Open thread 25

Time for a new open thread.

Comments

  1. #1 luminous beauty
    May 16, 2009

    vern,

    Your[sic] going to ignore peer reviewed papers for studies about the methodologies because they do not use real world data.

    No. Because they are comparing real data with synthetic data.

    Again, statistically fitted pseudo-data, no matter how cleverly crafted, will never adequately mimic deterministic real world data. Tests that compare pseudo-data to real world data are GIGO.

    Not every peer reviewed monograph is equal.

  2. #2 Lee
    May 17, 2009

    And then there is all the qualitative real world data that supports that it is hotter now.

    Glacier recession fronts, compared to historic records. Tropical ice cap recession uncovering in situ organic remains that are dated to gt 5000 years ago. Sequential N to S failure of Antarctic ice shelves dated to gt ~10k years. Greenland farmers, on the exact same sites as the norse vikings, routinely getting 2 grass hay cuttings a year, and flirting with 3, when the norse got one.
    Just off the top of my head.

    Not to mention, if the reconstruction methods underestimate low frequency warming – that means the MWP high is a bit higher, the LIA low is a bit lower, and the modern high up to the end of the reconstruction is a bit higher – and the impact is largely unchanged. Except that greater variation for the small forcings in play, means that it is likely that sensitivity is higher than estimated.
    This is not a winning argument for Vernon.

  3. #3 Vernon
    May 17, 2009

    Yet more hand waving. So per LB, there is no way to test the methodologies used for temperature reconstruction, we just have to believe in them.

    Mann under estimated by 50% so MWP and LIA were both twice as warm and twice as cold. Feel free to present some actual studies that back up your position.

  4. #4 luminous beauty
    May 17, 2009

    …there is no way to test the methodologies used for temperature reconstruction, we just have to believe in them.

    Compare calibration periods against validation periods. Real data against real data or pseudo-data against pseudo-data.

    I concur with Riedwyl et al. who actually do it right, “The comparison of the two statistical techniques, in the specific experimental setting presented here, indicates that more skillful results are achieved with RegEM as low frequency variability is better preserved.

  5. #5 luminous beauty
    May 17, 2009

    Mann under estimated by 50% so MWP and LIA were both twice as warm and twice as cold. Feel free to present some actual studies that back up your position.

    !00% bullshit. Follow the PINK line.

  6. #6 luminous beauty
    May 17, 2009
  7. #7 Vernon
    May 17, 2009

    LB,

    Cherry picking the way to go. Going to argue about the studies that show that tree rings are not good temperature proxies? When all the methodologies have been shown to under estimate low frequency, the one that does it the least badly, is still bad.

    You do not like that these studies wash away the foundation of AGW.

    Lets see, the methodologies under estimate, the models are being proven wrong. The key point for the models is polar amplification – Antarctic cooling for last 40 years, Arctic is warming but at about the same rate as the whole Northern Hemisphere. In fact, the Arctic is not as warm now as it was earlier last century. There is no evidence of the upper troposphere warming.

    One brick at a time the whole AGW house is falling apart as more is known.

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2009

    Incredible. After I wrote:

    Vernon:

    You keep changing the discussion

    Vernon suddenly forgot about Millet et al (2009) and he complains about someone else changing the discussion. What a hypocrite. He pointed out that I:

    asked for non-tree ring studies that show the temperature variation for MWP and LIA was greater than the tree-ring studies.

    and that is indeed what I continued to ask, almost entirely word for word, in my reply:

    And WHERE does the first paper you stated say ANYTHING about non-tree ring studies that show the temperature variation for MWP and LIA being greater than the tree-ring studies?

    By some bizarre cognitive failure, Vernon thinks this is “changing the discussion”.

    Vernon comes back with:

    You really cannot address the issue can you?

    Just amazing, he can’t answer a simple question and accuses someone else of changing the discussion and then when it is pointed out that his accusation is crap he then continues on his merry way and makes another crap accusation. The man has a delusional disorder.

  9. #9 Chris O'Neill
    May 18, 2009

    Vernon:

    Arctic is warming but at about the same rate as the whole Northern Hemisphere.

    Plainly delusional.

  10. #10 Ian Forrester
    May 18, 2009

    Vernon, you are completely ignorant of what you are talking about. The higher latitudes, esp in the North, have been warming faster. You are either being dishonest or only obtain your “information” from dishonest sources.

    Since you have such a problem in understanding the written word, here is a pictorial representation of global temperature anomalies.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/2009+2005+2007.pdf

    Please tell us what you see from these figures. Where is most of the warming occurring?

