When Warming is Cooling!

Guest post by Jim Steele,

Published in the Pacifica Tribune December 31, 2019

What’s Natural?

When Warming is Cooling!

clip_image002

The media has been awash with doomsday headlines, trumpeting a human-caused “climate crisis” simply because the estimated average global temperature has risen about 1.7°F since the end of the cold Little Ice Age 150 years ago. However, the Arctic has been the greatest climate outlier and its much warmer temperatures, averaging 3.6°F higher than the 1951–1990 average, has shifted the global warming average upwards.

Furthermore, increased ventilation of stored ocean heat has contributed to much of the Arctic’s recent high temperatures. Ventilating heat warms the air but cools the ocean, and climate history reveals ventilating heat has caused several bouts of extreme warming. Over the past 100 thousand years Greenland’s ice cores recorded 24 extreme warming episodes when air temperatures suddenly rose 14°F – 28°F in a few decades or less. More recently over 4000 years in the Canadian Arctic, decades of rapid ice loss accompanied air temperatures 3°F -10°F warmer than today, quickly followed by centuries of more sea ice and colder temperatures. Although the physics of those dramatic warming events are still in play today, the good news is: warming climates minimize such dramatic warm events.

The most extreme Arctic warming episodes were named “Dansgaard-Oeschger events” in honor of two scientists who discovered them. Although Greenland experienced the greatest warming, Dansgaard-Oeschger events affected climates globally. Ventilating warmth changed global atmospheric circulation, shifting European forests and altering California’s ocean currents. Counter-intuitively, each Dansgaard-Oeschger extreme warming event happened during the last Ice Age when the northern hemisphere was covered with great ice sheets and global temperatures were 5°F-14°F colder than pre-industrial times.

The climate dynamics responsible for these dramatic warm events is easily demonstrated, and a simple experiment might ease the troubled minds of students plagued with “climate crisis” anxiety. Heat a large covered pot of water. Measure the air temperature above the pot’s lid. If you don’t have a thermometer, simply hold your hand above the lid. Then remove the lid and feel the escaping heat. In a similar fashion, Arctic sea ice (and a surface layer of fresher water) act like the pot’s lid. Remove the ice and the air dramatically warms. Conversely, extensive ice-cover will cool the air but warm the underlying ocean.

Ocean currents constantly transport tropical heat towards the poles, making Arctic climates far warmer than possible if only the sun and greenhouse gases controlled the Arctic’s climate. Warm dense “Atlantic water” constantly enters the Arctic Ocean. Some heat ventilates but some is stored at intermediate depths. Currently there is enough stored heat to melt sea ice many times over. The extensive sea ice of the last Ice Age insulated the Arctic Ocean causing heat to increasingly accumulate. Eventually that great store of heat melted sea ice from below, allowing heat to vent and greatly warm the atmosphere.

The same dynamics triggering past Dansgaard-Oeschger events provide insight into today’s Arctic warming. During the 1970s and 80s, measurements over an ice covered Arctic recorded cooling air temperatures prompting researchers to publish, “Absence of Evidence For Greenhouse Warming Over the Arctic Ocean In the Past 40 Years.” Those cooling air temperatures did not reduce modern Arctic sea ice. But other factors did.

Arctic winds can trap ice in the Arctic causing ice to thicken. However when the winds shift, thick sea ice will be blown out and melt in warmer Atlantic waters. The resulting open water and thinner ice allows more Arctic subsurface heat to ventilate. In addition to wind-driven ice loss, satellites reveal the greatest area of open Arctic waters corresponds to the pathway where warm dense tropical waters, via a branch from the Gulf Stream, enter the Arctic and melt sea ice from below. It is now widely believed high inflows of warm Atlantic water helped to melt sea ice and trigger the Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events, just as oscillating warm inflows now melt Arctic sea ice today.

