Scandanaviagate?

[asjmcguire]

An article on Climategate says that a Scandinavian scientist has demonstrated that a period of cooling between the 1930s - 1950s is not shown on the IPCC graphs..

http://www.climategate.com/scandinavia-gate-climate-cooling-but-scientists-hide-the-decline

[Solar Cycles]

An article on Climategate says that a Scandinavian scientist has demonstrated that a period of cooling between the 1930s - 1950s is not shown on the IPCC graphs..

http://www.climatega...ide-the-decline

Oh dear, the plot thickens!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

According to the article, the 1930s/40s being warmer than the present era and subsequent cooling to the 1950s was specific to Scandinavia and not global.

Dr. Karlén has debunked the fraud of the IPCC

Our conclusion: time to kill off the IPCC and finally bury the great global warming con.

The credibility of the site's arguments aren't helped by statements like those. However, that doesn't mean that the arguments should be dismissed without any proof-checking. The original source appears to be this:

http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/scandinavian-temperatures-ipccacutes--scandinavia-gate--123.php

I would like to know the source of this "IPCC graph of Scandinavian temperatures" which hides the warmth of the 1930s/40s as I don't think the IPCC Report actually addresses such small areas of the globe. If it is representative as opposed to being another straw man, then they have a point, but not as strong a point as they make it out to be. The graphs for the Scandinavian countries:

http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Scandinavian/ScandinavianCountries.jpg

...suggest that the 1930s/40s were comparably warm to the present era, not warmer than it.

And this graph of Denmark's temperature is laughable:

http://hidethedecline.eu/media/Scandinavian/DMI.jpg

The blue line is apparently supposed to have hidden the "real" trend which is the black line. The reality is that the black line uses a period that has been deliberately cherry-picked to give the largest possible negative trend.

Averaged globally, btw, the HadCRUT, NCDC and GISS datasets all show a cooling between 1940 and 1970, and the IPCC tend to quote global temperatures from those three sources, so it's hardly as if the IPCC are unaware that temperatures fell during that period.

[asjmcguire]

The graph shown on the site appears to be a cropped version of fig 9-12 from the Fourth Assessment Report -

This is the graph:

http://www.ipcc.ch/g...pg/fig-9-12.jpg

EDIT: Whilst I am quite happy to post these articles - it does not mean I necessarily believe them.

This is the Climate Change section of the forum, and these articles purport to be about that topic - so I am reposting them simply for members to debate them.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Andrew Simon Jones

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thanks for that- so unless there are holes in the temperature datasets for Scandinavia presented on that site, it looks like the IPCC's "best guess" estimates (note the uncertainty bounds) for Scandinavia's temperatures in the 1930s/1940s was wrong. If so, I don't think it's another fiasco like "Climategate" or the Himalayas exaggeration, but an example of them making a misjudgement for whatever reasons.

[asjmcguire]

Thanks for that- so unless there are holes in the temperature datasets for Scandinavia presented on that site, it looks like the IPCC's "best guess" estimates (note the uncertainty bounds) for Scandinavia's temperatures in the 1930s/1940s was wrong. If so, I don't think it's another fiasco like "Climategate" or the Himalayas exaggeration, but an example of them making a misjudgement for whatever reasons.

Thanks for your thoughts

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Mis-judgement or the warming bias that the former chairman wants investigated?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think confirmation bias regarding AGW is indeed one of the possible reasons why this kind of error can arise.

I'm stopping short of passing absolute judgement here because I don't know how reliable Dr. Karlens's work is, it may be that he might have committed some errors himself. However the IPCC are certainly not foolproof as a few recent mis-predictions in their summaries have indicated. I think in general, if a group of any kind already has in mind what the conclusion of the work should be (in this case, "AGW is serious and the politicians need to take action") it's all too easy to accidentally "assume the answer to prove the answer".

Edited February 15, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[Iceberg]

Before you start Believing everything that Dr Karlen says over the IPCC, it might be worth seeing what some of the Scandinavian met centres say about their own climate over the last 100 years, unless of course they are wrong just like the IPCC and Dr Karlen, retired oil cretin who has been on every skeptic note going, is right.

These graphs don't match anything I've ever seen produced and certaintly look nothing like what for example the Norway Met think is right.

http://met.no/Klima/Klimautvikling/Klima_siste_150_ar/

Sorry Andrew not against you in anyway, but there about 50 inderviduals IMO that produce about 90% of the inaccuracies on the internet concerning climate, after awhile you get board disproving what they are saying.....If the skeptics like this want to be taken seriously they really have to backup what they saying(and not with a few randomly chosen sites), to prove that everybody else is wrong and they are right.

If course atm, any anti IPCC story is now given the greenlight.

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe it's like the 1998 thing with 1940 being chosen as the start point and the scale being 'exaggerated' to emphasise a downward trend?

