A warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014.
Remember the much ballyhooed paper that made the cover of Nature, Steig et al, “Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year”, Nature, Jan 22, 2009 that included some conspicuously errant Mannian math from the master of making trends out of noisy data himself? Well, that just went south, literally.
And it just isn’t because the Steig et al. paper was wrong, as proven by three climate skeptics that submitted their own rebuttal, no, it’s because mother nature herself reversed the trend in actual temperature data in the Antarctic peninsula, and that one place where it was warming, was smeared over the entire continent by Mannian math to make it appear the whole of the Antarctic was warming.
The peninsula was the only bit of the Antarctic that suited the Warmists. They gleefully reported glacial breakups there, quite ignoring that the Antarctic as a whole was certainly not warming and was in fact tending to cool. The study below however shows that the warmer period on the peninsula was an atypical blip that has now reversed.
- We examine climate variability since the 1950s in the Antarctic Peninsula region.
- This region is often cited among those with the fastest warming rates on Earth.
- A re-assessment of climate data shows a cooling trend initiated around 1998/1999.
- This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP.
- Observed changes on glacial mass balances, snow cover and permafrost state
Recent regional climate cooling on the Antarctic Peninsula and associated impacts on the cryosphere
M. Oliva et al.
Abstract
The Antarctic Peninsula (AP) is often described as a region with one of the largest warming trends on Earth since the 1950s, based on the temperature trend of 0.54 °C/decade during 1951–2011 recorded at Faraday/Vernadsky station. Accordingly, most works describing the evolution of the natural systems in the AP region cite this extreme trend as the underlying cause of their observed changes. However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. While that study focuses on the period 1979–2014, averaging the data over the entire AP region, we here update and re-assess the spatially-distributed temperature trends and inter-decadal variability from 1950 to 2015, using data from ten stations distributed across the AP region. We show that Faraday/Vernadsky warming trend is an extreme case, circa twice those of the long-term records from other parts of the northern AP. Our results also indicate that the cooling initiated in 1998/1999 has been most significant in the N and NE of the AP and the South Shetland Islands (> 0.5 °C between the two last decades), modest in the Orkney Islands, and absent in the SW of the AP. This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP, including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and a thinning of the active layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.
Full paper:
Science of The Total Environment. Volume 580, 15 February 2017, Pages 210–223
h/t to “Greenie Watch“
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0.32 – (-0.47) = 0.79
… such a HUGE concern !
Yesterday, I weighed 155 lbs … Damn, today I weigh 155.79 pounds! … I’m going down hill fast.
proven by three climate skeptics that submitted their own rebuttal
Why identify them as “climate skeptics”? The other side instantly discounts their opinion as confirmation bias, or even discredits them as not being scientists because they are skeptics.
They are just “scientists” or even “climate scientists”.
The authors were O’Donnell, Lewis, Condon and McIntyre. I did wonder which one lost his rating.
What goes around, comes around.
Are we talking about tornadoes again?
It’s warming….. until it starts cooling again!
Yet another example of “Linear Thinking In a Cyclical World!”
http://www.maxphoton.com/linear-thinking-cyclical-world/
As the old song goes … Yes, I remember it well. Particularly the cover, about which I had speculated:
And – notwithstanding my admittedly statistically and graphically challenged eyes – I was able to note:
Nature had done its best to sustain and preserve the illusions of requisite scientific “novelty” presented in S09 by declining the paper from O’Donnell et al, who subsequently made a submission to the Journal of Climate where their work was subjected to the mother-of-all-peer-reviews prior to acceptance for publication […] in December 2010.
Should this paper be a stock market indicator there is no way that I would buy short on global warming based on this evidence alone.
The AP is a snout extending into the only ocean that circumnavigates the globe and has a great chunk of ice right up its butt.
Get a slight variation in SST due to cyclical sea current change or prevailing wind then bingo. Ya can’t study trends in fleas by observing one on a dog.
But this is earth science: many snippets of information that over time clarifies the picture.
What I would buy short on is a continuing upward trend in mean global temperature. There will be a downward spike of decadal scale sooner rather than later. This is based on historical patterns. In them I trust.
Like what I said only better! Nobel prize for comedy for the papers on Antarctic whatever.
It looks to me that this cooling is evident in the Google Earth Panoramio photos (see ’em while you can).
Yeah right conspiracy theorists. Do you not believe humans have landed on the moon? The odds that 2014 was the hottest year until 2015 which was the hottest year until 2016 are 3.4 million to one. You all are all so 1980s. Finding more sand to stick your heads in is your prime motivation in life.
