Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now

[flacaltenn]

You missed the magic trick didn't ya? Got all tied with 1st year algebra manipulations. There IS NO static 20th century baseline average that NOAA/NASA won't change tomorrow and the next day. THUS -- It's hard to know from looking at a plot of a particular anomaly set -- what the ABSOLUTE temperatures really were unless you keep a running total of all the daily, weekly, monthly adjustments to data in the previous Century.. And the effect of these many adjustments on the 20th Century baseline.

Hogwash, the 20th century baseline average uses the SAME 100 years of the 20th century because the 100 years on the 20th century never change, unlike the 30 year baseline which could just as easily be from 1961 to 1990 as from 1971 to 2000 as from 1981 to 2010.

WRONG.. It changes EVERY TIME that NOAA mucks with ancient data. Maybe only by 0.02degC, but it changes. You haven't BEGUN to understand this argument.

For instance --- YOU CLAIM that a 100 year average is "more accurate" than a 30 yr running span. But in statistics, that is only true for a process with a stationary mean. The more the mean VARIES over that period, the less accurate the estimate becomes. The baseline also gets "remodeled" with every edit of 20th century temperature record. Which is close to daily at NOAA..

The baseline is not a simple station average of reported temperatures. It is based on regional MODELS that fill in values both as a function of altitude and general confounding influences due to vegetation and topography.

TO wit -- GISS has not changed their page on explaining SATs and baselines since (it appears) the 1980s. But you find a wealth of serious admissions on that page on the arbitrary constructs that are used.

Data.GISS: GISTEMP — The Elusive Absolute Surface Air Temperature

Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you'll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures. In the remaining cases, you have to pick one of the available climatologies and add the anomalies (with respect to the proper base period) to it. For the global mean, the most trusted models produce a value of roughly 14°C, i.e. 57.2°F, but it may easily be anywhere between 56 and 58°F and regionally, let alone locally, the situation is even worse.

Q. What exactly do we mean by SAT?
A. I doubt that there is a general agreement how to answer this question. Even at the same location, the temperature near the ground may be very different from the temperature 5 ft above the ground and different again from 10 ft or 50 ft above the ground. Particularly in the presence of vegetation (say in a rain forest), the temperature above the vegetation may be very different from the temperature below the top of the vegetation. A reasonable suggestion might be to use the average temperature of the first 50 ft of air either above ground or above the top of the vegetation. To measure SAT we have to agree on what it is and, as far as I know, no such standard has been suggested or generally adopted. Even if the 50 ft standard were adopted, I cannot imagine that a weather station would build a 50 ft stack of thermometers to be able to find the true SAT at its location.

Q. If SATs cannot be measured, how are SAT maps created?
A. This can only be done with the help of computer models, the same models that are used to create the daily weather forecasts. We may start out the model with the few observed data that are available and fill in the rest with guesses (also called extrapolations) and then let the model run long enough so that the initial guesses no longer matter, but not too long in order to avoid that the inaccuracies of the model become relevant. This may be done starting from conditions from many years, so that the average (called a 'climatology') hopefully represents a typical map for the particular month or day of the year.

End result is -- if you are NOT following the continuous re-analysis of the ancient data that STILL goes on -- and are not privy to the EXACT initial conditions and "Guesses" and what run lengths are used to get a regional average, ----- there is NO SIMPLE addition or subtraction of a STATIC baseline that will be very accurate..

Edit -- PS Someone should point out to NASA GISS (you know the goddard institute of SPACE SCIENCES guys ) That the measurement units on their SPACECRAFT do better than a 50ft average of the Troposphere column. And thus ACCOMPLISH that "impossible" mission of building 50 ft stacks of thermometers at each measurement site !!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

1. In other words, according to this recent NOAA report, 2015 was the hottest year ever at 58.62 degrees Fahrenheit (57+1.62).
2. And, that 1997 NOAA report states 1997 had an average global temperature of 62.45 degrees.

dude, excuse me, but you're still arguing that 58 is greater than 62. It states hottest year ever, not hottest century. I think you need to reread what you posted.

And some day, never, you'll convince someone other than a warmer that 58 > 62. Funny shit my man.

Again the deniers play dumb so they can repeat their lies. Using the same century baseline for 1997 as WUWT used for 2015, 1997 was NOT 62.45 degrees but was 57.92 degrees which is clearly less than 58.62 degrees to everyone but lying deniers.

