The polar regions in a 2°C warmer world

From AAAS

Review ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

The polar regions in a 2°C warmer world

Science Advances  04 Dec 2019:
Vol. 5, no. 12, eaaw9883
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aaw9883

Abstract

Over the past decade, the Arctic has warmed by 0.75°C, far outpacing the global average, while Antarctic temperatures have remained comparatively stable. As Earth approaches 2°C warming, the Arctic and Antarctic may reach 4°C and 2°C mean annual warming, and 7°C and 3°C winter warming, respectively. Expected consequences of increased Arctic warming include ongoing loss of land and sea ice, threats to wildlife and traditional human livelihoods, increased methane emissions, and extreme weather at lower latitudes. With low biodiversity, Antarctic ecosystems may be vulnerable to state shifts and species invasions. Land ice loss in both regions will contribute substantially to global sea level rise, with up to 3 m rise possible if certain thresholds are crossed. Mitigation efforts can slow or reduce warming, but without them northern high latitude warming may accelerate in the next two to four decades. International cooperation will be crucial to foreseeing and adapting to expected changes.

INTRODUCTION

Earth has warmed by approximately 0.8°C since the late 19th century, while the Arctic has warmed by 2° to 3°C over the same period (Fig. 1A) (1). Conversely, the Antarctic has experienced more pronounced interannual and decadal variation in mean annual temperature anomalies than the Arctic, with no obvious upward trend in the last two decades (Fig. 1A). Spatially, observed warming has been markedly heterogeneous in both regions during the more recent instrumental satellite record (since 1986), with both warming and spatial variability in warming having increased more for the Arctic than the Antarctic over the past 13 years (Fig. 1B) (2, 3). Therefore, despite similarities in defining characteristics such as pronounced seasonality and the year-round presence of ice and snow, these two regions may face different futures in response to ongoing warming.

F1.large

Fig. 1 Temperature trends and variability for the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

(A) Annual mean anomalies of the combined Land-Ocean Temperature Index (L-OTI) for the Arctic (64°N to 90°N), Antarctic (64°S to 90°S), and globe between 1880 and 2018 (zonal data bins defined by data acquired at https://data.giss.nasa.gov relative to the mean period 1951–1980). Temperature anomalies for the Arctic during each of the four IPYs, the first of which was based in the Arctic, are highlighted in purple. (B) Annual [January to December (J-D)] mean temperature change (°C) in the Northern (left) and Southern (right) hemispheres for 1986–2005 (upper) and 1986–2018 (lower) relative to the mean period of 1951–1980. Generated from the NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) online plotting tool (2); the GISS analysis is based on updated Global Historical Climatology Network v3/SCAR (2, 3) and updates to Analysis (v3).

Having arrived at the 10th anniversary of the Fourth International Polar Year (IPY), a milestone that intensified focus on observed and expected changes in the polar regions, we review key environmental and ecological impacts of warming over the past decade. We also review ancillary effects of polar warming at lower latitudes, for which evidence has mounted recently. Over the past decade alone, the Arctic has warmed by 0.75°C relative to the mean for 1951–1980, while the Antarctic has remained comparatively stable (2009–present; Fig. 1A). Our emphasis is on consideration of consequences for atmospheric, cryospheric, and biospheric changes in the polar regions, as Earth continues to approach 2°C global mean warming (Table 1). Hence, we first consider the expected magnitude and pace of warming in the Arctic and Antarctic under two carbon emissions futures: Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 and RCP4.5 scenarios. We then outline potential consequences of such warming on the basis of recent observed changes in both regions. While our retrospective assessments of warming to date (Fig. 1) refer to temperature anomalies relative to the period covered by the instrumental record (1880–2018) (2) and a baseline mean period (1951–1980), our projections of expected warming are presented relative to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) standard baseline period (1981–2005) (4).

The most recent generation of general circulation models in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) indicates that the Arctic is expected to continue to warm much more rapidly than lower latitudes, even under the moderate carbon mitigation trajectory characterized by the RCP4.5 scenario. The Arctic is expected to achieve an additional 2°C annual mean warming above the 1981–2005 baseline approximately 25 to 50 years before the globe as a whole under the business-as-usual (RCP8.5) and moderate mitigation (RCP4.5) scenarios, respectively (Fig. 2, A and B). The Antarctic, in contrast, is expected to lag slightly a 2°C global mean warming under the business-as-usual scenario (Fig. 2C) but reach 2°C annual mean warming slightly earlier than the globe under the moderate mitigation scenario (Fig. 2D). Under both scenarios, Antarctic warming is expected to outpace global mean warming only during austral late autumn and winter months (Fig. 2, C and D).

Fig. 2 Approximate year by which the 2°C warming threshold is reached for the Arctic and Antarctic compared to the globe as a whole.

Expected time to 2°C warming above the 1981–2005 mean under RCP8.5 (red) and RCP4.5 (blue) for the globe (open circles) compared to the Arctic [solid circles; (A and B)] and Antarctic [solid circles; (C and D)]. Means of 36 CMIP5 ensemble runs by Overland et al. (1) are shown. In (B) and (D), symbols positioned at year 2100 indicate that 2°C warming could be at 2100 or later.

The Arctic may experience as much as 4°C mean annual warming and 7°C warming in late boreal autumn, when a 2°C global mean warming above the 1981–2005 mean is reached, regardless of which RCP scenario is considered (Fig. 3, solid circles) (1). Particularly notable is the 13°C Arctic warming projected for boreal late autumn months by the end of the 21st century under a business-as-usual scenario (RCP8.5) (1). Annual mean warming in the Antarctic is expected to reach approximately 2°C under both scenarios, with slightly greater warming possible under RCP8.5 during the austral autumn and early winter (Fig. 3, open circles). Hence, mitigation of carbon emissions with a target of constraining global annual mean warming to 2°C may not constrain the annual mean warming in the Arctic or Antarctic to below 2°C. However, mitigation of carbon emissions can delay the crossing of the 2°C annual mean warming threshold for the Arctic, as suggested by the difference in time to annual mean 2°C warming between the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios in Fig. 2.

Fig. 3 Greater warming likely in the Arctic and Antarctic with 2°C global warming.

