This from researcher Peter taylor.

"The Arctic heat-wave of 1920-1940 is of course well-known to real Arctic climate scientists. I reviewed 32 temperature data sets for Arctic stations to 2004 some with very long records – In 2006 I could find only one with higher temperatures in 2004 than in the late 1930s or early 1940s – that was on the eastern coast of Greenland. Since then I have reviewed dozens of papers on surface air temperature, sea surface temperatures, ice-mass, glacier speeds and sea-ice, and all show a clear CYCLIC pattern of roughly 70 years. Some Greenland and Alaskan temperatures peaked in 2006-2008, but the pattern looks set to repeat.

The latest Arctic heat wave is not identical to the last – firstly it is higher, by maybe 20% in some places, and secondly, the hot-spots are different. But one thing is clear – it is driven by two distinctive factors – a 14% increase in clouds over the North Pole and Beaufort Sea between 1980-2000, and the incursion of warm Atlantic water under the ice and into the Beaufort Gyre. The rapid summer ice loss is due to melting from above (infra red from the clouds) and below (warm Atlantic water).

The strength of the Beaufort Gyre determines how far Atlantic water penetrates the Arctic – when the PDO is warm and Alaskan Shelf winds are low, the gyre weakens and may reverse flow; when cold (since late 2006), the Alaskan interior cools, the winds strengthen and the gyre strengthens accordingly – there is a lag of a few years.

Thus, this domino effect from the Pacific will eventually reach the area between Greenland and Norway and summer sea-ice ought to return to the long-term norm (unless there really IS a strong greenhouse element – which I can’t see it greater than the difference between this warm period and the last – ie about 20%) and unless there is an even steeper decline in global temperatures due to the quiet sun effect.

On the latter – there is a body of evidence that during quiet solar periods, the jetstream is shifted along with Arctic pressure systems that lead to blocking high pressure over Iceland – sending the jetstream further south and cooling western Europe. The eastern seaboard of the USA gets a little warmer, but the mid-West suffers late springs, dry summers, and bitter winters – not good for the breadbasket of the world!

We should get to see this play out over the next five years."

I only add that Alaskan glaciers have been growing again since 2006.

Hey, Rog,

Sorry about these intermittent posts. I haven't taken the time to stay current with the thread, but it's nice to see that there are others here interested.

Ok, lets think about your graph.
Does it represent "climate" or "weather" time scale?
Does it represent regional or global climate?
Graph documentation?
Data documentation?
Data points?
Spatial representation?
Error bars?
"Daily temps" definition? Day time? Night time? Average?
We're comparing the first 150 days of each of two years? Why? Why these two years? Which days are represented here? The first five months of each year? If so, this graph show a large seasonal variance, doesn't it? Weather is varied and noisy!

"Even the NSIDC admits the Arctic was warmer in the 1940's than it is now."

What does this mean? Decadal average? Decadal average of the first 150 days of the years?
What is the connection between the graph's first half of 1958/2009 comparison and the 1940's comment? Is there one?

I'm not accusing you of anything here, Rog, just wondering.

I assume that since you're posting the information on this thread, you want to make a point about global temps or climate change. What global significance do you find in the
comparison of N. OF 80 temps from 1958 and 2009?

What global significance do you find in the comparison of Arctic 1940's temps and "now"? Where's your data? What does "now" mean? Decadal comparison? Annual? 1940's to 2000-09?
1940's to 09? Is the 1940 Arctic above N.80?

Meanwhile as you know, Arctic Sea Ice extant continues its climate scale downward trend.

I understand that the growth in Antarctic sea ice has just (in the last 12 to 18 months or so) reached statistical significance. This does not change the fact that it has, but as we have discussed before, the response time of the ocean dominated S. Hemisphere is relatively slow compared to the North. The comparison of cores from Greenland and Antarctic reinforce the SH's slow response time. Rising Southern Ocean temperatures, the incidence of glacial melt pools, increasing snowfall, glacial mass measurements, the strengthening of the circumpolar winds, the cooling effect of Antarctic ozone loss, coastal glacial patterns, decreasing overturning of coastal waters, and regional temperature patterns of Antarctic, point to a changing Antarctic climate.