  11. #11 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    Chris,

    I presented both global and regional studies that showed great variability that tree-ring based studies. You then switch from show me a study not based on tree rings that shows greater variability than tree ring based reconstruction do, to that study is only about Europe not the Northern Hemisphere, ignoring the studies are Northern Hemisphere to Northern Hemisphere. I also presented studies that showed some of the issues with tree rings as temperature proxies such as:

    D’Arrigo et al (2007)on divergence. The causes, however, are not well understood and are difficult to test due to the existence of a number of covarying environmental factors that may potentially impact recent tree growth. These possible causes include temperature-induced drought stress, nonlinear thresholds or time-dependent responses to recent warming, delayed snowmelt and related changes in seasonality, and differential growth/climate relationships inferred for maximum, minimum and mean temperatures.

    I then presented studies that show the weakness inherent to all the reconstruction methodologies regardless of the proxy used such as:

    Christiansen et al (2009). The underestimation of the amplitude of the low frequency variability demonstrated for all of the seven methods discourage the use of reconstructions to estimate the rareness of the recent warming. That this underestimation is found for all the reconstruction methods is rather depressing and strongly suggests that this point should be investigated further before any real improvements in the reconstruction methods can be made.

    On a slightly different topic, I present studies that show that the current Artic temperatures are not the highest they have been in the past century. That the Arctic is warming at only a slightly faster rate than the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. The quote was:

    Polyakov et al (2003) The composite temperature record shows that since 1875 the Arctic has warmed by 1.2°C, so that over the entire record the warming trend was 0.094°C decade−1, with stronger spring- and wintertime warming. The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decade−1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decade−1). The oscillatory behavior of Arctic trends results from incomplete sampling of the large-amplitude LFO. For example, the Arctic temperature was higher in the 1930s–40s than in recent decades, and hence a trend calculated for the period 1920 to the present actually shows cooling. Enhancement of computed trends in recent decades can be partially attributed to the current positive LFO phase.

    I even addressed:

    Serreze et al (2006) Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification.

    He attempted to use the change in isolation due to the loss of Arctic sea ice as a reason for there not being Polar amplification. The problem is that since he published, the sea ice has been rebounding since 2007. It is apparent that an Arctic tipping point in sea ice did not happen and the problem of no polar amplification still exists.

    Ian,

    If you bothered to read Polyakov et al (2003) you would know that the apparent higher temperature anomalies in the Arctic are due to picking a baseline that was one of the coldest periods during the century. The current warming has yet to exceed the 1930s – 40s warming.

    So, in a nutshell:

    1. Tree rings have issues that make them a poor temperature proxy.
    2. Non-tree ring reconstructions show greater temperature variability than tree ring reconstructions.
    3. All the methodologies have been found to under estimate low frequency temperature variability.
    4. There is no polar amplification.
    4a. Artic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH as a whole.
    4b. Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.

    So basically, the basis for the present warming being exceptional is not supported. The polar amplification that is called for is not happening. How much more has to not happen?

  12. #12 Ian Forrester
    May 18, 2009

    In a nutshell, Vernon, who claims to have no background in science at all, as I have said on another blog, is suffering from some sort of delusional psychosis. Get treatment!

  13. #13 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    Ian,

    I guess you cannot address the science. Is this the best you can do, make personal attacks on the individual rather than address the studies?

  14. #14 luminous beauty
    May 18, 2009

    vern,

    Since you badly misinterpret or draw unsupported conclusions from all the studies you mention, psychology is the proper discipline to address your raves.

  15. #15 Ian Forrester
    May 18, 2009

    Vernon, it is you who do not address the science.

    Everything you post has been cut and pasted from denier web sites. You know nothing of what you write but merely parrot rubbish which appeals to your arrogant, selfish and ignorant persona.

    Here is a quote about polar amplification, some thing which you deny is happening:

    “a decrease from then until the mid-1960s,
    and a steep increase thereafter with a warming rate of
    0.4 ºC per decade). It is very probable that the Arctic
    has warmed over the past century, at a rate greater than
    the average over the Northern Hemisphere. It is probable
    that polar amplification has occurred over the past
    50 years.”

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/2xcjfa

    Warming in the Arctic of 0.4 degrees C per decade is about 2-3 times the global average. You are so dishonest but it is to be expected from deniers like you.

  16. #16 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    LB,

    Nice claim, now back it up. Where did I misinterpret the studies, follow that up with how my conclusions are unsupported. Without that it is just more attack the person rather than accept the study.

    Seems to be a standard, attack the person rather than deal with the evidence.

  17. #17 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    Ian,

    As hard is it for you to comprehend, I have only posted quotes from the studies. I do not post from an advocacy site as they present slanted opinions and I would rather see what the authors actually said.

    Polyakov et al (2003) The Arctic temperature trend for the twentieth century (0.05°C decade−1) was close to the Northern Hemispheric trend (0.06°C decade−1).

    Further, a newer study by Serreze et al (2006) Found:

    Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification.

