From the Steig et al. is still dead department:
The rapid warming of the Antarctic Peninsula, which occurred from the early-1950s to the late 1990s, has paused. Stabilisation of the ozone hole along with natural climate variability were significant in bringing about the change. Together these influences have now caused the peninsula to enter a temporary cooling phase. Temperatures remain higher than measured during the middle of the 20th Century and glacial retreat is still taking place. However, scientists predict that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise at the current rate, temperatures will increase across the Antarctic Peninsula by several degrees Centigrade by the end of this century.
Reporting this week in the journal Nature researchers from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) describe how the stabilisation of the ozone hole and changing wind patterns has driven a regional cooling phase that is temporarily masking the warming influence of greenhouse gases.
Lead author, Professor John Turner of British Antarctic Survey says: “The Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most challenging places on Earth on which to identify the causes of decade-to-decade temperature changes. The Antarctic Peninsula climate system shows large natural variations, which can overwhelm the signals of human-induced global warming. In recent years, there has been an international research effort to explain what’s happening in the region and to understand the implications for the Antarctic environment and future sea-level rise.
“Our study highlights the complexity and difficulty of attributing effect to cause. The ozone hole, sea-ice and westerly winds have been significant in influencing regional climate change in recent years. Even in a generally warming world, over the next couple of decades, temperatures in this region may go up or down, but our models predict that in the longer term greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in temperatures by the end of the 21st Century.”
A wide range of climate data was analysed for this study, including atmospheric circulation fields, sea-ice records, ocean surface temperatures and meteorological observations from six Antarctic Peninsula research stations with near-continuous records extending back to the 1950s.
During the Twentieth Century, Antarctic Peninsula temperatures increased by up to 0.5? C per decade, helping to trigger the dramatic collapse of ice shelves and causing many glaciers to retreat. Whilst there was a decrease in sea ice extent around the Antarctic Peninsula towards the end of the last century it has been increasing in recent years, particularly in the north-east of the region. The cold easterly winds observed in the 21st Century have had a greater impact on the region because the sea ice has prevented ocean heat from entering the atmosphere.
To set their observations in a longer-term context, the research team looked at a 2,000 year climate reconstruction using the chemical signals in ice cores. As previously reported, analysis suggests that peninsula warming over the whole twentieth century was unusual, but not unprecedented in the context of the past 2,000 years. The reconstruction shows a warming starting in the 1920s, which is consistent with the warming trends recorded by the meteorological stations. The ice core records also reveal periods of warming and cooling over the last several centuries that were comparable to those observed in the post-1950s instrumental record. This highlights the large natural variability of temperatures in this region of Antarctica that has influenced more recent climate changes.
Dr Robert Mulvaney, is a leading ice core researcher at British Antarctic Survey. He says:
“Meteorological observations from the Antarctic Peninsula research stations only cover the last 60 years or so. If we are to get a better idea of the long-term trend we need to look back in time. The ice core record helps us see how the climate evolves over the longer term. We can also look at the levels of carbon dioxide and other chemicals that were in the atmosphere and compare them with observations from today.”
In the last month, the levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere above Antarctica rose past the 400 parts per million milestone, contrasting with the pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million recorded in Antarctic ice cores. Climate model simulations predict that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase at currently projected rates their warming effect will dominate over natural variability (and the cooling effect associated with recovering ozone levels) and there will be a warming of several degrees across the region by the end of this century.