The "evidence" that you provided in your post may be obvious and clear evidence to you that "warming is not all the alarmist say it is" (whatever that means), but it says nothing to alter the likelihood of increasing long term global temperatures, caused in large part by the emissions
of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels.

Among a number things, I agree with Stuart that climate and climate change is interesting, if not fascinating. I enjoy reading about it and I enjoy talking about it,and I enjoy learning about it. I most enjoy talking about it within its conceptual framework: I like the structure of accepted definitions and concepts, and maybe my need for structure is a function of my own lack of knowledge, even ignorance. My surface thin knowledge of climate concepts has given me an equally thin context within which I can think about the climate related papers and conversations/discussions that I seek out.

A long,long,...long time ago:), in this thread, you indicated a willingness to ignore fundamentals of climate science and statistical analysis, and indeed the entirety of your posts is a strong testimony to your willingness to ignore those definitions.

We end up talking past each other in monologue rather than engaging in meaningful dialogue. What's the point? The last person with which I had that kind of relationship is my ex O, and I certainly don't want to divorce you, Rog!

So maybe a drive by relationship is best. You can continue your weather reports on this thread, and I'll check in when the terms of your climate change denial grow so farcical that I'm laughing so hard that I can't do anything else but respond. Come to think of it, that particular standard may have me responding more often than I like, because when it comes to farcical denialism, your status is heroically legendary!

Until next time, my best!

What a steaming pile of codswallop skots.

About the only thing of substance in your bloated post is this:

"it says nothing to alter the likelihood of increasing long term global temperatures, caused in large part by the emissions
of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels."

For which you have offered not one jot of evidence in the whole of your posts to this thread.

Indeed just a year and a half ago on another thread you said this:

"7. Virtually all of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the result of human burning of fossil fuels and clearing (burning) land.
8. Strong evidence of the influence of human fossil fuel burning can be found in the change in carbon isotope ratios found in the atmosphere, upper or near surface ocean, tree ring analysis, and ice cores. This implies nothing about temperatures."

my bold.

So what has convinced you since then?

By the way, here's a handy blink comparison showing the years around 1958 and recent times. It's shows wintertime temps rose in the arctic by 4F or so up to the point where they have started to decline again as they do cyclicly over a 70 year period. Read Peter Taylor's analysis above.
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qmkqdj&s=5

Tell me, how fast does ice melt at -40 degrees centigrade?

Edited by tallbloke on 05/14/2009 11:44:38 MDT.

... how the heck did i forget "smugly self-satisfied"?

Never heard that word. =)

Here's a graph from the NSIDC showing the loss of sea ice in the Arctic.

Since you're so found of the graphs:

Hi Nate,
for a well publicly funded organisation, don't you find it strange that the NSIDC claims to have updated their webpage on sea ice on the 30th April this year, yet they don't include the 2008 sea ice curve on the graph you linked.

If they had, you'd be able to see that the ice didn't melt as much last year. And it's melting even more slowly this year, as this graph shows:

.

big deal.

Depends how you view the data.
Some people draw a simple linear regression through the last thirty years and tell us the sky is falling.

Real climate scientists study the historical data over a much longer period and see a 70 year cyclicity which peaked a few years ago.

Arctic sea ice extent is starting to increase again in the last two years.

The Pacific decadal oscillation also peaked a couple of years ago and is on it's way down.

Alaskan glaciers started growing again a couple of years ago.

ARGO data shows that globally, the oceans have been cooling slightly since 2003.

This is not one year variance.

There have been strange goings on inside the EPA over the endangerment finding on Co2. One of their number has been trying to get more recent scientific discoveries taken into account. He has been muzzled and assigned to menial duties normally done by outside contractors.

Here is an excerpt from the email sent by his superior at EPA:
“The time for such discussion of fundamental issues has passed for
this round. The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward on
endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.
…. I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and
that would be a very negative impact on our office.”

