No 'tipping point' for Arctic sea ice

[Mencken_Fan]

The Northwest Passage, however, has been open a few times in the past, 1906, as well as in 1942.

http://www.norwegian....uk/history.htm

Then, again in 2007.

Being an "open" passage seems somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't equate a yacht taking months (or years) to sail such a distance with an "open waterway."

Has anyone ever just sailed right through (in a reasonably prompt time)?

[tacoman25]

Being an "open" passage seems somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't equate a yacht taking months (or years) to sail such a distance with an "open waterway."

Has anyone ever just sailed right through (in a reasonably prompt time)?

It's really apples to oranges. Now we have modern ice-breakers, satellite images, GPS, etc, whereas back then they had none of that.

[Clifford]

Being an "open" passage seems somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I don't equate a yacht taking months (or years) to sail such a distance with an "open waterway."

Has anyone ever just sailed right through (in a reasonably prompt time)?

In 1944, Henry Larson did the trip from Halifax to Vancouver BC in 86 days.

[skierinvermont]

It's really apples to oranges. Now we have modern ice-breakers, satellite images, GPS, etc, whereas back then they had none of that.

They still had ice breakers just not "modern" as you said though.

IIRC correctly there were a couple voyages.. one was fairly smooth sailing encountering minimal ice the other took years.

I don't think this is a very good proxy for the condition of the whole arctic ocean though, especially considering most of the NW passage is through the archipelago.

[Clifford]

They still had ice breakers just not "modern" as you said though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjøa

The Gjøa actually was retrofitted with a 13HP engine before making the trek across the Arctic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Roch_(ship)

St. Roch was made primarily of thick Douglas-fir, with very hard Australian "ironbark" eucalyptus on the outside, and an interior hull reinforced with heavy beams to withstand ice pressure during her Arctic duties

The St. Roch was specifically designed to be frozen in the ice, and serve as a floating outpost.

[skierinvermont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gjøa

The Gjøa actually was retrofitted with a 13HP engine before making the trek across the Arctic.

http://en.wikipedia..../St._Roch_(ship)

The St. Roch was specifically designed to be frozen in the ice, and serve as a floating outpost.

The Gjoa took three years however and it was in 1906.

[Peter M]

Sea ice has seen long term (over the last 30 years) Decline.

Climate change as related to ice decline, will not see every year with less ice, or every year wamer then the previous. This is an unscientific belief by many skeptics. So since 2007, when ice saw a huge drop off the table in late summer, and recovered somewhat in the next 3 years, means ice extent will not decline below 2007 again?

It might be a good guess that within the next few years we will see levels below that of 2007, and the year after, some recovery. Its also possible that before 2020- we could see a total disintegration of ice- and some recover the next year. Overall, however the trend is down-- anyone with any common sense in reading the graphs and seeing the photos knows this.

Sea ice in the arctic and ice in Greenland continues to decline - and this has accelerated over the last 10 years. And this will surely increase this decade. A warming planet, is beginning to soften up the arctic and antarctic ice as predicted.

With record low ice amounts in the arctic this winter- it should prove interesting to see what the ice extent and volume look like in mid September. We will approach 2007, or surpass it? Its possible.

by 2014 will will have reached an average yearly C02 level of 400ppm, and by 2020 probably over 410ppm. Although there is a lag time with C02, with warming in the pipeline- if we where seeing the full impact of 391ppm right now- things would be even more dramatic then we have seen for global temperatures and ice decline in the high and low latitudes, at 400 or 410ppm its a sure bet that thing will become even 'hairier' in climate extremes, warmth and ice disappearance. Right now its not some far off theory or prediction, its beginning to happen as C02 rises to these levels so alarmingly quick.

[stellarfun]

Maps and early expedition history here.

http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/contents.htm

Check out the 1907 map for how badly the cartography was off a century ago.

Many consider the real passage to be through the McClure Strait into the Beaufort Sea. The first transit of that by ship was by Coast Guard and Canadian icebreakers in 1954. No one yet has done the surface Passage by transiting the top of Greenland. So any circumnavigation of the Arctic has required dropping beneath the Arctic Circle.

