If CO2 is so powerful, why are there no experiments?

[IanC]

Icelandic Met

YEAR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC D-J-F M-A-M J-J-A S-O-N metANN
1901 -0.9 -0.6 -0.3 -0.7 6.1 7.9 9.1 8.3 8.5 1.5 0.7 -3.9 -0.6 1.7 8.4 3.6 3.27
1902 -4.5 -2.6 -2.8 1.3 4.1 8.2 9.5 8.8 7.6 4.4 1.9 -0.4 -3.7 0.9 8.8 4.6 2.67
1903 -3.8 -2.5 -2.8 -0.8 4.2 7.6 9.9 7.4 7.5 1.6 -0.7 -0.3 -2.2 0.2 8.3 2.8 2.27
1904 -2.2 -2.8 -1.8 0.7 5.5 9.0 10.5 10.3 7.4 1.6 -1.0 -1.4 -1.8 1.5 9.9 2.7 3.07
1905 -2.5 -3.2 1.2 1.8 5.7 8.8 8.9 8.6 5.5 2.4 0.2 -0.9 -2.4 2.9 8.8 2.7 3.00
1906 -1.0 -3.4 -1.6 -0.3 2.8 8.8 9.2 9.8 7.3 3.4 0.5 -3.7 -1.8 0.3 9.3 3.7 2.88
1907 -1.7 -4.4 -2.9 2.6 4.7 7.3 10.0 8.1 4.7 1.3 -1.1 0.0 -3.3 1.5 8.5 1.6 2.07
1908 -1.9 -2.7 -0.8 1.6 3.6 7.0 10.7 7.7 6.8 5.5 -0.4 -1.7 -1.5 1.5 8.5 4.0 3.09
1909 -3.9 -0.1 -1.9 3.0 4.8 8.9 9.5 7.8 6.4 -0.4 -0.3 -5.1 -1.9 2.0 8.7 1.9 2.67
1910 -4.4 -4.1 -0.8 -2.0 3.6 7.4 9.8 9.8 5.7 4.3 -2.3 -1.2 -4.5 0.3 9.0 2.6 1.82
1911 -2.1 -3.4 -0.3 1.2 5.4 9.5 9.4 9.9 5.3 3.0 -0.6 -0.1 -2.2 2.1 9.6 2.6 3.01
1912 0.1 -3.5 -0.1 2.1 6.2 9.2 9.8 8.2 7.8 3.0 -1.6 -3.1 -1.2 2.7 9.1 3.1 3.42
1913 -1.4 -0.4 -2.6 2.0 5.7 7.6 9.4 8.6 6.7 3.0 -0.8 -2.4 -1.6 1.7 8.5 3.0 2.89
1914 -0.3 -3.5 -3.2 -0.7 1.7 6.3 9.3 10.0 5.4 3.8 -2.4 -2.3 -2.1 -0.7 8.5 2.3 2.00
1915 -1.8 -3.4 -3.5 0.6 4.9 8.1 9.2 10.1 7.7 6.1 1.2 -2.4 -2.5 0.7 9.1 5.0 3.08
1916 -1.6 -2.6 -2.6 -1.0 4.6 8.1 10.0 9.9 6.9 3.3 0.6 -5.0 -2.2 0.3 9.3 3.6 2.77
1917 -1.1 -0.5 -0.9 -2.5 3.9 7.2 11.4 10.2 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 -2.2 0.2 9.6 999.9 2.57
1918 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.90
1919 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 8.1 10.4 8.4 5.1 2.6 -2.9 -2.5 999.9 999.9 9.0 1.6 999.90
1920 -5.1 -4.2 -2.7 -1.1 3.1 8.6 9.0 8.1 6.2 6.1 1.6 -0.4 -3.9 -0.2 8.6 4.6 2.26