Expected magnitude of monthly and mean annual warming above the 1981–2005 mean in the Arctic (solid circles) and Antarctic (open circles) with 2°C global warming under RCP8.5 (red) and RCP4.5 (blue) according to 36 CMIP5 ensemble runs by Overland et al. (1).

Recognizing the urgency of the magnitude and pace of ongoing and expected future warming in the polar regions, we present below a series of eight urgent considerations spurred by developments over the past decade. These are followed by a brief, concluding overview of international agreements in the Arctic and Antarctic as exemplars for cooperative scientific and political engagement that is likely necessary for addressing the complexities of expected climate-related changes in the polar regions. Our objectives are to catalyze consideration of potential consequences of a 2°C warmer world for the polar regions and to thereby inform policy considerations of these consequences. A key emergent feature of this synthesis is that direct comparisons of ongoing and expected changes in the Arctic and Antarctic are rendered difficult by the relative inaccessibility and data scarcity of the Antarctic compared to the Arctic. This disparity is especially evident in our capacity to anticipate expected changes to terrestrial ecosystems in the Antarctic. We stress that this synthesis is not intended as a comprehensive review of recent and growing emphases in polar research, some notable examples of which include arctic ozone dynamics (5, 6), Southern Ocean heat uptake from the atmosphere (7), and associations between Southern Ocean warming and ice sheet dynamics on land (8).

Full open access paper here.

HT/rd50

Advertisements

136 thoughts on “The polar regions in a 2°C warmer world

    • To be fair to the Guardian (not easy , but it is getting close to Christmas) , they do conclude that the most significant immediate action would be to stop overfishing.
      The peril to , eg, sharks and rays from 3% less oxygen in the water is probably far lower than that from the custom of Asian fishing vessels to catch sharks , cut off their fins for soup or “medicine” and throw them back , alive but unable to survive. Not that we in the West are any better. The bycatch, thrown back dead, from EU trawlers in the seas around Britain is as bad . Another fad seen in the health food shops everywhere is for “life enhancing” oils from Antarctic krill, obtained often by Australian and NZ vessels. We are all as bad as each other in regarding the sea as an infinite resource.
      The absence of fish from the Med should be a warning. The renowned cook, Rick Stein, in his latest jaunt in France found only one fisherman on the Languedoc coast successfully landing any catch. Climate change is of minor significance(IMO).

      • “We are all as bad as each other in regarding the sea as an infinite resource.”

        Need to provide some data. The word “sustainable” gets overused and misused. However there is a crucial difference between harvesting at rate that allows the population to replenish itself versus one that drives it to or near extinction.

        I don’t have the data but there’s a lot of krill in the ocean and not everyone is taking those supplements. Anecdotal evidence from the Mediterranean might not be an appropriate comparison either.

      • Lets be fair the guardian is simply reporting another DOOM report for COP25 they didn’t start this one themselves, they are just pushing the agenda. The moment you see the report is for COP25 everyone probably junk meter goes up a notch. I haven’t looked at the report yet and I will download it and read thru it over the next week. However it’s an extraordinary claim so you hope from a science point the evidence matches the claim otherwise Climate Science and the IPCC take another credibility hit.

  1. A lot of “may”, “could” and “possibly” woven into that. Another ten minutes of my life gone, that I could have been doing something useful. Wake me up when they start using, “will” to describe future events. Until then, I “will” be busy hacking back the overgrowth in the garden and woodlands. I love CO2, all that greening is great to see, but without my fossil fueled aids to cope, it would be a struggle.
    NB Can someone also bring some of that global warming, we hear so much about, over here. I could do with it.

    • Agreed, though I did not waste 10 minutes of my life reading the whole paper. Science is not “may”, “might”, etc. That’s called “guessing” and people used to grow out of that stage somewhere around 8 or 10 years of age. Adults knew there were many unknowns and didn’t fall for the psychics and charlatans. Now, the supposed adults fall all over themselves to embrace the insanity. Climate change predicts are 100 percent psychic predictions with no more validity than the woman charging you a dollar minute to talk to a California psychic. At least the climate change charlatans could be honest enough to properly label their bunk.

      • Sheri
        You will be saying next that we don’t have highly accurate and detailed surface and sea water temperatures from the arctic and Antarctic back to 1880 because virtually no one had ever been there, let alone with scientific instruments.

        you need to have more faith
        tonyb

      • I add the observation that they are using two very unlikely scenarios that so far bear no resemblance to reality. Why? What’s wrong with realism?

        And further:

        “Expected consequences of increased Arctic warming include ongoing loss of land and sea ice, threats to wildlife…”

        What wildlife? Show me wildlife that is harmed by warming 2 C when it is -20 outside. Show me wildlife that is worse off at -20 C than at -28 C.

        Why didn’t the author cite the Antarctic temperature trend from the beginning of data sets?Why is the trend noted from less than two decades ago? Afraid of something, perhaps? Like the reader getting a clue as to what is really going on?

        It reads like a catechism.

    • My reading stopped when I read they were using RCP 8.5. In the 30(?) years since the initial proposed use of RCPs we have had 30(?) years of actual data to compare them against, and so we know they don’t reveal anything useful since they don’t follow what happens in the real world. I swear, this running of a “model” or even worse a table of “what-if” numbers, and then using the output of those models as if it’s “data” for inputs to another model, and then publishing those results as if it’s science has got to stop! Get out of your mama’s basement and go out into the real world, or at least a functioning lab, and collect some real data!

      • My reading stopped when the word ‘science’ was used in the first line. There is NO science in projection to future conditions. The future can be used to confirm scientific theory made in the past but never the other way around.

    • From the very beginning, without qualifiers, they would not have any science to talk about. Rod, the only thing they are SURE of is that if the weather is unpleasant its because of climate change and its all your fault because you burn fossil fuel and you need to be stopped.

      Actually I miss the days when, if we pointed to abnormally cold winter of unusually high snowfall we “couldn’t conflate weather with climate.” Now, every possible condition is proof of climate change directly linked to man burning fossil fuels.

      The Alarmists have lost their collective minds. They are behaving like Democrats trying to impeach Trump, petulant and mentally disturbed, which is why Greta is the perfect mascot for their collective delusion. She IS the perfect poster child. There is no “may”, “could”, “possibly” be about it.