[??? .mod]
He’s just another troll that can’t do math.
People often confuse weather with climate. Take the long view on global warming.
jtrobertsj
Hmmmmn. That the world is cooling off? That each high peak (Minoean, Roman, Medival, and today’s Modern Warming Period) is cooler than the previous peak? That we are near the peak of the MWP, if not today (2000 – 2010), then after the next 70 year short cycle in 2070 – 2080?
The odds that 2014 was the hottest year until 2015 which was the hottest year until 2016 are 2.7 million to one. Are you going to bet your grandchildren’s future on such slim odds?
You do realize we’re talking about years since 1979, don’t you? And that these “hotter” years differed only by tiny fractions of a degree, well within the margin of error. And that in the less tampered with satellite record, 2015 was not the hottest year. And that 2016 was a super El Nino year, which may or may not actually have been warmer than 1998.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3388407/2015-NOT-hottest-year-record-Satellite-data-shows-temperatures-lower-thought.html
Since satellite records began in 1979, 2015 the third warmest year, with a mean global temperature of 0.27°C (0.49°F) above the average. Based on these data, 1998 holds the record for the warmest year at 0.48°C, followed by 2010, at 0.34°C (0.61°F).
You really want to bet the fate of industrial civilization on such minor fluctuations over such a short time period?
It was warmer in the 1930s, during most of the Medieval Warm Period, and the Roman, Minoan and Egyptian WPs, as well, and warmer still during the millennia of the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
mR Roberts,
where did you find those odds?
and when do you want to get together and play some poker?
Chimp do you have the expertise to pass judgement on the research of hundreds of climate scientists at NASA? Christ I have a PhD in a STEM field and I am unqualified to do so. Your qualifications? What exactly are they?
Yes, I do, as to which my comment should be sufficient evidence. So-called “climate science” isn’t rocket science. Any BS degree in a scientific discipline provides enough basis to evaluate the ho@x, if you take the time to study the issue.
Now kindly demonstrate that you understand science and respond to what I said rather than going full ad hominem, the first and last refuge of losers.
Do you really imagine that all NASA and other government scientists really believe that man-made global warming is a catastrophic threat, even among those whose jobs depend on the sc@m? If so, you’re wrong.
You must be new here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/10/hansen-and-schmidt-of-nasa-giss-under-fire-engineers-scientists-astronauts-ask-nasa-administration-to-look-at-emprical-evidence-rather-than-climate-models/
The charlatans of NASA GISS are not representative of all NASA scientists.
Now please act like a scientist and respond to what I said, rather than demanding to see my credential papers, like a good Econ@zi.
Really? I have a masters in stats and I would not willingly take on those billions of climate data points reported by sensors world wide. Just the normalization of that data is a task no single PhD in stats could ever accomplish. Thus I guess they use super computers. If you want to get my attention do not quote bogus science free articles. Go read articles in Nature and Science. It is remarkable how peer review will legitimize a scientific study.All of a sudden their data sets, their statistical analysis and their science means something.
No article on this site has ever been published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Out of tens of thousands of articles. What exactly does that tell you?
Pal review, as practiced in the hopelessly corrupt enterprise of “climate science” delegitimizes their bogus, repeatedly falsified GIGO models. A mining engineer showed how pathetic were the statistical analyses of so-called “climate scientists”.
Peer review doesn’t apply to a letter by NASA scientists, engineers and astronauts. Did you bother to read the link? I guess not.
If credentials are more important to you than the scientific method, then please compare and contrast the CVs of NASA GISS mis-Directors Gavin Schmidt and Jim Hansen with those of Freeman Dyson, Richard Lindzen, Ivar Giaever, the late William Gray and Reid Bryson, to name but a few for starters.
You still haven’t bothered to respond to the substance of my comment, apparently because you can’t.
Do you have a BS in a STEM field? Just asking. And there is a huge unbridgeable gulf between a BS and a PhD. If you do not understand that then …
Yes. Undergrad Stanford, with highest honors. Grad Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship. Danforth Fellowship not used. Former college genetics prof. Not that it matters. All that matters is what I said and how well I can support it with evidence. Apparently you don’t do evidence, which puts you in bad company with the gnomes of NASA GISS.
As noted it took a Canadian mining engineer to set the so-called “climate scientists”, ie computer game players, right.
I forgot Will Happer, national Science Adviser candidate.
Now please reply to the substance of my comment or kindly STFU.
And in one post, jtrobertsj demonstrates that he is lying when he claims to know anything about statistics.
My Phd is bigger than your Phd. Trolls are so predictable.
Another troll pretending that it actually went to college.
