Study: Antarctica has a 'pause' in warming – may be linked to ozone hole stabilization

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.

antarctic-pause

Figure 2: Antarctic Peninsula temperature and measures of tropical climate variability since 1979. The stacked–normalized SAT anomalies for 1979–2014 (thin black line), with the thick black line showing the annual mean values. The solid red lines show the linear trends for the warming and cooling periods.

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.

Advertisements

127 thoughts on “Study: Antarctica has a 'pause' in warming – may be linked to ozone hole stabilization

  1. “Ozone hole stabilization”. Nonsense, last year’s ozone hole was bigger than ever.

  2. Our findings … reflect the extreme natural internal variability of the regional atmospheric circulation.

    … 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.

    • 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.

      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.

    • 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.

      • 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

      • 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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 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.

  5. 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

    • And what about “Polar Amplification” ? In the allegedly warmest year of the record ???
      Sounds like they are looking for loopholes… 😉

  6. Antarctica has a ‘pause’ in warming – may be linked to ozone hole stabilization
    Does the arctic have an OZone Hole?

  7. 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..?)?

  8. Weren’t we told at one point that the ozone hole was what was keeping the interior from warming as fast as the peninsular?

  9. “…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?”

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    • 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?

  12. “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’.

  13. 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.

  14. “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’.

  15. “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’.

  16. 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’ ?

    • 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 as negative warming events.

    • 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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?

  19. 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.

  20. I am not convinced there was any warming trend at all, other than the peninsula. The paucity of stations make the interior data unreliable.

  21. 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?

  22. 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.

  23. If you ignore the two straight lines on the temperature graph, you can see a nice dome shape. The time from its initial low point to the ending low point is approximately 60 years. Wait, that sounds familiar … where have I heard that before?

  24. Since the warmest average temperature of the Antarctic peninsula, at the warmest part of the year, in January, are below 0 degrees C, I have a hard time to understand anything about a warming problem on that continent. I know the climate alarmists like to point out those record highs on the peninsula, of some such 50 or 60 degrees C, which probably last for a few hours and then fall below zero after melting the equivalent of one ice cube in volume.

  25. First Meehl et al. 2016 show that more than 95% of the model projections are wrong for Antarctic sea ice https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/04/expanding-antarctic-sea-ice-linked-to-natural-variability/
    Now this. How many times to climate “scientists” have to be beaten over the head with natural variability before they admit their models are wrong and stop telling the world that sooner or later our models will be right, just you wait and see?
    More than 95% wrong, dang, Vegas would love to bet against odds like that.

  26. It seems to me (but I’m not a climate scientist) that if natural variations are overwhelming AGW on the peninsula, they should find a place without natural variations in which to do their measuring.

  27. “..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.”
    It’s a huge tragicomedy, they have the polar see-saw upside down. The decline in indirect solar forcing since the mid 1990’s has resulted in the south pole cooling, and the warming of the AMO and Arctic, thoroughly overwhelming the increase in greenhouse gas forcing.

  28. “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.”
    Calling Dr Who and the Tardis…calling Dr Who…

    • https://i.imgur.com/EpdAvc0.png
      The South Pole is roughly the same temperature as the atmosphere one month of the year, January. It is warmed by the atmosphere every other month.
      http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/rad_balance_ERBE_1987.jpg
      The South Pole receives about 58 W/m2 and emits 148 W/m2 more or less. According to Woods Hole, “The annual mean temperature at the South Pole in winter is -76F (-60C) and -18F (-28.2C) in summer.”.
      http://www.southpole.aq/environment/climate.html
      The average temperature is about -49.4C. If not for the atmospheric warming the average surface temperature would be less than -95C.
      The atmosphere above the South Pole isn’t warmed by land, it heats the land (and space). The South pole atmosphere doesn’t have any water vapor to speak of. This implies the South Pole atmosphere is relatively transparent to upwelling IR from the ice. More CO2 simply makes the hotter atmosphere (hotter than land) lose what little heat it does have to space faster.
      If you cool the air above the south pole, since cold air flows downhill, it is likely that this is in part responsible for the peninsula pause and the Antarctic sea ice increase.

      • http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL066749/full
        “How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica”
        This is one of several articles on the effect. The one possible flaw in this excellent article on the effect is the statement it only happens in Antarctica.
        If you look at CERES it is obvious that the Himalayas operate at about a 200 W/m2 energy deficit. The top of Mount Everest would have an average annual temperature of 23C (about the same as New Delhi) if it were at sea level.
        Further the air pressure at the top of Everest is only about 330 mbars.
        I am suspicious that the effect may occur outside of Antarctica but didn’t find scholarship to that effect after a brief search.
        Did find an interesting point by Spencer: the “33C” greenhouse gas effect is really the balance of a 60C greenhouse gas effect (pure radiative) and 30C convective cooling effect which short circuits about 1/2 the greenhouse warming. This makes the predictions of GHG global warming sort of dubious since it is difficult to increase the atmospheric source/sink temperature differential.