Can you actually keep all the "updates for accuracy" straight? Your warmer enthusiasts are so busy adjusting baselines, updating numbers, and just flat not having a clue who is using what numbers today I would imagine it's a nightmare to try and come up with a coherent argument.

Deniers literally hate accurate data as all their lies depend on the most inaccurate data the deniers can manufacture.

What accurate data? You keep changing it.

As DEMANDED by you deniers, remember, it was you deniers who demanded that data from poorly sited ground stations be removed from the data. As each poorly cited ground station was removed you deniers then whined that NOAA had changed the data and reduced the number of ground stations.

They still insist on NOT USING THE BEST stations as area representatives in their "remodeling". Instead they choose the oldest longest coherent stations and toss away any other (possibly more reliable) stations.

So instead of USING a brand new station on the downslope of Sierras between Tahoe and Reno. They will chose Tahoe Airport and Reno and use MODELING to calculate the downslope area..

 

[flacaltenn]

Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.

You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

2010 to 2012 are the 21st (twentyFIRST century), they have NO effect on the 20th century!!!!!!!!!!!

WHOOOOOSHHH.. That's the sound of the point going right thru your one ear and out the other.
Notice that chart covers the temperature history of MOSTLY the 20th century.. And the plot shows what the cumulative CORRECTIONS to that history were during just a 2 year period (2010 to 2012).. So the 20th CENTURY was modified by those amounts in just a short span. Rewrote the 20th Century values.. Like they are STILL do weekly or daily or monthly at the GISS sausage factory.

IT DOES affect the history of the 20th century. Everyday is new temperature for June 3rd 1933 at GISS.. And thus RIGOROUSLY --- the "20th Century baseline" changes with every tweak to the models and every new RUN of the models..

 

[RollingThunder]

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/graph4b.pn
Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.
You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

LOLOLOL.......so, all you've got going to support your demented denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming/climate changes, after all this time fecalhead, is still nothing but some extremely insane crackpot conspiracy theories involving virtually all of the climate scientists on the planet, from many different countries and political and economic systems, somehow secretly plotting to 'fudge' the data about global warming to create an illusion of warming (and somehow persuading all of that ice to melt too - wow, they're good) without even a single one of them ever breaking their 'code of silence' and spilling the beans about the conspiracy.....the Mafia must be green with envy over that feat.....LOLOLOL.....you denier cult nutbaggers are so hilarious! And the fact that you are far too retarded to even have the mental capacity to realize how utterly insane your deranged twaddle sounds, just makes it even funnier. No wonder you morons support the T'Rump.

Not a conspiracy. Those adjustments are available.. Like the chart from my post that you deleted. Because you're a feckless mental retard. And without changing any RECENT data -- they can boost a monthly record for next March by adjusting data back in 1938 and thus temporarily changing the baseline average by the 0.06degC they needed to make the Press Release. And then NEXT APRIL -- set all that data BACK to something more accurate.

Thus they have a quite a cute mechanism for CREATING new Records by 0.06degC -- even when the absolute temperatures don't cooperate.

As I just said....pathetic crackpot conspiracy theories, about which you are too retarded to have the mental capacity to realize how completely insane they are. Tell us why your crazy cult believes that all of the scientists are conspiring to deceive them?

 

[flacaltenn]

Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.

You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

2010 to 2012 are the 21st (twentyFIRST century), they have NO effect on the 20th century!!!!!!!!!!!

WHOOOOOSHHH.. That's the sound of the point going right thru your one ear and out the other.
Notice that chart covers the temperature history of MOSTLY the 20th century.. And the plot shows what the cumulative CORRECTIONS to that history were during just a 2 year period (2010 to 2012).. So the 20th CENTURY was modified by those amounts in just a short span. Rewrote the 20th Century values.. Like they are STILL do weekly or daily or monthly at the GISS sausage factory.

IT DOES affect the history of the 20th century. Everyday is new temperature for June 3rd 1933 at GISS.. And thus RIGOROUSLY --- the "20th Century baseline" changes with every tweak to the models and every new RUN of the models..