I'm a great believer in a human induced 'cooled period' and think it no coincidence that it started with the Jet age.

We have many Skeptic calling for more info on cloud feedbacks but none calling for human cloud feedback studies. The 3 days after 9/11 in the U.S. helps show us the scale of the impacts of high level aircraft con -trails yet it seems another 'boom' area for humanity with ever more flights taking to the skies.

I wonder if anyone has worked out a ball park figure for their impacts so we can add back in (cumulative) the temps that have been lost to aircraft pollution?

[Solar Cycles]

Maybe it's like the 1998 thing with 1940 being chosen as the start point and the scale being 'exaggerated' to emphasise a downward trend?

I'm a great believer in a human induced 'cooled period' and think it no coincidence that it started with the Jet age.

We have many Skeptic calling for more info on cloud feedbacks but none calling for human cloud feedback studies. The 3 days after 9/11 in the U.S. helps show us the scale of the impacts of high level aircraft con -trails yet it seems another 'boom' area for humanity with ever more flights taking to the skies.

I wonder if anyone has worked out a ball park figure for their impacts so we can add back in (cumulative) the temps that have been lost to aircraft pollution?

Interesting point you raise there GW, regarding cooling and the Jet age. I wonder if anyone has found a correlation between the two?

[johnholmes]

As with most things there is conflicting evidence-some suggesting lower temperatures-others suggesting no change.

What would have been interesting is, after 9/11, and the grounding of all flights over the USA, if anyone had shown max temp values compared to on the day and the previous week. That is once they had smoothed out any obvious changes due to air mass changes.

My own view is that I'm not convinced that contrails can have enough effect over a large enough area to affect the surface temperatures to any measurable degree but I stand to be corrected if anyone can show me proof that it does occur.

[Solar Cycles]

As with most things there is conflicting evidence-some suggesting lower temperatures-others suggesting no change.

What would have been interesting is, after 9/11, and the grounding of all flights over the USA, if anyone had shown max temp values compared to on the day and the previous week. That is once they had smoothed out any obvious changes due to air mass changes.

My own view is that I'm not convinced that contrails can have enough effect over a large enough area to affect the surface temperatures to any measurable degree but I stand to be corrected if anyone can show me proof that it does occur.

I'll have a trawl of the net to see if I can find anything. I too find it unlikely, that contrails could effect a large enough area to affect surface temps.

Here we go c026p001.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Well I know it can impact our location as the traffic heading up to Lockerbie (for their turn into the Atlantic) can scape a good few degrees off our summer temps.

It's back to that butterflies wing beat again isn't it?

Here's a piccie of Ship pollution off Alaska taken from one of the Modis Sats.

Edited February 16, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Essan]

The consensus is still that overall contrails produce a net warming, albeit not much. They certainly reduce sunshine though and whether they lead to warming or cooling in any specific area may well vary. Not sure on ship trails or what studies have been carried out on them. There's also anthropogenic cooling from sulphur emissions, Brown Clouds and some landuse change (affecting albedo - afforestation in higher latitudes, for example)

[Gray-Wolf]

I do know that ships are one , if not the, dirtiest polluter. The 'black carbon' issue and smoke stack emissions are not unrelated. The number of 'cruise' ships taking a peek at Greenland and the high arctic is not helping there seeing as they coat the ice in spring/summer when it is not covered over easily.

[johnholmes]

Well I know it can impact our location as the traffic heading up to Lockerbie (for their turn into the Atlantic) can scape a good few degrees off our summer temps.

that statement GW is a comment with no basis of fact I'm afraid.

How do you know it 'can impact'...scape a good few degrees of our...'

that really is beyond scientific reasoning I'm afraid.

If you can produce eveidence then I'll have to believe it, but 'a good few degrees'

come on?

1c , 3c, 5c I doubt even the first one!

I do know that ships are one , if not the, dirtiest polluter. The 'black carbon' issue and smoke stack emissions are not unrelated. The number of 'cruise' ships taking a peek at Greenland and the high arctic is not helping there seeing as they coat the ice in spring/summer when it is not covered over easily.

that is anoher sweeping statement GW-proof please that their emissions are 'not helping', how much pollution has been recorded by the observing stations in the Greenland or Arctic areas please?

[Thundery wintry showers]

As with most things there is conflicting evidence-some suggesting lower temperatures-others suggesting no change.

What would have been interesting is, after 9/11, and the grounding of all flights over the USA, if anyone had shown max temp values compared to on the day and the previous week. That is once they had smoothed out any obvious changes due to air mass changes.

My own view is that I'm not convinced that contrails can have enough effect over a large enough area to affect the surface temperatures to any measurable degree but I stand to be corrected if anyone can show me proof that it does occur.