A new monitoring system established off the coast of southern Florida in 2002, reports warm water increasingly flowed towards the Arctic until 2008, but since then warm inflows have been decreasing. So, we will now witness a natural experiment that tests competing climate hypotheses. If the increasing inflows of warm water caused most of the Arctic’s recent sea ice loss, then reduced flows should allow sea ice to recover within another decade. In contrast, the competing hypothesis is warming from increasing CO2 concentrations will cause an ice-free Arctic Ocean. Early predictions of an ice-free Arctic have already failed. But many still predict an ice-free Arctic by 2030 or 2050. Of greater interest, if sea ice does recover, will the reduction of Arctic heat ventilating to the atmosphere, also reduce global temperatures and avert the ballyhooed “climate crisis”?

Jim Steele is director emeritus of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism.

79 thoughts on “When Warming is Cooling!

  1. It is entirely a self-regulating, negative feedback system. The sea-water, ice, atmosphere systems work on different time scales, but ultimately leads to increased loss of heat at high latitudes in response to earlier decades of warming at mid-latitudes.

    This is not just the Lindzen’s Iris-hypothesis at work with clouds and albedo alterations across the tropics and mid-latitudes. It is the polar regions (N and S) expanding and contracting albedo-altering sea ice that also controls ventilation of heat from the polar oceans. That is Earth’s radiators. As contrasted to Earth’s solar absorbers, the tropics and mid-latitudes where the bulk of the heat energy enters the system to flow poleward. The coupled climate models are unable to either replicate the ocean heat cycling on multi-decadal timescales nor the cycling of sea ice albedo and heat ventilation that results. The modelers simply hand-tune in whatever looks “correct” and then proclaim the model’s outputs are “magnificent” confirmations to behold. Anyone who doubts them are just knaves in this Emperor’s New Clothes World. And that’s not science. That’s an agenda.

    • Joel, well said. I agree totally.

      Climate “science” has been badly corrupted by politics and associated propaganda. Time should be the best fix to this problem. As Jim Steele suggests, the earth will likely begin cooling again as Arctic sea ice recovers in coming decades. The real climate crisis may be the next Little Ice Age that could result in coming decades. Cooling is much worse for human concerns than a little warming. We should enjoy and appreciate the warmth while we have it.

      In the longer run, it’s just a matter of time before the next glacial cycle in our current Quaternary Ice Age begins and that will be a true climate catastrophe for humans in coming millennia. Our descendants will look wishfully back to our current times as being the “Industrial Climate Optimum”.

    • Exactly right!

      And simple common sense and a bit of thought tells one that the Earth’s climate, more or less stable within 10% or less in degrees Kelvin, must be dominated by negative feedbacks. And further common sense says it is the water in the system, with its combination of mobility, high specific heat, heats of melting and evaporation, and interesting phase transition at freezing such that ice floats and acts like a blanket on the water underneath…..and even one more thing: the massive upward convection of water vapor in thunderstorms—–all these things make the Earth as a whole temperate, stable, and excellent for life!

    • The majority of the ocean heat is from solar. There are 2 wild cards. Ocean floor geothermal are one with NASA saying that 90% of volcanic activity being in the ocean. There are about 1,500 active volcanoes on land so it could be a lot of heat. Problem is they are not very predictable in when they will release the heat and how much. It is a huge variable.

      The second one is cloud cover over the tropics which prevents the sun from warming them.

      But the science is settled? LMAO.

      • TRM January 3, 2020 at 8:59 am

        The majority of the ocean heat is from solar.

        Where did you get this idea?
        The sun directly heats the upper 5-10m. By mixing / conduction the upper ~200m are warmed, maximum solar influence I’ve seen is down to ~500m.
        https://www.climate4you.com/images/ArgoTimeSeriesTemp59N.JPG
        Warm water does not sink to the ocean floor, only cold, salty water does.
        So almost the entire heat content of the oceans must be from geothermal origin, in spite of the low flux. Continental crust is hot, not from solar, but from geothermal heat. Yet this flux is smaller than the flux into the deep oceans.
        The flux through cont

        • Ben W

          I’d like to offer you the drawings of Tim Ball showing the heat moving through the oceans in “pipes” of ocean currents these show that warm water can indeed move not only to the north of, but under cooler surface water.