Which means -- if you are trying to compare a new monthly Warm anomaly for a particular month to A DIFFERENT anomaly -- say back 10 years ago -- you CAN'T do that accurately without stating BOTH "20 century anomalies" that were used. (unless they come from the SAME data prep run)

Now to be fair -- If NOAA claims that month is the hottest by 0.04degC over the old one --- you would HOPE they adjusted BOTH " 20th Century anomalies" to be on the same data preparation run. But it's UNDERSTANDABLE that folks make mistakes. Because this is no where as simple as you believe it is..

 

[RollingThunder]

Which means -- if you are trying to compare a new monthly Warm anomaly for a particular month to A DIFFERENT anomaly -- say back 10 years ago -- you CAN'T do that accurately without stating BOTH "20 century anomalies" that were used. (unless they come from the SAME data prep run)

Now to be fair -- If NOAA claims that month is the hottest by 0.04degC over the old one --- you would HOPE they adjusted BOTH " 20th Century anomalies" to be on the same data preparation run. But it's UNDERSTANDABLE that folks make mistakes. Because this is no where as simple as you believe it is..

Just more crackpot conspiracy theories about supposedly 'evil scientists' (all of them, worldwide, in order to successfully pull it off) doing improbable things (career ruining things in the real world of science) to produce corrupt, fraudulent science for incomprehensible reasons that only denier cult retards claim to understand but can never manage to rationally explain.

 

[edthecynic]

For instance --- YOU CLAIM that a 100 year average is "more accurate" than a 30 yr running span. But in statistics, that is only true for a process with a stationary mean. The more the mean VARIES over that period, the less accurate the estimate becomes. The baseline also gets "remodeled" with every edit of 20th century temperature record. Which is close to daily at NOAA.

Again we see how the deniers try to muddy the waters. Nothing you say justifies WUWT and MRC dishonestly using a 30 year baseline for 1997 and the 100 year baseline for 2015.

Furthermore even assuming the 20th century baseline gets "remodeled" daily, which is pure bullshit, when NOAA calculated that 2015 was the warmest year they used the data for that "day" making your smoke screen more pure bullshit.

 

[edthecynic]

Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.

You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

2010 to 2012 are the 21st (twentyFIRST century), they have NO effect on the 20th century!!!!!!!!!!!

WHOOOOOSHHH.. That's the sound of the point going right thru your one ear and out the other.
Notice that chart covers the temperature history of MOSTLY the 20th century.. And the plot shows what the cumulative CORRECTIONS to that history were during just a 2 year period (2010 to 2012).. So the 20th CENTURY was modified by those amounts in just a short span. Rewrote the 20th Century values.. Like they are STILL do weekly or daily or monthly at the GISS sausage factory.

IT DOES affect the history of the 20th century. Everyday is new temperature for June 3rd 1933 at GISS.. And thus RIGOROUSLY --- the "20th Century baseline" changes with every tweak to the models and every new RUN of the models..

The WOOOOOSHHH is the fact that the chart you posted came from the same WUWT who dishonestly used a 30 year baseline for 1997 and a 100 year baseline for 2015. To deniers, the dishonesty of a source does not discredit the source but only makes the dishonest source more desirable.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

toiletpaper://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/graph4b.pn
Those are an example of how the 20th Century CHANGES on monthly and even daily basis.
You can set new RECORDS -- just by changing the baseline. EVEN IF you call ALL OF THEM "a 20th Century" baseline.
And they you can put it all more correctly the next week -- after the press releases go out and you've done job scaring people... Can't follow the game unless you know how "history is constantly being rewritten"..

LOLOLOL.......so, all you've got going to support your demented denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming/climate changes, after all this time fecalhead, is still nothing but some extremely insane crackpot conspiracy theories involving virtually all of the climate scientists on the planet, from many different countries and political and economic systems, somehow secretly plotting to 'fudge' the data about global warming to create an illusion of warming (and somehow persuading all of that ice to melt too - wow, they're good) without even a single one of them ever breaking their 'code of silence' and spilling the beans about the conspiracy.....the Mafia must be green with envy over that feat.....LOLOLOL.....you denier cult nutbaggers are so hilarious! And the fact that you are far too retarded to even have the mental capacity to realize how utterly insane your deranged twaddle sounds, just makes it even funnier. No wonder you morons support the T'Rump.