###
The paper:
Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability by John Turner, Hua Lu, Ian White, John C. King, Tony Phillips, J. Scott Hosking, Thomas J. Bracegirdle, Gareth J. Marshall, Robert Mulvaney and Pranab Deb is published this week in Nature
Abstract:
Since the 1950s, research stations on the Antarctic Peninsula have recorded some of the largest increases in near-surface air temperature in the Southern Hemisphere1. This warming has contributed to the regional retreat of glaciers2, disintegration of floating ice shelves3 and a ‘greening’ through the expansion in range of various flora4. Several interlinked processes have been suggested as contributing to the warming, including stratospheric ozone depletion5, local sea-ice loss6, an increase in westerly winds5, 7, and changes in the strength and location of low–high-latitude atmospheric teleconnections8, 9. Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s. The annual mean temperature has decreased at a statistically significant rate, with the most rapid cooling during the Austral summer. Temperatures have decreased as a consequence of a greater frequency of cold, east-to-southeasterly winds, resulting from more cyclonic conditions in the northern Weddell Sea associated with a strengthening mid-latitude jet. These circulation changes have also increased the advection of sea ice towards the east coast of the peninsula, amplifying their effects. Our findings cover only 1% of the Antarctic continent and emphasize that decadal temperature changes in this region are not primarily associated with the drivers of global temperature change but, rather, reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Ozone hole stabilization”. Nonsense, last year’s ozone hole was bigger than ever.
Stop being holier than thou.
An do we know the hole story?
Sill digging. In hopes that they will turn up an ace.
And on the other side of the planet another ship of fools:http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/21/global-warming-expedition-stuck-in-arctic-sea-because-of-too-much-ice/
Just as there is weather in the Troposphere there is weather in the Stratosphere…..
“While the ozone hole area was large in 2015, the size was consistent with what scientists know about ozone depletion and chemistry. According to NASA atmospheric scientist Paul Newman, there are still plenty of ozone-depleting chlorine and bromine compounds present in the stratosphere. Moreover, the lower stratosphere was colder than in previous years, which creates favourable conditions for ozone-depleting chemical reactions.”
http://www.theozonehole.com/2015.htm
Stabilization is the new pause.
Yeah. When your meme is in trouble, change the names for everything and then claim that you knew it would be in trouble all along.
… but they’re sure CAGW will happen by the end of the century. 😉
It’s interesting that they were brave enough to admit that the current climate in that location is dominated by natural variability.
Now all they have to do is to tell us which one.
Well, unless those same climate models reproduce the recent lack of cooling in the region, there NO SCIENTIFIC REASON to trust their longer term predictions.
True. Fact is, the modellers have included NO provision for long term natural variability in their models, so all natural variability is (in the models) short term. ie, it balances out to zero over time. The ONLY long term factor built into the models is CO2. The end result of ALL model runs is therefore that CO2 dominates. All natural variability is therefore interpreted as in the Turner et al study : even though they can clearly see that natural variability dominates in the real world, the only thing they can get their models to tell them is that over time it will become inconsequential and CO2 will dominate. I am fed up with this idiocy of continuing to rely on models in defiance of massive contrary evidence from the real world.
Here is an ice core from Gomez Dome at the base of the Antarctic peninsula:
Liz Thomson et al 2009
Ice core evidence for significant 100-year regional warming on the Antarctic Peninsula
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L20704, doi:10.1029/2009GL040104,
2009
The black line is the “first principal component”.
Association between naturally occurring events may exist even if the current understanding of such events has no convincing physical explanation for it.
Antarctica has the strongest Sun-Earth magnetic connection
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/TSI-dBz.gif
Sun-Earth magnetic connection in the Arctic is somewhat less prominent due to the bifurcation of the N. Hemisphere’s magnetic field intensity distribution.
vukcevic
But the ice core record shows the opposite, i.e. more variation and instability in the NH, less variability and smoother longer term oscillation in the SH:
http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png
This is all well understood in terms of ocean circulation dynamics.
Hi Ptolemy
S. Hemisphere’s magnetic intensity is stronger and highly concentrated enabling strong solar connection while the N. Hemisphere’s magnetic intensity is more ‘diffused’ with two areas of concentration, i.e. Hudson Bay and Central Siberia (see two flux lobes in the link below). As the magnetic intensity between two locations narrowly fluctuates (within 10%), consequently the solar link is less concentrated and less intense, as it is spread over larger area.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GMFd.gif
Whenever it warms, it’s because of CO2.
Whenever it cools, it’s because of nature.
Hi Mark
Whenever it warms temperature data expands and warming is enhanced
Whenever it cools temperature data shrinks and cooling diminishes
Just a matter of simple laws of physics.
While admitting their findings cover just 1% of Antarctica. Would bet your all on a 100-1 chance? No, thought not.