          The great upwelling that drives El Niño warmth at surface comes from underneath, literally. There are currents of warm and cold water travelling all over the planet , passing over and under one another.

          For this reason it can be argued that a lot of ocean heat energy originates at the surface.

          Where there is a heat flux from below in the crust, the available energy is very low. If the deep ocean pools were stagnant that energy could accumulate but there are continuous losses upwards so the deep oceans are almost uniformly 4 degrees C (maximum density).

    • From some numbers I’ve seen, the mass of water above/surrounding the number of undersea volcanoes is enough to easily dilute the amount of heat they may input. That doesn’t mean an increased level of such volcanism couldn’t warm seas, but the activity would have to be much greater than at present.

  2. “Remove the ice and the air dramatically warms” Yep, sea ice insulates the ocean.

    Not only that water at low angles of incidence is quite reflective, just look at a low sun over water.

    Loss of sea ice is not a positive feedback, it is a negative one. It REDUCES heat in the oceans.

    Yet the number of times you hear about the ‘dark ocean’ absorbing light energy. These people are idiots.

    • And believe we are to 😉

      I am following MOSAIC , the project with a ship frozen in the Arctic.
      https://follow.mosaic-expedition.org/
      It is good education, but they are not very open with the facts.
      The ship shall flow towards open water in one winter season .
      Now a Russian icebreaker has ben up there. Its way back was slow, 4 days longer than the journey to the Polarstern, indicating thickening ice in the last month.

    • Exactly right!

      And simple common sense and a bit of thought tells one that the Earth’s climate, more or less stable within 10% or less in degrees Kelvin, must be dominated by negative feedbacks. And further common sense says it is the water in the system, with its combination of mobility, high specific heat, heats of melting and evaporation, and interesting phase transition at freezing such that ice floats and acts like a blanket on the water underneath…..and even one more thing: the massive upward convection of water vapor in thunderstorms—–all these things make the Earth as a whole temperate, stable, and excellent for life!

  3. There used to be excellent class notes on the arctic heat budget at: https://www.colorado.edu/geography/class_homepages/geog_5241_f09/media/Class_Notes/week_2.pdf

    Those notes aren’t there any more but I accessed them using the Wayback Machine in July, 2018. (They’re fundraising so the bar where you type in the url isn’t as obvious as it usually is.)

    In the current ice covered arctic, the atmospheric heat transport exceeds the ocean heat transport by more than an order of magnitude.

    With an ice free warmer arctic, one would expect the atmospheric transport to decrease but for the ocean transport to increase due to evaporation and greater direct exchange of heat at the sea surface.

    Given the size of the available channels, could the ocean heat transport increase enough to exceed the atmospheric transport? I don’t know. It sure looks like some kind of feedback mechanism though.

    Some of the material is credited to M. Steele. Any relation?

  4. “In contrast, the competing hypothesis is warming from increasing CO2 concentrations will cause an ice-free Arctic Ocean.”

    No that is not the competing hypothesis.

    the best science attributes about 50% of the current ice loss to natural factors and 50% to AGW.

    AGW is NOT caused by C02 ALONE. AGW is caused when the SUM of all human-related
    POSITIVE FORCINGS ( C02, black carbon, methane, SF6 etc ect) is greater than the SUM of all human-related negative forcings ( aerosols)

    • Sum of all positive forcing vs the sum of all negative forcings…!?!

      And yet, when those sums add up to less than zero and we need to spend $1200 TRILLION dollars by 2100 to save us from 1 degree celsius of warming…

      That is truly….ALL CLOWN NO RODEO

    • …AGW is caused when the SUM of all human-related
      POSITIVE FORCINGS ( C02, black carbon, methane, SF6 etc ect) is greater than the SUM of all human-related negative forcings …

      What you are stating is that AGW is controlled by the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, which is true as far as it goes, perhaps half true. However, any proposed mechanisms also have to be consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. The mechanism has to provide an entropy balance, and dealing with entropy balance is a difficult task even in simple situations. Judith Curry said as much on one of her blog posts a long time ago — maybe 2010.