  2. In other words, the world’s temperatures are moderating. Time to get back to living,
    OK Doomers???

  3. This is before or after its ‘ice free’ ?
    But models are great, you can get any results you ‘need’ nice pictures out them and best of all load enough ‘mays and coulds’ and they can ‘prove’ the moon is made of cheese.
    So much easier than that hard fact based science were you run the risk of getting the ‘wrong results’ after all your hard work.

  4. Hence, we first consider the expected magnitude and pace of warming in the Arctic and Antarctic under two carbon emissions futures: Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 and RCP4.5 scenarios

    That is the giveaway: RCP 8.5 is science fiction, the latest emission estimates of the International Energy Agency for 2050 are half the values of RCP 8.5.

    And we all know since 2007 that summer sea ice extent is not a factor for polar bear population numbers.

  5. Fig 3 tells it all. There is no extra warming during the summer months when the temperature is above zero. It cannot be very alarming to the environment if the winter temperature is minus 15C instead of minus 20C.

    • esalil

      I’m afraid you don’t understand that the ‘extra warming during the summer months’ is not the problem.
      The problem is the lack of cooling during the winter months.

      Generating station-local anomalies for the Arctic regions (thus for all stations above 60N) out of the GHCN daily data set

      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

      gives you some info about this lack.

      Here is the top 20 of all 2019 anomalies with at least 10 °C above the mean of 1981-2010 for the Arctic (there are 141):

      US AK CHIMNEY_LAKE_ALASKA________ 2019 3 19.72 (°C)
      US AK PAMICHTUK_LAKE_ALASKA_____ 2019 3 18.99
      CA NT YOHIN___________________________ 2019 3 18.04
      US AK CHIMNEY_LAKE_ALASKA________ 2019 2 17.02
      US AK UMIAT_AIRFIELD_ALASKA_______ 2019 3 16.71
      US AK PAMICHTUK_LAKE_ALASKA_____ 2019 2 16.55
      US AK BOX_RIVER_ALASKA_____________ 2019 3 16.26
      CA NT INUVIK_CLIMATE________________ 2019 3 15.95
      US AK CHIMNEY_LAKE_ALASKA________ 2019 1 14.64
      US AK WIGAND_ALASKA________________ 2019 3 14.62
      US AK Prudhoe_Bay_____________________ 2019 3 14.53
      US AK DEADHORSE_AP_________________ 2019 3 14.40
      CA YT SHINGLE_POINT_A______________ 2019 3 14.36
      CA NT INUVIK_A________________________ 2019 3 14.35
      US AK LITTLE_BLACK_ALASKA_________ 2019 3 14.05
      CA NT NORMAN_WELLS_CLIMATE_____ 2019 3 13.88
      US AK DEERING_AP_____________________ 2019 3 13.82
      US AK Kantishna________________________ 2019 3 13.75
      US AK Sagwon___________________________ 2019 2 13.74
      CA NT TRAIL_VALLEY___________________ 2019 3 13.74

      With the exception of a few Canadian stations, this top 20 is all from Alaska. Russian stations appear some lines later…

      Do you really think it’s all harmless?

  6. I don’t see anything in that report that mentions a previously unknown COLD deep current running along the shores of Iceland. That mixes the waters, doesn’t it? That current was found a few years back.

    Are those subsurface volcanoes on or near the Gakkel Ridge formation?

    So many questions, so few definitive answers from the “experts”…..

    • Sara December 7, 2019 at 3:34 am

      I don’t see anything in that report that mentions a previously unknown COLD deep current running along the shores of Iceland. That mixes the waters, doesn’t it? That current was found a few years back.

      Are those subsurface volcanoes on or near the Gakkel Ridge formation?

      – Sara, there’s a ring of subsurface volcanoes called “the ring of fire”

      https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+ring+of+fire&oq=Earth%27s+ring+&aqs=chrome.

      What countries are part of the Ring of Fire?

      Countries at highest risk of being struck by an earthquake in the Ring of Fire are in the US west coast, Chile, Japan and Pacific islands like the Solomon Islands.

      Other countries along the fault line include Mexico, Antarctica, Russia, Papa New Guinea, Indonesia, Canada, Peru, Taiwan, Philippines, and Guatemala. Aug 29, 2018

      https://www.express.co.uk › world

      Ring of Fire map: Countries in the Ring of Fire – why so many …

  7. “Greater warming likely in the Arctic and Antarctic with 2°C global warming.”

    He is stating the long time mostly acknowledge, that change in “global” temperature will show the largest anomaly at the poles and less on the equator.

    These theoretic predictions appears to be almost as good a guesswork. wouldn’t it be better to just extrapolate past multi-decades?
    Sometimes knowledge of the past can come from unexpected sources:

    Back in the 1970’s I had an afternoon coffee with Danish ornithologist Finn Salomonsen in his garden north of Copenhagen. He told me how he in Greenland had determined that sea eagles could be over 120 years old. An Eskimo had observed an eagle with a limb wing. It was clear there was something wrong with the one wing, because of the way this eagle flew. The Eskimo further told that his father before him, had followed this limb eagle his whole life, and was told about the eagle from his father again. It so happened that Finn Salomonsen had a chance to see the eagle for himself, he told me, which suggest that the story was not just an Eskimo spin.

    Reference to Finn Salomonsen (1909 to 1983):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finn_Salomonsen

    • A warming would make Siberia, Alaska, and Canada pleasant places to live. Poor Eskimos and Chukchi!

      • Not poor Eskimos and Chukchi, they live mainly of seal, which is also available in much warmer waters. I happened to see a few seals by Pier 39 last time I was in San Francisco 🙂 Oh sorry, they were sea lions, but in Denmark way south at latitude 56 we have loads of them.

        If it gets serious warmer on Greenland, the Eskimos may take op farming on a grand scale, following the footsteps of Erik The Red (the first Climate Scientist on Greenland year 985).

  8. Climate modelers often state that CMIP5 climate models weren’t designed to simulate regional climate. Then they turn around and produce trash like this.

    And they wonder why many people think climate science is a bad joke.

    Regards,
    Bob

    • Thanks for that scientific critique and rebuttal. Very convincing. I perused the article and there was more to it than just models – which a recent Berkeley study has verified are spot on.

      Imagine if your comment was made against one of your own long and rambling posts here.

    • Climate science is the only place where a scientist can be wrong everywhere, but still claim to be right on average.

