Greenland Iceland and Svalbard
RUTI : Greenland Iceland and Svalbard
Fig1: Greenland. As for Scandinavia, blue stars indicates GHCN temperature stations and Green stars indicates Nordklim Stations. There is a good agreement in general between GHCN (and also Hadcrut) vs. Nordklim for Greenland, Iceland and Svalbard - just as we saw it for Scandinavia.
Fig 2. No doubt Greenland has been warmer than today in historc times, here wood samples that can be found today on the hill sides in the Scoresbysun area (origin around year 1000). We are very far from such warm conditions today, but as seen in RUTI in many places of the world, the previous warm peak 1925-45 is rather similar to the present warm peak.
Fig3. Using Appinsys i got the above temperature trend by making a raw average of unadjusted GHCN data.
I then divided Greenland into 3 areas West Greenland, East Greenland And South-East Greenland, see fig1, and added the Nordklim data sets. (When I have both GHCN and Nordklim data for a station i used the prolonged stitched graph)
Far most stations for the West Greenland area are located in a smaller area in the south, there fore when making a raw average for West Greenland, the Northern temperatre series was weighted 2 times in calculation.
Fig5. The Svalbard station is not used for calculating average, just for compare.
South East Greenland
Fig6. Nice to work with data so "robust".
Fig7. Until 2010, the recent warm period had not produced a warmer Greenland than seen in the 1925-45 warm peak. In Fig 7 we see a rather fair agreement between the 3 parts of Greenland. The black curve is a raw average (for now) of the 3 regions. The white curve is a 10-year averages graph. When including the very warm year 2010, only then did the 10 year average curve exceed the previous wam peak 1925.45.
I think that it is fair to say that the recent warm peak in Greenland is similar to the warm peak 1925.45, except for an extraordinary warm year 2010. Also, it is fair to mentionm that before 2002, temperatures where much colder on Greenland than in the 1925-45 period.
Fig 8. The shorter duration of the recent warm period shows more clearly when applying a 20-year average curve. So all in all, even after including the very warm year 2010, the present warm peak still has to produce several warm years on Greenland to be stronger than seen just 70 years ago.
Fig9. For Iceland, the temperature stations given by Nordklim does not add any years to the data already available from GHCN, on the contrary, there is substantially more data available from GHCN´s unadjusted catalogue:
Fig11. Unadjusted GHCN data from the 8 available stations of Iceland has the above average.
When splitting up east and west iceland, it appears that Western Iceland has larger warn peak around 1925-45 than Eastern Iceland:
As often seen in GHCN data, warm peaks are missing in some data graphs, but still, the difference east-west Is rather significant.
The Akkureyri station
Fig13. Only one single station available from GHCN (or any other source I have seen) is not located on the Atlantic coast, and this station is Akkureyri. The Iclandic Coastal stations are likely to be affected by ocean temperatures, and therefore it is not surpricing if the Akkureyri station shows some trends a little different from the other státions.
The question is obviously if in fact the Akkureyri station as only non-coastal station gives a hint of temperatures of the bulk of central Iceland temperature trends? Hard to say. But for sure, the Akkureyri station is important. This is why its sad to see that this station has been adjusted exactly in the years of the warm peak by Hadcrut, just as seen all over the world:
Fig14. What is much more unusual (!) is, that the Akkureyri data still present and available in unadjusted GHCN data does no longer match the present Nordklim version. DMI has sent data to Nordklim, but this time they sent another version than they sent originally to GHCN – or so it seems. DMI´s role in the available Danish temperature data is discussed in “RUTI Scandinavia” – a stunningly odd choice of stations where – like Iceland – the bulk of the inland is not represented.
Fig 15. Svalbard Luftavn combined from Nordklim and GHCN.
Kevin Trenberth to Michael Mann, Oct 12, 2009:
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
Kevin Trenberth to Tom Wigley, Oct 14, 2009
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where
energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not
close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is
happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as
we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.” -
Phil Jones to Michael Mann Feb 21, 2005:
The IPCC comes in for a lot of stick.
Leave it to you to delete as appropriate !
PS I'm getting hassled by a couple of people to release the CRU station temperature data.
Don't any of you three tell anybody that the UK has a Freedom of Information Act !
Tom Wigley to Phil Jones Sep 27, 2009:
If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean — but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.
I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
but we are still left with "why the blip".
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol
effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced
ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling
in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from
MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can
get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal
solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987
(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s
makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it
currently is not) — but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?
(SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I'd
appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tim Osborn to Michael Mann and Ian Macadam , Oct 5, 1999:
Dear Mike and Ian
Keith has asked me to send you a timeseries for the IPCC multi-proxy
reconstruction figure, to replace the one you currently have. The data are
attached to this e-mail. They go from 1402 to 1995, although we usually
stop the series in 1960 because of the recent non-temperature signal that
is superimposed on the tree-ring data that we use. I haven't put a 40-yr
smoothing through them - I thought it best if you were to do this to ensure
the same filter was used for all curves.
> For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually
>warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming
>is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth
>was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global
>mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of
>years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence
>for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that
>require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future
>background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be
>a good place to air these isssues.