1921 -2.6 0.8 -2.9 0.7 2.8 6.4 8.2 7.0 4.9 1.6 0.4 -1.0 -0.7 0.2 7.2 2.3 2.24
1922 -0.8 -0.6 0.2 -0.5 3.6 6.3 8.5 8.2 4.2 4.2 0.6 0.5 -0.8 1.1 7.7 3.0 2.74
1923 -2.7 1.0 3.1 3.0 3.4 7.1 8.9 8.5 4.4 2.2 -2.5 -2.4 -0.4 3.2 8.2 1.4 3.08
1924 -0.5 -0.4 -2.7 -0.5 2.5 7.1 9.7 8.7 4.6 2.7 1.7 0.1 -1.1 -0.2 8.5 3.0 2.54
1925 -0.7 -3.1 -1.0 0.5 4.9 8.0 8.9 9.1 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 -1.2 1.5 8.7 999.9 3.01
1926 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.90
1927 999.9 -0.1 1.8 0.3 4.9 8.4 10.1 9.5 6.1 2.7 0.9 0.3 999.9 2.3 9.3 3.2 3.43
1928 -2.1 -1.6 1.7 3.6 7.1 8.3 11.1 10.1 7.7 4.2 1.1 -0.5 -1.1 4.1 9.8 4.3 4.29
1929 1.0 1.7 4.5 3.5 4.8 7.9 10.2 8.9 5.4 0.6 -0.3 0.0 0.7 4.3 9.0 1.9 3.98
1930 -2.6 0.0 -3.7 3.4 6.0 7.8 9.5 9.2 8.1 1.9 -3.1 0.7 -0.9 1.9 8.8 2.3 3.04
1931 -1.8 -4.7 -0.5 1.6 5.8 7.4 10.0 10.3 8.5 3.0 1.1 -1.2 -1.9 2.3 9.2 4.2 3.45
1932 -1.9 3.8 1.7 -0.8 6.8 8.5 10.7 9.8 5.6 2.4 0.8 0.6 0.2 2.6 9.7 2.9 3.85
1933 0.1 -3.4 0.6 1.9 7.1 9.3 11.2 9.8 8.1 2.6 3.0 -3.4 -0.9 3.2 10.1 4.6 4.24
1934 -0.7 0.4 -1.6 2.3 3.3 9.0 10.5 10.4 7.6 2.2 0.3 1.2 -1.2 1.3 10.0 3.4 3.36
1935 0.9 -5.0 1.8 1.4 7.6 8.0 9.0 9.2 7.9 1.9 1.5 -1.8 -1.0 3.6 8.7 3.8 3.78
1936 -4.9 -2.5 0.0 3.0 6.1 8.0 11.5 9.8 7.7 4.5 0.4 -4.0 -3.1 3.0 9.8 4.2 3.48
1937 -0.9 -3.3 -3.0 3.3 5.2 7.9 9.9 8.7 6.9 2.3 1.9 0.6 -2.7 1.8 8.8 3.7 2.91
1938 -1.6 0.1 0.3 3.0 4.3 7.5 9.6 8.9 7.7 3.2 0.0 0.2 -0.3 2.5 8.7 3.6 3.63
1939 -3.3 -0.5 0.4 1.8 5.5 7.6 9.8 9.1 8.6 4.2 -1.7 -1.6 -1.2 2.6 8.8 3.7 3.47
1940 -1.6 -1.5 -3.4 -0.2 4.4 6.5 8.0 6.9 3.9 3.1 -1.9 -0.9 -1.6 0.3 7.1 1.7 1.88
1941 -3.5 -4.7 -1.1 2.2 5.6 8.3 9.1 8.3 8.3 3.9 1.6 -0.7 -3.0 2.2 8.6 4.6 3.09
1942 -1.6 -1.3 -0.5 0.4 4.5 6.5 8.2 9.4 6.0 0.7 2.2 0.0 -1.2 1.5 8.0 3.0 2.82
1943 -1.5 -2.8 -0.4 1.0 3.1 8.0 9.5 8.0 6.2 2.6 0.1 0.4 -1.4 1.2 8.5 3.0 2.82
1944 -3.7 -1.4 -0.6 2.1 4.6 7.9 11.0 9.8 6.0 2.6 -1.9 -1.7 -1.6 2.0 9.6 2.2 3.07
