Heh, The Hockey Schtick found a little jewel at the NASA web site. The page is titled “Evidence of Arctic Warming” Go there to read the NASA Earth Observatory page. It references a study by Comiso. It offers a horribly pale, lightly contrasted graphic which strains the eyes to read.
So, I thought I’d give an assist by sharpening and increasing the contrast and darkening it up a bit. I also threw in a thick black line to show that the Arctic at what looks to be about 1936 peaked in temps and was significantly warmer than what was in 2000. This is because I’m a very helpful guy! 
Now there’s a couple of things to note. First this isn’t a new study. It is dated 2003. The graphics shown are an adaptation of this one…… (Link to pdf is here.)
The next thing to note, is that the authors employ that time honored tradition of incessantly babbling about satellite measurements and then go to ground thermometers. This study uses Jones et al. (1999). Which could lead to an interesting discussion altogether. I guess they derive some sort of pleasure comparing apples to oranges, but such is life. Also, finally, I will accept acknowledgement that I was correct last August when I asserted ice loss was not related to arctic temps. 
Without further ado, the much more clear graph of historic arctic temps.
h/t to Climate Depot
suyts space 
The authors also employ the time-honored, but scientifically invalid technique of drawing in several trend lines with different base periods. This has also been used by the IPCC in their infamous scare graphics to suggest that warming is accelerating. Trends with different base periods must NOT be compared.
Furthermore:
The Search for Global Warming, the Null result.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/hadcrut3-30-of-stations-recorded.html
and:
“Otherwise one must be careful about the interpretation of “error margins”. The standard deviation over 2 Celsius degrees is the error of the temperature trend “at a random place of the globe”.
However, the error in the trend of the global mean temperature is much smaller than 2 degrees Celsius because a quantity obtained by averaging N quantities with the same error margin
has a much smaller, sqrt(N) times, error margin.
So the increase of the global mean temperature over the last 100 years or so, if the local HadCRUT3 data are at least approximately right, is of course statistically significant.”
I suppose it’s fun to watch the instruments chatter away but to pretend that any of what is going on in our “climate” is real or threatening is just plain stupid. These fellows with their computers modeling away using fractional changes to portend our doom are just irritating.
On “our” side we have a lot of people telling us to calm down and just adapt to the variations in the weather and on “their” side we have a small number of people telling us we are all gonna die if we don’t stop burning shit. If we do stop burning shit chasing sunbeams and zephyrs will do nothing to sustain our civilization. Just because we can measure CO2, in ppm, doesn’t mean it is a worry. Hell it doesn’t even mean we know what it can or will do to anything apart from our measuring devices.
The historical record of Arctic ice shows us that it has been more and less extensive than it is today. That’s all the record shows us. This obsessive behavior of trying to ascribe the eviltude of man and capitalism as the causes of things way outside our ability to control smacks of a power grab. An attack on mankind’s natural thrust at uplifting itself outside of political control and built on individual ability resulting in the general good. The communists just want control and useful idiots abound who wish to help them. Watermelons indeed.
Socialism rewards failure and hopelessness, the market rewards success and optimism. The Man made Climate Change movement is another socialist Trojan Horse and it needs to be stomped on wherever it raises it’s ugly, stupid dull head. Well done in your efforts Suyts, you are 100% correct.
Keith sorry about the wait on posting this. It got by me somehow. But, thank you, and well done on your comments as well.
There is evidence of some minor variation activity but that graph does not even show one major cycle in the region. That is because the records are much to short to be of any value for regional climate.
They may as well discard those records as there is currently evidence of the corruption that went into the compiling of it. Lots of things have changed in that region regarding the quality and quantity of recording sites and methods.
I was cooler in my 30’s too.
😉
opps, hotter
😉
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
If you were to draw a trend line for 1918 to 1933, it would show a more rapid warming trend compared to the present. It was a hot time with all those flappers driving their Ford Models T and A motor coaches and dancing in the speakeasies. The CO2 must have shot up like a rocket. 😆
Lol, yes, terrible thoughtless of those evil CO2 polluters back in that day. Isn’t it odd that the arctic temp increase of the 1990s was virtually non-existent? In fact, we can see a slight cooling trend. Now, doesn’t this fly in the face of CO2 ghg theory?