  29. “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.”
    Phew! That’s a relief. I’d hate to think we’re not doomed.

    • if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise at the current rate
      And if the temperature of Gaithersburg continues to warm as much as it has since January 2016, by January 2018 the temperature could be 100C.
      These stupid linear extrapolations of short term trends dot global warming literature like a leopard’s spots. You don’t have to be a idiot to be a global warmer, but it helps. Taking the trend (tangent) of a nonlinear phenomenon (like a sinusoid) has no predictive value.
      Since 1998 CO2 emissions have increased 50% but the annual CO2 increase has only gone up about 25%.
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
      According to NOAA the annual CO2 increase hasn’t been less than 1.56 PPM this century. I predict we will set a century record in the next 4 years and it might even go as low as 1 PPM. During the early 90s (the last time the annual emissions rate flattened) the annual rate of CO2 increase actually declined.
      So…
      1. Will “greenhouse gas concentrations continue to rise at the current rate”? No.
      2. Will “temperatures will increase across the Antarctic Peninsula by several degrees Centigrade by the end of this century”. The peninsula has been cooling for about 2 decades (check raw Rothera and Larsen Ice Shelf temperatures).
      An conditional assumption that is untrue, leads to a prediction that the observed trend will reverse dramatically.
      Color me skeptical.
      The global warmers make their predictions based on the crystal balls of failed GCM models, invalid assumptions, linear extension of trends – that are known to be driven by logarithmic physics or worse, and waterboarded temperature data. I don’t believe their balls are any more crystalline than mine are.

  30. Did they even consider the fact that the whole West Antarctic peninsula sits over a volcanic zone?

    • That’s a surprise. I thought the Russians built their enormous, nuclear powered, ice-breakers just for fun. Now I find out there is ice up there to use them on. Fancy that!

      • OK ice bound is not literally correct. But the polarocean blog and ship log shows that they were delayed in Murmansk due to sea ice, albeit not in your photo. Why else were they negotiating with the Russian ice breaker crew.
        So what will they prove? That following a Russian ice breaker they can sail the northeast passage. That has always been the case – nothing new there. I’m guessing the Russian part will be airbrushed out.

  31. Some of us have been saying this for years. There was a climatic shift in Antarctic Peninsula temperatures prior to 1980, since when temps have been stable.
    As Jim Steele showed, this shift was because of a change in wind direction, and had nothing to do with global warming.
    Details of his study are here:
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/analysis-of-antarctic-peninsula-temperature-trends-2/
    One of the big climate lies is that the Peninsula IS warming much faster than globally. In fact it stopped warming 30 yrs ago.
    Now we learn that such temperature shifts have regularly occurred prior to man measuring them!

    • And isn’t it the fact that we didn’t know there was a hole in the Ozone layer until we looked…and that there might have always been a hole?

    • Faraday station data 1960 to May 2016 on the Antarctic Peninsula. One could easily argue the warming stopped in 1970 (or 85 or 90 or any year basically). Or it could just be natural variability.
      https://s31.postimg.org/krssmqdmj/Faraday_65_S_Temps_Jun16.png
      And then the actual South Pole station Amundsen Scott. Nothing has happened here since the station opened in 1957. Where is the Ozone influence? Not that is.
      https://s31.postimg.org/udi88n96z/Amundsen_Scott_90_S_Jun16.png
      All stations in Antarctica can be found here. No adjustments are made to temps here because they are “supposed” to be done properly by professional scientists. (Something the NCDC doesn’t agree with in all the adjustments they do to the rest of the world’s temperature data).
      https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html

      • Bill Illis, what is your conclusion on the Amundsen Scott graph? Only hardly no warming on the South Pole itself or can we draw any conclusion about hardly no warming on the earth as a whole? What does ice core research tell us? Are earlier climate changes from the rest of the earth reflected in the ice cores of the South Pole (90S)? This graph is intriguing.