I’m sure someone has added up all these “extreme natural internal variability” of all the regions in the world, then backed those out of the “global climate change” predictions, er, forecasts.
Right?
caused the peninsula to enter a temporary cooling phase…
well of course…..warming is permanent
We can but hope the cooling is temporary. I don’t think I’d like to see a very long cooling phase.
Well, you can bet if runaway cooling were to occur, it would definitely have to be anthropogenically induced to be politically correct.
It was certainly claimed to be anthropogenic the last time it happened back in the 70’s.
the stabilisation (there’s a ‘z’ in there somewhere) of the ozone hole and changing wind patterns has driven a regional cooling phase….
….but the unstabilization of the ozone hole and unchanging wind patterns didn’t drive the warming phase
The ‘z’ is only required in the USA
No not anymore, the Oxford English Dictionary uses the z version. Apparently the suffix ‘-ize’ has been in use in the UK since the 15th century.
So has “Thou seest”, Alan, but we don’t use that, either. Let us not drift into Americanisms. The centre, is the centre. I have tyres on my car. In a few hours, I might go to the theatre.
We will turn you to the dark side.
bazzer1959,
In Cumbria they still do.
The OED says both -ize and -ise are acceptable for British spelling. American usage is uniformly -ize, but I personally like my -ises, and will keep them for the time being.
I tend to go with Shakespeare: “Thou whoreson ‘zed’, thou unnecessary letter!” Kent in ‘King Lear’
Does Antarctica’s current climate result from the impact of the weight of its upon inherent global lithospheric density equations that ultimately arrange tectonic boundaries & from which the speed of ocean circulation patterns? (faster currents > cooling…[#JuanDeFuca >density>anglular subduction>Less =>Blob?] …slower currents [see 5 plate junctions] warming…? If solar magnetic flux affects geomagnetism & athenosphere behavior (temp changes), then does gleissberg, Hale, etc *11,22, 88, & intracycle* sunspot cycle behavior offer meaningful ocean temp & thus climate anywhere predictors
So what looks like a cooling trend since 1998 is strictly due to local conditions?
And what about “Polar Amplification” ? In the allegedly warmest year of the record ???
Sounds like they are looking for loopholes… 😉
Antarctica has a ‘pause’ in warming – may be linked to ozone hole stabilization
Does the arctic have an OZone Hole?
Are planetary temps being determined by Antarctica’s stored cold effect upon global oceanic circulation? Are ocean circulation changes effectd by minor solar related lithospheric feedbacks variances at major oceanic seafloor spreading & subduction zones sufficient to kickstart Arctic sea ice growth (as a lithospheric arrangement factor..?)?
Weren’t we told at one point that the ozone hole was what was keeping the interior from warming as fast as the peninsular?
How can they possibly figure out what is happening in the Antarctic by study ONLY the Peninsula ” ? Does the other 90% not affect it. or do they just not like the answers ?
Good enough for government work.
yep…it’s magic
“…the stabilisation of the ozone hole and changing wind patterns has driven a regional cooling phase that is temporarily masking the warming influence of greenhouse gases.
What is masking the global warming influence of greenhouse gases?”
If this theory is true, then we should be able to estimate how much warming is due to the growth in the “ozone hole” from the dawn of the freon era to the current period. With that, we should be able to isolate an estimate on warming due to carbon dioxide.
This is all somewhat academic. The “ozone hole” is stabilizing, not shrinking. As a result, if temperatures are stabilizing, then all of the temperature increase had been due to the reduction of ozone. If that is true, then climate scientists need to find a new hobby.
I love these ‘we really haven’t got a clue but we know it will all go badly in the end’ papers. An all-round good laugh.
Like a bad Lifetime movie
“I love these ‘we really haven’t got a clue but we know it will all go badly unless we keep getting paid in the end’ papers.”
FTFY
The heat and moisture have been transported to the South Pole from the Northern Hemisphere. It is a natural annual event.
A review using the latest OCO-2 satellite images confirms the annual process, and the real carbon cycle and can be seen at the following link.
http://www.blozonehole.com/blozone-hole-theory/blozone-hole-theory/carbon-cycle-using-nasa-oco-2-satellite-images
A remarkable series of images Blozone.