  9. The low temperature in the stratosphere above the polar circle does not determine the strength of the polar vortex. The influx and distribution of ozone in high latitudes is decisive. The animation below shows that the influx of ozone to to Bering Sea led to the division of the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere over the Bering Sea.
    https://exp-studies.tor.ec.gc.ca/tmp/18390004900de20191205.gif
    https://earth.nullschool.net/#2019/12/07/0600Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-10.87,94.02,296

    • This is the topic of this article, which is excellent.

      No, Global Warming is Not Causing More Frequent Arctic Outbreaks
      Posted on 10 Nov 2019 by Chris Martz
      http://bit.ly/2KaQoQN

      In this article, (below) the Sun is the culprit for the change in the jet stream.

      During a solar minimum, the jet stream’s usual tight Zonal Flow (a west–east direction) loses energy and reverts to more of a loose Meridional Flow (a north-south direction) — this is exaggerated further during a Grand Solar Minimum, like the one we’re entering now, and explains why regions become unseasonably hot or cold and others unusually dry or rainy:

      Cold air moves south, Warm air moves north

      “Meridional Jet Stream” Upsets Europe’s Apple –and Pear– Cart
      http://bit.ly/2ZVxp2B

      August 8, 2019
      …Temp change between 1780 (a year of normal solar activity) and 1680 (a year within the depths of the Maunder Minimum) — NASA
      Earth’s climate is cyclic, never linear — driven by the sun.
      And history is repeating, our star is again shutting down (relatively).
      Prepare for the cold.
      Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift
      ___
      Wouldn’t it be great if scientists just studied Earth’s climate and looked for real causes of our weather instead of insisting on tossing CO2 and evil Mankind into every event? Imagine how much greater our knowledge of Earth’s climate systems would be without the effort to control the world being the primary goal instead of knowledge and comprehension of Earth.

  10. So:
    1. It is NOT global. The Arctic is warming faster, so the theory is wrong, wrong, wrong.
    2. It’s worse than we thought. The theory is wrong, wrong, wrong.
    3. We are going to keep lying and browbeating until you believe what is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    • Theory has predicted faster warming at the Arctic, slower warming at the Equator for at least 40 years now.

      • Riggald Eux December 8, 2019 at 5:46 pm

        Theory has predicted faster warming at the Arctic

        Assuming you refer to the GHE theory, that same theory predicted the Lunar average surface temperature as ~270K. Actual measured surface temperature ~197K.
        Adding an atmosphere to the moon would prevent some 50% of solar radiation from reaching the surface. (Much higher albedo, absorption in the stratosphere etc.etc.)
        Yet the theory claims that the surface temperatures would go to ~300K on our moon due to a GHE.
        (~30K above Teff of ~270K)

  11. The temperature north of 80° is very stable during the melt season. It can vary wildly in the fall, winter, and spring. In terms of the ecology, I don’t think it makes much difference if it is -20 or -40. In either case, things are frozen solid.

    • Also there are very, very few direct temperature measurements north of 80 in the winter. The numbers published are all modeled, so as usual, if the models are wrong so are the published numbers. If they are claiming accuracy to tenths of a degree and stating it as fact it’s basically a lie. (please Steven Mosher refute this)

      The DMI at least publishes where they get their numbers.. from the ECMWF which so far has fallen well behind in its ability to forecast weather just two to three weeks out. http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

    • That is the bit which always puzzles me when they talk about temperature anomalies and variation. They rarely tell us what actual temperatures they are dealing with and it was always my understanding that the bulk of the Arctic is below zero,, in which case it can only be melting a bit round the edges.

      • True. Folks like to talk in terms of anomalies.

        rbabcock above supplys the link for the temperature above 80°. It’s in actual degrees.

        The link has temperatures back to the 1950s. Every year the temperature during the melt season sticks very close to the long term average. It takes a lot of energy to melt ice and that regulates the temperature.

        The other thing is that the ice starts melting from the bottom up, using energy from the ocean. The thickness of the ice depends on the air temperature. My experience is that the ice can go from 10ish feet thick to 3 feet thick between February and April even though the air temperature stays well below freezing.

      • The Arctic hit unusually high peak temperatures this summer.
        Alaska saw its hottest month ever recorded in July. Anchorage reached 32.2º C (90º F)
        Alert, the permanent military base only 900 kilometres from the North Pole, reached the record breaking temperature of 21º C (70º F).
        Northern Sweden, on the border of the Arctic Circle, hit 34.8°C (94.6° F)
        Norway’s Polar Arctic Circle’s town of Saltdal reached 34.6º C (94.2° F)

        In Greenland the melt season started earlier than usual.

        September was exceptionally warm in both Alaska and Norway.

        • There will always be some record hot and cold temperatures every year. In spite of that, the temperature north of 80°N didn’t budge much from the long term average. link

        • MarkW December 9, 2019 at 7:48 am

          Anchorage is not in the Arctic.

          ________________________

          MarkW, to your convenience:

          The Arctic hit unusually high peak temperatures this summer –

          Alaska saw its hottest month ever recorded in July. Anchorage reached 32.2º C (90º F): Alaska is not in the Arctic.

          Alert, the permanent military base only 900 kilometres from the North Pole, reached the record breaking temperature of 21º C (70º F): Alert is in the Arctic.

          Northern Sweden, on the border of the Arctic Circle, hit 34.8°C (94.6° F): Northern Sweden is not in the Arctic.

          Norway’s Polar Arctic Circle’s town of Saltdal reached 34.6º C (94.2° F): Norway’s Polar Arctic Circle’s town of Saltdal borders the Arctic circle.

          In Greenland the melt season started earlier than usual: Greenland is not in the Arctic.

          September was exceptionally warm in both Alaska and Norway: September is a Month. “it” takes place in the Arctic and in non-Arctic topia too.

  12. inaccesability and data scare for antarctic?
    wtf?
    theyve got more people and instruments there than you could poke a stick at…
    what an utter load of crap.

    • fred250

      “Graphing UAH NoPol this century is quite interesting.”

      Yes! Under the condition of course that one is able to do that little job right, huh?

      Here is how you should have done it:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/10QSs8JHhKV5um_a0B8f5wSHQ6hxms0M5/view

      Who should be surprised that a blind “skeptic” still can manage to fall for such a stupid trick in 2019?

