U.S. Climate Resilience Tool Kit: Greenland Stays Frozen in 2100… Even Under RCP8.5

Guest DIY by David Middleton

It looks like at least some of this money was well-spent.

U.S. Federal spending on Gorebal Warming. GAO

I stumbled across something very useful yesterday on Climate-Dot-Gov’s U.S. Climate Resilience Tool Kit page.

CMIP5 Global Climate Change Viewer

The widget generates CMIP5 or PMIP3 model outputs for specific countries and a temperature change map of the world.  You can also spit out plots of each model.  And these outputs display the actual temperature ranges rather than anomalies.

Since Greenland is such a great climatic playground, I started playing around with it.

Greenland Stays Frozen in an RCP8.5 Bad Science Fiction Nightmare

The first thing I did was to hit Greenland with RCP8.5.

Greenland RCP8.5 1980-2004 vs 2071-2095 –> 5.1 °C

While the histogram indicates a 5.1 °C rise in the average annual surface temperature.  It’s thought that the Sangamonian (Eeemian) interglacial was at least 5 °C warmer than today.  However, most of that 5.1 °C rise appears to be in winter and the average July temperature is projected to still be below freezing, only 2-3 °C warmer than the 1980-2004 mean.

Since we know that RCP8.5 is just bad science fiction and that global temperatures are behaving more like RCP2.6 to RCP4.5…

Having Fun With the Fourth National Climate Assessment Report

Let’s look at RCP4.5 and RCP2.6…

Greenland RCP4.5 1980-2004 vs 2071-2095 –> 2.9 °C


Greenland RCP2.6 1980-2004 vs 2071-2095 –> 1.8 °C

Again, note that most of the warming is in winter.  Greenland’s average July temperature barely changes.  The Greenland ice sheet will barely notice this.

“And Now For Something Completely Different”

Andy May’s brilliant analysis of NCA4 featured this image:

“A comparison of 32 climate models and observations. The observations are from weather balloon and satellite data. The two observational methods are independent of one another and support each other. The plot is after Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville (Christy 2016).”

Andy noted the following:

INM-CN4 is labeled and it, alone, is tracking the observations with enough accuracy, yet it does not predict dangerous temperatures in the future or any significant human influence on climate.

This drew some standard ad hominem and/or unsupported dismissals of Dr. Christy’s work and derision of INM-CM4.  So I downloaded UAH 6.0 and HadCRUT4 and plotted 5-yr running means at the same scale as Dr. Christy’s 2016 plot.

HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0 plotted on Christy 2016.

UAH 6.0 generally plots within 0.1 °C of the average of 3 satellite datasets, closest to INM-CM4.  HadCRUT4 plots well-below the model-mean closest to the only model that runs hotter than INM-CM4.  Note that there’s not a lot of difference between HadCRUT4 and UAH 6.0.  (0.1-0.2 °C is not a lot of difference).

Here are the RCP8.5 and RCP 4.5 outputs for INM-CM4 in Greenland:


Greenland INM-CM4 model, RCP8.5. Greenland still frozen in 2100 AD, barely warmer than the coldest part of the Holocene, the Little Ice Age.
Greenland INM-CM4 model, RCP4.5. Greenland still frozen in 2100 AD, barely warmer than the coldest part of the Holocene, the Little Ice Age.

Both models indicate that Greenland won’t be significantly warmer in 2100 than it was in 1850.  Almost all of the warming comes from an increase in the minimum temperatures.

1850 was very cold by Holocene standards.

Alley’s reconstruction ends in about 1850… only very slightly warmer than the coldest Holocene temperatures.


Alder, J.R., Hostetler, S.W., Williams, D., 2013. An Interactive Web Application for Visualizing Climate Data. Eos Trans. AGU 94, 197–198. DOI: 10.1002/2013EO220001.

Alder, J.R. and Hostetler, S.W., 2013. CMIP5 Global Climate Change Viewer. US Geological Survey http://regclim.coas.oregonstate.edu/gccv/index.html doi:10.5066/F72J68W0

Alley, Richard, B. (2000). The Younger Dryas cold interval as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews. 19. 213-226. 10.1016/S0277-3791(99)00062-1.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 30, 2018 7:07 am

How very disappointing for the green blob. We are apparently not all gonna die?

John Endicott
Reply to  Tom Halla
November 30, 2018 7:11 am

Don’t worry, I’m sure it’s worse than we thought…..

November 30, 2018 7:12 am

David, I’m curious about the Russian model….and I’m almost certain from what little I’ve been able to find….that it worked because they put in a lot less parameters…and lower CO2 forcing

….have you looked to into it? know anything about it?


Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 8:45 am

“I haven’t… nyet.” ?

There ya go…More proof that David is “colluding” with the Russians..!
What ? …That’s not what David said ?
So who cares, it’s good enough for the MSM…and all liberal/socialist/democrat…etc….
( Do I really need a “sarc” tag ?)