I would recommend anyone who wondered what happened to OCO-2 to look at these images.
Why has NASA not made more of this information ?
One odd thing that caught my eye was the way CO2 excess seems to flow around rather than over Australia – is this because that continent is a net absorber of CO2 or is it an instrumental artifact?
“Here we use a stacked temperature record to show an absence of regional warming since the late 1990s.”
But there was no pause.
Note how the statistically significant cooling trend they find becomes simply ‘the absence of warming’.
They found the ozone hole the first time that they looked. It’s size seems to be regulated by the temperature, not vice a versa.
The chemistry of ozone depletion blaming CFCs was a fraud, paid for by DuPont Chemical as their main refrigerant was out of patent and being made cheaply around the world, preserving food for millions, saving lives. They paid a “scientist” to determine that their CFC refrigerant was to blame, paid for lobbying to have it banned, and stepped forward with a replacement refrigerant already under patent and conveniently much more expensive. Now, 20 years later, with that refrigerant now also out of patent (17 years is the limit), the scientist admits that his research was a fraud. Now we know that it is nitrogen gas and solar UV radiation that breaks down ozone at those temperatures—neither of these are affected by human activities.
What a pack of lies!
“temporary cooling phase”
Why is it that whenever there is cooling, it is ‘temporary’ and, whenever there is warming they don’t append ‘temporary’ to it? Seems to me that, given natural cycles & all, both cooling & warming are ‘temporary’.
“an absence of regional warming ” another wonderful turn of phrase. You’d think they would break out into a rash if they uttered the words ‘cooling’ or ‘pause’.
Maybe they should describe ‘cooling’ as ‘negative warming’, that way they can maintain the fiction that the planet is always warming. Or maybe they can describe it as ‘less warm’.
No, the plebians will see through that one. How about ‘inverted offset warming anomaly’ ?
IOWA??….names already taken
LOL
Love it .
silly, it’s warming either way. Just as there’s no such thing as deceleration, there can’t possibly be ‘cooling’. It’s warming .. to a negative value.
Much as the climate scientismists in GangGreen can term regional or local failure to locate species as
localized‘extinctions’ they can also term all temperature variations asnegativewarming events.The temperatrure increases and variability are primarily a result of the annual atmospheric transport from the Northern Hemisphere. This is evident when looking at the latest NASA OCO-2 satellite images. The link provides a comprehensive review.
http://www.blozonehole.com/blozone-hole-theory/blozone-hole-theory/carbon-cycle-using-nasa-oco-2-satellite-images
Thanks Kiwikid, that’s a very interesting site that I’ll spend more time at. I hadn’t realised so many OCO-2 images were now available.
Montreal protocol has nothing to do with ozone hole stabilisation. The original Roland and Molina study was falsified. Likely just a climate related phenomenon. The Protocol was just a trial run for the much more comprehensive climate change scam.
So, let me get this straight. All over the globe, CO2 was beaten down and made to submit at the behest of natural weather pattern variations. If the steady stream of papers having something like this as a title: “…temperatures of [name] demonstrated a hiatus/masking/pause…” is any measure, it seems that natural weather pattern variations are really badass compared to CO2. Who knew?
Maybe if they call in Karl et al they can adjust this regional cooling away.
In the scientific domain, accuracy is inversely proportional to the product of time and space offsets from an observation point. So, the speculated link is now a matter of philosophical record, which may transition into the scientific domain within a semi-stable system in some bounded frame of reference. There are few naturally occurring progressive and stochastic processes in Nature outside of a limited frame of reference.
I am not convinced there was any warming trend at all, other than the peninsula. The paucity of stations make the interior data unreliable.
So the warming is still there; it’s just being “temporarily masked” by cooling wind patterns so we can’t see it. Riiiight. Add one more excuse to the list – how many does that make now?
I find it interesting that in order to support the meme they use models to overrule observations. This is what I truely call climate denial. Replacing observations with models. Others may describe such conclusions as scientific fraud.