I take a look at land surface temperature for the Antarctic continent to find rather patchy data and a situation that is being shamelessly exploited by the alarmist press
Very illuminating. I hadn't given proper thought to the difficulty of obtaining readings in such extreme conditions nor to the question of location, despite being well aware of location as a critical factor in more benign environments. Now you have pointed this out it is so obvious that I will need to have a talk to myself to find out how I failed to think critically. I look forward to learning more.
Huge thanks for alerting me to this temp series! The GHCN-d record starts in 1957 but at least it runs to 2023. I have just this minute discovered that the GHCN-m record runs from 1904 to 2019 so I'll be running queries for all bases to see if the monthly submissions from these stations is more reliable. If so I'll start all over again - aaarrggh! As regards why they stopped updating in 2007 would it surprise you to learn that mean annual temperature went into a steady state from then onward? I'll be covering this in a future article.
A good question Dave, and one that sprung immediately to mind when I started clocking just how low the annual means for some stations go. I'll do a bit of digging but you may beat me to it because man-chores now beckon and I've just discovered the GHCN-M data series extends further back in time for some stations, so I'll be running queries and prepping a follow-on article as fast as my fingers will allow!
It amazes me the work you do purely out of interest.
As someone with very limited understanding in scientific and technical areas I tend to rely on argument back and forth between those who disagree to try to work out what's what so I wonder, John, if you have engaged with climate scientists with your statistical analyses?
When I was first alerted to the alleged climate change emergency around 2008 I really thought I gave both sides of the argument a fair hearing and determined that the deniers didn't have a good argument. However, in the last decade or so having become more and more disillusioned with all the lies I've discovered we've been told I've simply lost interest - not that I've changed my mind on man-made climate change being a situation we need to address urgently because I simply haven't revisited but I certainly don't feel any trust in scientists since the mind-blowing medical fraud I've discovered with the covid psyop (not just covid but so many other things) and I'm wondering if I was somehow bamboozled by climate science, especially considering my limited capacity to understand it.
This is a study published this month on Greenland and Antarctic icesheet melt. It's beyond me but I thought this was an interesting paragraph in the Conclusions and Outlook. It says melt has increased by about 30% on the Greenland icesheets but no melt trend has been observed in the Antarctic icesheets since 1979. As no melt trend is observed in the Antarctic one I'm a bit puzzled by the last sentence speaking of a 10-fold increase in melt by 2100 but perhaps the reasons are indicated in the study.
"Because these in-situ observations are scarce, hindcasts using satellites and regional climate models must be used to fill the gaps in space and time and assess the melt ‘climate’. These show that melt has increased by ~30% on the GrIS since the mid-1990s, while no obvious melt trend is found for the AIS since 1979, in line with [94]. A recently reached milestone is that historical melt rate, trends and variability on both ice sheets can be well reconstructed using a combination of an unconstrained earth system model with a polar regional climate model. This clears the way for credible projections of future ice sheet surface melt. We present an example for a fossil-fuelled development scenario, which results in a five- (GrIS) to tenfold (AIS) increase in surface melt towards 2100."
Climate is the same, people same strategies as covid.. I have watched it for 30 years it’s been lies all the time.. they want a problem to make money are more control..
Their histories are not the same though. From Day One government and media spoke as a unified voice on covid whereas the voice on climate change has changed considerably. In Australia, around the time I became aware of the subject, a sizeable number of politicians were vociferous against it (and a few still are) and right-wing media certainly wasn't behind it. It's only in the last few years that the voices have become much more unified. Covid was an obvious psyop whereas climate change doesn't betray typical psyop signs ... well, it does in limited pockets but you will always have psyops connected with absolutely everything. This isn't to say that there really is an emergency or that emergency or not they will try to massively control us with it but it's certainly not a typical psyop like covid.
Yes there was more decent but for many years there has been similar tactics to silence rivals and funding denied to honest researchers and the rest so hungry for funds they don’t question the narrative.. When you see Covid as a a succession of “pandemic” with SARS 1, MERs HINI influenza you see both have progressed the Pysop.. over the years and the common theme has been removal of dissenters, putting key people in place the UN/who Gates etc, false tampered data ..the other commonality is the goal of world government using Marxist communist strategies… to use
I'll be covering Greenland in a future series. The ice mass balance there is not measured but modelled and the models enshrine man-made global warming. They will sometimes predict nonsense melt as well as nonsense gain. Here's a couple of short notes I made...
Thanks, John. Just to say the two links are to the same document on Greenland or perhaps you only wanted to put the one link in any case?
Your work is so impressive. Do you engage with climate scientists and point out your observations such as seasonal maximum and minimum ice melt moving earlier and maintenance of sea ice level with increased landlocked ice melt being compatible with subglacial volcanic activity but not AGW? Have you made comments on the Skeptical Science site?