      A case in point is offered by this guest blog where large temperature excursions in the arctic cannot be explained by simple warming of the ocean surface due to increased greenhouse gases — easy enough to concoct an energy balance to explain it, but can’t find simple mechanism which makes a credible entropy balance. (see my comment downthread).

      • I goofed up the blockquote….

        …AGW is caused when the SUM of all human-related
        POSITIVE FORCINGS ( C02, black carbon, methane, SF6 etc ect) is greater than the SUM of all human-related negative forcings …

        What you are stating is that AGW is controlled by the first law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, which is true as far as it goes, perhaps half true. However, any proposed mechanisms also have to be consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. The mechanism has to provide an entropy balance, and dealing with entropy balance is a difficult task even in simple situations. Judith Curry said as much on one of her blog posts a long time ago — maybe 2010.

        A case in point is offered by this guest blog where large temperature excursions in the arctic cannot be explained by simple warming of the ocean surface due to increased greenhouse gases — easy enough to concoct an energy balance to explain it, but can’t find simple mechanism which makes a credible entropy balance. (see my comment downthread).

    • “Best Science”, coming from steve, that’s a joke.

      Models are not and never have been “science”.

      The earth still hasn’t warmed up to the temperatures it enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period, but the models still claim that most of the warm up is due to CO2.

      • Nor can the models explain why the earth cooled down from the medieval warming period in the first place or any of the warming and cooling cycles of the holocene.

        • When it comes to relating an article like this to the GCM(?) models I have to sound like a 3-year old… ocean warming caused the ice to melt. Why did the ocean warm? Well there was a change in the Gulf Stream. Why did the Gulf Stream change? Or, with the other theory… why did the atmosphere warm? Well human CO₂… If it was human CO₂ why did the atmosphere warm 1910-40? And on and on and on. Even their explanations that may be right are right by accident, cuz they can’t answer the next Why? And until they can explain all that, and write the equations to support it, any GCM is useless for forecasting climate.

      • The earth still hasn’t warmed up to the temperatures it enjoyed during the Medieval Warm Period

        What evidence do you have for this?

        • Mark it up Mark will have a graph from the back of a corn flakes packet. Or some right wing nut bar website. He certainly wont have a graph of repute.

        • I have read the abstracts of many papers from widely diverse areas and authors and proxy data which claim a 1 to 3 (?) degrees C higher temp during MWP.
          I guess they could all be wrong…..

          • Mike
            “I have read the abstracts of many papers from widely diverse areas ”
            OK let’s see some? And please don’t give me the “look for yourself” bollocks. The stuff I have read says the best informations says the MWP was local and not as warm as today. But as Richard Alley says…. if you line all the ducks up then maybe just maybe it was as warm as today. But, is that not cause for concern? Does that not show the climate is easily changed when forced?

      • The models not yet able to ring in the donkey effect then.
        Too many many donkeys around then, mate… 🙂

        cheers

    • We don’t have a good handle on the natural forcing, which are much larger than our contribution. Let’s find out which natural forcings are increasing or decreasing before we commit economic suicide. P.S. There is no hurry, because the much-hyped tipping point does not exist. If it did, we would have tipped over about 3 billion years ago.

  5. Most of the heat advecting into the Arctic is airborne Jim.

    “When Warming is Cooling!”

    Only at WUWT is there no intention of this being sarcasm.

  6. “If the increasing inflows of warm water caused most of the Arctic’s recent sea ice loss…”

    They didn’t, almost twice as much energy enters via the atmosphere, which has been increasing:
    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0233.1

    “the competing hypothesis is warming from increasing CO2 concentrations”
    Competing hypothesis? Really Jim?