1945 -4.6 -1.9 2.1 2.4 5.6 7.8 9.9 10.0 7.6 5.2 4.5 0.4 -2.7 3.4 9.2 5.8 3.91
1946 0.4 -2.2 0.8 1.2 6.4 6.7 8.6 8.6 6.0 5.6 -0.6 0.8 -0.5 2.8 8.0 3.7 3.49
1947 1.2 -4.0 -3.9 0.6 7.2 8.8 9.8 9.9 6.6 4.5 -0.8 -0.5 -0.7 1.3 9.5 3.4 3.39
1948 -0.4 0.9 2.1 0.1 3.5 8.3 9.5 9.9 5.1 2.0 1.4 -0.1 0.0 1.9 9.2 2.8 3.49
1949 -3.9 -1.2 -1.1 -1.2 2.4 8.6 9.3 8.9 7.8 3.3 1.3 -2.5 -1.7 0.0 8.9 4.1 2.84
1950 1.6 -1.9 0.1 1.0 5.9 8.1 11.2 11.0 6.0 3.3 -0.5 -2.6 -0.9 2.3 10.1 2.9 3.61
1951 -2.7 -2.1 -4.2 -1.2 5.7 8.6 9.4 10.2 8.5 4.5 -0.3 -2.0 -2.5 0.1 9.4 4.2 2.82
1952 -4.1 -1.5 -0.2 2.2 5.0 7.1 8.9 8.9 5.5 3.6 0.5 -0.8 -2.5 2.3 8.3 3.2 2.82
1953 -1.5 -0.3 0.6 -2.0 4.7 8.1 9.8 9.4 7.6 2.1 -0.1 0.3 -0.9 1.1 9.1 3.2 3.13
1954 -0.2 -2.1 -0.6 2.3 5.4 8.0 8.4 8.8 3.9 1.5 0.5 -2.9 -0.7 2.4 8.4 2.0 3.02
1955 -4.2 -4.9 -0.8 3.4 3.5 7.7 8.3 7.9 5.9 1.7 2.1 -4.3 -4.0 2.0 8.0 3.2 2.31
1956 -5.4 0.5 1.4 1.4 4.4 6.2 8.5 7.7 7.1 2.5 2.8 -0.1 -3.1 2.4 7.5 4.1 2.73
1957 -1.1 -3.7 -1.8 2.8 4.8 7.7 9.8 9.1 4.9 2.5 0.8 -2.6 -1.6 1.9 8.9 2.7 2.97
1958 -4.4 -4.2 -1.8 2.2 2.5 8.0 9.8 8.0 9.2 4.0 2.6 -2.0 -3.7 1.0 8.6 5.3 2.77
1959 -6.1 0.0 1.2 0.1 5.3 6.5 9.3 8.1 6.5 5.4 -1.0 -2.3 -2.7 2.2 8.0 3.6 2.77
1960 -0.6 -3.7 0.9 2.3 6.4 7.7 9.9 8.9 6.8 2.8 0.7 -2.1 -2.2 3.2 8.8 3.4 3.32
1961 -0.7 -1.6 -1.5 0.1 5.9 6.8 8.5 8.1 7.0 3.3 -0.4 -3.6 -1.5 1.5 7.8 3.3 2.78
1962 -1.7 -2.0 -4.0 1.8 4.4 6.9 8.7 8.4 5.6 2.9 -1.3 -1.5 -2.4 0.7 8.0 2.4 2.17
1963 -2.5 -0.3 2.4 1.8 2.8 7.7 7.8 7.7 3.9 3.2 -3.3 -0.2 -1.4 2.3 7.7 1.3 2.47
1964 1.2 1.2 3.4 2.0 5.5 7.1 7.9 7.4 4.5 3.0 0.7 -4.0 0.7 3.6 7.5 2.7 3.64
1965 -2.9 1.7 -2.5 1.1 5.6 7.0 8.7 8.0 4.9 4.8 -1.8 999.9 -1.7 1.4 7.9 2.6 2.55
1966 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.9 999.90
1967 999.9 999.9 -4.2 0.4 4.1 7.3 9.1 8.8 6.8 1.4 -1.0 -2.3 999.9 0.1 8.4 2.4 2.09
1968 -2.9 -2.7 -2.5 1.1 3.9 7.7 10.1 8.8 8.1 1.6 3.2 -1.1 -2.6 0.8 8.9 4.3 2.84
