Antarctic Sea Ice Increase and Global Warming

by Norm Buske

Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling. The warming of the NTH explains progressive loss of Arctic sea ice.

Meanwhile, the average temperature of the planet surface has evidently stabilized for the last dozen years or so:

clip_image002

[in: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_Year_2013.pdf ]

(Thick line is simple 3-year running average. Average of 1979-88 decade is set to zero.)

Therefore, global warming has evidently ceased, at least for now, because the Southern Thermal Hemisphere (STH) has entered a cooling phase, compensating for the anthropogenic warming of the NTH.

After an artifactual step change (in December 1991) in the NSIDC satellite record of the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been removed from the data, a recent increase in the extent Antarctic sea ice is evident:

clip_image004

[http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/adj_anom.jpeg]

[in: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/antarctic-sea-ice-increase/]

(Red curve is LOWESS smooth.)

William of Ockham might explain this increase of Antarctic sea ice extent as an effect of the STH having cooled, just as the loss of Arctic sea ice has been explained as an effect of the NTH having warmed.

Anthropogenic sources (of warming) are concentrated in the NTH, with fewer sources in the STH. So there is a prospect that the recent cooling of the STH is not anthropogenic. Or the thermal hemispheres might be coupled such that the warming of the NTH is becoming compensated by cooling of the STH.

–Here is a challenge for proponents of global warming: Show how anthropogenic warming of the NTH leads to cooling of the STH, or else allow that the cooling of the STH is practically independent.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Dr Burns

What rubbish! “…compensating for the anthropogenic warming of the NTH.”
Where’s the evidence?

AleaJactaEst

and where’s your DIRECT evidence that the “warming” in the latter part of the 20th and early 21st Century has been caused by by anthropogenic sources? No models please. No inferences, no coulds, shoulds, ifs or buts. Direct evidence.

MikeUK

Interesting article, it would be crazy to suggest that 7 billion people have not had some effect on the climate, but I’d like to suggest a partial reversal of cause and effect for Arctic sea ice:
Some of the 20th century warming in the NH may have been due to loss of Arctic sea ice, leading to increased heat absorption in NH summers.

Admad

OK, don’t want to trigger a firestorm here – is the implication from Mr Buske that maybe UHI heat propagation/leaching out into the environment is the cause of the NTH warming? That’s what I infer. Is this even feasible? I wouldn’t have thought that a UHI footprint could be big enough to cause any measurable hemispherical effect.

What do you mean by “anthropogenic warming” Norm? I though CO2 was meant to be a very well mixed gas, so the effect on the Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere should be the same. Do you mean another source of anthropogenic warming, such as black carbon soot?

Streetcred

Stop the presses! Dr Trenberth’s missing heat attacks and eats 3m Great White shark!
http://youtu.be/Z_QyGANCUJI

Konrad

“I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.”
Fascinating.
By which physical mechanism do you propose that adding radiative gases to the atmosphere reduces the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability?
(Note – a consensus of climastrologists is not a physical mechanism)

Charles Nelson

Maurice Ewing believed that the Arctic Ocean when frozen over lead to retention of heat in the oceans, conversely when sea ice is at a low during winter the oceans lose heat to the atmosphere and outwards to space through the darkness.
The Arctic ocean is a critical part of the planet’s thermostat. We are merely observing it in action.

Christopher Hanley

“… evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling …”
Long term temperature records for the Arctic show nothing unprecedented happening, the apparent warming in the 30s (HadCRUT4) occurred when anthropogenic forcing was negligible.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/ArcticTemperatures.gif

Konrad

Streetcred says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:46 am
———————————-
But of course! Warmer waters are causing the frickin lasers on their noses to overheat…

urederra

Is anthropogenic global warming the only explanation you have for NH ice loss? If it is, then you have to think harder. NH ice loss is not unprecedent.

William of Ockham might explain this increase of Antarctic sea ice extent as an effect of the STH having cooled, just as the loss of Arctic sea ice has been explained as an effect of the NTH having warmed.