More details here:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

Looks to me like there has been arm twisting from on high:
"the administration has decided to move forward"

His report has been filed in a back room with a sign on the door saying 'beware of the tarantulas'. Details here:

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d25-The-EPAs-internal-nightmare-over-global-warming-Part-1

The CEI has obtained a draft copy of the suppressed report and has made it available online this morning:

http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/DOC062509-004.pdf

Even the opening preface of this document is enough to tell you there is something rotten in the state of Denmark.

The Waxman Malarky bill is up for the vote today. Let your congress critter know what you think of being railroaded into a high tax high fuel cost economy. Contact details for the wavering congress critters are here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/25/the-waxman-markey-pre-vote-count-where-you-can-help/

May the truth shine through.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/26/2009 03:02:45 MDT.

Update: It seems there are some relevant figures in the house awake to this one:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Greg Walden, R-Ore., ranking member of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, today asked Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and Oversight Committee Chairman Bart Stupak, D-Mich., to begin an investigation on the process the Environmental Protection Agency used in developing its endangerment finding.

The endangerment finding, if formalized by a rule, would allow the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act, something U.S. Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., once called “a glorious mess.”

“It appears the administration and EPA administrator rushed to issue the proposed endangerment finding without considering fully substantive analysis and views of senior EPA career staff within the agency,” Barton and Walden wrote. “The attached EPA emails raise serious questions about the process for developing the proposed endangerment finding, whether analysis or information was suppressed because it did not support the administration and/or administrator’s proposed finding, and/or whether there is a fear within the agency that there will be negative consequences for offices that offer views critical of the prevailing views of the administrator and the administration.”

Come on Rog, political indoctrination trumps science any day. It's not really about the environment, it's about controlling people. Get with the program.

Well Joe, those who don't like being controlled by politicians had better get on the blower and help rewrite the program. Otherwise job numbers will go down and fuel prices will shoot up. Not a good prospect after the last two cold winters, with more on the horizon.

.

Edited by tallbloke on 06/26/2009 12:38:56 MDT.

> fuel prices will shoot up

This is going to happen anyhow. Global reserves of oil are starting to run down. The key words are 'Peak oil' if you want to search.

I am not saying it will happen tomorrow, but NO resource has an infinite supply. We had better do a little long range planning.

Cheers

Well, looks like Turkey's vote for Christmas in June

HR 2454

Yea: 219

Nay: 212

NV: 3

Roger C: I agree, long term, but I wonder what the American people have will make of the new bureaucracy. Hypothermia deaths will rise markedly next winter.

The law of unintended consequences will drive the point home.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

Quote:
We hypothesize that the established pre-1998 trend is the true forced warming signal, and that the climate system effectively overshot this signal in response to the 1997/98 El Niño.

If this hypothesis is correct, the era of consistent record-breaking global mean temperatures will not resume until roughly 2020.
End Quote

Of course they then go on to say we're all gonna fry anyway, just later than expected. But then, they would wouldn't they?

Strangely enough, there is no discussion of what these mysterious natural forcings which can overpower the mighty warming effect of co2 are, or how much they might have been raising the worlds temperature in their positive phases.

And naturally all this was already covered by the models, because co2 warming theory GCM's explain hot climate, cooling climate, average climate....

Pretty much unfalsifiable pseudoscience really.

Edited by tallbloke on 07/14/2009 11:17:53 MDT.

AP has the news.

One interesting tidbit, ocean temperatures are more important than land temperatures in determining trajectory of planet's overall temperature. (Our earth is 2/3 water after all).

Guess the ocean is in on the conspiracy, Rog.

The AP article is at best misleading.

The 1998 SST (Sea Surface Temperature) and many other months have had warmer SSTs. Note the horizontal red line in figure 2 below:
wattsupwiththat.com

However, July 2009 was the warmest SST recorded in the just over 7 years that NASA’s Aqua and TRMM satellites have been operating wattsupwiththat.com

Discussion on wattsupwiththat.com suggests that the Gulf Stream is slightly west of its usual position which is causing the elevated readings.