1969 -3.3 -4.5 -1.0 0.9 5.2 8.4 8.5 9.9 4.5 3.7 -2.8 -1.2 -3.0 1.7 8.9 1.8 2.37
1970 -0.9 -3.6 -3.2 1.1 5.0 7.3 7.9 8.7 6.1 2.3 -1.5 0.4 -1.9 1.0 8.0 2.3 2.33
1971 -4.7 -0.9 -0.2 2.2 5.2 8.0 9.6 8.7 6.6 2.5 -0.8 -1.0 -1.7 2.4 8.8 2.8 3.05
1972 1.5 0.9 0.6 1.9 6.5 7.5 8.5 7.9 6.5 3.2 -1.2 -0.2 0.5 3.0 8.0 2.8 3.57
1973 1.5 -3.3 -0.1 1.4 3.4 6.5 8.7 8.7 7.2 3.2 -2.9 -5.2 -0.7 1.6 8.0 2.5 2.84
1974 -0.7 -1.9 2.1 4.7 6.4 7.5 9.6 8.4 4.2 3.1 0.7 -3.6 -2.6 4.4 8.5 2.7 3.24
1975 -4.1 1.6 -0.8 1.0 4.5 6.6 8.2 8.9 4.3 5.3 0.6 -1.8 -2.0 1.6 7.9 3.4 2.71
1976 -3.7 -1.0 -0.2 1.6 4.7 8.1 10.1 8.1 7.1 4.5 1.6 -2.7 -2.2 2.0 8.8 4.4 3.26
1977 -3.2 -1.1 1.8 0.5 5.5 7.0 9.8 9.2 6.0 3.7 -2.0 0.1 -2.3 2.6 8.7 2.6 2.88
1978 -3.3 -2.1 0.0 2.8 4.6 6.5 9.7 9.8 6.5 3.1 -0.9 0.0 -1.8 2.5 8.7 2.9 3.07
1979 -5.3 -1.2 -5.3 0.7 1.0 6.7 8.3 8.7 4.2 3.4 -0.8 -1.7 -2.2 -1.2 7.9 2.3 1.70
1980 -1.4 0.1 -0.7 2.2 5.4 8.0 9.5 9.4 6.8 0.4 -0.5 -2.6 -1.0 2.3 9.0 2.2 3.12
1981 -3.4 -2.4 -2.2 2.5 5.3 7.4 9.2 8.9 6.1 -0.8 -1.7 -3.5 -2.8 1.9 8.5 1.2 2.19
1982 -2.7 0.6 -1.1 1.9 4.1 8.5 9.3 8.1 4.2 3.3 -1.8 -2.8 -1.9 1.6 8.6 1.9 2.57
1983 -3.4 -0.1 -1.7 -1.3 4.8 6.7 7.1 6.9 5.2 2.4 0.1 -1.5 -2.1 0.6 6.9 2.6 1.99
1984 -5.2 -1.6 -0.2 1.6 4.3 7.9 9.8 8.6 6.0 2.2 -0.2 -1.0 -2.8 1.9 8.8 2.7 2.64
1985 -1.3 -0.4 -1.6 2.3 5.5 7.9 8.5 9.3 5.4 5.1 -1.0 -2.5 -0.9 2.1 8.6 3.2 3.23
1986 -1.8 0.7 -1.0 2.2 4.3 7.0 9.2 8.6 6.0 1.1 -0.7 -1.9 -1.2 1.8 8.3 2.1 2.76
1987 1.9 0.4 -0.9 1.3 5.1 8.7 9.9 9.7 6.8 0.9 3.0 3.0 0.1 1.8 9.4 3.6 3.74
1988 -4.2 -2.5 -1.3 -0.7 6.2 7.0 9.8 9.5 5.7 3.3 2.3 -0.5 -1.2 1.4 8.8 3.8 3.17
1989 -1.2 -4.2 -2.2 0.2 3.6 7.5 8.3 8.8 5.8 3.9 0.9 -0.8 -2.0 0.5 8.2 3.5 2.58
1990 -0.8 -2.8 -2.6 -0.9 6.0 8.6 10.3 9.9 5.4 3.8 2.4 -1.4 -1.5 0.8 9.6 3.9 3.21
1991 -0.1 1.0 0.6 0.1 5.6 8.2 11.8 9.8 6.5 3.5 -1.0 0.1 -0.2 2.1 9.9 3.0 3.72