      Linear estimates for UAH6.0 NoPol, in °C / decade, computed by any spreadsheet calculator
      – 1979-2019: 0.25 ± 0.002
      – 2000-2019: 0.25 ± 0.006

      Alas, alas: not every line one draws over a curve will represent its trend!

      • LOL, I said this century.

        So sorry you cannot comprehend

        Your graph also show no warming this century until the 2015 El Nino.

        Thanks for the corroboration 😉

        Obviously that one event is the only cause of warming this century, wouldn’t you agree 😉

        Note also the cooling since that event. Near back down to the zero trend line.

        Also, thanks for showing everyone that 1980, 1981 had a couple of months quite a bit warmer than now.

        You are doing a bang-up job ! 🙂

  13. Let me add a bit to the article…

    “We do not like or accept that change is normal. Change scares us. Because we do not understand why things are always changing, it must be because of people and their evil ways. The arctic has low biological diversity because its so cold, and if it warms it will suddenly support additional life forms – this scares us. Change is always bad because…we have to change and we do not like change. 97% of all real scientists hate change – we know this because we asked some of our friends and then made up a number.”

    I wonder if it *ever* occurs to these people that a warmer arctic would be NORMAL, and that we have lived through an ABNORMALLY cold arctic period over the last few thousand years or so? I know that if I lived in Canada or Alaska, I would be praying for more warmth.

    The indigenous people would have been fine before we forced them to start living in fixed communities using modern building techniques. They would have just moved their camp a few hundred feet inland to deal with erosion, or moved up and down the coast if food got scarce. Now they have permanent towns and yeah…change is a problem. So adapt.

    It is our modern fixation that things should not change that is the problem. Change is natural.

  14. During the previous interglacial temperatures were 5-8 degrees higher in Greenland for 10,000 years and 5-10 degrees warmer in Siberia for as long.

    Nothing terrible happened. The Greenland icecap did shrink a bit and larch forest spread north all the way to the coast in Siberia, but there was no noticeable methane increase.

    Incidentally something like 30 million square kilometers of permafrost melted at the end of the last glaciation (at the glacial maximum permafrost reached south to the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and St Louis). Again nothing much happened

    • I have often wondered about that. Glaciers and permafrost spread way south during the last ice age. Did the world end when all this melted to where it is now? Why would some additional melting cause catastrophe?

        • Riggald Eux December 8, 2019 at 6:19 pm

          It caused catastrophe to the people of Doggerland. Now known as “the North Sea”.

          Correct. So apparently sea level can rise some 125 m without any CO2 from human activity. Amazing.

    • Anthony had an article here on WUWT a few years back about a study that found that enhanced microbe activity in the warmed ground ate all the methane before it could reach the surface.

  15. The average year round temperature of the South Pole in around -50 deg C. Don’t know that anything at the South Pole cares whether the temperature is -50 or -48 deg C and it seems meaningless to average South Pole temperatures with temperatures over the inhabitable earth.

  16. Once again a snippet of scientific fact is twisted to support climate alarm. Christopher Scotese, paleoclimatologist shows the history of earth warming and cooling over the ages, from hot house to ice house. When earth warms, equatorial regions stay the same, while the polar temps rise, making them less frigid, reducing the latitudinal gradient.
    Scotese diagram is: https://i2.wp.com/clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/meridional-profiles.png

    Scotese paper is : http://www.academia.edu/12082909/Some_thoughts_on_Global_Climate_Change_The_Transition_from_Icehouse_to_Hothouse

    My synopsis: https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/fact-future-climate-will-be-flatter-not-hotter/

    The point is a warmer world sheds the energy at the poles, the meridonal transport warming high latitudes, not because of greenhouse gas effect. And BTW, we are emerging from severe ice house to ice house climate, albeit slowly and far from a hot house. Stay the course.

  17. Surely by now there’s enough evidence proving that CO2 is a minor player in climate (except for the greening). Why the continued discussion? Hasn’t Dr. Henrik Svensmark solved the climate change mystery? If not, please you experts, attempt to prove him wrong. CO2 is so last year…boring. The IPCC, skeptic science blog, Al Gore and the democrat national committee disagree with his hypothesis but it sounds pretty good to this layman.
    copy/
    • The coolings and warmings of around 2°C that have occurred repeatedly over the past 10,000 years, as the Sun’s activity and the cosmic ray influx have varied.
    • The much larger variations of up to 10°C occurring as the Sun and Earth travel through the Galaxy visiting regions with varying numbers of exploding stars.
    Dr. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Institute, in the Technical University of Denmark (DTU).

      • It might be, however since the temperatures still haven’t exited the ranges that are normal for those cycles, there’s no way to tell for certain.

    • Hasn’t Dr. Henrik Svensmark solved the climate change mystery? If not, please you experts, attempt to prove him wrong.

      It’s not hard. https://i.postimg.cc/jSZbYpvN/Svensmark-vs-CP-OLR-and-MEI.jpg

      Central Pacific Outgoing Longwave Radiation (CP OLR) has been mostly positive as cosmic rays increased into the minimum, indicating fewer clouds are being produced over the tropics since 2016.

      The now more open tropical skies let in more sunlight, warming the tropics, increasing MEI (via Nino34). Each time MEI increases, more clouds are produced, some of which eventually accumulate over the NH through the solar minimum when the NH winter atmosphere is colder with decreasing solar activity.

      CRs inversely correlate with TSI. It is the lower TSI solar minimum energy that is responsible for less tropical evaporation and fewer tropical clouds, which leads to higher insolation warming, ie increasing or high Nino34/MEI and higher SST overall, which has happened since early 2018, while Cosmic Rays have increased. High cosmic rays didn’t stop the ocean from warming.

      However, low TSI has cooled and expanded the arctic polar ‘vortex’ since 2016, not cosmic rays.

      Cosmic rays ‘clouds’ are fantastic – ie fantasy, the climate theory for dummies.

      • Bob Weber – Henrik Svensmark has successfully tested end-to-end the mechanism of his GCR-cloud theory. But because it operates on the ocean, the end effect on Earth’s temperature is slow. No-one is saying that GCRs are the only factor which affects climate.

      • Bob Weber

        I know: We often disagree, imho more because of mutual misunderstandings than because of real disagreements.