Even Jim Hansen's NOAA says that July 2009 in the US was colder than usual NOAA Map

It has been confirmed that the raw, station temperature data has been leaked to a competent scientist Met Office Finds the Mole. That, in combination with the ongoing survey by sufaceStations.org may result in us getting a trustworthy land temperature record.

The July UAH (U of Alabama, Huntsville) satellite data does show a marked warming in July. This is consistent with an El Nino event UAH Data at wattsupwiththat.com

Note that the Arctic sea ice appears to be recovering from its 2007 nadir National Snow and Ice Data Center graph

Edited by SM498 on 08/21/2009 23:40:48 MDT.

Guess the ocean is in on the conspiracy, Rog.

It's a very important point you raise Nate. The worlds air and land temperature is indeed set by the heat emitted from the oceans. This important fact has been glossed over by the warmists in the past for a very clear reason:

The Air doesn't warm the ocean, the sun does.

Shortwave rediation from the sun penetrates up to around 200 feet into the ocean. Longwave radiation from the greenhouse gases in the air can't penetrate the ocean, but just increase evaporation at the surface.

This means it is the sun and the amount of cloud in the air which reflects more or less of the incoming sunlight which determines the world's temperature.

An inconvenient truth indeed.

This means it is the sun and the amount of cloud in the air which reflects more or less of the incoming sunlight which determines the world's temperature.

If there is additional "insulation" around the planet (in the form of greenhouse gases) then it will get hotter. Doesn't matter how the heat gets in there, whether the water heats the air or vice versa.

Not unlike the effect of a pot cosy really. The water will stay hotter for longer when there is more insulation around it.

"The water will stay hotter for longer when there is more insulation around it."

Hi Ashley,

the top 8 feet of the ocean has as much heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it. The surface evaporation from the oceans and the latent heat of condensation released when the water vapour condenses high up in the cumulo-nimbus clouds formed over the tropics during the afternoon bypasses the co2 blanket to a large degree. At the same time, the increased cloud cover cools the surface because it prevents sunlight reaching it. Thunderstorm systems are a negative feedback on the climate system, they actively cool the surface to a temperature below that which caused their formation.

This means we need to learn a whole lot more about cloud albedo and it's importance at a regional level in areas such as the eastern Pacific which play a big role in el nino and la nina events, and so the shaping of climate through the release of heat from the oceans.

During the last couple of decades of the C20th, the cloud level was down according to ISCCP data, and the jet streams moved polewards. This had the effect of redistibuting the heat from the hyperactive late C20th sun across a wider section of the globe, thus raising the global average temperature. Since 1998, cloud has been increasing again, and following the peak of solar cycle 23, the oceans have started cooling down, as evidenced by the data from the 3000 ARGO buoys deployed worldwide. SInce 2007, the air and land have cooled too, notwithstanding the el nino currently fizzling out after the record July sea surface temperature.

The jet streams have moved equatorwards again, which has brought much colder weather to Canada, northern Europe Russia, Austalasia, southern south america and southern africa this last year.

The oceans tend to go into heat release mode at solar minimum, and the minimum between solar cycles 23 and 24 has been a long drawn out affair. This coupled with the el nino has produced the high sea surface temperature, but July was below average temperature for land and air across the states as a whole, and arctic ice has not retreated as much this summer as it did last year or the year before that. There's still much more of it than when the Vikings farmed southern Greenland anyway. Antarctic sea ice has been on the increase for 30 years.

It will be interesting to see where global temperatures go from here. At the moment, my $1000 dollar bet with Dean is looking pretty good. Temperatures are still down from 2005, and look like dropping further, despite the thickening of the co2 blanket you speak of. The more co2 that is added, the less additional effect there is. And what effect there is, is negligible compared to the processes which really govern the climate, namely the sun, the oceans, the water vapour and the cloud levels. The jet streams only have to move a short distance north or south to offset the effect of increased co2, which is a 0.039% bit player in the atmosphere pretty much along for the ride.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/07/2009 07:19:15 MDT.