I’m always amused when they bring out the graphs and place trend lines only where they want you to look, hoping you won’t notice what the rest of the graph shows. Unfortunately, many people looking at the graph won’t question if natural variability in climate drove the temperatures up so fast in the 1920’s then what’s the justification for CO2 being the sole cause of the more modest temperature rise of the present?
Lol, yeh, that’s one of the many reasons I found this graph so compelling.
From the paper. “When using satellite data for trend analysis, the concern has been its relatively short record length and how effectively the data represent real trends. To gain insights into this problem, we analyzed the longer-term meteorological station data north of 60 (degrees)N from 1900 to 2000 compiled by Jones et al. (1999).” It is difficult to get hold of the Jones paper but in the abstract it mentions the paucity of data available for the arctic. Combine that with the fact that some of the data has come from outside the arctic circle and you have to wonder just how much credence you can put in it. But even if the arctic was warmer in the 1930’s than it was in 1999, so what? Antarctica also had trees once upon a time. The fact is, that warming trend in the 30’s from areas close to the arctic circle has been attributed to the Arctic Oscillation/ North Atlantic Oscillation cycle. The fact is the recent rate of warming is unprecedented and when you take into account the last decade and a bit and add it onto the work by Comiso, it makes what happened in the 1930’s look minor.
Given the “paucity of data”, how do you know the recent rate of warming is unprecedented? You do realize the gridded approach is exactly what Hansen uses, right?
I am referring to the Jones paper and the fact that the data used, and that YOU are relying on to make whatever point YOU are making, is based on a paucity as mentioned by Jones himself. This is a direct reference to ground-based instrumental data. A percentage of that same data that YOU are using to suggest that the Arctic was warmer in the 30’s came from outside of the Arctic, as far south as 60 degrees lat. When a free copy of the entire paper is available as it is in the case of the Comiso one, you really should provide a link to that so that your readers can take in the whole thing and don’t have to go searching for it. That way they can make a truly informed opinion as to whether what you are telling them is an accurate reflection of the source you are discussing. In this case, there are plenty of caveats inthe Comiso paper to suggest that not much can be drawn from it in terms of the older data. When I refer to unprecedented rates of warming, I am talking about on a global scale and from multiple lines of evidence, from many more sources than James Hansen all of which are well documented in the literature. Trying to deflect from the errors you have made by questioning me will get you nowhere. How about you address the points I have raised? Let’s start with my “so what?”
“When I refer to unprecedented rates of warming, I am talking about on a global scale and from multiple lines of evidence, …..”
Oh, sorry, I thought we were talking about arctic temps….. let me check to make sure ….. oh, yes, yes we were.
But, we can happily apply your thoughts to the global scale. I find the lack of definitive empirical measurements makes your statements about global temps just as silly. You can sift through the archives. Proper global temp coverage doesn’t even go back 100 years. …..unprecedented ……
and still you dodge…. typical and not unexpected. No doubt you’ll deflect from explaining how you’ve come to believe that 60 degrees latitude is polar when everyone knows the arctic circle sits at 66 degrees? After all, “I thought we were talking about arctic temps….. let me check to make sure ….. oh, yes, yes we were.”
Lol, what is it you believe I’m dodging? And how is it you’re holding me responsible for the norms established by climate science? If you’re arguing they should be extrapolating from below 66°, then I agree. We should ask Hansen, Jones, and the rest of them to rework their papers and assumptions about arctic temps.
Lol, uknow, I’ll answer any question you put to me, but you’ll have to do more than speak in alarmist code.
“alarmist code”? Is that denier code for “things I don’t understand”?
Far from holding you responsible for the “norms established by climate science”, I am suggesting that your assertions based on the sources you mention are a stretch, especially since the sources you mention have caveats in them regarding how the data should be interpreted. If you fail to appreciate that that is the point I’m making and if you fail to understand what the papers are saying, then clearly you are a lightweight pretending to be more knowledgable than you are. I suspect however that you know full well that you are being loose with the truth, hence your decision to not link to the full paper which is freely available, caveats and all. Either way I have what I need. Thanks.
uknow, “things I don’t understand”….. you’re going to win a post dedicated to your inanity if you continue.
