Y2Kyoto: Alert Temperature Variance, 1951 - 2005

I've always checked the temp at Eureka Sation, it seem a little colder. I never used records or a graph, however I'd swear that the last two years have been the coldest in decades.

On March 27 at 8:30 pm

http://wwf.ca/earthhour/

Everyone do your part to wreck the WWF's sham, make phony pledges, turn your lights on, fire up that old truck and go for a drive, light a blazing camp fire, do your bit, these Glo-Bull Warming fraud artists need a good hard kick in the nads.

Boycott the WWF’s Earth Hour Sponsors found here;

http://wwf.ca/earthhour/supporters/

Temperature declining over 54 years in Alert? Never heard of it! Odd how that one slipped through the cracks...

I smell B.S., and not the 'of Science' kind.

Yet another "Inconvenient Truth".......
Like Antarctica melting at -30....
.......melting Polar Bears.......

Eureka is completely atypical of the Arctic, so
far as I know (apologies for a remark a month
ago in which I confused Eureka with Grise Fjord).

But then nothing changes the conclusions, does it?
Problems with each data set arise and are brushed
aside. "The science is solid";
the conclusions begin that polar bears are dying, glaciers
are melting, sea levels are rising, and it's ALL OUR
FAULT (please send money).

There are diaries from the Gold Rush days documenting the temps in the Yukon from 1898 to today - guess that is why the Glo bull racketeers don't use the Yukon to pimp their stories. We always turn the weather network on before 8 AM; I have seen temperature 'lapses' of up to 20 degrees - one day it was -10 below and the weather channel said 18 above!

The racketeers are flailing and floundering around like beached whales; they know that we know but they are still touting out the same old fiction in the belief that if you say 'it' often enough, people will believe it; as Kate has said 'the genie is out of the bottle', it is too late...not even a Dipper can realistically think that their minions will pay for hot air when sane people (the targets)call foul. If there is one thing a eco wacko won't do is use their own money to pay for their own radical ideas.

The entertainment being provided by watching the show as these fanatics and their plans unravel is spectacular. I am enjoying their defacing way too much!! Sda is best at this defacing art - I thank-you all.

Bruce, thanks for the heads up on WWF supporters. We had already stopped buy Coke products and will now add Sears to the list.

The arctic station with the longest period of record is Cambridge Bay on southern Victoria Island. Records there (somewhat intermittent) go back into the 1920s. I looked at the June temperatures there, since June is the most sensitive month in terms of warming climates (the spring thaw takes place from late May to mid June at this location). Honestly, I did not find any really convincing trends over the long term, the inter-annual variability was much more significant than any slope on trend lines. Warmer periods around 1930 and 1998 were evident, but the trend after 1998 has been generally negative; 2007 was another localized peak in the temperature records. I went on to compare the June data with all summer data and annual data and found roughly the same trends.

So I do not find the comments about Alert or Eureka above, at all surprising.

We should note for the sake of full discussion and understanding, that the phenomenon of arctic ice variability is not very much connected to mean temperatures in the Canadian arctic, at least, not as closely connected as one might expect.

Ice conditions around the arctic basin are more dependent on ocean currents than land air temperatures. When there was a significant meltdown of arctic ice in the 2007 season, it progressed from the Bering Sea into the Laptev Sea north of eastern Siberia. Naturally there was quite a positive temperature anomaly over the ice-free waters in Sept and Oct 2007. At this same time, snowfall began to cover large parts of north central Canada and the ice-free anomaly to temperature signal reversed, leading to the snowy winter of 2007-08 in eastern Canada.

So some of these connections are not as simplistic as the warmists (and some of the coldists) seem to imagine. Open water in the arctic has often been viewed as a precursor to increases of land ice and glacial episodes in the past. It does not actually happen in nature that the sea ice advances south and then the land gets colder and colder. But eventually, the cooling land masses (glacial advances included) overwhelm the ocean temperature distribution and the sea ice follows the land glaciation southward in the full glacial episode.