That is a hypothesis. Ockham’s razor deals with dilemmas. The best way to deal with this kind of problems is less handwaving and more honest empirical data.

Other_Andy

“I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.”
So the Northern Thermal Hemisphere never warmed before?
What about the warming in 1810’s, 1920’s or 1940’s?
Was that anthropogenic warming as well?
What evidence is there that it is anthropogenic warming this time?

Norm said: The warming of the NTH explains progressive loss of Arctic sea ice.
What happened to the notion that it was not so much “warming” that caused the decline of arctic sea ice but variations in ocean currents and weather patterns. Furthermore that this waxing and waning has happened time and again in the Holocene and even historically witnessed by heroic exploration of the Arctic in the past (see below). Why would it have to be anthropogenic this time? Why is the local NH warming anthropogenic?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/26/ice-at-the-north-pole-in-1958-not-so-thick/
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm

AlecM

Sorry mate, it doesn’t work for me.
Arctic ice volume increased last year by 60%. We are now seeing Arctic mean temperature swinging below average: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
By 2020, it will be frozen solid.

dudleyhorscroft

Streetcred says:June 6, 2014 at 12:46 am
Stop the presses! Dr Trenberth’s missing heat attacks and eats 3m Great White shark!
And the Smithsonian commentator said there’s no doubt that the Great White Shark had been eaten by a super predator of the deep.
Can I suggest a simpler explanation? That the tag had fallen off and been swallowed by a whale, and after 8 days had either been vomited up or excreted in the normal course of affairs?

interestingly, my latest results show that both the NH and the SH is currently cooling at the same pace of about -0.014 degree C/ year…
arctic melt is a left-over from the warming period (as the gulf stream retained some heat)
but it will be soon over:
http://oi40.tinypic.com/2ql5zq8.jpg
we are cooling from the top latitudes downward

mobihci

so.. haha some people just cant handle the fact that the climate actually changed in the past WITHOUT human influence. just amazing!
let me get this logic right, because i have never quite understood it.
right- it is cooling in the SH masking the human cause warming of the globe (co2 being well mixed and all).. BUT when it is in a warm phase in the SH, it has nothing to do with ‘natural’ warming, just human induced warming. conclusion – this world never warmed naturally in the past! now that is some really cool logic.
OR maybe he means that the oceans play a bigger role than land mass, and the larger oceans of the SH are able to cool the atmosphere more which would be an admitting that the NH warming was caused by ‘natural’ forces during the SH warm phase. same thing.
what a load of rubbish.
of course, there is logic that dictates there must be some warming caused by co2, but how much and how much influence it has on the overall system has never been resolved. the empirical evidence shows that in the past, when co2 was MUCH lower, the temperature anomalies were higher than recent times (40s warming v 80s warming). logic dictates that the influence that co2 does have on the overall system is nil or minimal. if it were high, the 20% – 30% increase in co2 should show a marked acceleration in the temperature anomalies. there is NO acceleration.

sleeping bear dunes

What is the mechanism to “wall off the
effects” of CO2 from the SH. Until you demonstrate that, the rest is supposition.

A C Osborn

Total contradictions in this statement “Althogh I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.”
How can any type of skeptic believe that there has been “SEVERE largely anthropogenic warming of the (NTH), let alone compelling evidence.
0.7 to 0.8 degrees in a Century is now severe warming whereas a greater amount in the MWP wasn’t, give me strength.

SandyInLimousin

Genuine question, does the Warm phase ENSO transport heat from the Southern Pacific Ocean to the Northern Pacific Ocean and from there to the Northern Thermal Hemisphere whereas the cold phase won’t do the reverse?

TedM

“I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.”
Please demonstrate that the warming is anthrapogenic.

Tom J

Dudley Horscroft
June 6, 2014 at 1:30 am
You’re wrong. It’s Godzilla.

thegriss

And seriously, from all I can gather, NDCD actually STARTED the corruption of the global temperature data .
They were the first ones to show a MUCH REDUCED 1940 peak, and then Hansen and Jones took over.
That first graph is, A LOAD OF MALADJUSTED, MANIPULATED BOLLOCKS !!!!!!!