      • Wim Rost,
        The charts are in anomaly versus the average monthly temperature. Amundsen Scott has an average annual temperature of -49.5C and, in 58 years, it has increased by 0.2C. Really, 0.2C.
        This is an area which should have 2X polar amplication and no change in 58 years means something funny is going on with the other global temperature records.
        The issue is that Amundsen Scott is staffed by 200 professional scientists in the summer and 50 in the winter and nobody can justify adjusting the temperature record here. These scientists are risking their lives and recording temperatures as scientifically as possible and even the NCDC/NCEI won’t adjust the record. Most of Antarctica’s records are managed by the British Antarctic Survey/UK Met Office who have not shown the propensity to adjust records like the NCDC/NCEI has. Antarctica and Antarctic sea ice provides for an unbiased check against the NCDC/NCEI adjustments and the adjustments fail the test as much as they possibly could.
        Next, the South Pole ice is not going to melt. Its -24.0C even on the hottest summer days and -80s in the winter.
        The ice cores tell us that this region was about 2.0C warmer about 10,000 years ago just as the NH Milanokovitch Cycles hit their maximum. There was no Holocene maximum here as the peak temps were about 2,000 years before the Holocene Max.
        Temps afterward were very close to today’s -49.5C for basically the last 9,000 years. The ice cores also show that this region was -10.0C colder in the deepest parts of the last 4 ice ages going back 800,000 years.
        I note that the Antarctic scientists have used the ice core data in the proper way that the isotope to temperature conversion science say that temperature should be converted at. Hence, -10.0C is the global ice ages temp with a polar amplification factor of 2X. The Greenland ice core scientists, on the other hand, have redone these formula based on borehole temperature models which has bumped the variability (cold and hot) up by a factor of 2.5X compared to what it really should have been (or let’s say a 5X polar amplification factor). The Antarctic ice core scientists have completely resisted using the borehole temperature. i imagine they don’t party together too often since one has integrity and the other is trying to scare everyone.

      • Bill Illis,
        What brings up the heat near the south pole are the enormous low pressure area’s surrounding it. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=mean_sea_level_pressure/orthographic=-154.59,-94.44,587/loc=25.407,-89.613 The very cold SP mostly has a high pressure area as the theory says. The air above the SP is lowering down. It seems logic that the lowering air originates from the low pressure area’s surrounding the SP. Today’s winter pattern of 500 Mb wind shows a SP connection of the SH up to the southern half of Australia – just outside the tropics. https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=0.44,-84.85,595/loc=0.440,-89.784
        My first thought is, that the temperatures in the centre of the South Pole are connected this way to the temperatures on the whole Southern Hemisphere outside the tropics.
        If so, the graph of Amundsen Scott gains in importance.
        Bill Illis: “The ice cores tell us that this region was about 2.0C warmer about 10,000 years ago just as the NH Milanokovitch Cycles hit their maximum. There was no Holocene maximum here as the peak temps were about 2,000 years before the Holocene Max.”
        WR: The polar amplification factor of 2X (also an estimation I think) or 5X (for Greenland) is more or less new to me. It means pole regions can heat up more than the world on average. The tropics react strongly by (exponential) evaporation which keeps the final warming of the tropics moderate. In the same time, the tropics seem to expand pole ward in case of warming. A higher temperature gradient (tropics – pole) gives higher pressure gradients, resulting in stronger winds. In the low pressure area’s outside of the tropics a higher upward energy transport will result. This warmer air is at a higher level partly transported to the high pressure area’s at the pole(s). I can imagine that pole temperatures react stronger on warming than the world as a whole and much more than the tropics do.
        Being land based ice and highly elevated, the SP will be less influenced by warming than the NP. No variable Gulf Stream or (big) sun heated land surfaces will in the SH make large fluctuations in temperature as they are able to do in the NH. And if it is correct that energy differences between the NH and SH are levelled, the importance of the Amundsen Scott graph once more gains in importance.
        In theory there will (nearly) always be a high pressure area at the SP, because of its low temperatures. For the NP the situation is different: water based, sea level. Low pressure area’s like “Ralph” this year make a chance at the NP in summertime: https://sunriseswansong.wordpress.com/2016/07/18/arctic-sea-ice-the-revival-of-ralph-an-anti-gyral-gale/ The NP and surrounding area will be more sensitive for change. The same for the whole NH because of its high percentage of land, as we have seen during the Little Ice Age and in the last century as well.
        Besides this, the lowering air in high pressure area’s as on the SP has also been subject to processes in the higher atmosphere. Reflected in her temperature.
        This all makes that one SP graph very important as an indication of changing Earth temperatures. It makes us look different to what could be ‘NH capriciousness’. Not understood but fascinating is the fact that the SP Tmax in the Holocene was 2000 years before the world (NH?) Tmax. A big time lag at the NH for big (Milankovitch) changes? And a smaller one for Sun variations? And a direct orbit/sun result at the SP?

