Mann-Made Warming In The Arctic
By Paul Homewood
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
Claims of “hottest evah” months are heavily dependent on much higher temperatures than usual in the Arctic. However, there is a big problem here, because there is very little actual data above the Arctic Circle, as NOAA admit below.
To get around this problem, GISS guess temperatures, based on stations up to 1200 km away.
The results GISS get from this, however, bear no resemblance to DMI’s calculation of Arctic temperatures, which are currently running close to the average (1958 to 2002).
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
There is a very good reason for this difference. The handful of temperature records that GISS have mainly tend to be coastal sites, and are therefore heavily influenced by maritime conditions. Less ice offshore, or a warm current from the south, can have a big effect on temperatures there.
These conditions don’t apply inland. Furthermore, it is well known that the temperature of air over sea ice tends not to rise much above freezing. The reason is that as the ice melts it draws heat from the air above it.
This effect can be clearly seen on any of the DMI charts during the summer months. For instance, in 1958 which was the first year recorded.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Pick any year, and you will find pretty much the same pattern, with actual temperatures closely following the green average line, barely above freezing.
If we look at the annual numbers, we find that, according to GISS, temperatures in the Arctic have been rising at a rate of 0.52C/decade since 1979.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Yet in comparison, UAH atmospheric temperatures have risen by less than half as much over the same period, 0.21C/decade.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0beta/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0beta5
RSS numbers tend to agree with UAH, though are slightly higher as they don’t go above 82N.
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
It is hard not to conclude that GISS are grossly overestimating Arctic temperatures.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
There are a number of weather stations around the Arctic Circle, and they show similar trends to northern Europe, in other words, no Arctic amplification there.
https://rclutz.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/arctic-europe-paper-2015fig1rev.jpg?w=1125&h=1103
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/arctic-warming-unalarming/
Thanks for this data.
Taking GISS 0.52/decade and UAH at 0.21/decade, the difference is 0.31/decade.
Multiplied over the approx 4 decades of measurements that’s about a 1.2C overestimate.
And when you add “homogenising” as a variable (but almost always warmer) fudge factor, “excessive” Arctic warming is a given.
AMO and Arctic warming is negative North Atlantic Oscillation driven, while rising CO2 increases positive NAO, which cools the Arctic. It’s the best measure on the planet for how little that rising CO2 has increased forcing of the climate.
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News.
I’ve been noticing the same thing watching the Arctic temperatures every day at a couple of web sites that include drifting buoy reports. The temperatures in the Arctic Ocean over water or ice show little variation and remain close to freezing within plus or minus about 2C most of the time. I have noticed a couple of problem buoys that appear to have sensors that are improperly shielded and/or aspirated which are showing as high a about 15C at times, most likely when there are no clouds and the sun is beaming on the sensor for 24 hours a day in the summer. I don’t know if these observations are included in the DMI Arctic temperature estimates, but if they are, they would cause it to be biased a bit high at times. Below are links to the temperature data plots that I view most days. Both sites also have historical data for comparison. The OGIMET plot can be used for the Antarctic as well.
OGIMET synoptic observations (click the map to bring up the area of interest and then click temperature in the table below the map to see the latest plot(updated every 6 hours):
http://www.ogimet.com/gsynop_nav.phtml.en
NOAA for North America portion of the Arctic (updated every 3 hours):
http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/html/sfc-zoom.php
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Mann-made Arctic temps – fundamental to the global warming NASA/NOAA GISS-temp fraud.
Obviously the vast number of thermometer distributed evenly over the land and seas of the Arctic circle must be reading this huge temperature rise.
/sarc off
Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.
It appears that the GISS and UAH graphs show a cooling trend since about 2005.
In recent days I have been putting together some analyse that I have been doing on arctic temperatures. These are related to long-term trends in mean annual temperature based on historical (thermometer) observations at ten locations in northern Canada, Greenland, Norway and Russia. All are at latitudes exceeding 75 deg N.
Cyclical trends are apparent as at lower latitude stations. Highs around 1950 and 2010, with a Low around 1980 are typical. The 2010 mean annual temps are around 1 deg C higher than in 1950 and around 2 deg C higher than in 1980. These trends are more variable that in other, lower latitude, regions but I don’t see any alarming trends in recent years.
My blog also has the results of similar analyses for Alaska, Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Scandinavia and Russia.
Although I appreciate why some people want to know the “world” or regional average temperature trends, I have avoided this. Infilling missing data and guessing what happens between recording stations introduces many assumptions which I would prefer to avoid. To me the comparison of recorded historical data at specific locations (stations) is more meaningful in assessing whether or not climate change is a serious problem.
Latest book and documentary.
‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.
http://www.drtimball.com
Paul I have a problem with this line “up to 1200 km away”
“upto” is a weasel word used by PR journos to mislead you into thinking the average is the large number when actually it’s way lower
In this case it would better to use something like
“GISS guess temperatures, based on stations far away varying from 750Km (??) to 1200 km away
That’s how GISS themselves describe it, Stew
OK then that is a quotation showing their imprecision.
Regarding interpolation based on stations up to 1200 km away:
I commented last yearTemperature Adjustments In The Canadian Arctic – some supplementary information for a comment illustrating the effect witholding data for a single station from Gistemp can have on the Gistemp monthly gridded output. Your post last year is linked in my “supplementary information” post.
Just to make clear – my post shows GISS land temperature data only, not GISS LOTI. GISS adjust the land temperatures only, and combine with ERSST ocean data without further adjustment.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Cooking the books again/still!
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.