Darn! I've edited the comment which now shows the correct links. I have various folk who feed my work into the science arena since I prefer not to preach. I wasted a great deal of time 2017 - 2019 debating matters but it got me nowhere apart from frustrated.
Are seasonal ice melt minima and maxima on the Greenland ice sheets moving earlier?
Answer:
Yes, seasonal ice melt minima and maxima on the Greenland ice sheet are moving earlier. Scientific studies have shown that over the past few decades, the timing of the onset and peak of the melting season on the Greenland ice sheet has shifted earlier in the year. This trend is attributed to rising temperatures and climate change, which affect the timing and intensity of ice melt. Earlier melting can have significant implications for sea level rise and the overall stability of the Greenland ice sheet.
I don't think it matters what you put into ChatGPT it'll tell you all roads lead to AGW!
We have to remember that ChatGPT cannot think for itself nor create new knowledge and merely assembles what exists. What exists is 100% pure AGW. I note it hasn't picked up the subtle distinction between phase shift and early onset of seasonal warming. If nobody has commented on this that much then it will be knowledge ChatGPT cannot parse.
Love it. This is an absolutely brilliant approach. Like most brilliant things, it's obvious when somebody tells you . . . but is none the less brilliant for that. I know the answer, but why don't 'The Authorities' do this?
I might be wrong, but it could appear that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been doing very bad things and their 'data' isn't at all what it seems. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" & that kind of stuff.
The BOM is bonking the data for sure but they're not the only ones. The rot set in big time 1986 - 1998 when science on a global basis became what we called "cheque book science". During this period professorships and PhDs were being awarded to the 'right' sort of people and money was diverted to institutes that were willing to promote the 'right' ideas. I was involved in high level Cabinet meetings and served as a grant award referee for the SERC that was, so saw the chicanery from the inside. Real science died back then so all we have today is the stench of a corpse.
Very illuminating. I hadn't given proper thought to the difficulty of obtaining readings in such extreme conditions nor to the question of location, despite being well aware of location as a critical factor in more benign environments. Now you have pointed this out it is so obvious that I will need to have a talk to myself to find out how I failed to think critically. I look forward to learning more.
There’s an extensive description of the climate at Orcadas Base on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcadas_Base
It’s almost as if they’re expecting lots of tourists.
That plot of mean temperatures 1901 to 2007 starts lower left and ends upper right. I wonder why they haven’t updated it since 2007.
Huge thanks for alerting me to this temp series! The GHCN-d record starts in 1957 but at least it runs to 2023. I have just this minute discovered that the GHCN-m record runs from 1904 to 2019 so I'll be running queries for all bases to see if the monthly submissions from these stations is more reliable. If so I'll start all over again - aaarrggh! As regards why they stopped updating in 2007 would it surprise you to learn that mean annual temperature went into a steady state from then onward? I'll be covering this in a future article.
What sort of thermometers have been used to measure such low temperatures?
A good question Dave, and one that sprung immediately to mind when I started clocking just how low the annual means for some stations go. I'll do a bit of digging but you may beat me to it because man-chores now beckon and I've just discovered the GHCN-M data series extends further back in time for some stations, so I'll be running queries and prepping a follow-on article as fast as my fingers will allow!
It amazes me the work you do purely out of interest.
As someone with very limited understanding in scientific and technical areas I tend to rely on argument back and forth between those who disagree to try to work out what's what so I wonder, John, if you have engaged with climate scientists with your statistical analyses?
When I was first alerted to the alleged climate change emergency around 2008 I really thought I gave both sides of the argument a fair hearing and determined that the deniers didn't have a good argument. However, in the last decade or so having become more and more disillusioned with all the lies I've discovered we've been told I've simply lost interest - not that I've changed my mind on man-made climate change being a situation we need to address urgently because I simply haven't revisited but I certainly don't feel any trust in scientists since the mind-blowing medical fraud I've discovered with the covid psyop (not just covid but so many other things) and I'm wondering if I was somehow bamboozled by climate science, especially considering my limited capacity to understand it.
This is a study published this month on Greenland and Antarctic icesheet melt. It's beyond me but I thought this was an interesting paragraph in the Conclusions and Outlook. It says melt has increased by about 30% on the Greenland icesheets but no melt trend has been observed in the Antarctic icesheets since 1979. As no melt trend is observed in the Antarctic one I'm a bit puzzled by the last sentence speaking of a 10-fold increase in melt by 2100 but perhaps the reasons are indicated in the study.
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000203#sec011
"Because these in-situ observations are scarce, hindcasts using satellites and regional climate models must be used to fill the gaps in space and time and assess the melt ‘climate’. These show that melt has increased by ~30% on the GrIS since the mid-1990s, while no obvious melt trend is found for the AIS since 1979, in line with [94]. A recently reached milestone is that historical melt rate, trends and variability on both ice sheets can be well reconstructed using a combination of an unconstrained earth system model with a polar regional climate model. This clears the way for credible projections of future ice sheet surface melt. We present an example for a fossil-fuelled development scenario, which results in a five- (GrIS) to tenfold (AIS) increase in surface melt towards 2100."
I wonder if you'd care to comment?
Climate is the same, people same strategies as covid.. I have watched it for 30 years it’s been lies all the time.. they want a problem to make money are more control..
Their histories are not the same though. From Day One government and media spoke as a unified voice on covid whereas the voice on climate change has changed considerably. In Australia, around the time I became aware of the subject, a sizeable number of politicians were vociferous against it (and a few still are) and right-wing media certainly wasn't behind it. It's only in the last few years that the voices have become much more unified. Covid was an obvious psyop whereas climate change doesn't betray typical psyop signs ... well, it does in limited pockets but you will always have psyops connected with absolutely everything. This isn't to say that there really is an emergency or that emergency or not they will try to massively control us with it but it's certainly not a typical psyop like covid.
Yes there was more decent but for many years there has been similar tactics to silence rivals and funding denied to honest researchers and the rest so hungry for funds they don’t question the narrative.. When you see Covid as a a succession of “pandemic” with SARS 1, MERs HINI influenza you see both have progressed the Pysop.. over the years and the common theme has been removal of dissenters, putting key people in place the UN/who Gates etc, false tampered data ..the other commonality is the goal of world government using Marxist communist strategies… to use
I'll be covering Greenland in a future series. The ice mass balance there is not measured but modelled and the models enshrine man-made global warming. They will sometimes predict nonsense melt as well as nonsense gain. Here's a couple of short notes I made...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AcpVga5tc6NxEaB105ufyD5aqJFmAlY5/view?usp=share_link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RcRO-AtdejHKs23DYNwYzDZknHWKL6NQ/view?usp=share_link
Thanks, John. Just to say the two links are to the same document on Greenland or perhaps you only wanted to put the one link in any case?
Your work is so impressive. Do you engage with climate scientists and point out your observations such as seasonal maximum and minimum ice melt moving earlier and maintenance of sea ice level with increased landlocked ice melt being compatible with subglacial volcanic activity but not AGW? Have you made comments on the Skeptical Science site?
Darn! I've edited the comment which now shows the correct links. I have various folk who feed my work into the science arena since I prefer not to preach. I wasted a great deal of time 2017 - 2019 debating matters but it got me nowhere apart from frustrated.
I just put this question into ChatGPT:
Are seasonal ice melt minima and maxima on the Greenland ice sheets moving earlier?
Answer:
Yes, seasonal ice melt minima and maxima on the Greenland ice sheet are moving earlier. Scientific studies have shown that over the past few decades, the timing of the onset and peak of the melting season on the Greenland ice sheet has shifted earlier in the year. This trend is attributed to rising temperatures and climate change, which affect the timing and intensity of ice melt. Earlier melting can have significant implications for sea level rise and the overall stability of the Greenland ice sheet.
I don't think it matters what you put into ChatGPT it'll tell you all roads lead to AGW!
We have to remember that ChatGPT cannot think for itself nor create new knowledge and merely assembles what exists. What exists is 100% pure AGW. I note it hasn't picked up the subtle distinction between phase shift and early onset of seasonal warming. If nobody has commented on this that much then it will be knowledge ChatGPT cannot parse.
Love it. This is an absolutely brilliant approach. Like most brilliant things, it's obvious when somebody tells you . . . but is none the less brilliant for that. I know the answer, but why don't 'The Authorities' do this?
There's an obvious gotcha coming up that you've kind of alluded to and that is "How reliable is the (apparently) raw data"? I ask because of the outstanding work done by independent scientists such as Jennifer Marohasy (e.g. https://jennifermarohasy.com/2023/04/australia-wide-assessment-climate-change-or-instrument-change/) and Jo Nova (e.g. https://joannenova.com.au/2023/05/why-is-temperature-data-a-national-secret-bom-still-hiding-data/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=why-is-temperature-data-a-national-secret-bom-still-hiding-data) .
I might be wrong, but it could appear that the Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been doing very bad things and their 'data' isn't at all what it seems. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" & that kind of stuff.
The BOM is bonking the data for sure but they're not the only ones. The rot set in big time 1986 - 1998 when science on a global basis became what we called "cheque book science". During this period professorships and PhDs were being awarded to the 'right' sort of people and money was diverted to institutes that were willing to promote the 'right' ideas. I was involved in high level Cabinet meetings and served as a grant award referee for the SERC that was, so saw the chicanery from the inside. Real science died back then so all we have today is the stench of a corpse.