Eli's pals, Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger and Ollie Frauenfeld, although not necessarily in that order, and Eli would not bet his bottom carrot on their being friends, although he might sip a beer with Chip, have a new paper "A reconstruction of annual Greenland ice melt extent 1784-2009" J. Geophys Res Atm 116 doi something long (2011) in which they reconstruct the history of the Greenland ice melt.
Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might think that this is a platform for deviltry soon to appear in World Climate Report the house organ of Pat Michaels astroscience empire, or perhaps an erasure or two, or something being not under the shell in a game of three iceberg Monte, but, give credit where due, this starts with a useful reconstruction of the annual Greenland ice melt.
to which one of the spurned referees, Jason Box, took considerable exception, enough that he blogged his review, and, of course the usual suspects engaged in ritual pearl clutching, and even more of course the suspects did not mention Box's reasons (there really was only one)
I rank the paper: “Good” because the paper’s methods seem solid. Yet, depth with regard to examining causal factors is missing. Further, the paper’s main point, as it seems, that recent warming is not without precedent, may already be obsolete because 2010 was such an extreme melt year AND that more warming in Greenland is likely simply for Greenland to be in sync with the northern hemisphere. The paper thus, in the very least, requires a revision that includes consideration of 2010 data. Yet, consideration of causal factors of cooling and warming and treatment of the Box et al. (2009) prediction, which for 2008-2010 has been accurate, would give the paper the depth consistent with JGR’s standard.In other words FKM hid the incline, something AnyBunny, or if you prefer the more traditional, EveryBunny, can see. (Readers get their choice of eminem or death, which some would say is not a choice, but Eli would never rickroll his adoring readers) And, it is a twofer, because not only is there observational evidence that the incline is increasing at an ever faster rate, but, as Box shows in a follow up (there is another but it is denser), the number of degree days is increasing
Comparing the two graphs, it is clear that FKM are up to little good. As a matter of fact, the incline is currently increasing strongly in the degree day chart, emphasizing Box's point that FKM were, let us say, being economical when they say
We make use of these relationships along with historical temperature and circulation observations to develop a near‐continuous 226 year reconstructed history of annual Greenland melt extent dating from 2009 back into the late eighteenth century. We find that the recent period of high‐melt extent is similar in magnitude but, thus far, shorter in duration, than a period of high melt lasting from the early 1920s through the early 1960s. The greatest melt extent over the last 2 1/4 centuries occurred in 2007; however, this value is not statistically significantly different from the reconstructed melt extent during 20 other melt seasons, primarily during 1923–1961.Still, gotting this into print provides a platform for Pat to hide the incline at his usual haunts and for Lucia to cluck approvingly