Not a conspiracy. Those adjustments are available.. Like the chart from my post that you deleted. Because you're a feckless mental retard. And without changing any RECENT data -- they can boost a monthly record for next March by adjusting data back in 1938 and thus temporarily changing the baseline average by the 0.06degC they needed to make the Press Release. And then NEXT APRIL -- set all that data BACK to something more accurate.

Thus they have a quite a cute mechanism for CREATING new Records by 0.06degC -- even when the absolute temperatures don't cooperate.

As I just said....pathetic crackpot conspiracy theories, about which you are too retarded to have the mental capacity to realize how completely insane they are. Tell us why your crazy cult believes that all of the scientists are conspiring to deceive them?

Are you disputing his claim that they have cheated.

It's been proven 100 times over.

I think it's you morons who are the deniers.

 

[Crick]

Show is where it has been "proven" ONCE

 

[RollingThunder]

LOLOLOL.......so, all you've got going to support your demented denial of the scientifically confirmed reality of human caused global warming/climate changes, after all this time fecalhead, is still nothing but some extremely insane crackpot conspiracy theories involving virtually all of the climate scientists on the planet, from many different countries and political and economic systems, somehow secretly plotting to 'fudge' the data about global warming to create an illusion of warming (and somehow persuading all of that ice to melt too - wow, they're good) without even a single one of them ever breaking their 'code of silence' and spilling the beans about the conspiracy.....the Mafia must be green with envy over that feat.....LOLOLOL.....you denier cult nutbaggers are so hilarious! And the fact that you are far too retarded to even have the mental capacity to realize how utterly insane your deranged twaddle sounds, just makes it even funnier. No wonder you morons support the T'Rump.

Are you disputing his claim that they have cheated.

Of course! That's insane!

All the scientists "have cheated" = a crazy crackpot conspiracy theory that only retards could fall for.

It's been "proven" 100 times over by non-scientist stooges working for the fossil fuel industry, using "evidence" they pulled out of their asses.

Well, you are quite the gullible little retard, aren't you.






XXXX -- Altered content in a quote box

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag

Next two weeks are going to tell whether this is just an anomaly or the trend for 2016.

 

[skookerasbil]

nobody even cares about this arctic ice crap anymore. For years, the AGW k00ks threw bombs on the arctic ice levels and nothing panned out for them so since 2009 or so, people tuned this out. Only the OCD's pay attention to it anymore.........one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why renewable energy is still a joke.

 

[RollingThunder]

This info is very relevant to this thread.

Here is the beginning of what is happening to the Arctic this year.....almost certain to be the year of the newest record low ice extent and volume...probably by a large margin over the last new record low that occured in 2012.

Arctic warming: Why record-breaking melting is just the beginning
It has been an ‘absurdly warm’ winter in the Arctic this year, as temperatures within 200 miles of the North Pole peaked above freezing
The Independent
Geoffrey lean
February 27, 2015
Rapidly disappearing Arctic sea ice is about to set a new record after an “absurdly warm” winter at the top of the world. For the second year running, it will have grown to cover less of the Arctic Ocean than ever before.

The revelation comes as scientists are increasingly worried that the heating of the region could escalate out of control, as growing numbers of “feedback mechanisms” – which reinforce and accelerate the process – are being discovered.

Most attention on the melting sea ice so far has been focused on the increasingly low minimum levels it reaches each September. Its nine smallest-ever extents have all occurred in the last nine years, with the record being reached in 2012, when it covered only 3.41 million square kilometres - 44 per cent less than the average of the previous three decades, and a full 16 per cent lower than the previous record, in 2007.

But the amount by which the ice recovers each winter, peaking at the end of February and the beginning of March, though little publicised, is at least as important. Last year it reached only 14.54 million sq km on 25 February, its peak day – the lowest ever. Exactly a year later, at the end of last week, it was just 14.27 million sq km, a fall of 270,000 sq km.

Scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Boulder, Colorado (NSIDC) – the world’s foremost authority on the issue – are not quite ready to proclaim a new record, as the ice may yet spread further over the next days. But, with another week of unseasonably warm weather forecast for the region, they privately believe it is almost certain.

January has already set a new record for the month, with ice cover averaging just 13.53 million sq km, over a million sq km below its average extent between 1981 and 2010. And Professor Julienne Stroeve of the NSIDC said last week that February would also hit a record low.