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 7:23 pm

I don’t know but I thought my Russian “nyet” joke was kinda funny now that the RCMP has released me on good behavior…..

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Latitude
November 30, 2018 8:39 am

I’ve tried to find it. It is apparently in the Harvard library, but haven’t pursued trying to get a copy.

Reply to  Latitude
November 30, 2018 8:51 am

I found this…..seems to be it

Climate Model Upgraded: INMCM5 Under the Hood
Posted on October 2, 2017

A previous analysis Temperatures According to Climate Models showed that only one of 42 CMIP5 models was close to hindcasting past temperature fluctuations. That model was INMCM4, which also projected an unalarming 1.4C warming to the end of the century, in contrast to the other models programmed for future warming five times the past.


Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 9:40 am

I’ve got some reading to do……

Still makes me wonder….INMCM4 was spot on…..why did they change it?

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 10:53 am

thanks….I think they beat it into submission

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 6:33 pm

The published PDF of the new and improved INMCM5 was dated February 2017.
John Christy’s graphic is 2 years prior, now 3 years.

Just for information — I’m fine with this.

Thanks for the post.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Latitude
November 30, 2018 10:44 am

Latitude, not David but I researched this when writing Blowing Smoke. In a laymans nutshell, the ‘accurate’ Russian model has more ocean thermal inertia and lower water vapor feedback. The former is consistent with ARGO observations and what is known about deep thermohaline circulation, the latter is consistent with humidity sensor bias corrected radiosonde readings in the mid to upper troposphere (not a lot of humidity up where its real cold so there is a correctable by sensor model dry bias). Wrote up the latter with footnotes to relevant papers in essay ‘Humidity is still all Wet’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Wrote up the humidity sensor bias and correction methods and did a deeper dive into erroneous AR4 model humidity assumptions in the long climate chapter of The Arts of Truth.

November 30, 2018 7:17 am

The fact that the best performing model (INM-CM4) vis-a-vis observations is ignored and homogenized with all of the other wild-ass models tells you all you need to know about climate science.

November 30, 2018 7:42 am

Looks like 97% of the models have got it wrong.

To me the kink in Andy May’s graph at around 1993/4 seems to indicate that there must have been some general change in the algorithms/methodology used in all the models with the exception of IMO- CM4 ; for suddenly they all seem to start running hot. Perhaps they were worried by the preceding 5 year temperature drop and needed to boost the agenda a bit. A touch of Groupthink ? After all they all look over their shoulders at the competition comparisons.

Phil Rae
Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 7:58 am


This is an, as yet, unexplained direct effect of magical CO2 on mercury, thermocouples, thermistors and other temperature transducers. It could be worth a grant application!

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 9:28 am

I just completed an online, real time Face-book survey of millenniums (under 30) who think “climate change” is a severe problem that must be solved NOW ! When asked why they held that belief (religion), 97% replied that their teacher told them, so it must be true !.. The other 3% believed that Unicorn farts will empower their generation ! As of 10 minutes ago, I was bocked by Face-book?

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 9:41 am

I still think it’s the best example of adjusting past temperatures down…was f r a u d

Curious George
November 30, 2018 7:55 am

The Real Estate Boom in Greenland is postponed again.

November 30, 2018 8:23 am

Ross McKitrick created the following website of temps in cities throughout Canada with actual temps. The upward slopes in the graphs on this page appear to reflect many of Canada’s largest cities….when you get to other smaller cities? Not so much.


steve case
November 30, 2018 8:24 am

It annoys me no end that people discus Greenland and Antarctica melting. They may be gaining or losing ice, but temperature has nothing to do with it.

Alan Tomalty
Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 10:19 am

Greenland mostly melts from underneath because of a volcanic ridge as was explained in a post last year on WUWT. In the early 1900’s Greenland’s ice sheets were less than today.

“Although retreat was scarce post-ETCW (1955-1970), retreat was more common
than not prior to 1920 in spite of relatively low temperatures.”

Over the years since WW2 allied bombers were found under 91 meters of ice.


So if global warming was causing Greenland to melt from the top, how could 91 meters of ice form on top of those planes? That means every year Greenland is adding snow/ice from the top not losing it. So whatever the temperatures are at top, and they are always cold, except in a very few days in the summer., then ice is not being lost from the top. Calving of ice goes on from the glaciers descending to the seas but that process has been going on for millions of years. 8000 years ago when temperatures were 5C warmer in Greenland it took 3000 years to melt 20% of Greenland’s ice. Greenland ice melting is another BIG LIE of climate science.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 11:27 am

most of the ice mass loss from Greenland and almost all of the ice mass loss in Antarctica is due to calving

Just a curious question, ….. doesn’t a glacier have to be gaining ice mass in order to be losing ice mass due to calving?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  David Middleton
December 1, 2018 3:20 am

😊 😊 😊

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2018 9:01 am

“In much of Central Greenland about 12,000 years worth of Holocene ice is thicker than over 100,000 years of Pleistocene ice. This is due to the fact that glacial stages (AKA ice ages) are very cold and very dry.”