    Here is the full citation :

    Polyakov, I., Bekryaev, R., Bhatt, U., Colony, R., Maskshtas, A., & Walsh, D., (2003) Variability and Trends of Air Temperature and Pressure in the Maritime Arctic, 1875–2000, Journal of Climate, 16 (June): 2067–2077

    Pretty sure I did not make that up but then you could try reading the study.

    Ian, there is a significant difference between the Northern Hemisphere and global. Also having read that chapter of the book, I noticed that they do not compare Arctic with Northern Hemisphere. They compared lat 0-60 with lat 60-90. You should try to do apples to apples comparisons.

    What I did not see in the document was the adjustment for Arctic Oscillation, which as Serreze (2006) pointed out, is responsible for most of the warming and that an enhanced Arctic signal is not readily evident.

  18. #18 Ian Forrester
    May 18, 2009

    Vernon, it has got nothing to do with apples and oranges but everything to do with cherries. You cherry pick just about everyone of your quotes.

  19. #19 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    Ian,

    How about you show how I misquoted the studies, how I misrepresented the studies, and how my conclusions are wrong? Just to be different, why not try some facts rather than your usual slander.

    This will be my last comment directed towards you till you start providing facts rather than insults.

  20. #20 Ian Forrester
    May 18, 2009

    Vernon said: “This will be my last comment directed towards you”.

    Please, please I hope Vernon is telling the truth at last.

  21. #21 luminous beauty
    May 18, 2009

    vern,

    Nice claim, now back it up. Where did I misinterpret the studies, follow that up with how my conclusions are unsupported.

    That’s what I’ve been doing. Redundantly, again and again.

  22. #22 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    LB,

    Nope, what you have done is say that you don’t like the methodology used in the studies. Further, you cherry pick that RegEM does better than the other method while ignoring the fact that neither accurately capture the full low frequency variation.

    You have not produced anything other than opinion on why the studies should be ignored.

  23. #23 Lee
    May 18, 2009

    Vernon quotes Further Serreze et al (2006)as this:

    “Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification.”

    It turns out this is from the abstract of Mark C. Serreze1 and Jennifer A. Francis, The Arctic Amplification Debate, in Climatic Change.

    But Vernon is quote mining – Serreze et al is saying nearly the opposite of what that mined quote implies. This is the full abstract from which he carefully pulled that quote:

    “Abstract Rises in surface air temperature (SAT) in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are expected to be amplified in northern high latitudes, with warming most pronounced over the Arctic Ocean owing to the loss of sea ice. Observations document recent warming, but an enhanced Arctic Ocean signal is not readily evident. This disparity, combined with varying model projections of SAT change, and large variability in observed SAT over the 20th century, may lead one to question the concept of Arctic amplification. Disparity is greatly reduced, however, if one compares observed trajectories to near-future simulations (2010–2029), rather than to the doubled-CO2 or late 21st century conditions that are typically cited. These near-future simulations document a preconditioning phase of Arctic amplification, characterized by the initial retreat and thinning of sea ice, with imprints of low-frequency variability. Observations show these same basic features, but with SATs over the Arctic Ocean still largely constrained by the insulating effects of the ice cover and thermal inertia of the upper ocean. Given the general consistency with model projections, we are likely near the threshold when absorption of solar radiation during summer limits ice growth the following autumn and winter, initiating a feedback leading to a substantial increase in Arctic Ocean SATs.”

    Vernon, with that kind of selective quoting, making it look like Serezze et al is saying the opposite of what it actually says, why should anyone believe a word you post?

  24. #24 luminous beauty
    May 18, 2009

    Further, you cherry pick that RegEM does better than the other method while ignoring the fact that neither accurately capture the full low frequency variation.

    …when increased noise is added to the pseudo-proxies, indicating only that methods of approximation are approximate (we knew that), PCA more than REGem. It’s conceptually possible to do better, but both methods are undeniably sound within a BCH, because, conversely, as the pseudo-data approximations of S/N approach that of real world data, they become more robust.

    You are making perfection the enemy of the pretty dang good.

  25. #25 Vernon
    May 18, 2009

    Lee,

    Read the study in depth. Their conclusion is that there is no Arctic amplification now but we could be getting ready for some. That is the point and they still make the Arctic is in pre-Arctic Amplification inSerreze et al (2009)

    http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&q=cache:75rom87kSU4J:www.the-cryosphere.net/3/11/2009/tc-3-11-2009.pdf+climate+models+polar+amplification

    That the sea ice cover is responding to the effects of GHG loading finds strong support from analysis of the IPCC-AR4 simulations (e.g., Stroeve et al., 2007). Whether the warming seen in the NCEP and JRA-25 data is still within the expected range of natural variability is unclear. That the Arcticis home to strong variability is well recognized. For example, a period of strong high-latitude warming occurred from about 1930 to 1940 (Polyakov et al., 2002; Overland et al.,2004). While likely in part associated with reduced ice cover(Bengtsson et al., 2004), sparse data precludes drawing firm conclusions.