DonM. It is simple basic probability which you can study at any JuCo in the US. It is basic sample without replacement on a deck of 142 cards. Basic math.
Yes they use supercomputers to come up with their amazing models, and I really mean amazing, as in unbelveable, but so what? They programmed the computers so the computers say what they a programmed to say. It doesn’t mean the models are correct.
Oh good heavens. The average mean temperature of the Earth is not a crap shoot. So probabilities are almost irrelevant. A warm year s much more likely to follow other warm years than it is to suddenly get cold an very warm then cold at random. The atmosphere doesn’t respond instantly to change.
Chimp I have no idea what many of the acronyms you used mean. A mining engineer has absolutely no clue about climate science. How could he? His field of expertise never sees the skies.
Of course I did not read that link. It may have been a link to Infowars as far as I am concerned.
There have been thousands of peer reviewed scientific articles focused on global warming. Including hundreds authored by NASA scientists. And would you please explain to me what the scientific method means to you? I would recommend you look it up on Google first.
I also taught the history and philosophy of science, so I know what the scientific method is. NASA GISS and NOAA don’t practice it. It has nothing at all whatsoever to do with peer review. It existed long before peer review and was better without it. Just ask Einstein. It has everything to do with falsification of testable predictions made on the basis of an hypothesis.
Check out the famous Feynman video on Youtube if you want to learn what the scientific method is. CACA has not only been repeatedly falsified, but was born falsified. The CACA hypothesis can’t even reject the null hypothesis. It’s not just unscientific, but deeply antiscientific.
Should I add that I was Phi Beta Kappa in my junior year, and graduated in three years?
The engineer in question is familiar to anyone with even a passing interest in the failed CACA hypothesis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
My last word to you until and unless you respond substantively instead of with ad hominem and argument from authority logical fallacies.
Then explain to me what the scientific method means. Go ahead. I am waiting.
I already did. How’d you miss it?
Go away and play in the street, kid.
According to a Google search Steve McIntrye has a BS in math and a masters in such fields as philosophy. Why would you ever think he is a scientist? Christ I have over three years of scientific and math training on him and I do not believe I am competent to criticize NASA’s conclusions. Not to mention that 30 years of employment in the scientific community.
Steve practices the scientific method, unlike Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, Briffa, et al, of whose abysmally bad statistics he made mince meat. Which you’d know if you knew anything at all about “climate science”.
Most of the most important scientists in history didn’t have PhDs. All that degree is is an academic union card. The work speaks for itself.
Chimp am I to actually believe you on your qualifications? Every single scientist for decades have had to have a deep understanding of statistics. Most of them do the statistical analysis on their own data points, for better or for worse. Please explain to me how to calculate the probability of choosing the three highest cards in a deck of 142 sequentially. Basic sampling without replacement. Or better yet explain to me what a Monte Carlo analysis reveals about a data set. I honestly do not believe you will have a response to this comment.
Genetics is the science for which the mathematical field of statistics was invented. My prof at Stanford went on to pioneer the study of the spread of haplogroups around the world. My undergrad thesis on statistical analysis of certain human genes won a prize and led to a co-authored paper.
I have no further responses to any of your time-wasting drivel, since you refuse to reply to my original comment, but only engage in the crudest of logical fallacies.
Since you don’t even know what GISS stands for, you’re not qualified to comment on so-called “climate science”, which isn’t science.
Given the fact that you have demonstrated a complete absence of knowledge about statistics, your claim to having a degree in that field is debatable.
“Please explain to me how to calculate the probability of choosing the three highest cards in a deck of 142 sequentially.”
May I?
I’m going to say, 1 in 2, or 50%, i.e., either you’ll get the three highest cards, or you won’t.
(H/T Charles Pierce)
you should have taken the advice to stfu. now we all know you are indeed full of bs.
Where do we get such trolls?
Really? You attempt to answer a single question I have asked here. GLWT. You cannot do it. And I have understood the math and science for decades behind every single question I have posed.
The question has been answered. However, since the answer doesn’t coincide with what you want to believe, you have resorted to standard troll behavior of simply insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with you and claiming bogus degrees in an attempt to intimidate those who fail to agree.
Chimp would you care to discuss the methylization of DNA base pairs and the probability that epigenetics can pass down traits from parents to children without ever modifying the actual DNA itself? How about the science behind CRISPR-cas9 genetic alteration? I would love to hear your opinions on those topics.
Come on. That should be a piece of cake for a geneticist.
I guess I know much more about your pretend scientific expertise than you do. Funny that. Few on the internet can actually back up their claims.