So it's worth keeping in mind that the sequence observed in past cases is this:

warm land, reduced arctic ice

cooling land, static arctic ice, or further reductions as warm ocean currents reach northward limits

very cold land, followed by advancing sea ice mid-latitudes

full glacial periods, much larger land and sea ice extents

melting ice on land, sea ice still near maximum

restored non-glacial land climates, but system unstable as in Dryas periods, variations controlled by surges of fresh water into oceans

return to inter-glacial conditions

------

In the long-term, we are probably somewhere near the end of the current inter-glacial. Luckily for us, the governing astronomical influences (the Milankovitch effects) are not racing towards the glacial setting in the same way that they were about 118,000 years ago when the Wisconsin glacial epoch was beginning. Our fate seems more benign, as these Milankovitch factors all make a very leisurely drift towards colder climates. In fact, if we were slightly warming the earth from our activities, we could put the whole system into perfect equilibrium, but on the other hand, the severity of the "Little Ice Age" shows that even within the current climatic regime (in very long-term perspective) it can get significantly colder than today. Despite the recent downturn in temperatures, it would be safe to say that the heart of the Little Ice Age (say around 1650-1710) was 2-3 degrees colder than recent climatic averages, and that some of the recent seasons described as cool or cold, would have seemed about average to people of those times.

Anyway, because we liked Hilton, we decided to show him ... the raw data from Cambridge Bay.

Make of this what you will. It's the raw data, mean temp (C) in June, for all years with data since 1929. A few years before 1947 are missing. To help you visualize it, I have posted the data with a crude bar graph where each X is half a degree above the absolute minimum (-2.5 rounded) so to get a sense of the history of this temperature series, just scroll down. It's instructive to scroll down to certain years leaving the future data from that point hidden -- what conclusions would you have drawn in 1960, 1980, 2000 etc from this data?

Actual values in numbers at the end of each year's bar graph, and decade averages in brackets after decade-ending year, the first case is 1929 to 1940, the rest follow 1941-50, 1951-60 etc:

1929 XXXXXXX 0.9
1930 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.2
1931 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.5
1932 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.6
1933
1934
1935 XXXXXXXXXXX 3.2
1936 XXXXXXX 0.8
1937 XXXXXXXXXXX 3.0
1938 XXXXXXXXX 2.0
1939 XXXXXX 0.6
1940 XXXXX -0.2 (2.36)
1941 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.3
1942 XXXXXXXX 1.6
1943 XXXXXXXXXXX 2.9
1944 XXXXXXXXXXX 2.9
1945
1946 XXXXXXX 0.8
1947
1948 XXXXXXXXXX 2.6
1949 XXX -1.2
1950 XXXXX 0.2 (1.64)
1951 XXXXXXXXX 2.2
1952 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.4
1953 XXXXXXX 1.2
1954 XXXXXX 0.7
1955 XXXXXXXXX 1.8
1956 XXXXXXX 1.2
1957 XXXXX -0.1
1958 XXXXXX 0.3
1959 XXXX -0.6
1960 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.9 (1.60)
1961 XXXXXXXX 1.5
1962 XXXXXXXXXXXXX 3.9
1963 XXXXXXXX 1.5
1964 XXXX -0.3
1965 XXXXXX 0.3
1966 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.4
1967 XX -1.6
1968 XXXXXXXXXX 2.6
1969 X -2.0
1970 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.6 (1.29)
1971 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.5
1972 XX -1.7
1973 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.0
1974 XXXXXXX 0.9
1975 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7.0
1976 XXXXX -0.2
1977 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.3
1978 -2.7
1979 XXX -1.0
1980 XXXXXXXXXX 2.3 (1.64)
1981 XXXXXXXXXXX 3.1
1982 XXXXXX 0.5
1983 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.6
1984 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.6
1985 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.5
1986 XXXX -0.4
1987 XXXX -0.3
1988 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.6
1989 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.8
1990 XXXXXXXXXX 2.6 (2.56)
1991 XXXXXXXXXXX 3.1
1992 XXXXXXX 0.9
1993 XXXXXXXXXXX 3.0
1994 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.7
1995 XXXXXXXXXXXX 3.6
1996 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.4
1997 XXXXXXX 0.8
1998 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX 4.7
1999 XXXXXXXXX 2.2
2000 XXXXXXXXXX 2.6 (3.00)
2001 XXXXXXXXX 2.0
2002 XXXXXXXXXXX 3.2
2003 XXXXXXX 1.1
2004 XXXXXXXXX 1.9
2005 XXXXXXXXXXX 2.8
2006 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 5.4
2007 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 7.5
2008 XXXXXXXXXX 2.3
2009 XXXXXXX 1.2 (3.04)