    So that teams is says that sparse data precludes drawing firm conclusions. Which is his teams on going position, that polar amplification is coming but it is not here yet. That we cannot tell. So while he wants there to be polar amplification he is honest enough to admit that it may be coming but there is no proof on any now.

    Bitz et al (2006)

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~bitz/bitz_goosse.pdf

    Amplification of Arctic surface warming is a well known feature of climate model predictions for the mid and late 21st century. However, as of 2004, observed Arctic surface warming is not yet significantly higher than the whole northern hemisphere. Using historical runs and future scenarios to estimate trends and internal variability, we predict Arctic warming won’t be significantly greater than the northern hemisphere until at least 2020.

    So like Serreze, there is no Arctic amplification now but there will be some in the future.

  26. #26 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    Wrong, Vernon. They look at Arctic OCEAN air temps only – temps over the sea. We know that arctic onshore temps are showing moderate amplification – the temp record is clear. And the Serrezi paper looks at earctic SEA surface air temps, not arctic temps in general.

    They also show that what is happening in Arctic is what the models predict. Air temps are constrained by all that melting ice – duh.

    Do you realize that you are arguing that the models predict that there will be a lot of amplified arctic warming, we don’t see it, and these guys use models to show that we don’t expect to see that much warming yet? That you are using model results that predict the amount of arctic warming we are seeing now, to argue that the models are predicting too much warming?

    Get freaking real.

  27. #27 sod
    May 19, 2009

    There is no polar amplification. 4a. Artic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH as a whole. 4b. Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.

    this is simply a [false claim](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=04&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1988&year2=2008&base1=1958&base2=1978&radius=1200&pol=reg)

    why would you invent stuff, when you can simply look at reality with this nice NASA tool?

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

  28. #28 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    sod,

    why do you make dumb statements with out reading the studies? Bitz et al (2006) clearly says:

    Amplification of Arctic surface warming is a well known feature of climate model predictions for the mid and late 21st century. However, as of 2004, observed Arctic surface warming is not yet significantly higher than the whole northern hemisphere. Using historical runs and future scenarios to estimate trends and internal variability, we predict Arctic warming won’t be significantly greater than the northern hemisphere until at least 2020.

    Serreze et al (2006) and (2009) say that there is no current Arctic amplification but also says it is coming in the future.

    The fact is that the current Arctic warming is not significantly different from the Northern Hemisphere as a whole.

    About the nifty GISS maps, if you bothered to read the studies you would know as that the GISS anomoly baseline just happens to be during one of the two cold periods in the Arctic, so all warming looks exceptional. What is not discussed is that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s-40s. If you really want to cherry pick almost any long term trend in the Arctic that starts in the 30s or early 40s show cooling.

    The models call for Polar amplification yet to date, there has been none. Further, the Antarctic’s warmest period was also the 1930s-40s. The Antarctic like the Arctic had a cold period from the 50s-70s. Then the Antarctic differed from the Arctic by starting to cool. Don’t you find it odd that the only modern time with every part of the globe warming was during the 1930s-40s? That since then the Arctic and Antarctic have become out of sync with warming at one pole and cooling at the other?

    Basically, sod, the exceptional warming in the Arctic is an artifact, not reality. Change the base line to 1820-1950 and you would see cooling instead of warming. Don’t just look at the pictures, look at the why behind the pictures.

  29. #29 sod
    May 19, 2009

    About the nifty GISS maps, if you bothered to read the studies you would know as that the GISS anomoly baseline just happens to be during one of the two cold periods in the Arctic, so all warming looks exceptional. What is not discussed is that the Arctic was warmer during the 1930s-40s. If you really want to cherry pick almost any long term trend in the Arctic that starts in the 30s or early 40s show cooling.

    Vernon, please think and read before you post. there is no “GISS anomaly baseline” for those graphs. you can chose the base line as you want, in that great tool provided by NASA. please try it, before you judge it!!!

    you claimed cooling over the last 40 years. so i chose a baseline around 40 years ago, and a period up to now, to check your claim. of course your claim turned out to be FALSE.

    Basically, sod, the exceptional warming in the Arctic is an artifact, not reality. Change the base line to 1820-1950 and you would see cooling instead of warming. Don’t just look at the pictures, look at the why behind the pictures.

    no, there is [no arctic cooling](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=04&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1880&base2=1950&radius=1200&pol=reg) with such a baseline. (1880-1950. the dataset starts in 1880)

    will you please stop making false claims now?

  30. #30 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    sod,

    Ran the program for 1925 – 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Aisa. Who knew!

    If you really want to show something, set the smoothing to 250km. Then GISS shows the truth, mainly that they do not know what the termperature at the arctic is.

  31. #31 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon – bullcrap.
    “Ran the program for 1925 – 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Asia. Who knew!”