“hence your decision to not link to the full paper which is freely available.” Uhmm, if you scroll up, into the post section you will see that I did indeed link to the full paper from where the graph came, the “COMISO” paper. Are you stating that I should also link to all of the references and sources of the paper? Uknow, there’s nothing to prevent you from adding a link in the discussion section, you know? (more than two links sends a comment to “moderation”). But, rather than offer the link you believe I should have included, you’d rather sit back and hurl insults. Let me guess, you’ve voted Democrat for both elections you’ve been old enough to vote in. <—–(See the different form and elegance in the insults?) 🙂
If you want to introduce Jones et al, by all means, you're more than welcome to do so. See how easy that is?
I accept the caveats, but that door swings both ways, I'm wondering if you understand the implications?
uknow, I understand alarmists aren't very familiar with societal norms and civil discourse, but you should work on this. I do wish to make you feel welcome here. I think you have the wrong impression about skeptics, but, given the manner in which you introduce yourself, I can see why you may think people are picking on you at other skeptic sites. I'll do my best to make sure you know you're not being censored in any manner here. How people react to your statements, well, that's entirely up to you and them.
James
Setting aside that cherry picking one area to suggest something about Global temperatures is wrong on so many levels, the graphs presented stop over a decade ago. NOAA have a graph showing Arctic temps up to just a couple of years ago presented here;
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/report08/atmosphere.html
This clearly shows that the Arctic was NOT warmer in the thirties.
Laz! It’s nice to see you. It’s good to know you haven’t changed any. You’re still making unwarranted assumptions. I made no reference to global temps.
I essentially put out this information with very little commentary. I do this from time to time because the readers here don’t need to be told what to think. I made a graph clearer and then referenced the ice to temp relationship.
What is it about you alarmists that assume I’m talking about global temps?
Now as to your graphic, that’s very intriguing. First of all, I thought it was you guys who put so much stock in “peer-review”. Why are you now believing a poster over a paper? Of course the source of the graph you’re presenting seems to be the same source from the paper! Did you just catch Phil altering historical records again?
Lazarus says:
July 24, 2012 at 5:55 am
“Setting aside that cherry picking one area to suggest something about Global temperatures is wrong on so many levels,”
So you are saying there is no “Polar Amplification”. That’s good, because I don’t see any as well. So the warmists are wrong in that regard, and their models are bunk. Nice that we can agree on something.
Lol, the warmists, for some reason, don’t like this graph. They aren’t very explicit as to why, but, it seems to have touched a nerve.
suyts says:
“They aren’t very explicit as to why, ”
Language comprehension isn’t your strong suit. To repeat; “the graphs presented stop over a decade ago.”
All you can truthfully say assuming you ignore all the caveats already mentioned is that the Arctic 30 years ago reached similar temperatures a decade ago. Not much of a headline but at least it is honest.
Now how about more honesty. The data for the last decade clearly shows that the Arctic was NOT warmer in the thirties. Pick any data and any graph showing Arctic-wide annual averaged surface air temperature anomalies between 60°–90°N you want. So perhaps instead of avoiding the point like you have already been accused off, you answer a question directly like you say you always will.
Do you accept that the recent temperature data for the area shows your headline to be false? I’m not really interested in any conspiracy nonsense you may have concocted to reject it.
Lol, Laz you’re fun to play with. “Do you accept that the recent temperature data for the area shows your headline to be false?” Answer, No. But, that’s not what you really wanted from me, is it? Yes, the data apparently ended in 2001. Now, using the same data set as COMISO, show that I’m wrong. You’re not interested in any conspiracy theories, and I’m not interest in any temp rise determined by artificial adjustments. You can’t use other data sets when comparing, so sis, go for it.
Since you are making the claim and using data that is over a decade out of date why would I have to show you are wrong? It must be accepted you clearly wrong by default unless you can demonstrate that your headline is true. You are not very bright when it comes to supporting things with evidence are you?