As this post is rather long, I will comment on this Cambridge Bay temperature series in a separate post.

Here's what I make of this Cambridge Bay data for June. Note that the series average (mean) is 2.14 and the 1971-2000 official "normal" is 2.4 (which my data confirm).

The first significant fact is that the long-term temperature trend, rather than being "continuously rising" as the warmists like to say, shows a decline in general from 1930 to 1959, then a period best described as highly variable (but average rather cold) 1960 to 1987, then a warming period that seemed to peter out after 2000, returning briefly in 2006-07, and more recently on the decline again.

So which way will this series head next? Clearly it's a guessing game, or at least a prediction that requires more variables than AGW. Even if I were to take a very sympathetic approach to the AGW theory, it is hard to find any evidence in these numbers for more than a degree of warming in recent decades, and that magnitude of warming is easily within the broader range of natural variability. The standard deviation of this data set is about 2.3 degrees. That means, basically, all data between -0.2 and 4.4 are within one SD of the normal. No decades have fallen anywhere near that far from the normal. If your criterion for an anomalous period is a standard deviation from the average, then seven-year intervals sometimes appear "anomalous" in this data.

The coldest recent climatic intervals appeared to be in the 1950s and 1960s, then the 1970s saw a rapidly increasing range that eventually led to a warmer climatic period.

Frankly, you can see how both sides of the debate find some ammunition in these data, a warmist could point to the gradual increase overall since about 1980, and somebody not a coldist but a believer in natural variability could point to the generally stable long-term trend lines especially given the hints of nearly equal warmth in the 1920s and 1930s when one also considers data from Greenland (which show a similar overall trend from a longer period of record).

Anyone trying to argue that the earth is now cooling will only find faint hope in these data. It has been 23 years come June 2010 since any June averaged below zero, and in the period 1940 to 1987, there were 13 such cases. What really struck me as a follower of British climate is that anyone who follows their winter records could confirm, the period 1940 to 1987 was a period of much colder winters than pre-1940, or generally speaking, since 1987, with the exception of this past winter ... and look how close to zero the June 2009 temperature was.

Now given the length of the colder climate interval that seemed to run from about 1940 to 1987 in both Cambridge Bay and European winter data, is there any obvious reason to state flatly that this past year or two are a statistical fluke and that warming will soon resume? Or is the more likely predictive outcome that we are just now entering a colder climate phase again, and that we'll see generally colder temperatures from this recording site?