    I just ran it, 1925-1955 baseline, showing Annual J-D 1999-2008 anomoly, and nearly the entire Arctic is warming – with a couple of small spots that are neutral, and NO, NONE, NADA, ZIP, ZILCH areas of cooling north of the equator.

    None.

    Doyo think no one is going to check your claims, Vernon?

  32. #32 t_p_hamilton
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon shows incompetence:”Ran the program for 1925 – 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Aisa. Who knew!”

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

    The warmest time in the last century was the last decade. If you would like to stick with 30 year periods, then compare the 1979-2009 (note how this includes all these years of cooling lately – LOL) to 1925-1955 as a baseline. If what you say is true, then there should only be red in Siberia. Guess what? Vernon FAIL.

    Vernon said:”If you really want to show something, set the smoothing to 250km. Then GISS shows the truth, mainly that they do not know what the termperature at the arctic is.”

    By Vernonlogic, you don’t know what the global temperature is even if you have a thermometer every square inch, because who knows what the temperature is between them!

  33. #33 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    and I just repeated it, 1925-1955 baseline, land and ocean, 250km smoothing radius, 1999 – 2008 J-D anomaly. It’s a sea of orange and yellow, Vernon, for the entire effing globe, with the exception of the eastern half of the Pacific, which is neutral to slightly warming. And there is clearly apparent Arctic amplification.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

  34. #34 Ian Forrester
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon (#211) said: “Ian,

    If you bothered to read Polyakov et al (2003) you would know that the apparent higher temperature anomalies in the Arctic are due to picking a baseline that was one of the coldest periods during the century. The current warming has yet to exceed the 1930s – 40s warming.

    So, in a nutshell:

    1. Tree rings have issues that make them a poor temperature proxy.
    2. Non-tree ring reconstructions show greater temperature variability than tree ring reconstructions.
    3. All the methodologies have been found to under estimate low frequency temperature variability.
    4. There is no polar amplification. 4a. Artic is warming at only a slightly higher rate than the NH as a whole. 4b. Antarctic has been cooling for the last 40 years.

    So basically, the basis for the present warming being exceptional is not supported. The polar amplification that is called for is not happening. How much more has to not happen?”

    First of all what have treerings got to do with arctic amplification?

    Secondly you don’t know the difference between magnitude of something and its rate of change. Arctic amplification refers to rate of change not absolute amount of change. In case you don’t know what “rate of change” is it is the slope you see when you look at real scientific data (looked at any real data recently? I didn’t think so).

    I’ve been trying to get you to read good and honest papers for some time now.

    Here are a couple of reports which show that you are wrong:

    http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap1-2/sap1-2-final-report-all.pdf (read chapter 4 in particular)

    http://www.arcticwarming.net/science (click on “rapidly warming Arctic climate and the large projected changes”)

    These two reports, and many others show that arctic amplification is well underway and is not confined to models.

  35. #35 sod
    May 19, 2009

    Ran the program for 1925 – 1955 to cover the acutal warmest part time in the century and guess what! The Arctic is largely cooling now and the only warming is coming from the interior of Aisa. Who knew!

    your claim is false. again. here is the [map](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=04&sat=4&sst=0&type=anoms&mean_gen=0112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1925&base2=1955&radius=1200&pol=reg) of the last decade against a base of 1925-55.

    why don t you provide us with your map that shows arctic cooling?

    just use markdown, as described above the comments box to post the link.

    you have made 3 false claims about a base period now. will you finally admit to be wrong?

  36. #36 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2009

    See the MOVIE.

  37. #37 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    t_p_hamilton, you just jumped in without reading anything didn’t you. We are talking about the Arctic which was warmer during the 30s-40s. I would say “Buy a clue next time” but that would just be mean.

    sod, did you bother to turn the ocean on? I ran it with J-D, ocean on, baseline 1925-1955, polar view. Since we are talking climate and not weather, I did the 30 year trend from 1978-2008 and it shows that the Arctic is cooling. In fact, if you do a movie, it shows that warming is slowly moving toward the pole. Did the trend from 1956, 1960, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, etc and they all show the warming is higher in the lower latitudes than in the higher latitudes.

    That is my point, that there is no Polar Amplification. NASA GISS confirms it.

    The models predict Polar Amplification and there is not any.

    Now anyone want to address why the models, all models, predict Polar Amplification but it is not happening.

  38. #38 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon,

    That is my point, that there is no Polar Amplification. NASA GISS confirms it.

    You poor dear.

    Bless your pointy little head.

  39. #39 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon, I don’t know what the hell you are looking at, but it ain’t the same thing the rest of us are looking at.

    I just repeated teh exact same view you jus scribed.

    It shows cooling of 0.5 – 1 C over Greenland, and over a smaller patch in the Arctic ocean north of central russia. It shows warming of 0.5 – 1C over nearly half the Rrctic ocean, with the remainder beign neutral. It shows warming of 0.5 – 1C over all land masses north of the arctic circle except Greenland.