__________________

On the temperature in the Hermite crater, that value has not been published in a journal that I could find. Perhaps the reason is that the value is only for the top millimeter, below that one millimeter, its conceded that temperature is warmer. So was the satellite measuring solar flux or the first millimeter. In any event 26 Kelvin is nowhere near the overall mean or median temperature of the moon.. Heck, the minimum surface temperature of Mars is 150K.

On Eemian rather than Ermian, I am off a notebook and on a larger monitor; points restored.

__________________

On the paper by Petit et al that I suggested be read, I posted that specific paper because it is also cited by CO2 Science. Now it would seem thart at least one poster here is willing to cut and paste all the descriptions of journal papers appearing in CO2 Science, but has never bothered to read an original abstract or even the actual paper. Thus, taking whatever CO2 Science says as gospel to be believed and followed, and challenging any paper that is not included in CO@ Science until he has read it, and the entire paper, not just the abstract.

[Clifford]

Full text. What do you conclude from it?

http://www.clas.ufl....tit_etal_99.pdf

This data has been published and reviewed ad nauseam.

What has been presented here, or elsewhere is that after the snow layer is formed, there is a period of time in which the air bubbles form and consolidate. Thus, the author concludes there there may be some temporal error, or slip. So, the layers of Deuterium/¹⁸O ice may vary slightly with the CO₂ layers. I suppose that makes some sense, but I'd hope the resolution was better than 500 years or so.

Anyway, the conclusion is that CO₂ seems to have a slight delay on the rising side of the temperature swings, but that is apparently within statistical error...

On the falling side, though, there is a significant delay between the CO₂ and the ²H/¹⁸O of several thousand years.

Good raw data records.

Then they start interpreting the data.

Milankovitch cycles???

While their data is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, it neither proves nor disproves them.

The peaks certainly don't match up exactly with some coming early and some coming late. I suppose the Milankovitch cycles are a very weak forcing agent, so people following that theory look for co-forcing agents as the average amount of sunlight to the whole earth is about the same irrespective of the Milankovitch cycles. During the Holocene we've gone through a half a precession cycle, beginning with the Northern Hemisphere closest to the sun during the summer, and now having the Northern Hemisphere closest to the sun during the winter, yet there has been no significant plunge in temperature. The eccentricity is pretty unremarkable, as is the axial tilt. The eccentricity is near a local maximum, but not an absolute maximum.

A couple of weeks ago, I overlayed the changed in Earth's magnetic field strength with the temperature records.

http://www.americanw...ip/page__st__53

What became obvious in that exercise is that when matching two series of squiggly lines, it was easy to read more into a correlation that is actually there. Yet, I do think there is something to do with a correlation between a weakening magnetic field and warmer temperatures. I did see a few related articles that I can hunt down later.

Yet, the magnetic field strength doesn't seem to be part of the Milankovitch cycles.

This paper doesn't present the CO₂ climate model, but claims their findings are consistent with the model. But, their determination of the actual forcing amount attributable to CO₂ is consistent with the climate models... without ever showing the calculations. And in a sense it is a circular argument if the models explain the ice cores, and the ice cores support the models.

The tardiness in the CO₂ response following the drop in temperatures is a major problem for the CO₂ models, as one would expect that the temperatures would stay high as long as the CO₂ levels persisted high which isn't the case.

There is little discussion here on where the CO₂ is coming from.

Most research indicates that it is dissolved CO₂ in the ocean that is being driven out due to increased partial pressures as the ocean warms, then is being reabsorbed into the oceans as the oceans cool again. There is nothing magical about the temperature relationship. In fact, it is likely that the CO₂ would bubble out of the oceans quicker than it would be resorbed... Thus less of a delay with the CO₂ levels upon increasing temperatures (perhaps not significant... or is that just an interpretation), than there would be a delay with the resorption.

Nobody is disputing that we're burning gigatons worth of hydrocarbons, and blowing gigatons of CO₂ into the atmosphere. And the ice core CO₂ levels seem reasonable for historic records.

Just like at the end of the previous interglacial periods... we now have a disjunction between the ocean temperatures and the CO₂ in the atmosphere as the CO₂ is absorbed to match the partial pressure in the oceans with respect to the current temperature. The only difference is that we have fossil fuel CO₂ making up the difference now. About half of our emissions are currently being absorbed each year.

Anyway, the article provides the same data that is on Wikipedia and every place else provides for historical temperature/CO₂ records, but absolutely nothing to indicate that CO₂ is actually driving the temperature rather than the temperature driving CO₂ levels.