        Thanks for this excellent reply to Dennis G Sandberg. You hit the nail on the head.

        Rgds
        J.-P. D.

      • Bob Weber, the EE Canadian? The same? Reviewing that Bob Weber’s other postings indicate you’re in the “it’s all about solar, not CO2 camp and if so it seems you should be more in agreement with Svensmark”. No one argues that La Nina/ El Nino doesn’t cause temperature change. My interpretation of Svensmark is that he is saying that the solar wind and associated magnetic effects drive ocean oscillations. Like I indicated above, I’m a layman, Did I misunderstand?
        You were doing pretty good until you implied that you’re smarter than Dr. Svensmark, that makes your comments suspect. I struggle with your basing your opinions on “…since early 2018, while Cosmic Rays have increased, High cosmic rays didn’t stop the ocean from warming.” Any chance you might have overlooked some other variables?

  18. AAAS stands for “Always Alarmist Argle-Bargle Science”. The word “science” is in there, so you know it’s dependable, and accepted by at least 97% of those whose paychecks depend on it.

    • Propaganda pieces usually are. More serious “climate science” almost never are. “Why should I help you when you are only trying to find something wrong?”

  19. New Study: Modern Arctic Sea Ice Cover Is Present MONTHS Longer Than Nearly All Of The Last 8000 Years

  20. IPCC AR4 Chapter Ten Page 750*

    Temperature Extremes
    It is very likely that heat waves will be more intense, more frequent and longer lasting in a future warmer climate. Cold episodes are projected to decrease significantly in a future warmer climate.

    Almost everywhere, daily minimum temperatures are projected to increase faster than daily maximum temperatures, leading to a decrease in diurnal temperature range.

    Decreases in frost days are projected to occur almost everywhere in the middle and high latitudes, with a comparable increase in growing season length.

    So far they are wrong about heat waves. @@ (rolls eyes)

    *I thought I posted this yesterday

  21. –Abstract
    Over the past decade, the Arctic has warmed by 0.75°C, far outpacing the global average, while Antarctic temperatures have remained comparatively stable. As Earth approaches 2°C warming, the Arctic and Antarctic may reach 4°C and 2°C mean annual warming, and 7°C and 3°C winter warming, respectively.–

    They don’t seem to mention the average temperature of Arctic and Antarctic. Though I can’t accurately guess what they are. Antarctica average temperature might be somewhere -50 C. If there is accurate number like say -46 or -52 C, it would make much difference if it was one or the the other. It’s just very cold whatever the number is. It would not matter even if Antarctica average temperature was -20 C. It matters in the sense of “wow” that a lot of warming.
    Berkeley Earth has made pretty good guess of average temperature of Canada:
    http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/regions/Canada
    About 100 years ago Canada had average of less than -5 C and recently the average is warmer than -4 C, the world doesn’t end if Canada’s average temperature were to somehow become as warm as 1 C. It’s a “wow” but life does end because the winters are less cold. If Canada average became 1 C and it kept so “warm” for decades, one might have more glacial ice loss in Canada. Though it’s possible that Canada gets more snowfall, but it’s a good bet, Canada get less snowfall. But what probably more important and better bet, is that Canada would have more land, that could be farmed. And if Canada’s average temperature was 1 C, more people might want to live in Canada. And Canadians might stop only living near US/Canadian border, and say 1/2 the population might live say 600 km more northward of the border.
    The other largest country in world, Russia likewise as an even cooler average temperature, and likewise it’s not going to be the end of world if more land area in Russia becomes habitable.

    It seems unlikely that Earth average global temperature will increase by 2 C within the next 100 years. And pretty crazy to imagine Earth going increase it’s average temperature much in the next 20 years and that world going to end in 11 years is simply a lie. It’s obviously a lie, one could argue whether it’s a “good” lie which might help motivate “people”,

    The simple truth is that Earth was in a cool period, which was called the Little Ice Age, and we are recovering from this cool period.
    And basic truth is we have been living in an Ice Age for millions of years.
    And 100 years in the future we will still be living in this Ice Age. And warmer is generally, better.

    • gbaikie December 7, 2019 at 9:38 am
      –Abstract
      Over the past decade, the Arctic has warmed by 0.75°C, far outpacing the global average, while Antarctic temperatures have remained comparatively stable. As Earth approaches 2°C warming, the Arctic and Antarctic may reach 4°C and 2°C mean annual warming, and 7°C and 3°C winter warming, respectively.–

      They don’t seem to mention the average temperature of Arctic and Antarctic.

      The usual headline involves the Greenland or Antarctic Ice Cap “Melting” If there’s a comment section I point out that the ice caps may be losing ice, after all sea level is rising and the water needs to come from somewhere, and the ice caps are a good bet for that, but they aren’t melting, they can’t melt because it’s below freezing nearly everywhere nearly all of the time. That’s why the ice cap formed for goodness sake. But if snow fall doesn’t keep up with calving bergs the ice mass balance can be negative, and probably is. But it’s not due to temperature, and certainly not due to increased CO2.

    • My understanding is that is that the following are the averages for temperatures for the Arctic and Antarctica ( with of course variations by sub regions )

      Arctic summer +5c (polar ice does melt)
      winter (9 nine months) -40c
      Antarctica
      summer inland -28c at sea level -12c
      winter inland -60 at sea level -45c

      The North pole icecap does melt in the Arctic summer but the South pole ice cap does not melt being at an elevation of 2.3 km-bearing in mind that temperature drops by 6.5c for every rise in altitude of one km
      The above low temperatures suggest there is a fair bit of room for warming yet

  22. More speculation based on an assumption that CO2 causes most warming. They failed to look at the last 10 years of Arctic ice. they still try the 40 year game starting in 1979. I do not want to waste my time, but has anyone seen a LIST of the Arctic weather stations used to calculate the Arctic warming?

      • KcTaz
        I am familiar with those stations having been there.
        However, i wonder what station data is actually used in computing the “Arctic warming”.
        One version I read has them only using Eureka as the other stations are irregular or intermittent. They may also be extrapolating Eureka to cover a large area.
        What did they use for the years 1900-1950.
        The Canadian government in the “Climate change” analysis has dropped data from before 1948 or 1950 depending on which story you read. That is convenient because it ignores the warm period during the 1930’s and 1940’s and shows a higher rate of warming.

