to you?

          1. sunsettommy

            You keep ignoring serious evidence of repeated changes to the temperature data. I showed you charts, ALL from GISS, showing a clear pattern of data changes,which they do over and over.

            You have not once addressed my links that shows the evidence,which is why you ignore them to push on a deflection campaign with your links that doesn’t even address my main point at all.

            GISS over the years from 1981, made a series of data changes,that almost eliminates the well documented cooling trend from the 1940’s to the 1970’s. This is but one example, YOU ignore over and over.

          2. SebastianH

            Change is the nature of a time series with adjustments which constantly tries to improve its accuracy. Feel free to get the raw data (unchanged) and compile your own temperature index from it. You’ll hopefully see why data has to be adjusted then …

    2. yonason
      1. sunsettommy

        Watch Sebastian ignore this.

        Thanks Yonason!

        1. SebastianH

          And? What do you think this PDF is saying? They even acknowledge their data processing error. It’s more or less the same document as can be found on https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/news/2007/

          1. sunsettommy

            Here is that data processing error Sebastian stupidly latched onto:

            “Data Flaw

            Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth’s surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty.”

            You are pathetic Seb.

          2. SebastianH

            Again, where is the problem with all this?

    3. yonason

      Another link for you, sunsettommy, which says what you do, with links to his earlier and later paper, which when entered into the internet archive search engine gives a variety of errors, among them “not found,” and in a few cases it says the article is downloading, but nothing happens, and there’s also this one…

      Forbidden

      You don’t have permission to access /docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf on this server.

      Yes, chatbot_sebh, they are hiding the material.

      1. yonason
  8. sunsettommy

    To show that Sebastian is trying his desperate delection,here I show the difference of GLOBAL temperature between 1981 and 2007 charts,both from the same Dr. Hansen:

    Comparing Hansen 2007 with Hansen 1981:

    http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/Hansen_GlobalTemp_files/image003.gif

    Yes his own PDF’s where the charts came from have been deleted!

    Going to continue to ignore this,Seb?

    1. yonason

      And then, sunsettommy, there is Hansen’s connection with Soros.
      https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/noel-sheppard/2007/09/26/nasas-hansen-mentioned-soros-foundations-annual-report

      note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

      __________________________
      Add it all up, and everything the IBD editorial claimed – that a high-ranking official at NASA may have received money from an organization funded by George Soros in order to politicize science — is actually available in this annual report.

      Yet, not one media outlet thought this was newsworthy.

      Here’s another link I just found that has a lot more info on global temps, and the “adjustments” that all seem to make the past colder.
      http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part3_GlobalTempMeasure.htm

      And another.
      http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/Warming2012.htm

    2. SebastianH

      Obviously, they didn’t get it right in 1981 and had to further improve. As with all things in life the first draft is usually not the best …

      1. sunsettommy

        What a pathetic attempt to rationalize away the GISS data adjustment. history.

        Changing the baseline,eliminate the well known cooling decades long, is not an improvement,it is rewriting history. The RAW data doesn’t change over time, it is the NUMEROUS adjustments that always change.

        You offer nothing credible here,just evasive bullcrap.

        1. SebastianH

          Glad you finally realized that the adjustments are subject to change. But you continue to demonstrate that you think this is somehow a bad thing. Very strange.

          Why do I need to offer anything credible? You are the one who needs to support his claim that some or all of the adjustments are wrong. The detailed steps that are performed to compile the gistemp series can be found here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html you can even download the sourcecode (Python script) that performs those steps from here: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/

          Feel free to modify it to your liking and provide a temp series of you own. Don’t forget to document why you think your series is better than the available ones …

        2. SebastianH

          Sourcecode for gistemp adjustments: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/

          Documentation:
          https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources_v3/gistemp.html

          Feel free to improve it with your vision of how the raw data should be adjusted to get a consistent temperature time series.

      2. yonason

        It’s not at all “obvious,” chatbot!
        https://realclimatescience.com/noaa-us-temperature-fraud/

        What’s obvious is that the warmists are not good people. In fact, looking at the awful things many of them say, we can clearly see just how utterly reprehensible they are. One might even be forgiven for calling them evil.
        https://orach24463.wordpress.com/2014/11/30/musings-from-the-leaders-of-the-climate-change-movement-seeking-to-save-the-earth-from-humanity/comment-page-1/

        And the misplaced faith the pathetic trolls have in that band of pirates, as well as their zeal in defending them, tells us that they are no better.

  9. sunsettommy

    Lets see if warmist troll evasive deflective moron, can directly explain this massive change:

    http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure_files/image024.gif

    “NOAA provides a summary of the adjustments made to the USHCN temperature data as shown in the following figure. [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html] The report states: “The cumulative effect of all adjustments is approximately a one-half degree Fahrenheit warming in the annual time series over a 50-year period from the 1940’s until the last decade of the century.” This is similar to the total amount of warming “observed”.”

    (The entire PDF no longer exist,just this quote) More evidence of erasing inconvenient excuses for the massive changes.

    Notice how big the difference is from RAW to final adjustment?

    The difference is about .55C, which is absurd.

  10. sunsettommy

    Perfect example of Sebastians stupid statement:

    “You know … GISS isn’t the only temperature time series. Others compile those too from the raw data and the results are pretty similar.”

    FALSE!

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979/mean:12/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend

    You are too stupid to figure it out.as GISS has long been known to be the outlier.It is by far the warmest dataset of the bunch.

    1. SebastianH

      Do you realize that those datasets have different baselines? Do you know what baselines are?

      Here is the explanation from the site that you linked to:
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#baselines

      With the correct offsets used: http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.10/plot/gistemp/from:1979/mean:12/offset:-0.43/plot/uah5/from:1979/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/offset:-0.29/mean:12/plot/uah6/from:1979/mean:12

  11. sunsettommy

    Now using just ground based temperature data,we get this:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/mean:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1950/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1950/mean:12/plot/gistemp/from:1950/trend

    GISS is warming at an INCREASING greater rate over time against HadCrut4 since 1950.

    You are wrong again,Sebastian. He wrote this stupidity below,

    “You know … GISS isn’t the only temperature time series. Others compile those too from the raw data and the results are pretty similar.”

    LOL

    1. SebastianH