    Note that this is for the entire modern warming period, which means it it includes the late 70s, early 80, where modern warming is just taking off. Show the last `15 yeas, and it ic s clear that the warmest spots ae high N latitudes, some of the high S latitudes,a nd the alrgvge continental interiors.

    Vernon, you are simply wrong. Using the period 1925 – 1955 as baseline, we see clearly warmer arctic temperatures overall, and the warm anomaly becomes more pronounced in more recent years.

  40. #40 sod
    May 19, 2009

    . Since we are talking climate and not weather, I did the 30 year trend from 1978-2008 and it shows that the Arctic is cooling.

    i shall hereby name this rather common denialist tactic “the Loehle trick”.

    the very same people, who think that 2002 to 2008 gives a good climate trend, or who question the use of a global temperature in general, believe that a temperature average over the last 30 years is the best approximation of temperature TODAY that is available!

    of course it is just by chance, that including those 70s make temperature (today!!!) look rather low.

    ps: notice another common denialist approach: cherry picking the warmest base period available, after having accused the NASA of doing exactly that, when in fact they didn t do it…

  41. #41 Lee
    May 19, 2009

    LB @ 238:

    That graphic is stunning – wonder how Vernon is going to squirm now?

  42. #42 sod
    May 19, 2009

    That graphic is stunning – wonder how Vernon is going to squirm now?

    looking at his past performance, i don t expect any excuses.

    instead he will be using that graph to determine what base periods to use, when he gets into an argument about another zone… (a good one for [antarctic](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py) seems to be 1955 to 58…)

  43. #43 Former Skeptic
    May 19, 2009

    I can’t believe I wasted the better part of this afternoon reading through all the twists and turns, logical fallacies, falsehoods and overall shiftiness spouted by Vernon since post #65. I even bothered to d/l the references that he cited in #186 just to pick out his selective quote mining. That’s 4 hours I will never, ever get back again. EVER.

    LB, Lee, Chris O’N., Ian F., sod…I applaud your patience and general restraint. I’ve seen category 5 flame wars started for less in the old Usenet days.

    Now can we all just ignore this troll? Seriously, it’s not worth the effort.

  44. #44 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    I guess I will try this one more time. I forgot to mention that you need to put smoothing to 250km. Do it, run the program for any time period. There is almost no warming above the Arctic circle. Most the warming is south of the Arctic circle.

    Once you do this, please explain how GISS shows warming in the Arctic.

  45. #46 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    LB,

    Other than showing that the warmest period for the Arctic was in the 1930s-40s, what was I suppose to see. I already knew that. I also noted that the big point Hansen made was that the warming from 1980 on was different than the 30-40 warming. The 1980 warming was coming for the lower latitudes unlike the 30-40 warming that came from the poles.

    Lets think on that, in the 30-40 period, both Antarctica and Arctic were warming. There was more warming at the poles than at the lower latitudes. Does this start to sound what the models predicted for global warming? As Hansen pointed out, warming was not coming from the poles for the current warming. There is cooling in Antarctica and no Arctic amplification signal. This is not what the models predicted.

  46. #47 Ian Forrester
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon refuses to read any papers which show him out to be either mistaken or a liar. He has not commented on the two reports I cited which do show arctic amplification has occurred.

    Vernon, you are pathetic.

  47. #48 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    For the record, I am done talking to Ian. All he seems to do in any discussion is ad hom, name calling, general rudeness, etc. If he actually could participate in the discussion, I might possibly over look this. He does not and I will not.

  48. #49 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2009

    Vern,

    Yeah, Vern, polar temps were almost as warm as the mid-century period in 1986. They are only significantly warmer since about 2000. But significantly warmer they are now, in spite of so-called recent global cooling, eh?

    I linked the Hansen paper to aid you in understanding how the 1200km tele-connectivity is calculated, but, obviously, you need to have things spelled out to you slowly with small words and long pauses.

  49. #50 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2009

    vern,

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/time_series.html

    You’re blind, aren’t you?

  50. #51 Ian Forrester
    May 19, 2009

    In case any one is wondering, Vernon has had a case of extreme ad hominemitis over at Greenfyre’s. I have had a long discussion there and he continually attacked me with ad hominems.

    All I did was tell the truth and call him a liar :-) (which as anyone reading his posts here knows is in fact true therefore not an ad hominem)

    As you can see I think that I am correct in my assessment of Vernon and he is entirely wrong when he says “It would appear that you do not understand the science and just keep going to the advocacy sites for yet more talking points”. Or this: “I have come to believe that all you can do is call names since the science appears to be beyond you”.

    Maybe now he will crawl back into his hole and spend some time pondering on his arrogance, ignorance and rudeness.

    The science seems to be beyond Vernon now since he refuses to discuss the science I presented which shows him to be wrong, along with the postings of numerous others.