So if you have admitted that the data ended in 2001 how can you honestly state that “Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties!!” with two exclamation marks no less?
Laz, that’s some incredibly flawed logic you’re using. But, for the sake of clarity, I’ll step it out for you. You’re being pedantic, that’s fine. I’ll be pedantic back. I said it was warmer in the 30s. And, it was. Was it warmer than today? Well, that can’t be easily answered. But, it can be answered. If we accept the paper as true, which you seem to insist upon, then all we have to do is find the rise from 2001-2012 and add it to the graph. Right? Now, deciding which data set to use, that’s a different question. And, it brings us back to the problematic action of splicing data sets together. I’m thinking of using DMI for the arctic temps. What do you think? I’ve looked at UAH, but that seems to look like the temps are nearly equal. Maybe RSS can be the decider. True and False are Boolean, but those aren’t the only answers, are they? Further, you were the one to assert my headline was false. This clearly puts the onus on you to back up your assertion. But then, you’re probably not smart enough to understand that. Laz, do you have anything to add to the conversation other than insults?
Laz, you know if you keep this up, I’m going to embarrass the heck out of you. You are welcome to come here. You are welcome to challenge my assertions. Heck, I’ll even post it if you can prove I’m wrong. I’ll even accept some snide comments from the lunatic carbonphobes. But, we will adhere to societal norms in communicating our thoughts and ideas. The internet is a rough and wooly world and abrasive personalities seem to thrive on the internet. How other people interact with you is fine as long as both parties adhere to it. But, you coming here and and spewing absurdities and insults without bringing any evidence I’m wrong simply points to your weaknesses, not just in intellect, but character as well. I honestly would have expected better from you, but I’m not sure why.
Your only an embarrassment to yourself but are not really clever enough to notice it. You want to use the same data as COSIMO but don’t seem to know where that data has come from. It’s the Data approved by NASA as referenced in the research.
The graph you have taken shows that the 5 year running averaged peaked at 0.4 kelvin in the 30s.The NOAA document I have linked shows Arctic up to 2010 and clearly shows a peak about 0.7 kelvin above the 30s peak. By all means show ANY data from a recognised source covering the same area and time frame you prefer if you can find any actually showing the ‘Arctic Was Warmer In The Thirties’. But if you can’t at least be honest and mature enough to say you cant – but I’m not holding my breath.
Wholly crap Laz! No wonder you have such a difficult time with civil discourse! You have to be a bot! No one with an operating synapse could possibly take the conversation to where you have! I’ve sited exactly where the data came from! What is implicit throughout the entire post and comments are that none of the present data sets show what was once shown. Notice how your NOAA offering butchers the data? No, of course you don’t because you need someone to state the obvious for you. I don’t believe it demonstrates maturity to be the captain of obvious statements. But, requiring obvious statements shows a distinct lack of cognitive faculties. Just because someone alters historical data, doesn’t mean this never happened. If it does make you feel better, no, there is no present data set which shows this. We can add this to a long list of things which once were but have been altered for today.
It is clear that you can neither be logical or honest. Now you are coming back with conspiracy theory nonsense about butchered data. If the data is so unreliable how can you make a specific claim that it was warmer in the thirties? The only way you could appear more silly is if you are reading this with pencils stuck up your nose and underwear on your head.
Still it been fun and you gave me plenty of crazy for a new post;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/warmer-in-thirties-i-think-not.html
Pingback: Dedicated To Laz and Co | suyts space
Laz, there is no conspiracy theory. The data has been altered . This has been demonstrated thousands of times. If you don’t wish to address reality, that’s your problem not mine.
As to my honesty, I don’t see where you believe I’ve been dishonest. But then, I’ve never really understood the minds of Malthusian misanthropists. You people live in alternate universes than the rest of us.
Well lets see if you are honest enough to admit your ignorance and make a correction;
http://reallysciency.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/suyts-fails-to-touch-base.html
Pingback: A Glimpse Into The Mind Of An Alarmist…. A Case Study! | suyts space
Pingback: A Response To Lazarus’ Criticism | suyts space