If you have ever lived by the sea, you know it cools during the heat of summer. This is especially true along the coast of Maine, where the water is bone-chilling, but it is also true where the water is far more comfortable. For example, when I had a job delivering furniture in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, we dreaded deliveries inland, for even though the sea-water was over 80°, the air along the beach was also just over 80°, while not all that many miles inland temperatures were over 90° (and you could cut the humidity with a knife.)
Considering this is simple factual reality, it also makes sense that on the arctic coasts of Siberia, Alaska and Canada there can be a big difference between the temperature over an ice-covered ocean and a snow-free tundra. In the most extreme cases the difference can be as huge as seventy degrees, for the record-high temperatures of tundra baked by 24-hour-sunshine can top 100°, while salt water mixed with ice is around 30°.
In more ordinary cases things are less extreme, but more extreme than the coast of South Carolina at Myrtle Beach. People long to go to the beach in South Carolina when the difference is only ten degrees, while in the arctic is closer to thirty.
To make my point I will use the predicted temperatures used by the GFS model, 30 hours and 36 hours from now. On the first map the heat-of-the-day is centered over Canada, and in the second it has moved west with the sun and is over Siberia. Notice how the land has heated right down to the water at the coast of Hudson Bay, and the central-Canadian arctic coast in the first map.
In the second map , even though Siberia isn’t yet entirely free of snow-cover, the heat still gets to the coast. You should also notice that even when the baked tundra is warm (yellow is 60°, and orange is over 70°), the warmth does not extend over the water.
It should be noted that the GFS model, for all its flaws, is used for actual forecasts, and in the short-term does a good job of warning people and saving lives. The 30 and 36 hour forecasts are dependable, most of the time.
Now suppose I was to tell you that some government official, in an attempt to prove Global Warming actually was happening, had created a model which stated the above maps were completely wrong. Suppose I stated some bureaucrat decided that the way to create warmer temperatures was to extend the yellow and orange in the above maps out over the Arctic Sea.
Wouldn’t you laugh? Wouldn’t you tell me there is absolutely no data that ever describes 60° or 70° temperatures over an Arctic Sea that is basically ice-water? Wouldn’t you tell me only a flagrant moron would put forward a model, or concept, or perhaps even hypothesis, that proposed such an unreal reality, so contrary to data and the experience of people who hunt seals up there?
Sad to say, it has happened. Boring scientists, in their boring manner, can only comment a dreary rebuff:
“The extension of high-latitude arctic land data over the Arctic Ocean is also questionable. Much of the Arctic Ocean is ice-covered even in high summer, meaning the surface temperature must remain near freezing. Extending land data out into the ocean will obviously induce substantially exaggerated temperatures.”
(From: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/ )
This is in response to: “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et all., Science 4 June 2015”.
My response will be less civil. Less boring. Less dreary.
It is this: What kind of stupid fools do you take us for, “Karl et all”? How on earth can you, with any sort of conscience at all, publish such con science? Have you ever seen land temperatures of 60° or 70° extend out over arctic waters? Ever? Even Once? (And I’m not talking about fifty feet from shore.) Is it not far more likely for cold sea breezes to rush miles upon miles inland? For example, look at New England, when a sea breeze gains the power of a so-called “back door front”, ending a heat wave.
Therefore, if you were going to “tweak” world temperatures, you should extend the temperatures of cold oceans over the warm land. In actual fact, you have done the exact opposite. You have stated that the heat of the land ( in the first above map) extended far out to sea. The lobster-men out on Maine waters might wish this were true at times, but they know damn well it never happens. But you are damn well fools. You claim it does happen, in your paper, and use this erroneous idea as data. Data? How can it be data when it never happens? But you do it, in, “‘Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus’ by Karl et al., Science 4 June 2015”.
The paper claims that the “Pause” in Global Warming hasn’t happened. It attempts to show the world is still warming. However, in part, it implies impossible things are occurring.
I may not know about some of the other subjects the paper discusses, but I have studied, (and, what’s more, actually experienced), the difference between temperatures five miles inland, on the coast, and five miles out to sea. And I must say that any paper that accepts such bullshit, regarding land-based temperatures being used out-to-sea, is a report that smiles with brown teeth.