1992 1.3 -1.1 -0.7 1.4 4.6 6.6 8.7 8.7 5.6 3.1 -0.4 -1.7 0.1 1.8 8.0 2.8 3.16
1993 -3.5 -0.5 0.1 2.5 4.2 7.9 8.9 8.1 7.9 3.6 2.3 -2.8 -1.9 2.3 8.3 4.6 3.32
1994 -2.9 -0.2 -2.6 0.4 5.7 6.8 10.8 9.4 5.8 2.4 1.2 -2.2 -2.0 1.2 9.0 3.1 2.83
1995 -3.2 -3.3 -3.3 0.3 5.5 7.8 9.3 9.3 6.7 2.5 0.6 -1.3 -2.9 0.8 8.8 3.3 2.50
1996 1.0 -1.9 1.4 3.2 6.0 8.6 9.7 9.1 9.2 3.2 -3.1 -0.7 -0.7 3.5 9.1 3.1 3.76
1997 -0.2 -2.5 -1.5 2.7 4.8 7.2 10.8 9.9 6.7 4.4 2.7 1.6 -1.1 2.0 9.3 4.6 3.69
1998 -0.6 -2.2 -2.6 2.8 5.4 8.9 9.9 10.1 7.1 1.7 1.0 0.0 -0.4 1.9 9.6 3.3 3.59
1999 -1.1 -2.5 -2.2 1.6 5.5 7.8 9.7 10.1 7.3 4.4 0.8 -2.2 -1.2 1.6 9.2 4.2 3.45
2000 -0.5 -2.2 -0.6 0.3 5.3 8.2 10.3 9.5 7.5 3.6 -0.3 -1.1 -1.6 1.7 9.3 3.6 3.24
2001 -0.2 -1.4 -1.2 2.5 5.4 7.6 9.7 9.9 8.2 5.1 0.6 1.3 -0.9 2.2 9.1 4.6 3.76
2002 0.2 -4.5 -0.9 2.7 6.0 9.6 9.4 9.0 8.2 3.7 3.5 3.3 -1.0 2.6 9.3 5.1 4.02
2003 0.3 0.8 2.3 5.0 5.1 10.1 11.1 11.6 7.1 4.4 1.5 -0.8 1.5 4.1 10.9 4.3 5.22
2004 -1.4 -0.1 2.7 4.0 6.1 9.3 10.3 11.4 7.8 3.1 1.0 -1.4 -0.8 4.3 10.3 4.0 4.45
2005 -1.4 0.3 2.5 3.0 4.5 9.3 10.6 9.3 5.1 1.8 0.4 1.1 -0.8 3.3 9.7 2.4 3.67
2006 0.8 2.1 -0.3 0.8 5.2 8.2 9.9 10.2 9.3 3.6 0.0 1.0 1.3 1.9 9.4 4.3 4.24
2007 -1.8 -0.5 1.0 4.0 4.8 9.5 11.6 9.8 6.7 4.6 1.9 0.1 -0.4 3.3 10.3 4.4 4.38
2008 -1.4 999.9 -0.4 2.7 7.4 9.4 11.3 10.3 8.2 1.6 1.6 -0.1 -0.6 3.2 10.3 3.8 4.18
2009 0.6 -1.1 -0.8 3.8 6.5 8.9 11.6 10.1 7.2 3.9 1.9 -0.3 -0.2 3.2 10.2 4.3 4.38
2010 1.2 -1.2 1.9 1.6 7.0 10.2 11.8 10.9 9.0 5.1 -0.6 -0.5 -0.1 3.5 11.0 4.5 4.72
2011 0.4 0.9 -1.0 2.9 5.7 8.0 11.0 10.0 8.2 3.8 3.1 -3.1 0.3 2.5 9.7 5.0 4.38
2012 -0.8 1.4 1.9 3.1 5.1 9.5 999.9 11.1 6.1 3.2 0.3 0.0 -0.8 3.4 10.7 3.2 4.10
2013 1.5 2.7 0.0 1.9 5.8 9.9 10.9 10.1 7.1 4.2 2.2 -0.5 1.4 2.6 10.3 4.5 4.69
2014 2.4 1.7 2.1 4.9 8.2 11.2 11.8 11.4 9.2 4.3 5.5 -0.7 1.2 5.1 11.5 6.3 6.02
2015 -0.3 -0.1 0.7 2.4 4.6 9.1 11.3 10.9 9.1 5.2 1.8 999.9 -0.4 2.6 10.4 5.4 4.50

