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.
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).
HT/rd50
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.
At least it was open access
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?”
Polar regions [& greater ocean] are significantly affected by warm tropics, with different lags.
Both regions were ice-free within human history, according to ancient maps.
Humanity thrived during such prior periods of polar ‘amplification’.
New Study: Modern Arctic Sea Ice Cover Is Present MONTHS Longer Than Nearly All Of The Last 8000 Years
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. @ur momisugly@ (rolls eyes)
*I thought I posted this yesterday
–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
The arctic has a number of cycles, many multi-decadal in length.
A ten year trend means nothing.
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?
Gerald,
I was curious, too. A quick search shows five with the earliest starting in 1947, it seems.
High Arctic Weather Stations
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/high-arctic-weather-stations
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.
Where is Arctic sea ice NOW?
https://nsidc.org/data/masie
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?
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?
“Or am i missing something?”
Yes:
How increasing CO2 leads to an increased negative greenhouse effect in Antarctica
Holger Schmithüsen, Justus Notholt, Gert König‐Langlo, Peter Lemke, Thomas Jung
(November 2015)
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL066749
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
Willem69
“There is however one obvious thing missing which is the effect of water vapor, which is not mentioned at all in the article.”
Water vapor? Above one of the highest and coldest land surfaces on Earth?
I can’t even imagine WV playing a major role there like it does in the Tropics…
An interesting lecture:
https://www.bas.ac.uk/data/our-data/publication/atmospheric-water-vapor-over-antarctica-derived-from-special-sensor-microwave-temperature/
… unfortunately behind paywall.
–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.
Arctic warming is dependent on low solar driving a warm AMO via negative NAO/AO. Arctic warming is the of the wrong sign to associate with an increase in climate forcing.
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.
You have to understand how strong the impact of the stratosphere is on the wind from autumn to the spring.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/gif/zu_nh.gif
Those physical phenomena distracting Earth from the instant emitting back to space are the Earths rotation around its axis and the Earths surface specific heat.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com/
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.
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!
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):
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!
You can see a rapid ice rise in the Chukchi Sea and Hudson Bay.
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…….
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.