Any new ice that now forms will be very thin and will melt quickly as temperatures begin to rise in the spring. And, indeed, Arctic ice has been growing thinner even as its extent has shrunk: across the region it is now less than half as thick as it was in 1980.

This year’s record low has been driven by what NSIDC calls an “absurdly warm” winter: its director, Mark Serreze, has described it as the strangest ever observed in the region. The US government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the warming is “off our chart”.

In late December, temperatures within 200 miles of the North Pole actually peaked above freezing point. During January they averaged 13F above normal across the Arctic; even the coldest reading, recorded in Svalbard, north of the Arctic Circle, was warmer than the average highest temperature in previous years.

Fairbanks, Alaska, received less snowfall in the whole of December and January than fell on New York in just a single hour last month. Anchorage’s famous 50 km cross-country ski race was forced to transfer on to a 4km loop of artificial snow. And the Barents and Kara seas north of Norway and Russia have remained almost ice-free all winter.

The warmth has partly been driven by natural factors – a strong el Niño in the Pacific and, much more importantly, a shift in the Arctic oscillation weather pattern, which weakened the atmospheric barrier between polar and milder latitudes.

But scientists are in no doubt that global warming is the fundamental factor, and that similar conditions will reoccur. Such ice as there is in the Barents and Kara seas, for example, is starting to form two months later than in the past, and scientists say that this year’s freak temperatures near the North Pole will not be unique.

Last year was the warmest ever recorded worldwide, by a large margin, and some scientists believe that this one will exceed it.

The melting itself causes greater warming, because it replaces a white surface, which reflects heat back into the atmosphere, with dark water, which absorbs it. By one calculation this effect has added a further 25 per cent of warming since 1979 to what has been caused by carbon dioxide emissions.

Two new studies published last week by the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, reported new evidence of such self-reinforcing “feedback mechanisms”.

They showed that, as the region’s permafrost thaws, rapid changes in the functioning of microbes in the soil increase emissions of carbon dioxide and methane, an even more potent warming gas. Partly as a result, the tundra – which contains twice as much carbon as the atmosphere – has turned from being a system that absorbs greenhouse gases, to one that emits them, accelerating climate change even further.
***

Rapidly warming Arctic is 'possibly catastrophic' for planet, climate scientist warns

READ MORE
* UK's youngest Arctic adventurer urges world to act on climate change
* The cost of climate change has been revealed - and it isn't pretty
* Global warming: National Geographic map shows 'striking' retreat of Arctic ice sheet

 

[jc456]

nobody even cares about this arctic ice crap anymore. For years, the AGW k00ks threw bombs on the arctic ice levels and nothing panned out for them so since 2009 or so, people tuned this out. Only the OCD's pay attention to it anymore.........one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why renewable energy is still a joke.

skooks, was just reading about the earth's axis this morning. I am going to check out some links, but what I read was that there are scientists looking at the axis of the earth as a reason for why the Arctic is warming. The Arctic is seeing more sun in the summer. Hmmmm funny how that is never a possibility with warmers. The sun!

BTW, it is why the Antarctic is seeing more ice in its winter. Seems logical to me.

 

[RollingThunder]

nobody even cares about this arctic ice crap anymore. For years, the AGW k00ks threw bombs on the arctic ice levels and nothing panned out for them so since 2009 or so, people tuned this out. Only the OCD's pay attention to it anymore.........one of the pieces of the puzzle as to why renewable energy is still a joke.

skooks, was just reading about the earth's axis this morning. I am going to check out some links, but what I read was that there are scientists looking at the axis of the earth as a reason for why the Arctic is warming. The Arctic is seeing more sun in the summer. Hmmmm funny how that is never a possibility with warmers. The sun!

BTW, it is why the Antarctic is seeing more ice in its winter. Seems logical to me.

After their demented drivel has been debunked, two deranged, reality-challenged retards debate nonsensical pseudo-science.....priceless!.....and very, very hilarious...

 

[Mousterian]

skooks, was just reading about the earth's axis this morning. I am going to check out some links, but what I read was that there are scientists looking at the axis of the earth as a reason for why the Arctic is warming. The Arctic is seeing more sun in the summer. Hmmmm funny how that is never a possibility with warmers. The sun!