GISS in table form

 

[IanC]

I got to thinking....am I being fair to crick? did I manage to pick an outlier?

I checked 1940, 50, 60,70,80,90,00,10. I got adjustments of 2.9,1.2,2.3,2.1,1.2,1.2,1.3,1.2. so all are above his claimed 1C max.

was 1940 an outlier compared to neighbouring years? 1938,39,40,41,42 gave adjustments of 1.3,2.4,2.9,2.8,2.3. so 1940 is on the high end but not an outlier.

the thing to remember is that the Icelandic values are already QCed, adjusted for station moves, homogenized, etc! GISS just comes along and decides to add their own massive adjustments. Reykjavik is one of the mainstays for Arctic temperatures. it shows little warming, and a cyclical pattern of warming and cooling. where is the massive arctic amplification that we are always being told about? Old rocks put up a video from the last AGU convention where several scientists claimed a 5C warming for the Arctic. no one asked for proof in the Q&A, everyone just went along with it. tell a lie often enough and everyone 'knows it'.

 

[IanC]

NASA circa 2003. not much of an amplified trend there.

caption- Arctic temperatures are rising at more than twice the rate of average temperatures measured at lower latitudes. / Courtesy NOAA

ahhhh.... here is some amplification. cools faster when global temps cool (assuming 1880-1900 was warmer?!?), warms faster when global temps warm. is it misleading to only mention warming in the caption? the cooling sections seem even more extreme than the warming ones.

oh my....the IPCC doesnt see 5C of warming...yet! hahahaha


here we go. I finally found one. thank goodness for Tamino

it says NASA right on the graph. it must be true. right? well, we all know how Americans measure temperature. but close enough

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we can argue about measured temperature until the cows come home. However, the ice and permafrost are definately pointing up that there is a rapid warming going on in the Arctic. And there are a number of countries with satellites taking pictures of that. Care to argue with those?

 

[IanC]

Well, we can argue about measured temperature until the cows come home. However, the ice and permafrost are definately pointing up that there is a rapid warming going on in the Arctic. And there are a number of countries with satellites taking pictures of that. Care to argue with those?

I think we should argue about measured Arctic temps for a little longer.

when you put up the first AGU video on the Arctic I pointed out that the scientist claimed that the Arctic had warmed by 5C. did you check up on that claim at the time? or did you just believe it? I seem to remember you crowing about how scientists have the facts and nothing but the facts. is it a fact that the Arctic has warmed by 5C? would you care to point me towards the evidence? some nice beefy dataset that I somehow missed.

and I can tell you where I read about the polar bear with the GPS collar that spent a month swimming in an area with no sea ice, if you'd like.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record

The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
Posted on 12 February 2013 by Kevin C

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) produce its own version of the instrumental temperature record, which has until recently received little attention. NASA's Climate365 put together a graphic to illustrate how little difference there is between the four primary global surface temperature datasets (Figure 1), but of course all the climatecontrarians took from this was that JMA's data shows the least warming in recent years.Sources with a tendency towards motivated reasoning naturally concluded that it must be right.



Figure 1: The four main global surface temperature measurement datasets (Source)

Have to be at work at 6, so don't have time to look any further at this, but will post information from the state of Alaska, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia after I get off at 6 tonight. Will that satisfy you?

 

[IanC]

The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record

The Japan Meteorological Agency temperature record
Posted on 12 February 2013 by Kevin C

The Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) produce its own version of the instrumental temperature record, which has until recently received little attention. NASA's Climate365 put together a graphic to illustrate how little difference there is between the four primary global surface temperature datasets (Figure 1), but of course all the climatecontrarians took from this was that JMA's data shows the least warming in recent years.Sources with a tendency towards motivated reasoning naturally concluded that it must be right.



Figure 1: The four main global surface temperature measurement datasets (Source)

Have to be at work at 6, so don't have time to look any further at this, but will post information from the state of Alaska, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia after I get off at 6 tonight. Will that satisfy you?

Dude! I cannot help but think you are a little soft in the head! hahahahahaha. I show you a dataset that explicitly states the Arctic hasn't warmed by 5C and you rebut me by saying all the datasets say the same thing! hahahahaha. Are you actually thinking that you are going to find a dataset that says the Arctic has warmed by 5C? hahahahaha. when you finally give up searching, will you be man enough to admit to me that you were lied to in that video?

of course not. you'll continue to post it up as well.

 

[IanC]

I fully expected Old rocks to have put down a blizzard of posts and links by now. none showing a 5C warming for the Arctic, however you want to define the area, but surely alarmist with prophecies of doom.

here is a mild example from The Alaska Climate Research Center -

ooooohhhhhh!!!!! look at all the menacing red! scared yet?


hmmmmm....something doesnt seem quite right. are we being told the whole story? has there been any cherrypicking involved? a lot of my problems with Reykjavik were what happened to the pre 1950 numbers. where are they?

there they are! right down to the colder year at 1940.

I cannot vouch that these numbers havent been 'corrected'. but they certainly give a different picture than the first graph.


to be fair to the source of the first graph, they do say this towards the end of the article,

The period 1949 to 1975 was substantially colder than the period from 1977 to 2014, however since 1977 little additional warming has occurred in Alaska with the exception of Barrow and a few other locations. The stepwise shift appearing in the temperature data in 1976 corresponds to a phase shift of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation from a negative phase to a positive phase.

and they give another table as well, showing little warming,

you have to read articles or papers with a critical eye. are they telling the whole story? do they give the context? are the conclusions really supported by the evidence presented? etc.

Old rocks listened to that video and was quite happy to be told that the Arctic had warmed 5C. he never questioned it even after it was pointed out. he probably still believes it, and will post up that video over and over again as 'proof', just as he has with other links that have been shown to be faulty.


(edit- Barrow is one of the few places that have actually had the UHI effect measured. if I remember correctly it was on the order of 2C (3.5F). that 2C has to be accounted for in the temperature series.)

 

[Crick]

and they give another table as well, showing little warming,

Are these numbers anomalies or adjustments? Whichever, they are not "little warming", they would be significant COOLING.

 

[jc456]

Will the enhanced crop growth pay for moving 500 million people, their homes and businesses away from the coast?

why would 500 million people be moving?

 

[IanC]

and they give another table as well, showing little warming,

Are these numbers anomalies or adjustments? Whichever, they are not "little warming", they would be significant COOLING.

I would not call 0.1F cooling or warming. And it is only for the period 1977-2014.

It is well recognized that different areas of Alaska are variable. The upper Arctic area is warming.

If the past warm time frame of the 30's and 40's are included then the present warming does not look so ominous.

 

[Crick]

You didn't answer the question. The bars on the anomaly graph show almost universally positive numbers for that time period, seven of which exceed 1C. The numbers in the rightmost column of your last table do not match that so I have to assume that those are GISTEMP changes. Hardly supports a charge that Goddard is attempting to cook the books to exaggerate warming. and 0.1 over 33 years is roughly one third the natural trend. Hardly insignificant, thought I'd have to agree with you that Goddard's adjustments have made no significant change in global warming.

 

[IanC]

You didn't answer the question. The bars on the anomaly graph show almost universally positive numbers for that time period, seven of which exceed 1C. The numbers in the rightmost column of your last table do not match that so I have to assume that those are GISTEMP changes. Hardly supports a charge that Goddard is attempting to cook the books to exaggerate warming. and 0.1 over 33 years is roughly one third the natural trend. Hardly insignificant, thought I'd have to agree with you that Goddard's adjustments have made no significant change in global warming.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying or asking. Are you having another bad graph reading day?

The second table that you thought was cooling, is based on 1977-2014, with no trend.

The main graph is from 1949-2014, showing lots of warming.

I added a graph (but not from GISS) that went further back in time and showed a small amount of warming.

The amount of warming depends on what time period you use.

The tables give warming trends broken into seasons, and annual. From either 1949 or 1977.

The graph that I added for context (back to about 1920) is from the NOAA website although I found it on Google because I can't use that website. I am not making any claims about the adjustments, I only remarked that it was similar to the shape of Reykjavik because of the early era warmth and the distinctive one year drop at 1940.

If I have not addressed your concern please re-ask the question in a more precise fashion.

 

[IanC]

Well Old Rocks? It's been a while. How is the search going for proof that the Arctic has seen a 5C warming? Any luck yet?

Here is the UAH series for the north and south polar regions.

The Arctic has warmed, the Antarctic, not so much. What has happened to polar amplification in the south?

 

[IanC]

Crick, you didn't seem to understand my point on how and why using partial records affects the impact of graphs. The Alaskan temp record only showed an overall warming trend when started at 1949. If earlier records where included then a pattern of cooling and warming appeared.