Wrong. This is mostly due to the way ice flows in an icesheet, which compacts and “squeezes out” the deeper layers. It is not unusual to have half the total age of an ice core in the lowest few percent of the core. If you check the antarctic cores, which span several glacial cycles you will find that while accumulation is larger during interglacials the older ones are proportionally as compressed as the neighboring glacials

Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
December 1, 2018 9:19 am

No, not in the short run. Glaciers are driven by gravity, not temperature, and will keep on calving for a long time even if losing mass. Of course the calving front will in such cases retreat until it reaches the shore and much slower peripheral melting takes over. This will slow down glacier movement and make the glacier considerably steeper.

This is why the ice in north-central Greenland was actually slightly thicker during the Eeemian when the ice-front had mostly retreated onto dry land.

steve case
Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 12:49 pm

David Middleton November 30, 2018 at 8:55 am…
That said, most of the ice mas loss from Greenland and almost all of the ice mass loss in Antarctica is due to calving and sublimation.

News media would have us believe something else. Here’s the first page results from a Google News Search on “Greenland melting”:

The bittersweet beauty of Greenland’s melting glaciers
Mother Nature Network (blog)-Nov 16, 2018

Exploring the Tragic Beauty of Greenland’s Melting Ice Sheets
Atlas Obscura-Nov 5, 2018

Greenland’s Melting Ice Sheets: The Beautiful but Harrowing Changes …
The Weather Channel-Nov 6, 2018

Interview: Melting Greenland Ice Sheet Captured in Ominous Aerial …
My Modern Met-Nov 2, 2018

Where the ocean is ‘upside down’ is essential for showing us how fast …
The San Luis Obispo Tribune-Nov 17, 2018
During the summer months, copious amounts of freshwater melt from the glaciers of Greenland

Climate change is more extensive and worse than once thought
Phys.Org-Nov 29, 2018
They missed how much ice sheets in West Antarctica and Greenland would melt

Story image for greenland melting from Phys.Org
Melting Antarctic ice could slow global temperature rise, study says
Carbon Brief-Nov 20, 2018
While prior studies have added ice-sheet melt from Greenland

Rutgers researcher: Greenland’s glaciers are melting faster than …
News 12 New Jersey-Nov 9, 2018

Reply to  steve case
December 1, 2018 9:03 am

Well in a way they are right. All that ice ultimatele does melt somewhere, though not on Greenland or Antarctica.

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
November 30, 2018 9:32 am

“We measure changes in temperature and CO2 over time.
(Then) we put that data in dozens of different climate models and ignore the ones that look wrong to us.”
Dilbert (Scott Adams).

Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
November 30, 2018 4:20 pm

Well, that’s OK.
I think.
Isn’t it????

Ignoring the ones that ‘look wrong’.

That is – of course – blatant look-ism.
Utterly unacceptable.
Equivalent to – well, I guess – all the other isms we are so troubled by and all seriously seek to overturn.
Don’t we? Every minute of our waking hours?
Don’t we all??


Steven Fraser
November 30, 2018 10:06 am

David: what happens if you do the same thing for Antarctica?

November 30, 2018 10:14 am

generates CMIP5 or PMIP3 model outputs

For some reason whenever I see that, I see CHIMP or PIMP model outputs……

John Endicott
Reply to  beng135
November 30, 2018 10:34 am

what you see is rather fitting, all things considered.

November 30, 2018 10:53 am

Not to nitpick, but you are plotting mid-tropospheric and surface temperature together, and they are not the same thing, as you would notice if you were in the mid-troposphere now.

The thing is that mid-troposphere and surface temperature are supposed to behave slightly differently in response to increased GHGs.

That Greenland doesn’t significantly melt even if global warming continues for many centuries is a well established fact. It would take several thousands of years of global warming to make a significant dent in that ice block. East Antarctica isn’t even warming. Sorry, the Ice Age is here to stay. We ain’t running out of ice rocks for our whiskeys. The Anthropocene is a joke, at least from a climate perspective.

Reply to  David Middleton
November 30, 2018 4:23 pm

David Middleton

Who needs Friday for a nice malt? 🙂

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2018 3:29 am

Not according to SETH BORENSTEIN and the AP

AP FACT CHECK: 11 Trump climate goofs and 1 correct claim

Reply to  Javier
December 1, 2018 9:05 am

Inland Greenland/Antarctica is in the middle troposphere.

Angus McFarlane
November 30, 2018 5:06 pm


Could you explain how you derived your chart for the GISP2 Ice Core Temperature Reconstruction?

I have the Alley (2000) paper but the relevant data doesn’t seem to be in the paper.

Angus McFarlane
Reply to  David Middleton
December 1, 2018 3:58 pm

Thanks David. Data downloaded.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights