Dodgy Data

It seems not all predictions forecasting disasters hold up once more information is obtained.

www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/996247

"About 15 years ago, researchers reported that the timing of spring in high-Arctic Greenland had advanced at some of the fastest rates of change ever seen anywhere in the world. But, according to new evidence reported in the journal Current Biology on July 26, that earlier pattern has since been completely erased. Instead of coming earlier and earlier, it seems the timing of Arctic spring is now driven by tremendous climate variability with drastic differences from one year to the next.

“As scientists we are obliged to revisit previous work to see whether the knowledge obtained at that time still holds,” says Niels Martin Schmidt (@nielsmschmidt) of Aarhus University in Denmark. “We looked at previously reported extreme rates of phenological advancements in the Arctic and found that directional advancement is no longer the prevailing pattern. Actually, the previously observed trend has disappeared completely and has been replaced by extreme year-to-year variation in the onset of spring.”

Global changes in climate are expected to take place faster in the Arctic than in places at lower latitudes. To follow those trends, researchers at Zackenberg in Northeast Greenland launched an ecosystem-wide monitoring program in 1996. Among a suite of ecosystem variables, the program also tracks the timing of spring based on flowering plants, arthropod emergence, and bird nesting.

When the first 10 years of data were analyzed for 1996–2005, the findings showed a clear pattern of advancement across plants and animals included in the study. For instance, they saw some arthropods emerging up to 4 weeks earlier. In the new study, Schmidt and his colleagues wanted to see how these trends look now that they have 15 additional years of data available.

After analyzing the phenological data from 1996–2020, they report little evidence of directional change in the timing of events even as climate change continues. The researchers attribute this shift to a high degree of climate variability from year to year.

They're not facts zany:
1. I'm not saying the climate is not changing because the figures have been fiddled. I'm just pointing out that we should look at the "unfiddled" data.
2. I'm not saying that because the data has been fiddled any changes in weather/climate are therefore caused by natural effects - that would be illogical.
3. SOME glaciers are receding.
4. The oceans (even the surface) are not 5C warmer "than they should be". You've just made that up.
5. CO2 is NOT the primary cause until you've shown by genuine data that it is. That's the way science works. It's currently a theory - one that doesn't work.

6.The current scare about the ocean's temperature (in some areas) is almost certainly caused by ocean currents which we don't understand. If there is any consistent increase in ocean surface temperature it's only been measured by satellite since 1982. Any data before that is NOT sea surface temperature because it's taken by buoys or by bucket - which measure below the surface. Satellites measure the temperature of the tp 1mm of water so it records a different temperature. Any comparison between the two methods is very unreliable.

The other thing is that the sea surface temperature mainly affects WEATHER - not climate. Climate is more affected by temperatures lower down and they're slightly difficult to measure.   
1, Agreed. I think we are. 
2, Good.
3, 85% of glaciers are retreating
4, I'll agree on that. The data is so mixed the 5 degree claim can be challenged. (I also missed the fact it was F not C, American article.) The gulf of Mexico is 5 degrees F warmer than the mean, the Atlantic of Newfoundland 9 degrees F warmer. 
5. Most of the scientific community disagrees with you. The link is well established. 
6. Overall ocean temperatures are up about 1.5c That we can no longer plot the ocean currents is in no small part due to changes caused by that warming. 
As for measuring techniques they are done in a multitude of ways very accurately
The temperature of seawater is measured using instruments called thermistors. The temperature of seawater can be measured to great accuracy with carefully calibrated modern thermistors - down to variations of 0.0001° C. We measure temperature from a number of different platforms in the OSMOSIS project.

I kind of like your posts the arbitrary claims force me to look up an ever increasing number of details on climate change. 

Interesting article Sandy. Personally I would not expect the timing of the spring melt to change as each year the winter ice covers less ground moving north, therefore the time where increased temperature meets ice remains the same. 
Weather goes on despite climate change muddling the picture, we see some more extremes and some weather patterns moving north and south. Southern Europe seeing Northern African temperatures. Africa facing 10 year droughts. 

However what was forecast was not what happened. Which of course is the point. Yes things are changing as things have been changing since time immemorial, the whole point is is it our fault. All agree we must be having an effect the disagreement lies to what extent and what we should do about it.
So far it is Tommy Atkins, Joe Bloggs and the man on the Clapham omnibus who together are being forced to bear the brunt of our self inflicted desire to save the world whilst many others laugh up their sleeve at our efforts and double down telling us what bastards we are and have been.

I think the sackcloth and ashes route that seems to be proposed by JSO and others is politically inspired. The rich will not pay they will bugger off to places that see opportunities and then fly in occasionally  to tell us how selfish we are all being by still driving cars a few miles a week. I see it as insurmountable if emissions truly are the cause, and I doubt that they are. So realistically we have to stop exporting our emissions, which leads to greater emissions both short and long term, and get our own coal, oil and gas in the sort term, go nuclear in the medium  term and possibly wave, tide and others in the longer term. EVs are generally not a good idea except for limited use vehicles and buses and delivery. Possibly have levels of vehicle efficiency and power restrictions certainly in some areas. Ditch net zero as an idea, a policy and an aspiration. Stop people like Khan and Sunak agreeing policies on the world stage without recourse to some form of democratic accountability more often than usual. There is much more but that may divert the thread.
On the wider front there are many other factors in the political and social world

Well that's a shock. I don't suppose you have any idea what is causing it. Everything from tarmac to orbital variations have been offered and disproved. 


Don't agree with the conspiracy theory involving the whole world, but yes weening ourselves off fossil fuels for free energy is good in itself. 


Net Zero is a game, as many such targets are games, and involves a level of 'cheating' to be obtained. The problem is the cheating is effectively cheating ourselves. By cheating I mean wood pellets, offsets and production abroad as specific examples.


Both tide and wave have dozens of problems. I am currently looking into the idea that if we upped wind and solar (and non fossil) to their maximum effectiveness, could we make up the difference with gas and still reach net zero. I'll let you know when I reach a conclusion. 


Yes bridges built in hot countries are built for that climate but not so good at supporting ice weight. And of course vice versa. 

Sorry I thought you knew. Our tarmac is formulated for our climate as is all our infrastructure.


Not sure what you mean here. 


OH YES. The elephant in the room.