There has been much public concern over declining Arctic ice extent. Is this also a product of short records?

The first IPCC report gave ice extent values for the five years before the official start of the satellite era. These showed that the ice extent had been lower than the historical high at 1979.

Likewise, historical recollections from the early 20's describe an alarming absence of sea ice.


Obviously the world has warmed since the LIA. Unfortunately natural cycles are being ignored and predictions are being made on short term recent warming.

Remember this graph and variations?

2015 has come and gone.

 

[Agit8r]

According to the AGWCult

Settled Science
Science Settled
Consensus
Consensus

CO2 is sooooooooooo powerful that a rounding errors worth (100 parts per million, that's .01% of the composition of Earth's atmosphere) of an addition to this trace element (it's only 400PPM, that's .04%) DRIVE the entire climate of planet earth.

It's staggering that a .01% change can be that powerful! It's the cold fusion of atmospheric chemistry.

Yet, for something SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful, there's not one single repeatable alb experiment showing how a .01% change in CO2 can do ANYTHING it's given credit for. jc456 has been asking for ages now, I've been asking, we've all been asking, but they cannot post the experiment.

Is it because their theory fails?

Who dares to question the Consensus of the settled science?

I'm sure the USMB members of the AGWCult

will be along shortly to: deride the OP, fling pooh, call us DENIERS! and not post an experiment

The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere, not the entire atmosphere. CO2 is a key component of the greenhouse effect on planet earth, despite it's low natural atmospheric concentration. So if you double that small amount, you are going to see changes, as we already have.

troposphere

 

[CrusaderFrank]

According to the AGWCult

Settled Science
Science Settled
Consensus
Consensus

CO2 is sooooooooooo powerful that a rounding errors worth (100 parts per million, that's .01% of the composition of Earth's atmosphere) of an addition to this trace element (it's only 400PPM, that's .04%) DRIVE the entire climate of planet earth.

It's staggering that a .01% change can be that powerful! It's the cold fusion of atmospheric chemistry.

Yet, for something SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO powerful, there's not one single repeatable alb experiment showing how a .01% change in CO2 can do ANYTHING it's given credit for. jc456 has been asking for ages now, I've been asking, we've all been asking, but they cannot post the experiment.

Is it because their theory fails?

Who dares to question the Consensus of the settled science?

I'm sure the USMB members of the AGWCult

will be along shortly to: deride the OP, fling pooh, call us DENIERS! and not post an experiment

The greenhouse effect takes place in the troposphere, not the entire atmosphere. CO2 is a key component of the greenhouse effect on planet earth, despite it's low natural atmospheric concentration. So if you double that small amount, you are going to see changes, as we already have.

troposphere

So you say. Can you point to any repeatable lab work that measures for temperature increases controlling for CO2 concentrations from 280 to 400 ppm?

Also, were you aware that in order to make the Pause vanish, AR5 said that 93% of the excess heat was absorbed by the ocean. How did the heat bypass the surface while teleporting down into the oceans

 

[IanC]

Have to be at work at 6, so don't have time to look any further at this, but will post information from the state of Alaska, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Russia after I get off at 6 tonight. Will that satisfy you?

Had enough time to convince yourself that the Arctic hasn't warmed by 5C yet?

Are you going to admit you were lied to in that video?

 

[Wuwei]

How did the heat bypass the surface while teleporting down into the oceans

When are you guys going to understand that the net effect of H2O and all other GHG's is NOT to send heat into the ocean but it is to prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat as it otherwise would.

The focus should not be that GHG warms only the first mm of ocean. It should be that the first mm of ocean is the only place that heat can escape through thermal radiation from the ocean but is subdued by GHG's.

If that first mm of heat loss was not subdued by GHG's, the oceans would freeze..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How did the heat bypass the surface while teleporting down into the oceans

When are you guys going to understand that the net effect of H2O and all other GHG's is NOT to send heat into the ocean but it is to prevent the ocean from loosing as much heat as it otherwise would.

The focus should not be that GHG warms only the first mm of ocean. It should be that the first mm of ocean is the only place that heat can escape through thermal radiation from the ocean but is subdued by GHG's.

If that first mm of heat loss was not subdued by GHG's, the oceans would freeze..

So, you didn't read AR5 either.

Ta-riffic