Here’s on for you J. Which mitochondrial haplotype labelled the small group exiting Africa via Sinai ~ 60,000 years ago to become the modern ancestors of most humans outside of Africa today? And which African people group show the strongest genetic signal of gene inflow from H heidelbergiensis ancient remnants up to ~ 30,000 years ago? Where do they live now?
Alternatively J, you could just blow hard into this little plastic tube I have right here. At least that is something you can do / be.
They should name a hurricane after you jt.
I’m not sure you even know what the topic of this post is, it is not genetic, it is not Ad Hominem attacks, and isn’t appeals to authority.
I wonder if you have anything at all to say on the issue.
jtrobertsj April 27, 2017 at 7:46 pm
You know less than nothing, because you have never done anything, other than pollute a blog.
You are boring, but in an hilarious way, so I’ll reply to your total total nonresponse to my original reply.
I’m now on my fifth startup in the genetic engineering line, happily with my son and daughter on this one, both of whom have doctorates in relevant disciplines.
The discovery of the effects of what was once thought “junk DNA” on evolution has been a major achievement of the past 40 years. I’m happy to say that my first four companies played an important part in elucidating that fact.
As a grad student, I showed that corn (maize) and its wild ancestor teosinte are identical in terms of “genes”, ie segments of their genomes coding for proteins. This was an important development in recognizing that “junk” DNA was functionally significant.
What have you contributed to understanding the natural world?
It is to laugh. Go away, little boy. You bother me.
I thank it’s really cool what you guys can do with Crayola Markers, some white paper, a ruler and a trip to a cold as *$#& barren waste land were you have nothing but time. When I look at it makes me feel really bloody cold.
Arctic 1925 –
&psig=AFQjCNHqqG4KGu6WmsatA_7Wl9CqO84ddw&ust=1493455813142360
richard on April 28, 2017 at 1:51 am
http://fs5.directupload.net/images/170429/sxjv2zfh.jpg
Of course: this GHCN unadjusted, far away from what you obtain after having eliminated outliers etc.
But the map must be correct!
I remember the Sahel rainfall decline being the poster child of proof of global warming in the late 90s when I was at University. It has had a nonstop rising trend since the low point in the 70s and 80s. Arctic Sea Ice loss was causing cooler wetter summers 2007-2012 in Europe…been drier and warmer ever since. Stratospheric temperatures were plummeting because of global warming….Strat temps have flat lined since 1994. Droughts and famine will increase due to global warming…..global droughts and famine have been lowest for many decades. Maldives and Pacific atolls are disappearing under rising sea levels from Global warming. Maldives have not been mentioned for decades. Pacific Atoll land areas are increasing not decreasing. Californian mega drought was signal of global warming. California reservoirs are overflowing. Similar predictions from Tim Flannery about rainfall in Australia. Australian rainfall is highest in decades with desert greening. The list of failed predictions is seemingly endless.
There are three things that are certain about the whole Global Warming debate.
One is that there will always be some NEW signal proving global warming no matter how many previous predictions failed.
Two is that all the past failed predictions will be quickly forgotten or attempted to be erased from history.
Three is that those who believe humans are bad for planet earth will always believe any global warming message no matter what evidence is placed before them.
So if the above is correct, I am not sure you can fight the global warming argument with facts or data and I am not sure how you turn around this juggernaut. I find it a bit all a bit depressing. Only a major shift cold will stop it and even this will have to happen over decades. So I may not be around to see it.
The continent as constantly below 0F most of the time besides the fringes. And people worry about 1/10ths of a degree and melting. Wow. Just wow.
guys
especially MarkW
if you knew anything about stats you would have long got the same result as I did a few years ago
= you can see the variation of the half Gleissberg cycle (88 years)
This … just …. innnnnnnnnnnnnn!
Ginormous rivers under Antarctic glaciers. Antarctica’s gone from way, way, way below freezing, to, way, way below freezing. Dontcha know? Them rivers gonna fill up the ocean! California’s gonna go underrrrrrrrrrrr!
More at 11.
Latitude-height cross section of zonal mean temperature in the Southern Hemisphere.
You can see how the cold troposphere shrinks over the south pole.
The above graphic also shows that practically in winter the boundary between the troposphere and the stratosphere over the polar circle disappears.
Interesting! Air and sea temps appear to have spiked for about a decade before 1999. 1999 marked the beginning of Earth’s Great Year. The precession of the equinoxes formed a perfect erect cross in July 1998. Subsequently, arctic temperatures are lower, though not uniformly so. The 25,000-28,000 year sidereal cycle is certainly difficult to factor into the picture, but it scientists know that it does influence climate.