A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
Obviously you both cannot be right, right?
Correct me if I am wrong, I am sure someone will anyway, but the GRACE satellites stopped collecting data in 2010 .
Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century.
A new paper published today by Science, from Thomas Karl and several co-authors, that removes the “hiatus” in global warming prompts many serious scientific questions.
The main claim by the authors that they have uncovered a significant recent warming trend is dubious. The significance level they report on their findings (.10) is hardly normative, and the use of it should prompt members of the scientific community to question the reasoning behind the use of such a lax standard.
In addition, the authors’ treatment of buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to create a warming trend. The data were adjusted upward by 0.12°C to make them “homogeneous” with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels.
As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and as such, never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose of the buoys. Adjusting good data upward to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data.
Indeed, there have been different opinions be some in the past.
Who are the ISCD ? What is the connection between your post and the GRACE satellite ?
Where did they get accurate information going back to 1880 for that graph ?
Ionus wrote:I've given the link to that publication. (The source for the graph is mentioned at the bottom of the pic, the link is above in my response.)Where did they get accurate information going back to 1880 for that graph ?
The sources used for "Figures 1 and 2"
28. T. M. Smith, R. W. Reynolds, T. C. Peterson, J. H. Lawrimore, Improvements to
NOAA's historical merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis (1880-
2006). J. Clim. 21, 2283–2296 (2008). doi:10.1175/2007JCLI2100.1
29. S. D. Woodruff, S. J. Worley, S. J. Lubker, Z. Ji, J. Eric Freeman, D. I. Berry, P.
Brohan, E. C. Kent, R. W. Reynolds, S. R. Smith, C. Wilkinson, ICOADS Release
2.5: Extensions and enhancements to the surface marine meteorological archive.
Int. J. Climatol. 31, 951–967 (2011). doi:10.1002/joc.2103
30. V. F. Banzon, R. W. Reynolds, T. Smith, The role of satellite data in extended
reconstruction of sea surface temperature. In: Proceedings: “Oceans from
Space” Venice 2010, V. Barale, J.F.R. Gower, L. B. Alberotanza, Eds (European
Commission, Venice, Italy, 2010), pp. 27-28.
31. R. S. Vose et al., NOAA’s merged land-ocean surface temperature analysis. Bull.
Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 1677–1685 (2012).
32. T. M. Smith, R. W. Reynolds, A global merged land air and sea surface
temperature reconstruction based on historical observations (1880–1997). J.
Clim. 18, 2021–2036 (2005). doi:10.1175/JCLI3362.1
33. D. L. Hartmann et al., Observations: Atmosphere and Surface Supplementary
Material. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, T. F. Stocker et al., Eds. (Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2013).
34. C. J. Willmott, S. G. Ackleson, R. E. Davis, J. J. Feddema, K. M. Klink, D. R.
Legates, J. O’Donnell, C. M. Rowe, Statistics for the Evaluation and Comparison
of Models. J. Geophys. Res. 90 (C5), 8995–9006 (1985).
35. E. M. A. Dodd, C. J. Merchant, N. A. Rayner, C. P. Morice, An Investigation into the
Impact of using Various Techniques to Estimate Arctic Surface Air Temperature
Anomalies. J. Clim. 28, 1743–1763 (2015). doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00250.1
36. B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, J. S. Boyle, D. J. Gaffen, J. J. Hnilo, D. Nychka, D. E.
Parker, K. E. Taylor, Statistical significance of trends and trend differences in
layer-average atmospheric temperature time series. J. Geophys. Res. 105 (D6),
7337–7356 (2000). doi:10.1029/1999JD901105
37. D. S. Wilks, Statistical Methods in the Atmospheric Sciences (Academic Press,
New York, ed. 2, 2006)
38. A. Arguez, T. R. Karl, M. F. Squires, R. S. Vose, Uncertainty in annual rankings
from NOAA's global temperature time series. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 5965–
5969 (2013). doi:10.1002/2013GL057999
the accuracy of data going back to 1880 requires suspended intelligence .