“What We Meant By Global Warming Was Nunavut Warming”

17 Responses to “What We Meant By Global Warming Was Nunavut Warming”

1. Don B says:

   January 6, 2011 at 5:02 pm

   Did you mean to have a link to an article?

   Reply
   • stevengoddard says:

     January 6, 2011 at 5:05 pm

     No.

     Reply
     • Baa Humbug says:

       January 6, 2011 at 6:32 pm

       Well why the %$#$#$ not? It’s ruddy frustrating searching for links.

       No links? I don’t believe noneofit 🙂

       Reply
2. suyts says:

   January 6, 2011 at 5:39 pm

   Exactly. And obviously.

   Reply
3. Annabelle says:

   January 6, 2011 at 6:05 pm

   Steve. it’s your blog and obviously you can do what like with it, but these posts are too cryptic for the likes of me.

   Reply
   • Ole Heinrich says:

     January 6, 2011 at 6:12 pm

     Annabelle, look at this http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/jra25/2010/jra25_2010_74.png §.-)

     Reply
   • Baa Humbug says:

     January 6, 2011 at 6:36 pm

     It’s an old habit of Steves. He used to be a news boy, got used to yelling out headlines. let me demonstrate.

     “Extra extra, read all about it, Nunavut is 98% of the globe, get yer paper”

     Reply
   • suyts says:

     January 6, 2011 at 7:04 pm

     Annabelle, if I may be so bold?

     Nunavut is a village in Greenland. While it is cold there, its temp anomaly is well above the “norm”. Earlier, in November, when much of the world was under a cold spell, many climatologists and media alarmists said that the cold spell was confined to north western Europe and pointed to the Nunavut area as proof of continued global warming. Upon inspection, though, as shown in Ole Heinrich’s map, that area and just very few more places on the globe are the only places that have an above “normal” temp. These conditions have persisted for almost 2 months now.

     So, obviously, if Nunavut is proof that GW is continuing and the places that are colder than “normal” are simply small isolated areas, then Nunavut must encompass much of the globe. Personally, I think Steve overstated and Nunavut must only encompass 90%, but that’s just an opinion. 🙂

     Hope that helps.

     Reply
     • peterhodges says:

       January 6, 2011 at 7:35 pm

       following the CAGW logic of inverting reality, the 3% global area with a positive anomaly becomes 97% of the globe having a fever.

       Reply
     • Robert Austin says:

       January 6, 2011 at 9:23 pm

       Correction.
       Nunavut is part of Canada.
       http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunavut

       Reply
     • Latitude says:

       January 6, 2011 at 9:35 pm

       thanks James, I sorta figured, but wasn’t sure either……..

       Reply
     • suyts says:

       January 6, 2011 at 9:40 pm

       Robert, you’re right. Thanks. I do confuse the names of towns. Maybe I was thinking of Ilulissat or Nuuk.

       Reply
     • suyts says:

       January 6, 2011 at 9:46 pm

       Ok, the anomally map shows warming between and around Nunavut and Nuuk.

       Reply
4. alf says:

   January 6, 2011 at 7:31 pm

   Can any one explain why Iqualuit in Canada is so warm. Seems as if there must be some error when compared to other stations in the area.
   http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/nu-21_metric_e.html

   Reply
   • Dave N says:

     January 7, 2011 at 12:34 am

     Iqaluit’s thermometer is at the airport.

     In GISS, all neighbouring stations within at least 500kms were dropped during the Great Thermometer Dying of 1990.

     The thermometer is listed on GISS as Frobisher Bay:

     http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=403719090000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1

     According to this:

     http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/CYFB

     The thermometer is on the tarmac.

     Reply
5. Andy Weiss says:

   January 7, 2011 at 12:32 am

   Nunavit is extremely important, as we all know the ecology of the Arctic is very, very sensitive. All the igloos are melting and you don’t care!

   Reply
6. mitchel44 says:

   January 7, 2011 at 1:43 am

   Hmm, try here, http://www.climate.weatheroffice.gc.ca/climate_normals/results_e.html?Province=NU%20%20&StationName=&SearchType=&LocateBy=Province&Proximity=25&ProximityFrom=City&StationNumber=&IDType=MSC&CityName=&ParkName=&LatitudeDegrees=&LatitudeMinutes=&LongitudeDegrees=&LongitudeMinutes=&NormalsClass=A&SelNormals=&StnId=1758&

   Interesting to note that here in the hottest decade ever recorded, in one of the areas most affected by AGW, they have only set 2 monthly high temp records, in July and December 2001. Most remain back in the 50’s and 60’s…..

   Funny that.

   Reply