Uh. Did anyone ever consider that this post is total sarcasm?

Please demonstrate that the warming is anthrapogenic.
The President has concluded that the warming is anthraciteogenic. What more do you need to know?

jmrsudbury

Norm. The first IPCC report showed a satellite arctic ice extent graph. The a multi year mean went back to 1973. The 1973 level was the about the same as 2005’s ice extent. The ice extent increased until 1979 then fell again. Your ‘progressive arctic ice loss’ is just a part of a cycle.

It matters little whether you are talking increases/decreases in the “average terrestrial near-surface temperatures verses atmospheric CO2 ppm” …… or …….. the “average terrestrial near-surface temperatures verses water temperatures (swimming pools, ponds, rivers, lakes or ocean)”, ……. the latter always lags behind the former ….. with the “lag time” being highly dependent upon the “volume” of water in question.

hunter

You offer a lot to ponder. I would ask you to expand this interesting assertion a bit more:
“…that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.”
1- please define severe. There is good historical evidence that the temperatures we are experiencing are not unique. And certainly it is fair to say that nothing severe is happening, since storm, drought, flood, heat and cold are failing to show any dangerous trends.
2- You introduce a new term”NTH” Northern Thermal Hemisphere. Please offer evidence that this is even a meaningful term.
You further assert that this NTH warming explains arctic ice loss. How does this reconcile with excellent historical records indicating that the current state of Arctic sea ice is not unprecedented,and that in fact Arctic sea ice is highly dynamic and has been like this in the past ≈150 years.

Jimbo

Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling. The warming of the NTH explains progressive loss of Arctic sea ice.

Amen to that bro! Please explain this?

Abstract
The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism
The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.7°C…..
dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2004)017%3C4045:TETWIT%3E2.0.CO;2
Abstract
The regime shift of the 1920s and 1930s in the North Atlantic
During the 1920s and 1930s, there was a dramatic warming of the northern North Atlantic Ocean. Warmer-than-normal sea temperatures, reduced sea ice conditions and enhanced Atlantic inflow in northern regions continued through to the 1950s and 1960s, with the timing of the decline to colder temperatures varying with location. Ecosystem changes associated with the warm period included a general northward movement of fish……
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2006.02.011
Abstract
Early 20th century Arctic warming in upper-air data
Between around 1915 and 1945, Arctic surface air temperatures increased by about 1.8°C. Understanding this rapid warming, its possible feedbacks and underlying causes, is vital in order to better asses the current and future climate changes in the Arctic.
http://meetings.copernicus.org/www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2007/04015/EGU2007-J-04015.pdf
Monthly Weather Review October 10, 1922.
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explores 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….
In August, 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitsbergen and Bear Island under Dr. Adolf Hoel, lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. The oceanographic observations (reported that) 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 81o 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus…..”
docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf
Examiner (Launceston, Tas. – 25 April 1939
…It has been noted that year by year, for the past two decades, the fringe of the Polar icepack has been creeping northward in the Barents Sea. As compared with the year 1900, the total ice surface of this body of water has decreased by twenty per cent. Various expeditions have discovered that warmth-loving species of fish have migrated in great shoals to waters farther north than they had ever been seen before….
http://tinyurl.com/aak64qf
IPCC – AR4
Average arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the global average rate in the past 100 years. Arctic temperatures have high decadal variability, and a warm period was also observed from 1925 to 1945.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html
Abstract
Arctic Warming” During 1920-40:
A Brief Review of Old Russian Publications
Sergey V. Pisarev
1. The idea of Arctic Warming during 1920–40 is supported in Russian publications by the following facts: *retreating of glaciers, melting of sea islands, and retreat of permafrost* decrease of sea ice amounts…..
http://mclean.ch/climate/Arctic_1920_40.htm

Jimbo

Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling. The warming of the NTH explains progressive loss of Arctic sea ice.