  32. Erl happ has some observations on this….. Reality348.wordpress.com. Its well worth the series nowmup to chapter 20 and more to come. Great passion.

  33. Meanwhile:
    Warmer Mediterranean turns the Sahel green
    Researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg report that due to higher sea temperatures in the Mediterranean more moisture from the eastern Mediterranean is reaching the southern edge of the Sahara at the start of the West African monsoon in June. Moreover, according to the current study, the future development of precipitation in the Sahel region is crucially dependent on the warming of the Mediterranean.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-07-warmer-mediterranean-sahel-green.html

  34. Lead author, Professor John Turner of British Antarctic Survey says: “The Antarctic Peninsula climate system shows large natural variations, which can overwhelm the signals of human-induced global warming.”
    Your mind is upside down Professor. The rational view says: “The Antarctic Peninsula climate system shows large natural variations, which overwhelms human-induced global warming making it insignificant. Hence, we should be studying natural climate change”
    “Climate model simulations predict that if greenhouse gas concentrations continue to increase at currently projected rates their warming effect will dominate over natural variability”
    Obviously the nutty Professor is unhappy that reality is not cooperating with his wishes so his only recourse is manipulating a simulated reality to overstate future warming

  35. Amazing how ‘temporary cooling’ is always ‘masking long-term warming’, while no warming is ever temporary or masking any cooling whatsoever.

  36. Take a look at the UAH and RSS satellite temperatures, which show no warming in the Antarctic and in the south polar area for 37 years (the length of the satellite record). Neither the South Pole or Vostock surface temperatures show any warming at all since 1957. The Southern Ocean has been cooling since 2006. So there is no ‘pause’ in warming and it’s hard to see how ozone is related to climate at the South Pole.

    • “So there is no ‘pause’ in warming and it’s hard to see how ozone is related to climate at the South Pole.”
      http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/14/13705/2014/acp-14-13705-2014.pdf
      “Lower stratospheric ozone depletion also drives statistically
      significant tropospheric changes which extend down
      to the surface. In December, stratospheric ozone depletion
      causes surface pressure to decrease poleward of ∼ 60◦ S, and
      increase from 60 to 30◦ S in a pattern resembling the positive
      phase of the SAM. Surface temperature is also affected,
      with significant cooling modelled over much of the Antarctic
      continent, and warming over the Antarctic Peninsula.”

    • http://www.livescience.com/45571-antarctic-melting-myths.html
      “Iceland has many very active volcanoes, but glaciers still cover its surface. And Iceland is just one of several examples showing that fire and ice can coexist at volcanoes without widespread melting occurring. Second, volcanoes called tuyas erupted through ice sheets during past Ice Ages, and there is little evidence they caused rapid, catastrophic melting. Third, the volcanic activity beneath West Antarctica hasn’t significantly changed in the past few decades, which is when the glaciers there started their galloping retreat. Finally, a super-eruption the size of Yellowstone’s biggest blast would be needed to melt through the miles of ice that cloak the volcanoes, scientists have calculated.”

      • Water absorbs, stores, transports and gives off heat, ie, must effect temps somewhere when it is being constantly heated geothermally.

  37. 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.

    Funny, so many contradictions here… 1) this 1% has been trumpeted as a canary in the coal mine by alarmists… 2) So its weather evolution is not linked to global drivers? Does it means it operates by itself??? 3) extreme natural variability, regional circulation are thus isolated somewhat from global circulation? LOL
    In Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate, Leroux shows that depressions coming from Antarctica have been more numerous and deeper, linked to the expulsion of more powerful anticyclones and a strengthening of catabatic winds. As a consequence, warm air advection along the relief of the peninsula has increased, hence the regional dynamic caused warming. But this regional consequence is linked to the general rapid mode of circulation that has been going for the past 40 years or so.

  38. From the article: “which can overwhelm the signals of human-induced global warming”
    What signals?

    • Exactly, they have never seen any, apparently models say they are present, but observations have been the opposite of the models, hence the signals are ‘overwhelmed’. Believers …true believers they are.

  39. I qoute: “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.”
    This is utter rubbish. First, the warming influence of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is non-existent. A child can see this by comparing the global CO2 curve with the global temperature chart. The carbon dioxide graph is smooth and shows no sign of having created the numerous ups and downs the global temperature since 1850 it is credited with having created. Furthermore, stabilization of the ozone hole does not cause any warming. As long as there is ozone in the stratosphere it stops solar shortwave ultra-violet from reaching the ground by simply absorbing it. But create an ozone hole by pushing it aside and the short-wave solar ultraviolet goes straight down to the ground. There it warms the ground and creates havoc among living things by causing skin cancer and cellular damage to vulnerable wildlife. And by the way, what is this about the ozone hole stabilizing? Did they not get the Montreal Protocol passed by promising that if we give up Freon the ozone hole will go away?

    • Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak) July 21, 2016 at 3:49 pm
      This is utter rubbish. First, the warming influence of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide is non-existent. A child can see this by comparing the global CO2 curve with the global temperature chart. The carbon dioxide graph is smooth and shows no sign of having created the numerous ups and downs the global temperature since 1850 it is credited with having created.

      Where do you get this nonsense from? As Hansen said in his Congressional testimony:
      “the signal [greenhouse effect] is at best just beginning to emerge”
      “There are certainly other climate change factors involved in addition to the greenhouse effect.”
      Furthermore, stabilization of the ozone hole does not cause any warming. As long as there is ozone in the stratosphere it stops solar shortwave ultra-violet from reaching the ground by simply absorbing it. But create an ozone hole by pushing it aside reacting it with Cl atoms and the short-wave solar ultraviolet goes straight down to the ground. There it warms the ground and creates havoc among living things by causing skin cancer and cellular damage to vulnerable wildlife. And by the way, what is this about the ozone hole stabilizing? Did they not get the Montreal Protocol passed by promising that if we give up Freon the ozone hole will go away?
      They also said that the lifetime of the most important O3 depleting CFCs was ~100 years so that it would take a long time for the ozone hole to go away. The CFCs are starting to decrease:
      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/oceans/images/nhemispherecfcs5.png

    • Arno Arrack is completely right here about Ozone just being pushed aside.
      As the Antarctic winter goes longer and longer, the south polar vortex just gets stronger and stronger and the Ozone is merely MOVED OUT to the 40S-60S latitudes.
      When the Ozone Hole shows up in September and October, the 40S-60S latitude Ozone levels sky-rocket to the highest levels measured anywhere in the stratosphere.
      After the September/October end of winter period is over, the Ozone filters back in from the 40S-60S latitude and the Ozone Hole dissappears and the 40S-60S latitude Ozone go back to normal Earth levels.
      The Hole is just a big scam.
      If it wasn’t a scam and the scientists had any kind of integrity, we would hear research about the big Hole at the Pole and the massive RECORD levels at 40S-60S. Nope, you don’t hear that anywhere except when I try to point it here.
      Ozone Hole in Spetember 2000 with record levels at 40S-60S.
      http://science.nasa.gov/media/medialibrary/2000/10/02/ast02oct_1_resources/et000927.gif
      But in March, no Hole and no Excess at 40S-60S.
      http://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/tmp/16164308820to20160321.gif

      • Bill Illis July 23, 2016 at 4:24 pm
        Arno Arrack is completely right here about Ozone just being pushed aside.

        No he’s not!
        As the Antarctic winter goes longer and longer, the south polar vortex just gets stronger and stronger and the Ozone is merely MOVED OUT to the 40S-60S latitudes.
        As the Antarctic winter progresses the south polar vortex gets stronger, isolating the polar stratosphere and allowing it to get colder. The O3 that is already there is trapped but since there is no sunlight it doesn’t dissociate so the concentration stays constant. Outside the polar vortex the Brewer-Dobson circulation continues to bring ozone from the tropics but it’s unable to cross the polar night jet so it accumulates there.
        http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_Js/6-03.jpg
        The polar stratosphere gets so cold that polar stratospheric clouds form at about -78ºC, the heterogeneous reactions on the ice particles produces Cl2 which in the absence of UV light just accumulates between ~14 and 22 km. Once sun rises over the pole the Cl2 is photolysed by the UV into Cl and the clouds are dispersed as the temperature rises. The Cl reacts with the O3 forming ClO and the O3 concentration drops to ~0 at that altitude and ClO concentration peaks at about 18-20km (each Cl atom accounts for ~1000 O3 molecules). As the temperature warms up O3 starts to form again and the vortex weakens allowing the O3 from outside to re-enter the polar stratosphere.
        Here is the status over the S pole now:
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ozwv/ozsondes/spo/iadv/SPO_2016-07-07.21.png
        By the middle of September you’ll see the O3 peak start to drop (blue curve).
        By the middle of October the O3 will be zero between 15 and 20km.
        By the end of December the peak will be back and the temperature will be much higher.

  40. One more piece of evidence that Earth’s real thermostat is the ozone layer. The glut of CFC release during the latter years of the 20th century is over, and now things are returning to normal. Surprise, surprise.

Comments are closed.