My personal opinion is that natural variability controls these temperature records, but that the baseline is gradually rising from a faint AGW effect. As long as this stays faint, natural variability will control the trend lines, but it may not be physically possible to return all the way to the lower parts of these historic records. As long as there is not runaway warming, though, this is actually a good thing in general. A little warming of a naturally cooling climate would in fact create equilibrium. There is not much to be gained on land or at sea, from a return to the harsh winter conditions of the 1940s in the arctic or in Europe. The winter of 1947 (missing from this temperature series) produced huge snowfalls in England that even today would be a huge economic problem, and in those days led to really dire conditions from the end of January through to mid-March. What we've seen in recent winters is nothing compared to the huge snowfalls that struck in that winter. I also note that in western Canada, two winters that were colder than 2008-09 (1949-50, 1968-69) were clearly associated with colder conditions in the western arctic. Maybe we should be happy with the slight warming trend that AGW may have inserted into the mix of natural variability. The outcome of the winter of 2008-09 shows that a slightly warmed up version of those historic cold winters had considerably less economic impact. In the winter of 1949-50, the fruit-growing industry in southern BC was almost totally wiped out and took years to recover. Makes me wonder what Gordon Campbell and David Suzuki really want to accomplish (not that I really buy into their science, but even if you did, why? what's so great about even colder winters returning?).

Just a further note, to show how close to the "colder climate" conditions were in June 2009, the snow pack melted between the 15th and 20th of June (from daily records) and the mean temperature for the month stood at 0.0 as late as the 22nd before reaching 1.2 C.

In almost all cases, these June temperatures are an accurate guide to when snow melted in that ending winter season. A very mild month usually followed a late May meltdown. A cold month usually featured snow on the ground to the end of the month.

Great posts Peter ! Any chance you might be invited to be an adviser to Prentice/Harper?

Yes, there's a chance. It's about the same chance as my getting a date with Jennifer Lopez.

But maybe I will ask (Prentice and Harper, that is) although I have the feeling that they have been similarly advised (by people not in the mainstream of the climate change business) and this is why they damn the whole thing with such faint praise.

I've spoken out before about the need for somebody in government to engage in plain talk about this issue, but as we all know, that would be inviting a firestorm of hostile media scrutiny.

However, Ronald Reagan called the USSR the evil empire and it was (sort of) gone within ten years despite a lot of media hostility to his remarks.

I would call climate change a loony science rather than an evil science. But it is evil to distort the facts just to bring about a hidden agenda of socialist economic changes.

I would bet you that Harper and Prentice see this issue almost exactly as many of us see it -- but they do not feel free to discuss their beliefs openly. That to me is actually the issue, more than the science -- because I truly believe this issue could be settled in a month if people would just stop thinking in such apocalyptic terms about a situation which is really not that big a deal.

What my study shows rather clearly is that the much-feared "global warming" has so far managed to produce about an extra week of snow-free slightly warmer than freezing "summer" weather in the arctic. There are no clear indications that it is getting "worse" if that is indeed worse and not better. But to address this "problem" many in high places of government, science and economics around the world are quite willing to roll the dice on entirely unproven technological and economic schemes that could very easily have enormous negative impacts (and already have done).

Let's put it this way, I hope Harper and Prentice are getting more balanced advice than they would get from the boffins at Environment Canada, because this is their data, but we all see how they have interpreted it. To me (and I have been active in the weather field since graduating in 1971) this is all a vast over-reaction and an attempt to manipulate data to appear scary and disturbing when in fact, it is only slightly interesting. Without the context of this political situation, how many people would even manage to stay awake through an inspection of my Cambridge Bay data?

Ah, the good old days pre-1980 when climatology was a sleepy little backwater where nothing much ever happened.

Quite frankly, I think it would be our provincial premiers, notably Campbell, Charest and McGuinty, who could benefit from more balanced advice about climate change. They are the ones who are bringing in the more harmful legislative schemes that are supposed to "fix the climate."

They do this, to be fair to them, because they believe in the expertise of the IPCC scientists as interpreted for them in a political context by the likes of David Suzuki.

I don't see Suzuki as being much of an accelerant in this process, the main question is, what's the reliability of the IPCC science?