JC, look for 'precession' in Wiki. There are 2 types of precession, axial and apsidal, both with periods of around 20k years. But not in sync! and the whole business is further complicated by the gravitational influences of the other planets, which are all dancing to their own tunes. And the Earth's orbit varies from almost circular, to rather elliptical.
Currently the Earth is closest to the Sun in Jan/Dec, so the Northern hemisphere gets warmer winters, and the Southern cooler summers. But that effect is miniscule, and completely overwhelmed by the Greenhouse effect.
But you can pretend it's not true, and look for anomolies in scientific results to 'support' your case.
The great thing about Science is that it is self-correcting, and when new data proves an idea needs to be updated, they do it.
Thunder, you do us a disservice by descending into vitriol. Leave that shit to the unenlightened...

 

[IanC]

Sea Ice is not in a death spiral. If we had a longer dataset it would be even more obvious that there is no death spiral, simply natural variation.

If the warmers could explain the Medieval Warm Period I might be more concerned about present conditions but they cannot. Trees from that period are only now becoming uncovered. Not growing again, just being discovered. Crops that grew then cannot be grown now.

 

[jc456]

skooks, was just reading about the earth's axis this morning. I am going to check out some links, but what I read was that there are scientists looking at the axis of the earth as a reason for why the Arctic is warming. The Arctic is seeing more sun in the summer. Hmmmm funny how that is never a possibility with warmers. The sun!

JC, look for 'precession' in Wiki. There are 2 types of precession, axial and apsidal, both with periods of around 20k years. But not in sync! and the whole business is further complicated by the gravitational influences of the other planets, which are all dancing to their own tunes. And the Earth's orbit varies from almost circular, to rather elliptical.
Currently the Earth is closest to the Sun in Jan/Dec, so the Northern hemisphere gets warmer winters, and the Southern cooler summers. But that effect is miniscule, and completely overwhelmed by the Greenhouse effect.
But you can pretend it's not true, and look for anomolies in scientific results to 'support' your case.
The great thing about Science is that it is self-correcting, and when new data proves an idea needs to be updated, they do it.
Thunder, you do us a disservice by descending into vitriol. Leave that shit to the unenlightened...

so basically you confirm my thought. If one thing is happening to one side of the planet, the opposite is happening to the other side. thanks.If the Arctic is warming, then the Antarctic is cooling. No way to have both be the same. So it seems that is balanced so how is it the earth is warming?

 

[RollingThunder]

Sea Ice is not in a death spiral. If we had a longer dataset it would be even more obvious that there is no death spiral, simply natural variation.

Retarded bullshit!

Here is what is actually happening....

PIOMAS February 2016
Polar Science Center
University of Washington
Arctic Death Spiral shows January quite clearly. This year's maximum extent is about the same as the minimum extent in 1979!

If the warmers could explain the Medieval Warm Period I might be more concerned about present conditions but they cannot. Trees from that period are only now becoming uncovered. Not growing again, just being discovered. Crops that grew then cannot be grown now.

More very retarded and very fraudulent bullshit! Scientists understand the MWP quite well, numbnuts. There ARE NO "crops that grew then cannot be grown now", except in your deranged and very bogus denier cult myths.

Study undercuts idea that 'Medieval Warm Period' was global
Vikings may not have colonized Greenland in nice weather
ScienceDaily
Date: December 4, 2015
Source: The Earth Institute at Columbia University
Summary:
A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived -- and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world.

A new study questions the popular notion that 10th-century Norse people were able to colonize Greenland because of a period of unusually warm weather. Based upon signs left by old glaciers, researchers say the climate was already cold when the Norse arrived--and that climate thus probably played little role in their mysterious demise some 400 years later. On a larger scale, the study adds to building evidence that the so-called Medieval Warm Period, when Europe enjoyed exceptionally clement weather, did not necessarily extend to other parts of the world.

"It's becoming clearer that the Medieval Warm Period was patchy, not global," said lead author Nicolás Young, a glacial geologist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "The concept is Eurocentric--that's where the best-known observations were made. Elsewhere, the climate might not have been the same." Climate scientists have cited the Medieval Warm Period to explain anomalies in rainfall and temperature in far-flung regions, from the U.S. Southwest to China. The study appears today in the journal Science Advances.