    Time to go and do some real science now but I won’t let the likes of Vernon spread their disinformation and misinterpretation of science though the blogsphere.

  51. #52 luminous beauty
    May 19, 2009

    For the record, I am done talking to Ian. All he seems to do in any discussion is ad hom, name calling, general rudeness, etc. If he actually could participate in the discussion, I might possibly over look this. He does not and I will not.

    Vernon, ‘pathetic’ is being kind.

  52. #53 t_p_hamilton
    May 19, 2009

    Vernon said:”tphamilton, you just jumped in without reading anything didn’t you. We are talking about the Arctic which was warmer during the 30s-40s. I would say “Buy a clue next time” but that would just be mean.”

    The arctic was not much warmer than now during the 30s-40s . It was warmer than the surrounding years, which is the reason you cherry-picked them (there were no significant volcanic eruptions). But you still fail, as a graph of 1999 to 2008 annual temperatures shows that the 30s and 40s arctic temperatures were nowhere near as warm as now.

    Vernon said:”For the record, I am done talking to Ian. All he seems to do in any discussion is ad hom, name calling, general rudeness, etc. If he actually could participate in the discussion, I might possibly over look this. He does not and I will not.”

    Vernon, you are a pathetic clown. Anybody who has been following the links sees that you are a liar. Sod has called you out:

    “why don t you provide us with your map that shows arctic cooling?

    just use markdown, as described above the comments box to post the link.

    you have made 3 false claims about a base period now. will you finally admit to be wrong?”

    The absence of a link from Vernon – priceless. Here’s mine:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2009&month_last=04&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=1112&year1=1999&year2=2008&base1=1925&base2=1955&radius=1200&pol=reg

    Sod also responded to one of Vernon’s cherry picking statements with:”i shall hereby name this rather common denialist tactic “the Loehle trick”.”

    Kind of funny that the published denialist papers are as pathetic as Vernons ineffectual manipulations.

    About Vernon’s suggestion to set smoothing to 250km, I notice that I am not able to set smoothing to 1 inch. What is GISS trying to hide? I demand an AUDIT!!!!!

  53. #54 Vernon
    May 19, 2009

    Even Hansen (1987) made a specific point about the fact that unlike the 30-40 warming which was stronger at the poles (Arctic and Antarctic) the late century warming started at the lower latitudes and moved towards the Arctic.

    And even looking that the pretty pictures, if you bothered to see where the Arctic circle was, you would see the the warming is south of it. If you did not set the program to smearing the warming from the lower latitudes into the Arctic.

    hamilton, you are a fool. If you bothered to read Hansen’s you might have a clue. Since you are fairly dense, by setting the smoothing to the higher resolution you can see where GISS actually has data and where they do not. For you I will put it simply, there are almost no weather stations in the Arctic. GISS does not know what the SAT of the Arctic is.

    Which brings me back to my main point. The current studies show that there is no current Arctic amplification. If your going to argue this point, then quit with the links to advocacy sites and power point shows. Peer reviewed studies only please.

  54. #55 Lee
    May 20, 2009

    Vernon, Hansen (1987) was TWENTY TWO FREAKING YEARS AGO!!!!

    You keep pretending that the 70s through the late 1980s are somehow equivalent to now.

    I agree with LB – Ian was being kind when he said you are pathetic.

  55. #56 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    And even looking that the pretty pictures, if you bothered to see where the Arctic circle was, you would see the the warming is south of it. If you did not set the program to smearing the warming from the lower latitudes into the Arctic.

    Vernon, could you please address in detail LB’s link at #250, with references and with working where appropriate.

  56. #57 Vernon
    May 20, 2009

    Lee,

    Get a grip and read the thread. luminous beauty #245 who presented that paper to show that I was wrong. I read the paper and pointed out that it did not disagree with my position.

    Bernard,

    as I have pointed out more than a few times. That GISS graphically shows in the Arctic is an artifact of Hansen’s 1200km smoothing.

  57. #58 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    So, how about Obama’s bill legislating 15 litres/km minimum requirement for USA vehicle efficiency? I am sure will have a few car owners seeing red…

  58. #59 t_p_hamilton
    May 20, 2009

    Vernon said:”Since you are fairly dense, by setting the smoothing to the higher resolution you can see where GISS actually has data and where they do not. For you I will put it simply, there are almost no weather stations in the Arctic. GISS does not know what the SAT of the Arctic is.”

    Since you are fairly dense, by setting the smoothing to 1 inch you can see where GISS actually has data and where they do not. For you I will put it simply, there are almost no weather stations one inch apart. GISS does not know what the SAT of the world is.