The Cambridge Bay data are among the better evidence that warmists could hope to find. I have always regarded that region as well as the Svalbard (Spitzbergen) region as being more sensitive to climate change than other arctic regions, because they are mixing zones for temperate and arctic air masses. But even here at Cambridge Bay, without any effort to cherry pick the data, just looking at the whole set without trend lines or adjustments or anything else, you can see in five minutes that the warming is faint and not even fully established. It's just like a warm spell in October, you know that it's going to end with a couple of near normal days and then a big chill. This is the way natural variability seems to work on all time scales. There are long spells of warm and cold, it doesn't just go randomly warm-cold every other year (or day).

On the basis of this very dubious science, enormous decisions have been made and even larger ones proposed. It's those larger ones proposed that we can still reverse, before the crazies succeed in wrecking our economy altogether.

And more, very good posts by Peter !!! Please keep them coming.

Perhaps, then, an expert witness when the AGW fraud lawsuits begin ??

Fraud trials? We'll be lucky to avoid show trials for climate skeptics at the rate things are going.

I'm sure I could be involved in those, along with some of you.

This is the most puzzling political issue in many years. Opposition is growing, but almost nobody active in politics will take the plunge and articulate the concerns.

Hence, changes in public policy can only be cosmetic and subtly designed to vandalize the program, rather than overt and unambiguous changes in policy direction.

At this rate, climate change will never have a "day of reckoning" but is more likely to die the death of a thousand cuts. I just hope I made one of those here today.

Peter- Most informative, and a pleasure to view your reasoned analysis (not the usual alarmist crap we're all so accustomed to).

But my question, how mainstream are your views vis-a-vis those of your colleagues? Can more of them be cajoled into standing up and putting their reps on the line, or as you see it, would that represent a death-knell to their careers?
And might a concerted assault on the alarmists by a consortium of experts such as yourself, yet throw this off the rails?
At any rate, I hope you'll continue to get this stuff out there. It's possible a not-too-far-gone moonbat might be enlightened.
I believe you have it right on the reluctance of any politician to get too far out in front of the issue, in light of the MSM's absolute enthrallment with the current fad. But if and when the tide changes, you can guarantee they'll be out front leading the parade.

I am very much of an outsider in the weather profession -- managed to get myself offside even before the main wave of global warming hit the beach in the 1980s.

My sincere belief is that the generation of climatologists who were alive and kicking in my youth, most of whom have passed on or are in retirement, would be speaking out against this AGW theory as presented. I think one or two of them have in fact done that, but their protests have fallen on deaf ears in the science.

Part of the problem is that we have meteorologists doing climatology these days. It may not sound like a big problem, but climatologists tend to be people with a good memory for historic weather events and a nerd-like interest in learning about them. In other words, they have some clue what has gone before, and are therefore a bit harder to fool with the current mantras of "this extreme weather blah blah" since by and large, we are not seeing extremes that are more extreme than those already in the books.

Meanwhile, I have the distinct impression (as an outsider, granted) that some climatologists are keeping their opinions to themselves for fear of being ostracized and shuffled out of their positions (most of which are with governments or universities, there are far fewer privately employed climatologists than meteorologists).

Ironically, the majority of private mets at least in the U.S.A. are quite vocally skeptical about the AGW theory. Anyone who has a secure non-government job in the weather profession has no vested interest in this issue, and if it were up to me, I would suggest polling all of them on the AGW questions and going with their consensus, because it would be more reliable than the vested interests.

There are some large weather-interest forums around, for example Net-weather in the UK, and Eastern US Weather (easternuswx.com) in the USA, and I would say that opinion on those has been running about 2-1 against the Goracle school of thought for years now, but the opposition has been getting more vocal since the coming and going of the 2007 ice anomaly.

That event had quite an impact on weather freaks around the globe -- it was a sort of make or break moment for AGW, like going all in with a pair of sixes, and basically, they didn't hit another six; the weather turned colder rather noticeably the following winter and has stayed generally rather cold since then. The AGW brigade on these weather forums, who were in a sort of triumphalist mode five years ago, are now bunkered down and for all we know, plotting their own Jonestown. They sure have enough kool-aid for one.