        Then there is the issue of “infilling” which adds artificial “data” and usually creates “warming.”

    • Gerald Machnee

      Sorry, I don’t want to discuss the CO2 problem. No interest.

      1. “I do not want to waste my time, but has anyone seen a LIST of the Arctic weather stations used to calculate the Arctic warming?”

      Here is the list of ‘GHCN daily’ stations I use
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zyND-RRQ0ZTItyaekEqaqnkyG-5nUjiI/view

      to generate this graph:
      https://drive.google.com/file/d/11jnEotvImQk-87F1-M0NbNoWZM_nk_wP/view

      *
      The complete GHCN daily data set you find here:
      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/

      GHCN daily is a ‘raw raw’ data set; it only contains data exclusion flags, no adjustments.

      Hint: don’t click on ‘all’, this directory contains over 100,000 files 🙂

      *
      2. “They failed to look at the last 10 years of Arctic ice. they still try the 40 year game starting in 1979.”

      Aha. Are you sure?

      I’m afraid you failed to look, for these last 12 years since 2007, at the difference between the September trend (melting maximum) and the March trend (refreezing maximum):
      – Sep: -0.01 ± 0.65 Mkm² / decade (flat, but statistically insignificant, see standard error)
      – Mar: -1.12 ± 0.47 Mkm² / decade(statistically significant)

      As you can see, the problem of the last decade in the Arctic is not so much excess of melting. It is rather lack of refreezing.

      It’s not cold enough there since a while…

      Rgds
      J.-P. D.

      • **I’m afraid you failed to look, for these last 12 years since 2007, at the difference between the September trend (melting maximum) and the March trend (refreezing maximum):**
        No, I have been looking. The last 10 or 12 years as you wish have flat lined with no significant change in the summer minimum. To avoid admitting that, what we still hear is “rapidly melting Arctic ice. Expect that trend to reverse soon.
        In your Point 1. you generated a graph.
        How many of those stations you “use” were around from 1900 – 1950?

        • Gerald Machnee

          1. “No, I have been looking. The last 10 or 12 years as you wish have flat lined with no significant change in the summer minimum.”

          Is it so difficult to read a comment?

          … at the difference between the September trend (melting maximum) and the March trend (refreezing maximum).

          Here is a graph explaining you what you manifestly overlooked:
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D-u7oyY_rzu9AgiCTrAMHHSZDO7nyHVi/view

          Again:
          – Sep: -0.01 ± 0.65 Mkm²
          – Mar: -1.12 ± 0.47 Mkm²

          Sorry: you can’t simply look at the melting period. You need to know how much sea ice (extent and area) is reconstructed during the winters.

          2012 is known to everybody as the year with the strongest melting phase since observations by sat began; but as you see:

          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nFPvfKESL9WvxtFhDFgZIEXOP0xcGz_V/view

          it had also a strong ice regeneration phase, moving even a little bit above the mean for 1981-2010.

          We will see in March / April 2020…

          *
          2. “How many of those stations you “use” were around from 1900 – 1950?”

          Here is the info:
          https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rcpXbVt-gwuB9ELRGDZ3vxL-aUG89Cjq/view

          In red you see the number of 2.5 ° grid cells encompassing stations. It fluctuates mostly far less than the number of stations. Sometimes on the Globe you see 100 stations less within 2 years but no grid cell was lost.

          • Bindedon
            I know what you are saying.
            My main point was that the doomsayers or what ever you want to call them were still telling us that the Arctic is “melting rapidly” or we still hear that the rate of melt is “increasing”. My point is that the summer minimum is nearly a flat line.
            One of the people still predicting an ice free Arctic soon (again – he had said 2008) is David Barber from Manitoba, At an Arctic Conference in Winnipeg in Dec 2016, *Hudson Bay could experience its first ice-free winter within five to 10 years, Ferguson said *

          • ** but no grid cell was lost.**
            What does this mean? Is there an actual station in each grid cell or is there infilling?

          • Gerald Machnee

            “** but no grid cell was lost.**
            What does this mean? Is there an actual station in each grid cell or is there infilling?”

            I do not use any grid cell infilling: not because it might be wrong (in fact it is really correct and necessary to do it), but because I want to stay as near as possible to raw data.

            Grid cells are necessary because you can’t for example generate a temperature time series for the Globe out of the direct averaging over 40,000 stations, when half of them are located in the US.

            When gridding you compare 200 US cells with 2,000 cells worldwide, fair enough.

            And even when looking inside of the US, gridding is beneficial when you consider that the 20 most populated of the 200 US cells concentrate about 50 % of the US stations.

          • **Grid cells are necessary because you can’t for example generate a temperature time series for the Globe out of the direct averaging over 40,000 stations, when half of them are located in the US.**
            So these are not only Historical Climatology network Stations. You said half are located in the USA – that would mean 20,000 in the USA.
            I understood the USA has about 1200 HCN Stations.

  23. So, models (i.e. hypotheses) homogenized with regular injections of brown matter and inference underwritten by liberal license to force a consensus. Science has been reduced to the plausible and articles of faith peddled by mortal gods and their acolytes. Why are people so impatient to deny a separation of logical domains? For secular incentives? They want to believe, in something?

  24. Doesn’t the apparent fact that the arctic and antarctic diverge in temperature in itself disprove the whole greenhouse gas driven global warming theory?

    If it is indeed true that there is a 0,75 degree C difference in warming over just 1 decade there are obviously stronger forces at play then changes in concentration of a trace gas in the atmosphere(which is supposed to be identical in both regions, well mixed atmosphere and all that).

    Or am i missing something?

      • Bindidon,
        Interesting article, thanks!

        There is however one obvious thing missing which is the effect of water vapor, which is not mentioned at all in the article.
        Furthermore the magnitude of the temperature divergence, 0.75 C in 10 years or about 20 ppm, seems to be at odds with even the largest estimate of the power of the magical molecule.

        This brings me back to my main point which was that there is something other than the CO2 concentration which drives this divergence in temperature.

