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:
[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:
[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.
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.
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.
Amen to that bro! Please explain this?
Amen to that bro! It also explains this.
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.
But is it mostly co2? If it is mostly co2 and compelling then please provide the evidence with your post.
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”?)
“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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
The computer models projected a decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent for this century.
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.
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.
If the anthro part is aerosols it could make sense. It’s still a stretch though. I think solar + ocean cycles is better.
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.
%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.globalresearch.ca%252Fglobal-cooling-is-here%252F10783%3B914%3B578
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halocene#mediaviewer/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
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.
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
“Although I am a long-time, casual skeptic of global warming”
Sure you are.
mosomoso June 6, 2014 at 4:48 am nails it.
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.