Amen to that bro! It also explains this.

Sea Ice Update June 3 2014 – Global Sea Ice Highest Since 1996
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/06/03/sea-ice-update-june-3-2014-global-sea-ice-highest-since-1996/
4 June 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Continues To Blow Away Records
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/04/antarctic-sea-ice-continues-to-blow-away-records/

Jimbo

–Here is a challenge for proponents of global warming: Show how anthropogenic warming of the NTH leads to cooling of the STH, or else allow that the cooling of the STH is practically independent.

The proponents of anthropogenic global warming told us that BOTH POLES should warm fastest, in winter and at night. Bollocks to that.
Here are some abstracts from 2012, 2013, 2014 showing evidence of extreme & increased snowfalls on east Antarctica
National Geographic reported on the 10 December 2013 the “New Record for Coldest Place on Earth, in Antarctica
We are still to blame no matter what.

Abstract – 2010
Petr Chylek et al
Twentieth century bipolar seesaw of the Arctic and Antarctic surface air temperatures
[1] Understanding the phase relationship between climate changes in the Arctic and Antarctic regions is essential for our understanding of the dynamics of the Earth’s climate system. In this paper we show that the 20th century de-trended Arctic and Antarctic temperatures vary in anti-phase seesaw pattern – when the Arctic warms the Antarctica cools and visa versa. This is the first time that a bi-polar seesaw pattern has been identified in the 20th century Arctic and Antarctic temperature records. The Arctic (Antarctic) de-trended temperatures are highly correlated (anti-correlated) with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) index suggesting the Atlantic Ocean as a possible link between the climate variability of the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Recent accelerated warming of the Arctic results from a positive reinforcement of the linear warming trend (due to an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases and other possible forcings) by the warming phase of the multidecadal climate variability (due to fluctuations of the Atlantic Ocean circulation).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL042793/abstract

Jimbo

“… evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling …”

But is it mostly co2? If it is mostly co2 and compelling then please provide the evidence with your post.

Abstract
Dr. James Hansen et. al. – 2003
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
…..Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.short
_______________________
Abstract
Maria Sand et. al. – 30 July 2013
Arctic surface temperature change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or midlatitudes
….. We find that BC emitted within the Arctic has an almost five times larger Arctic surface temperature response (per unit of emitted mass) compared to emissions at midlatitudes. Especially during winter, BC emitted in North-Eurasia is transported into the high Arctic at low altitudes. A large fraction of the surface temperature response from BC is due to increased absorption when BC is deposited on snow and sea ice with associated feedbacks…….
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50613/abstract
_______________________
Abstract
Tica Novakov et. al. – April 2013
……….The Black Carbon Story: Early History and New Perspectives
BC heats the air, darkens the snow and ice surfaces and could contribute to the melting of Arctic ice, snowpacks, and glaciers……In this article, we trace the historical developments over about three decades that changed the view of the role of BC in the environment, from a pollutant of marginal importance to one of the main climate change agents….
doi:10.1007/s13280-013-0392-8
_______________________
Abstract
Mei, Linlu et. al. – April 2013
…Due to the special meteorological condition mentioned above, we can conclude that Eurasian is the main contributor of the Arctic pollutants and the strong transport into the Arctic from Eurasia during winter caused by the high pressure of the climatologically persistent Siberian high pressure region (Barrie, 1986)….
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..15.7222M
_______________________
Lhermitte, Stef et. al. – EGU General Assembly 2013
Changes in surface properties of the Greenland ice sheet (2000-2012)
…Classification of the Greenland ice sheet surface into snow/ice with varying i) grain size, ii) melt water content and iii) impurity concentrations (soot, dust, cryoconite) shows the spatio-temporal patterns of surface properties that affect the albedo feedback…….This results in strong broadband albedo reductions that increase solar energy absorption (0.4 W/m2/yr) and again promote enhanced melt water production. Moreover, recent changes show ice exposure at higher elevations and increases in snow grain size on the interior of the ice sheet….
adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013EGUGA..1510756L

Mike M

Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.
I’m far more compelled to suspect that the difference in the land mass to ocean ratio between NH and SH is the primary reason and one so much larger than any human factor that the human factor is trivial and insignificant in comparison. For example, which hemisphere has a higher daytime cloud cover as a negative feedback? Certainly that difference could easily obliterate any difference in CO2 concentration as a forcing differential.
And that raises the obvious question – IS there a significant difference in CO2 concentration between hemispheres in the first place? Without knowing the answer this discussion could be nothing more than “an exercise”. (I ~thought~ that question was already answered as “CO2 is globally well mixed”?)

old construction worker

“Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling. The warming of the NTH explains progressive loss of Arctic sea ice.”
And the MWP was caused by? Waiting for your answer Mr. Buske

C.M. Carmichael

The temps in the arctic go above freezing for about 45 days in summer but the ice melt goes on from march to september, it is not temp that does it it is the sun wind and currents.

Jimbo

by Norm Buske
Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming, I agree that evidence of severe, largely anthropogenic warming of the Northern Thermal Hemisphere (NTH) is compelling.

Take your time and look at the dates, starting in 1958.
For a quick look compare 2013 to 1958,1959, 1960, 1961, 1962.
Are you still of the opinion that it is “compelling”?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Jimbo

Some people like to talk about “compelling”, yet are compelled to NOT provide the peer reviewed evidence of their compulsion. Compelling my arse. Get your act together next time.

MikeB

CO2 is a well -mixed gas in the atmosphere. Consequently, the CO2 concentration in the southern hemisphere is the same as that in the north. It is not therefore sensible to attribute any Arctic warming to CO2 whilst saying that this does not apply in the Antarctic.
Does the author think that the presence of cities and industry in the north is what causes global warming? This is negligible compared to radiative forcing and, besides, there are no cities or industries in the Arctic. So it is difficult to guess at the author’s reasoning in coming to his strange conclusions. Further explanation would be welcome.

Jimbo

And in related global warming news we have this anomaly in June! It’s ‘unprecedented’ and we must act now. It’s worse than we thought.

5 June 2014
“Unprecedented: Parts of Lake Superior covered in ice almost a week into June”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/06/05/unprecedented-parts-of-lake-superior-covered-in-ice-almost-a-week-into-june/

More “compelling” evidence of man-made lake warming. Heh, heh.

Who were the NH anthropogenic warming dudes of the period just after the Napoleonic Wars? Who got the Arctic melting post WW1?
Fascinating all the different wrappings and flavourings used to get us to swallow yet another warmie pill. Now it’s warmism as skepticism. And the pill’s a strong one: ‘severe’ warming with ‘compelling’ evidence.
Any adults left out there? Hello? Adults?

dudleyhorscroft

When the Arctic Ocean is covered in ice, the air temperature cools the top of the ice (to rather low temperatures!), and with the very low temperature there is reduced heat lost to space.
When the Arctic Ocean is near ice free, the sea surface is comparatively warm (Zero Celsius + ??) and radiates heat fast to space.
So when it is cold enough to freeze over little heat is lost and when it is warm enough to not have much ice plenty of heat is lost (in comparative terms).
Sounds to me rather like a natural negative feedback ensuring that temperatures cannot deviate too much (how much?) from some mean temperature.

Jimbo

“Study Finds Antarctic Sea Ice Increases When It Gets Colder”
August 17, 2013
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/study-finds-antarctic-sea-ice-increases-when-it-gets-colder/

The computer models projected a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent for this century.

Abstract – Qi Shu et. al. – July 2011
Sea ice trends in the Antarctic and their relationship to surface air temperature during 1979–2009
“Surface air temperature (SAT) from four reanalysis/analysis datasets are analyzed and compared with the observed SAT from 11 stations in the Antarctic……Antarctic SIC trends agree well with the local SAT trends in the most Antarctic regions. That is, Antarctic SIC and SAT show an inverse relationship: a cooling (warming) SAT trend is associated with an upward (downward) SIC trend.”
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/docs/Shu_etal_2012.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-011-1143-9

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

William of Ockham might explain this increase of Antarctic sea ice extent as an effect of the STH having cooled, just as the loss of Arctic sea ice has been explained as an effect of the NTH having warmed.
Really? This ain’t the best of presentations, but it does show the direction of trends from 1979 up to 2014:
[long WoodForTrees link]
Northern Hemisphere sea ice goes down, NH land+sea temperatures go up.
Southern Hemisphere sea ice goes up, SH land+sea temperatures go UP, not down. Although the sea ice increase is slight, might not be significant.
Post says average global temp “has evidently stabilized for the last dozen years or so”, otherwise “the pause” is shown elsewhere to be more than 17 years, nearly 18. So shoot for the middle, go from 1998, that’s 15 whole years of data, and going from the Super El Nino:
[also a long WFT link]
About the same. NH sea ice down, NH temp up. SH sea ice up, SH temp up. But the SH temp increase is slight, likely not significant.
I don’t think William of Ockham would like being informed the reported see-saw effect is only an artifact of choosing a duration for “the pause” that’s only 2/3 as long as the reality.

What the heck is a thermal hemisphere? A Google search for |”northern thermal hemisphere”| yielded just 13 hits, most of them references to this post and the rest uninformative. I’ll leave it for future researchers to see if searching for the STH sheds additional light on the term.
In future writings, please define abbreviations and unusual terms in a glossary at the beginning or when the term is first used. And please explain why each hemisphere is not warming but the thermal hemisphere is.

LT

How about the explanation that the Arctic is floating on a near land locked ocean being feed warm water by the Atlantic, and Arctic summer sea ice is more dependent on ocean cycles than changes in atmospheric trace gasses. Also, Antarctica and the Arctic Ice behaviour are significantly buffered by vastly different climate regimes to be expected to have any similarities about short term growth or loss trends. I would be very curious to see what piece of evidence that strengthens your belief that the Arctic Sea Ice loss trends over the last 30+ years are Anthropogenic, and why those loss rates cannot be caused by the well known positive AMO cycle and or three decades of elevated solar activity and a positive PDO cycle for the 80,s,90’s and early 2000’s.

Richard M

If the anthro part is aerosols it could make sense. It’s still a stretch though. I think solar + ocean cycles is better.

John Leggett

I have no clue as to the mechanism but I think that the current Modern Warm Period is part of the cycle of ~ 1,400 year warm Periods and cool periods. These periods have occurred as far back as we can document.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halocene#mediaviewer/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.pngcomment image%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.globalresearch.ca%252Fglobal-cooling-is-here%252F10783%3B914%3B578

Dave L

Have you overlooked that the temperature data has been adjusted? Take away the adjustments and what happens to the ‘warming’? Remember, when you arbitrarily adjust the data, it is no longer science.

Don B

Anthony, your standards are slipping, allowing a piece like this. The author needs to dig a little deeper. Almost certainly, polar ice ebbs and flows due to oceanic long cycles – see Weatherbell’s Joe Bastardi’s Saturday Summaries, for example.
http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-may-31-2014
REPLY: The man wanted to ask a question, I decided to let him. People can learn useful things from basic questions, even those that you might think are too simple to ask, or are below the skill set of others. Some people will probably tell me the next post, the Friday Funny, which is about poetry, should be allowed because poetry isn’t a useful discussion of science.
Note the masthead, and thank you for reading anyway. – Anthony

Gamecock

“Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming”
Sure you are.
mosomoso June 6, 2014 at 4:48 am nails it.

Mike M

Richard M says: “If the anthro part is aerosols it could make sense.”
To me a warmer NH serves to minimize significance of aerosols. They are much shorter lived than CO2 and therefore of higher concentration in the NH.