        All the best,
        Willem

      • –Abstract
        CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.–

        I wonder if that is true.
        The US Dust bowl wasn’t caused by CO2 and many claim there was anthropogenic element involved in this large regional change in climate.
        Urban Heat island effect alter local regional climate.
        Many have argued a strong effect from various aerosols {CO2 is not an aerosol}
        Largest known ecological disasters, would include the The Aral Sea, is something one could count this as a climate change.
        Modern agriculture required to support population 7 billion people- rather less a billion in preindustrial times- has altered climate in some non significant amount.

        But the CO2 enrichment {if you assume humans were primarily responsible} has caused a very significant amount of global greening.
        Next:
        “Like other greenhouse gases, CO2 absorbs terrestrial surface radiation and causes emission from the atmosphere to space. As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere, the total long‐wave emission to space is commonly less than the surface emission.”

        Re: “As the surface is generally warmer than the atmosphere,”
        Well, the average temperature is ocean surface is about 17 C, but the surface air above the ocean surface is likewise about 17 C.
        And Earth is mostly or generally, an Ocean surface.
        Obviously the sun warms the surface, and surface warms the air. And most of sun warming the surface occurs in the tropics. And the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world.
        But the tropical ocean is less than 40% of the earth surface. So tropical ocean surface is not generally warmer, it’s always warmer than “the atmosphere”- it is the heat engine.
        But 60% of world is more common or general than 40%.

        “However, this does not hold true for the high elevated areas of central Antarctica.”

        I would say it’s true of any land area. But higher elevation any where is even less true.
        And Antarctica does have the highest average elevation as compared to any other continent.

        “For this region, the emission to space is higher than the surface emission; and the greenhouse effect of CO2 is around zero or even negative, which has not been discussed so far. ”

        “Even negative” is interesting. I don’t generally think CO2 ever causes cooling- so it’s interesting.
        I think higher elevation diminishes the greenhouse effect, but I regard the mass of atmosphere as major element of the greenhouse effect.
        But the “greenhouse effect theory” ignores the mass of atmosphere and if you imagine a dominate factor of Greenhouse Effect is CO2- particularly where there is lack of water vapor, I can see how that might force one to imagine CO2 could even be negative effect. \
        So the Greenhouse Effect theory ignores the mass of atmosphere because it’s regarded as unchanging factor. And I guess also because higher elevation is only a small portion of entire Earth surface, so could it might be ignored as it’s only small factor.
        But whenever one talks of Mars, and that Mars has 30 times more CO2 per square meter {or square km] then Earth has, then people might get around idea that reason Mars lacks a greenhouse effect could be because of it’s lack atmospheric mass.

        “We investigated this in detail and show that for central Antarctica an increase in CO2 concentration leads to an increased long‐wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth‐atmosphere system. These findings for central Antarctica are in contrast to the general warming effect of increasing CO2.”

        I don’t think so.
        I think the location of the continent is a major factor of why we are in an Ice Age- which I think most people agree. I agree that no amount of CO2 will warm Antarctica- as any warming effect from CO2 is too small of a factor.
        Our ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C.
        It’s a cold ocean and it’s coldness is why we are in an Ice Age. If Ocean were as warm as much as 5 C {and it has been this warm in last few million years} that could affect Antarctica.
        If you imagine that increasing CO2 will warm the entire ocean any time soon, then it that way, higher levels of CO2 could warm the Antarctica continent.
        I don’t think you should hold your breath, waiting for that to happen.

  25. I wonder which of the models they got these regional climate predictions from?

    There is NO regional climate agreement between the various models… they are literalky all over the place.

    None agree with each other REGIONALLY and none agree with reality REGIONALLY. All the models are a mess when you look into the model regional climate details.

  26. Even if it were true, so what?
    Less ice in the arctic means more heat lost to space.
    Less ice in the arctic means shipping gets cheaper.
    Less ice in the arctic means easier access to the resources of the arctic, including oil and gas.

  27. It appears that this paper does not realise that most of the north polar icecap is floating, so even if it melted there would not be a sea level change. It is already displacing its exact mass of water. School physics is now being missed, so not much science there!

  28. Notice in Figure 1, how the temperature profile for the Antarctic region (the blue line) resembles the unmodified US surface temperature chart (below), where the 1930’s shows to be as warm or warmer than today.

    All other unmodified regional surface temperature charts from around the world also show this same temperature profile. This antarctic chart is just more confirmation that the bogus Hockey Stick chart “hotter and hotter” temperature profile is a Lie.

    The Hansen 1999 temperature profile is the true temperature profile of the globe. This temperature profile tells us we don’t have to worry about CO2 overheating the Earth because CO2 is a minor factor in the greater scheme of things, and the Earth is not overheating, we’ve been this warm in the recent past.

    The Climategate alarmists didn’t like this situation so they created the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart to hide the truth about the Earth’s temperatures. They wanted to make it look like today is the warmest period in human history, in order to promote their “CO2 is Bad” narrative. History says differently.

    US Surface Temperature chart (Hansen 1999):

    https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

  29. Let’s just pretend that all the trash these people pass off as “science ” was true, what then? Well try to think of the worst possible group to deal with it and not make things worse. I submit to you that group is without a doubt government, and more especially an unelected, unaccountable UN government!

  30. I am surprised no one here sees that prolonged deep warming in the Arctic region is actually a sign of mass cooling elsewhere, since a lot of energy are being transported there from further south of the arctic.

    The planet is on the cusp of a big cool down…….

  31. What a bunch of total nonsense! This paper uses only models and didn’t bother to look at what is really happening with satellite and ground measurements.

    “Annual mean warming in the Antarctic is expected to reach approximately 2°C under both scenarios, with slightly greater warming possible under RCP8.5 during the austral autumn and early winter.” This is absurd! UAH and RSS satellite measurements since 1979 show slight cooling, not warming! Ground measurements at the South Pole show no warming at all since 1957. The data for this is in my Elsevier publication.

    “Land ice loss in both regions will contribute substantially to global sea level rise, with up to 3 m rise possible if certain thresholds are crossed.” If they had bothered to check geologic sea level data, they would know that during the warming at the end of the last Ice Age and catastrophic melting of the huge ice sheets caused sea level to rise at only ONE METER per century. And this paper is telling us that sea level is going to rise 3 meters with no ice sheets to melt (including the Antarctic ice sheet)? Where is the water going to come from?

    This paper also totally ignores the fact that we have just entered a Grand Solar Minimum much like the Dalton Minimum when disastrous cooling occurred.

Comments are closed.