Nor does it provide any proof of any feedback between CO₂ and temperature.

And any association with Milankovitch cycles is little more than speculation.

[salbers]

By the way eccentricity is now less than 1/3 of the maximum possible. This is why the Milankovitch cycles are subdued at present.

[Clifford]

By the way eccentricity is now less than 1/3 of the maximum possible. This is why the Milankovitch cycles are subdued at present.

Yet the eccentricity is the most obvious 100,000 year component of the Milankovitch cycles. And, the current 1/3 maximum eccentricity is close to the minimum between the 3 previous interglacial periods.

[stellarfun]

This data has been published and reviewed ad nauseam.

The question was not directed at you.

[Snow_Miser]

Sea ice has seen long term (over the last 30 years) Decline.

For the Arctic, yes. Why do you suppose Antarctic Sea Ice has increased since 1979?

Climate change as related to ice decline, will not see every year with less ice, or every year wamer then the previous. This is an unscientific belief by many skeptics. So since 2007, when ice saw a huge drop off the table in late summer, and recovered somewhat in the next 3 years, means ice extent will not decline below 2007 again?

The Antarctic reached a record high in 2007, concurrently when the Arctic reached a record low. And who thought that the Antarctic Sea Ice would begin to increase after it expierienced a record low in the early 1980s? Concurrently, when the Arctic Sea Ice saw a record High in the Sea Ice.

Look at the Death Spiral in the Early 1980s. Who would have thought that the Antarctic Sea Ice would increase, and would generally see positive trends in ice from that point?

The Trend in Global Sea Ice has not reached 95% Significance, so any trend with the Global Sea Ice is statistically insignificant, which should tell you something. It has remained roughly around the same, while decreasing very slightly since 1979.

It might be a good guess that within the next few years we will see levels below that of 2007, and the year after, some recovery. Its also possible that before 2020- we could see a total disintegration of ice- and some recover the next year. Overall, however the trend is down-- anyone with any common sense in reading the graphs and seeing the photos knows this.

The only people that I've heard say that the Ice will go away by that timeframe is The Met Office, and They have Publically Retracted this statement.

Sea ice in the arctic and ice in Greenland continues to decline - and this has accelerated over the last 10 years. And this will surely increase this decade. A warming planet, is beginning to soften up the arctic and antarctic ice as predicted.

Surely the record warm AMO has nothing to do with this, right?

With record low ice amounts in the arctic this winter- it should prove interesting to see what the ice extent and volume look like in mid September. We will approach 2007, or surpass it? Its possible.<BR style="mso-special-character: line-break"><BR style="mso-special-character: line-break">

With a La Nina, you typically see an increase in summer ice, not a decrease, as seen with 2008 with 2007. 2008 had roughly 13% more ice than 2007. I suspect that 2011 will have similar percentages to 2010 that 2008 had to 2007.

[BethesdaWX]

For the Arctic, yes. Why do you suppose Antarctic Sea Ice has increased since 1979?

The Antarctic reached a record high in 2007, concurrently when the Arctic reached a record low. And who thought that the Antarctic Sea Ice would begin to increase after it expierienced a record low in the early 1980s? Concurrently, when the Arctic Sea Ice saw a record High in the Sea Ice.

Look at the Death Spiral in the Early 1980s. Who would have thought that the Antarctic Sea Ice would increase, and would generally see positive trends in ice from that point?

The Trend in Global Sea Ice has not reached 95% Significance, so any trend with the Global Sea Ice is statistically insignificant, which should tell you something. It has remained roughly around the same, while decreasing very slightly since 1979.

The only people that I've heard say that the Ice will go away by that timeframe is The Met Office, and They have Publically Retracted this statement.

Surely the record warm AMO has nothing to do with this, right?

With a La Nina, you typically see an increase in summer ice, not a decrease, as seen with 2008 with 2007. 2008 had roughly 13% more ice than 2007. I suspect that 2011 will have similar percentages to 2010 that 2008 had to 2007.

Sea Ice loss in the arctic is completely natural, it was just as bad in the 1940's/50's, and same with the late 1800's/thru 1910.

Both of these were warm AMO periods. PDO doesn't have a big influence on arctic sea ice.

[Snow_Miser]

Sea Ice loss in the arctic is completely natural, it was just as bad in the 1940's/50's, and same with the late 1800's/thru 1910.

Well BesthedaWX, here's some new evidence about Anthropogenic Arctic warming that shows that the Arctic will melt completely and we will all die!

The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitsbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth's surface.

…

The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81˚29' in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.

The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81˚ north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current till beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favourable ice conditions will continue for some time.

Later a section was taken of the Gulf Stream off Bear Island and off the Isfjord, as well as a section of the cold current that comes down along the west coast of Spitsbergen off the south cape.

…

Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognisable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea they have entirely disappeared.

The change in temperature, says Captain Ingebrigtsen has also brought about great change in the flora and fauna of the Arctic. This summer he sought for white fish in Spitsbergen waters. Formerly great shoals of them were found there. This year he saw none, although he visited all the old fishing grounds.

There were few seal in Spitsbergen waters this year, the catch being far under the average. This, however, did not surpnse the captain. He pointed out that formerly the waters about Spitsbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15°, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitsbergen.

With the disappearance of white fish and seal has come other life in these waters. This year herring in great shoals were found along the west coast of Spitsbergen, all the way from the fry to the veritable great herring. Shoals of smelt were also met with.

Gee...... it's funny that this article is dated "1922."

Artic Warming

[skierinvermont]

Sea Ice loss in the arctic is completely natural, it was just as bad in the 1940's/50's, and same with the late 1800's/thru 1910.

There is absolutely no evidence of this.

[skierinvermont]

There is plenty of evidence, through accounts of ships sailing further north than we now can...AND recons done using accounts of such.

really, its not unprecedented.

http://www.usmessage...enland-ice.html

http://wattsupwithth...ing-since-1958/

A few anecdotal ship voyages does not mean that overall there was less ice in the arctic.

[BethesdaWX]

A few anecdotal ship voyages does not mean that overall there was less ice in the arctic.

Warmer temp data don't mean that either eh? How about submarines surfacing at the north pole, in March...with only patches of ice? Ships going further north than we ever could this decade?

Really now? Jones et al?

really, its not unprecedented, even in proxy data

[BethesdaWX]

Well BesthedaWX, here's some new evidence about Anthropogenic Arctic warming that shows that the Arctic will melt completely and we will all die!

Gee...... it's funny that this article is dated "1922."

Artic Warming

Thats earlier than I expected! Todays Icepack would be considered "average" by 1930-1950 standards.

The fastest arctic warming hit between 1918 and 1924, where the mean rose about 3C...in 6 yrs, talk about a death spiral

I don't think people realize, the Icepack from 1960-1990 was abnormally large.

[stellarfun]

Warmer temp data don't mean that either eh? How about submarines surfacing at the north pole, in March...with only patches of ice? Ships going further north than we ever could this decade?

Really now? Jones et al?

really, its not unprecedented, even in proxy data

So why is the link for the Jones image from the site globalwarminghoax, and not from a Jones paper, or a site that publishes Jones' articles?

For example,

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

_____________________________________________________________

The nuclear submarine Skate did surface at the North Pole in March 1959, and a photograph reveals a bit of open water near the surfaced sub. However, the photograph of such was taken by someone standing on ice, and the open water was most likely created by the submarine surfacing, and then maneuvering using its propellers to create open water. The sub needed open water because of a special ceremony it conducted, scattering cremated ashes on an explorer into the water at the Pole.

Here is another picture of the Skate at the North Pole, nine months earlier in July 1958.

[BethesdaWX]

With a La Nina, you typically see an increase in summer ice, not a decrease, as seen with 2008 with 2007. 2008 had roughly 13% more ice than 2007. I suspect that 2011 will have similar percentages to 2010 that 2008 had to 2007.

Exactly, I would not expect to see an increase in the Arctic Ice extent during a winter with unfavorable ice conditions to the extreme. La Nina 2007-2008 had the same thing beforehand (2007 ice ftw). Its the ebb and flow of things.

The increase in summer ice is what one would expect to see, then the increase in ice for the year 2011-2012 is a given . Even so, the uber +AMO rules with an iron fist, literally.

[BethesdaWX]

So why is the link for the Jones image from the site globalwarminghoax, and not from a Jones paper, or a site that publishes Jones' articles?

For example,

http://cdiac.esd.orn...scru/jones.html

_____________________________________________________________

The nuclear submarine Skate did surface at the North Pole in March 1959, and a photograph reveals a bit of open water near the surfaced sub. However, the photograph of such was taken by someone standing on ice, and the open water was most likely created by the submarine surfacing, and then maneuvering using its propellers to create open water. The sub needed open water because of a special ceremony it conducted, scattering cremated ashes on an explorer into the water at the Pole.

Here is another picture of the Skate at the North Pole, nine months earlier in July 1958.

The Arctic is the place that has supposedly seen the most warming since 1850...yet we see temps now failing to surpass those of the 1940's, and a 3C jump from 1918-1924. I prefer the original station data, not an altered plotline with various station data around the globe...I prefer to stay on topic, you?

1) I got it from a warmist site actually....it is temperature data in the Arctic, not an adjusted plotline of the NH/SH http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/jonescru/jones.html

2) Uhhh, the late 1950's had alot of ice...wrong time period bro

3) Are we talking about spotty surface data of the Globe, the NH/SH........................or the arctic? I'm confused.

[stellarfun]

The Arctic is the place that has supposedly seen the most warming since 1850...yet we see temps now failing to surpass those of the 1940's, and a 3C jump from 1918-1924. I prefer the original station data, not an altered plotline with various station data around the globe...I prefer to stay on topic, you?

1) I got it from a warmist site actually....it is temperature data in the Arctic, not an adjusted plotline of the NH/SH http://cdiac.ornl.go...scru/jones.html

2) Uhhh, the late 1950's had alot of ice...wrong time period bro

3) Are we talking about spotty surface data of the Globe, the NH/SH........................or the arctic? I'm confused.

You aren't even clever at lying.

1.) Here is the source image in your post attributed to Jones et al and temperatures between 70-90 N latitude

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_images/newspost_images/dnc49xz_65gg3s7xgj_b.jpg

2.)

Warmer temp data don't mean that either eh? How about submarines surfacing at the north pole, in March...with only patches of ice? Ships going further north than we ever could this decade?

The only submarine photos with open water at the Pole in March are those of the Skate in 1959. Before you cite a 'fact' you ought to do some research first.

3.) I'm confused by your confusion. Please give a link to your original station data that show the Arctic temperatures currently have not surpassed those of the 1940s. (Remember that for half the decade there was a war going on near the Arctic Circle, and warring countries did not always collect, or if they did, they sometimes suppressed key meteorological data where such might have had strategic implications.)

[BethesdaWX]

You aren't even clever at lying.

1.) Here is the source image in your post attributed to Jones et al and temperatures between 70-90 N latitude

http://www.globalwar...5gg3s7xgj_b.jpg

2.)

The only submarine photos with open water at the Pole in March are those of the Skate in 1959. Before you cite a 'fact' you ought to do some research first.

3.) I'm confused by your confusion. Please give a link to your original station data that show the Arctic temperatures currently have not surpassed those of the 1940s. (Remember that for half the decade there was a war going on near the Arctic Circle, and warring countries did not always collect, or if they did, they sometimes suppressed key meteorological data where such might have had strategic implications.)

Oh wow

1) I got the Jones et al. data from the link I posted...do you want me to instruct you how to get there? That doesn't change the fact that the Arctic warming seen was greater in the 1940's. That dataset is measured arctic temperatures.

heres another

http://www.warwickhughes.com/cool/cool13.htm

2) Plotlines from scattered stations across the NH/SH by GISS/Hadley is not Measured arctic data.

[Clifford]

http://www.theregist...arctic_sea_ice/

Going back to the premise of this topic.

(we have gotten a bit off topic )

Perhaps the IPCC has it all backwards.

We don't need "summer" sea ice.

We need "spring" sea ice.

If you look at the JAXA Sea Ice extent:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm

The summer Solstice is June 20/21

The Fall Equinox is September 22/23

The Winter Solstice is December 21/22

The Spring Equinox is March 20/21

What you notice is that the Sea-Ice summer lags significantly.

The minimum sea ice extent is actually in mid-September (near the fall Equinox).

The least variability in sea ice extent occurs in the late spring, early summer, in April, May, and June.

So, for example, on the Summer Solstice, 2010, we had perhaps the lowest sea ice extent in satellite history, and yet most of the central part of the Arctic Ocean was still covered with ice.

(photos from University of Illinois)

http://arctic.atmos....edu/cryosphere/

Two months later, August 20th, the sea ice was very broken up.

Rapidly thinning.

But, still covered more than half of the central Arctic Ocean.

What the article indicates is that the more sea ice that is lost in the late fall, the more heat that is radiated to the atmosphere, and thus more cooling of the Arctic Ocean. And, of course, the more cooling of the Arctic Ocean, the more relative cooling of the global oceans.

Also, note in the last few years.

2007 (lowest September) --> 2008 Top 3 of the decade on April 15 (tightly clustered with the top 4)

2008 (second lowest September) --> 2009 Top 4 of the decade on April 15 (tightly clustered with top 4)

2010 (3rd lowest September) --> 2011 (still have to wait to see).

2009 (4th lowest September) --> 2010 (#1 highest for the decade mid April).

The May/June melt phase has also been very closely clustered for the decade.

So, since the sea ice is naturally out of phase with the seasons.

The low (late) summer sea ice extent may allow the oceans to naturally radiate more energy in the winter.

Anyway, the seasonal shift may lead to a benefit from the loss of sea ice.

More reflection of sunlight when the sun is highest overhead

More radiation of heat/energy when the sun is not overhead.

[stellarfun]

data series stops at 2005, 75N+, HadCRUG

from 1978, through 2010. "northern polar" region. UAH

from 1984 through 2010, 64N-90N, GIS

1900 through 2009, 60N - 90N (NOAA)

[BethesdaWX]

Here is what you're missing buddy.........AMO = Arctic temps!

While you post antedoctal evidence used in randomly selected GISS stations, I prefer

Raw Station data

Take a look at each of them:

[stellarfun]

Here is what you're missing buddy.........AMO = Arctic temps!

While you post antedoctal evidence used in randomly selected GISS stations, I prefer

Ah, 'I see' said the blind man.

Through 2008

Now your buddies at Watts were writing in 2009 that the AMO was turning into a cool phase, and that would put a halt to predictions of Arctic ice melt, melt, melting away.

http://wattsupwithth...quite-cool-yet/

But, just as soon as Watts publishes his prediction, the AMO turns positive and has remained positive ever since, including last month.

http://www.esrl.noaa...on/amon.us.data

If one looks at the longer time series, the AMO seems to have a positive phase of at least 40 years. Even Watts conceded that the current positive phase began in 1994, which would suggest a positive AMO interval of 1994-2034, so about 20 more years to go.

Any opinion on what 20 more years of a positive AMO will cumulatively have on summer ice extent in the Arctic?

[skierinvermont]

I don't see any discrepancy between the individual station plots Bethesda posted and the Had or GISS plots that stellarfun posted.

Keep in mind most of Bethesda's plots terminate around 1990, and the ones that go past 1990 show more warming. Most of them also don't begin until around 1940.

The problem with averaging single stations together is that it is not a spatially weighted average. If you have 5 stations clustered together that show slight warming but then 1 out on its own that shows rapid warming, that 1 station needs to be weighted much more heavily. That is what is accomplished by spatially weighting. Which GISS and HadCRUT do.

You've also only listed 7 stations.. there are 46 GHCN stations north of 65N with continuous records.

[BethesdaWX]

1) If Anthony Watts thought the AMO was going negative in 2009, he was sadly mistaken, he doesn't appear to have much knowledge on the AMO, it reverses phases a decade after the PDO does so. It will go negative between 2015-2018.

2) This is general, the +AMO right now is at record levels, temps in the arctic, between the 1935-1950 timeframe were carbon copies of those today. I don't want to get into an argument over a 0.1C difference either way...point is, they are very similar.

3) Yes, Global temps DO NOT follow the AMO...this is a well known fact. However, the AMO is still a Major Factor in the Global Temperature Anomaly deviation, due to its heavy impact on the Arctic, Europe/Russia/Asia, and North America...the NH in general. This doesn't mean that the overall anomaly will follow the AMO, or even correlate, since there are stronger influences at work. However, the AMO alone can hava major impact on the eventual Global Anom,

Notice the greatest arctic outbreaks across the US usually predominate in a -AMO. -AMO = More Arctic Ice = more effective cold air growth = Colder NH = More Snowcover = brrrrrrr.