Norse, or Vikings, led by Erik the Red, first sailed from recently settled Iceland to southwestern Greenland around 985, according to Icelandic records. Some 3,000 to 5,000 settlers eventually lived in Greenland, harvesting walrus ivory and raising livestock. But the colonies disappeared between about 1360 and 1460, leaving only ruins, and a longstanding mystery as to what happened. The native Inuit remained, but Europeans did not re-inhabit Greenland until the 1700s.

The Greenlandic Vikings' apogee coincided with the Medieval Warm Period (also known as the Medieval Climate Anomaly), generally dated from about 950-1250; their disappearance followed the onset of the Little Ice Age, which ran from about 1300-1850. Both periods are firmly documented in European and Icelandic historical records. Thus, popular authors and some scientists have fixed on the idea that nice weather drew the settlers to Greenland, and bad weather froze and starved them. But there are no early historical climate records from Greenland. Recently, historians have proposed more complex factors in addition to, or instead of, climate: hostilities with the Inuit, a decline in ivory trade, soil erosion caused by the Vikings' imported cattle, or a migration back to Europe to farms depopulated by the Black Plague.

In the new study, the scientists sampled boulders left by advancing glaciers over the last 1,000-some years in southwest Greenland, and on neighboring Baffin Island, which the Norse may also have occupied, according to newly uncovered evidence. Glacial advances during the Little Ice Age have wiped out most evidence of where the glaciers were during the Norse settlement. But Young and his colleagues were able to find traces of a few moraines--heaps of debris left at glaciers' ends--that, by their layout, they could tell predated the Little Ice Age advances. Using newly precise methods of analyzing chemical isotopes in the rocks, they showed that these moraines had been deposited during the Viking occupation, and that the glaciers had neared or reached their later maximum Little Ice Age positions between 975 and 1275. The strong implication: it was at least as cold when the Vikings arrived as when they left. "If the Vikings traveled to Greenland when it was cool, it's a stretch to say deteriorating climate drove them out," said Young.

The findings fit with other recently developed evidence that the effects of the Medieval Warm Period were not uniform; some places, including parts of central Eurasia and northwestern North America, may actually have cooled off.

In the Atlantic region, the research includes a 2013 study of ocean-bottom sediments suggesting that temperatures in the western North Atlantic actually went down as the eastern North Atlantic warmed. Other studies of the region suggest a more complex picture. A 2011 study of a core from the Greenland ice sheet shows a strong cooling at the start of Norse occupation, and another in the middle, with interspersed warming. On the other hand, lake-bottom sediments from southwestern Greenland studied in 2011 by Lamont-Doherty paleoclimatologist William D'Andrea, suggest it might indeed have been warm when the Norse arrived, but that climate cooled starting in 1160, well before the Little Ice Age.

The new study may feed recent suggestions by other researchers that the Medieval Warm Period was in part just an extended phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). Modern observations show that the NAO is a generally decadal-scale climate cycle, in which warm winds from the west strengthen and boost temperatures in Europe and Iceland, but simultaneously make southwest Greenland and Baffin Island colder, by sucking in more Arctic air. That makes the two regions seesaw in opposite directions.

Gifford Miller, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Colorado, called the paper "a coup de grace on the Medieval Warm Period." Miller said it shows "with great clarity of evidence" that "the idea of a consistently warm Medieval period is certainly an oversimplification and of little utility."

Astrid Ogilvie, a climate historian currently based at Iceland's Akureyri University, said the study "shows that the climate is clearly more complicated and variable than people earlier assumed." As for the Vikings, the climate story has been dimming for some time, she said. "I do not like the simplistic argument that the Greenland people went there when it was warm, and then 'it got cold and they died'," she said. "I think the Medieval Warm Period has been built on many false premises, but it still clings to the popular imagination."

The rocks were analyzed at the University of Buffalo, and at the Lamont-Doherty lab of geochemist and study coauthor Joerg Schaefer. The Lamont lab is among a handful that can precisely date such recent rock deposits. The analyses are done by measuring buildups of small amounts of Beryllium 10, an isotope created when cosmogenic rays strike rock surfaces newly exposed by melting ice.

In addition to Young and Schaefer, the paper was coauthored by Avriel Schweinsberg and Jason Briner of the University at Buffalo, who carried out the Greenland portion of the fieldwork.

Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by The Earth Institute at Columbia University.