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.
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?
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.
60 C is 140 F.
I wonder if at the time this “paper” was published, just how much fun their co-horts in the Arctic were having, what with suntanning on the decks and long swims with the poli bears???
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/
Reminds me of this classic failed expedition…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/12/AR2007031200997.html
…Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.
“They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” Atwood said. “But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability”…
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.
Just common sense to me, the ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming or the temperatures of Antarctica. Just a hunch.
except that there is no evidence that we had any ozone depletion to begin with
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2748016
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2757711
and even if we did suffer ozone depletion from cfc catalysis, the “long life” of cfc of 40-150 years implies that “stabilization” of total column ozone would be expected sometime between 2040-2150.
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.
They HAVE found it. It’s called a model.
“..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.
“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…
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/rising-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-actually-cools-part-antarctica
“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…”
14 June 2016 – In Vostok, temperature of -80.3 degrees was recorded…
http://iceagenow.info/record-cold-antarctica/
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.
Which implies a negative “greenhouse gas effect” over Antarctica, especially during winter time? Did I understand this right?
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.
“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.
In a world so full of uncertainty, I for one, am very glad that one thing remains certain: global warming is continuing unabated. /sarc
Did they even consider the fact that the whole West Antarctic peninsula sits over a volcanic zone?
This just in…
Another ship of fools is ice-bound, this time in the Arctic
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/07/darwin-award-alert/
http://iceagenow.info/global-warming-expedition-stopped-tracks-arctic-sea-ice/
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!
You should know by now that you can’t believe anything Steve Goddard says! He doesn’t even get the route right when it is clearly shown on their website.
Here’s the Polarocean ‘ice-bound in Murmansk’.
http://polarocean.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/DSC_0562-2-2.jpg
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.
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?
No that isn’t a fact.
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.
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.
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
Faraday station data 1950 (not 1960) to May 2016.
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?
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.
https://reality348.wordpress.com
Australia’s ABC TV News should be commended for reporting the Antarctic story in today’s midday bulletin, although they devote one sentence to the good news before interviewing an Australian National University researcher who explains why it’s all still bad news (http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/abc-news-at-noon/NN1617H145S00 at 35.50″).
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
Typical CAGW establishment bobbing and weaving. You don’t suppose that Sahel greening could have anything to do with the 400ppm of CO2 that is threatening our existence?
CO2 increase certainly helps.
I was surprised to learn that evaporation from the Med reaches the southern edge of the West African Sahara, however it appears they may be correct, as this link shows
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=3.96,31.71,750
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
Amazing how ‘temporary cooling’ is always ‘masking long-term warming’, while no warming is ever temporary or masking any cooling whatsoever.
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.”
Don, RSS satellite temperatures are not measured further south than 70ºS.
I wonder if anyone could comment on Professor Qing-Bin LU, a physicist in the University of Waterloo, Canada study, claiming CFCs not CO2 are main culprits in warming, and that Antarctic cooling is happening now do the repair of ozone layer?
http://www.worldscientific.com/page/pressroom/2015-07-15-01
Don’t suppose those underwater volcanoes have anything to do with any Antarctic temps?
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.
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.
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.