I remember a study (peer-reviewed and all) which looked at temperatures over the USA following the fiasco of 11th September 2001, and it suggested that the removal of the aircraft-generated contrails were associated with a 1.1C rise in the mean diurnal range.

There's a discussion of it here, although we must always beware of the fact that correlation doesn't always mean causation:

http://guillouj.blogspot.com/2009/11/jet-contrails-alter-average-daily_28.html

[johnholmes]

I remember a study (peer-reviewed and all) which looked at temperatures over the USA following the fiasco of 11th September 2001, and it suggested that the removal of the aircraft-generated contrails were associated with a 1.1C rise in the mean diurnal range.

There's a discussion of it here, although we must always beware of the fact that correlation doesn't always mean causation:

http://guillouj.blog...e-daily_28.html

Its fine as far as it goes Ian. But, what they did not do was apply any necessary correction needed for the actual weather patterns through the 3 days. Something that must be done and in the link provided above is talked about.

So I'm yet to be convinced that there was a rise of 1.1C due to lack of aircraft contrails. Had they done a similar check over areas where aircraft were still flying and as close as possible to the USA-like Canada and Mexico which they mention, then I would be more inclined to believe their paper?

[Essan]

that is anoher sweeping statement GW-proof please that their emissions are 'not helping', how much pollution has been recorded by the observing stations in the Greenland or Arctic areas please?

Surely it stands to reason they're 'not helping'? Unless you think such ships reduce climate change? The effect may be miniscule but it's still there. btw I also wonder whether icebreakers have an effect - breaking up sea ice that would otherwise remain intact?

[johnholmes]

hi Essan

I was not trying to say that they are not having any effect, however small, simply trying to get GW to provide some factual evidence to support that point.

[osmposm]

The graph shown on the site appears to be a cropped version of fig 9-12 from the Fourth Assessment Report -

This is the graph:

http://www.ipcc.ch/g...pg/fig-9-12.jpg

Thanks for that- so unless there are holes in the temperature datasets for Scandinavia presented on that site, it looks like the IPCC's "best guess" estimates (note the uncertainty bounds) for Scandinavia's temperatures in the 1930s/1940s was wrong. If so, I don't think it's another fiasco like "Climategate" or the Himalayas exaggeration, but an example of them making a misjudgement for whatever reasons.

(Click to enlarge)

I'm confused. Surely the IPCC graph that is being compared against Scandinavian temps is for all of Northern Europe - that's why it's called "NEU"? It is confusingly positioned over Scandinavia, certainly, but the only other graph the IPCC shows for Europe on the map from which the graph comes is placed over the Mediterranean and is called "SEM". I presume, therefore, that "SEM" is the temp graph for Southern Europe and the Med, and "NEU" is the graph for all of Northern Europe, including the British Isles, Germany, Poland, the Baltic States, European Russia, the Netherlands, Northern France, etc etc - not just Scandinavia. What is the point in comparing this with a graph for Scandinavia alone? Why would anyone expect them to be the same? And besides, the (very rough) IPCC graph DOES show a cooling in the relevant period, especially between c1950 & c1980, though unsurprisingly different to that in Scandinavia alone. And as TWS says, nobody has ever pretended that there was no cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the years after 1940 - indeed it is a subject that has been much discussed, and very publicly.

I don't really understand what the problem is supposed to be. Can anyone enlighten me, am I being dense? Or indeed am I completely wrong about the area the IPCC graph shows temps for?

Edited February 17, 2010 by osmposm

[pottyprof]

hi Essan

I was not trying to say that they are not having any effect, however small, simply trying to get GW to provide some factual evidence to support that point.

Maybe I shouldn't say this John.. But with some people you can ask til the cows come home.

No doubt you'll get some sort of reply but unless you can decode it, you'll finally find your answer as we approach the end of the the solar system....

That said John.. I agree.. It would be fantastic to see a straight post from GW without the encryption.. What a fantastic idea!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

so unless there are holes in the temperature datasets for Scandinavia presented on that site

I'm stopping short of passing absolute judgement here because I don't know how reliable Dr. Karlens's work is, it may be that he might have committed some errors himself.

Just as well I put those statements of doubt in when suggesting that the IPCC may be prone to a bit of confirmation bias here and there, because it's appearing that Dr. Karlsen's work may be being mis-represented or even may be misrepresentative itself...

Of course if this analysis of Dr. Karlsen's work proves to be flawed it doesn't show the IPCC to be flawless- far from it- but it's also important not to criticise the IPCC for specific mistakes that they might not have made.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html

http://www.contrails.nl/contrails-research/temperature%2002.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3288003.stm

http://www.areco.org/minnis.pdf

There is a swathe of research out there John ,just seems a little dated?

As for ships pollution;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

Recent newspaper report with some chilling figures.

(p.s. sorry I've been delayed.....1/2 term madness has decended!!!)