  59. #60 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    That GISS graphically shows in the Arctic is an artifact of Hansen’s 1200km smoothing

    I would be very interested to see how a “1200km smoothing” gives rise to the ‘[annual [latitudinal] zonal mean anomalies](http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/cdrar/do_LTmapE.py)’ plotted over the time period 1880-2009. Why should a “1200km smoothing” show warming progressing with time, and progressing with proximity to the poles?

    Comprehensive details, please.

  60. #61 Vernon
    May 20, 2009

    Bernard,

    Go to http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/ select include the ocean, set the baseline to 1925-1955 select 250km smoothing, use regular view, run map. See all the gray, that is areas that GISS has no data on. Rerun it with 1200km smoothing and you will see that the areas where GISS has no data on, now has warming. It is an artifact of the 1200km smoothing, not actual data.

    You should also run the map with the 250km smoothing for a polar view.

    Does that answer your question?

  61. #62 sod
    May 20, 2009

    Vernon, after running out of false “baseline” arguments, had to fall back to the “it is the (lack of) stations” line.

    as i see it, Vernon, just volunteered to fund accurate arctic temperature measurement in a 250 km (why not 100?) grid.

    special thanks to Vernon!

  62. #63 luminous beauty
    May 20, 2009

    Vern,

    Hansen, J.E., and S. Lebedeff, 1987: Global trends of measured surface air temperature. J. Geophys. Res., 92, 13345-13372.

    We analyze surface air temperature data from available meteorological stations with principal focus on the period 1880-1985. The temperature changes at mid- and high latitude stations separated by less than 1000 km are shown to be highly correlated.

    Interpolation has improved greatly since 1987.

    Just because you can blot out the sun with your thumb, doesn’t cause the sun to disappear.

  63. #64 luminous beauty
    May 20, 2009

    We should give Vern credit for mastering both the Baron von Münchausen trilemma and the Kruger-Dunning Effect, creating a singularly powerful synthesis.

    Vern, you should write a book. Title it, “The Perfection of Ignorance”.

  64. #65 Lee
    May 20, 2009

    Yes, Vernon, there are fewer stations in the far north than in the temperate regions of the planet.

    Those far-north stations, when one looks at their records, show clearly that stations in the far north have on average had much more warming than temperate stations. This is clear in the 250 km views, where you can clearly see that stations further north tend to have more warming. It is clear in the interpolated 1200km view, which uses the very high spatial correlation of temp anomaly to display the deduced the temp changes around the extant stations.

    This is arctic amplification, Vernon.

  65. #66 Lee
    May 20, 2009

    Vernon:
    “Lee,

    Get a grip and read the thread. luminous beauty #245 who presented that paper to show that I was wrong. I read the paper and pointed out that it did not disagree with my position.”

    Oh, good god…

    Vernon, LB cited that paper because it demonstrates high spatial correlation of temperature anomalies, especially at high latitudes. LB posted that in response to your tripe about 250/1200 km views. It seems that you are unable to discern the meaning of such simple and basic facts, clearly stated in Hansen (1987).

    LB did not post that paper to show what Hansen said about recent temperature trends – because 1987 is not recent, it is 22 FREAKING YEARS OLD. What Hansen said about recent temperatures 22 year ago is about temperatures a quarter century and more ago, and does not apply to recent temperatures now. But the demonstration of high spatial correlation DOES apply 22 years later – it is a general effect.

  66. #67 Bernard J.
    May 20, 2009

    Does that answer your question?

    No.

    Follow LB’s link at #250 (mine died), click the ‘show map’ button using the default settings, and re-read my question.

    I want to know how you explain the warming over time and latitude.

  67. #68 Vernon
    May 24, 2009

    Sorry for not answering sooner but I was on vacation. Anyway, to address the issues raised. First, the global warming predicts that there will be polar amplification. What Hansen, Serreze, Bitz, and Polyakov all show is that the warming in the current period started at the lower latitudes and moved only to the North Pole. In the warming in the 30-40s the warming started at the poles, both Arctic and Antarctic, and move towards the equator. Current theory says that for real global warming, the warming will be amplified at the poles and move to the equator. That did happen in the earlier warming but not in the current warming. In the current warming we have warming in the Arctic but cooling in the Antarctic.

    Now as to the GISS model. First, of you go and read up on how they do the magic, you would know that there is nearly no record of what the SST was for the Arctic. While Hansen has shown that met stations on land so correlation within 1000km, he makes no claim about land met stations and SST. In fact, he used Hadley Centers SST data originally until he switched to another source. However, there is not enough met stations or ships to know what the SST was. This can be seen if you do a polar view and set the smoothing to 250km.

    What the GISS tool does clearly show is that warming started in the low latitudes and moved North. It also shows that the warming is on the land and not SST of the Arctic.

    Lee, sorry, but polar amplification as expressed in current theory is that warming would express first at the Poles and move towards the equator. What can be clearly seen is that warming started in lower latitudes and moved to the pole.

    If I was unclear expressing this, then I am sorry.

Current ye@r *