    There is less ice because it is being warmed from above and below – the air is warmer and the sea is warmer. Because and only because its warmer is more energy available to radiate to space. The amount of energy radiating to space over the Arctic will continue to increase as the Arctic continues to warm.

    Only at WUWT does warming lead to cooling.

    • In loydo’s excuse for a mind, if the air has warmed, it must be because of CO2, no other explanation is permitted.

    • @Loydo

      “The amount of energy radiating to space over the Arctic will continue to increase as the Arctic continues to warm.”

      Catch a clue. This is the negative feedback Jim Steele is talking about.

    • Loydo,
      I’m no scientist (and neither are you). Where in the paper you cited is C02 referenced in any way?
      90% of the jargon in the paper went over my head, but I’m pretty sure 100% went over yours.
      Enlighten me, and elaborate, please.

      • Sure. I should have cited p6 because it shows a comparison between the melt energy from oceanic sources and atmospheric. Jim thinks its about the gulf stream.

        “since then (2008) warm inflows have been decreasing. So, we will now witness a natural experiment that tests competing climate hypotheses.”

        thus we should do nothing for 10 more years to see if is right:

        “reduced flows should allow sea ice to recover within another decade”.

        The paper shows more melting comes from above the ice than below, in other words more warm air and water vapour than warm currents. So his is his “competing hypothesis” is not even wrong.

        As for the ‘ventilating”, warming is cooling meme, that’s just wishful thinking. If you can detect increasing thermal radiation from something – say the Arctic – then that can only mean one thing – and it’s not cooling.

        • ROTFLMAO, Loydo fabricates “If you can detect increasing thermal radiation from something – say the Arctic – then that can only mean one thing – and it’s not cooling.”

          Many studies have observed Arctic ocean cooling with the atmosphere warming, and vice versa. To demonstrate the basic physics of that dynamic to the general public I thought my heated pot and cover analogy was foolproof . But here we have a bigger fool.

          • Instead of addressing my criticisms you accused me of: taking things out of context, missing the point, ignorance, sniping, fabrication and being a fool. Stop taking it personally.

            Three problems: you completely ignore the fact warm air melts more ice than warm water: no mention of the biggest contributing factor.
            You are using this (less than) incomplete picture – your alternative “hypothesis” – in an attempt to dismiss the role GHGs play.
            Your advice: do nothing for another ten years.

          • Loydo says:”Three problems: you completely ignore the fact warm air melts more ice than warm water.”
            Loydo, I suggest that you try doing the math problems. If you understand the math no further explanation should be needed :

            “Water’s specific heat capacity is 4200 Jkg-1K-1 and Air’s is 993 Jkg-1K-1 therefore water has 4.23 times more specific heat capacity.

            Water has a density of 1000/m3 and air has a density of 1.275/m3 therefore water would be 784.31 x denser than air.

            So would that mean that the amount of times more volumetric heat capacity water has compared to air would be 784.31 x 4.23 = 3317.63.”
            -https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/244989/water-vs-air-heat-absorption-capacity

    • Lloydo

      Because and only because its warmer is more energy available to radiate to space. The amount of energy radiating to space over the Arctic will continue to increase as the Arctic continues to warm.

      Wrong – earth’s radiative energy balance has turned negative, it’s recently been losing more than it’s gaining. As the authors put it, “surprising” (OHC going down too):

      https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663/htm

  7. ‘ In a similar fashion, Arctic sea ice (and a surface layer of fresher water) act like the pot’s lid. Remove the ice and the air dramatically warms. Conversely, extensive ice-cover will cool the air but warm the underlying ocean.’
    In discussions with warmists, I’ve heard claims that the melting Arctic ice is a tipping point because it exposes the ocean to sunlight which further warms the depths rather than being reflected back into space. Once they’ve been disabused by pointing out that above the Arctic circle, what sunlight reaches the surface is at such a low angle that water reflects as well as snow, I also point out the basis of this post, that once the sea ice clears, it allows the ocean to cool, which is a negative feedback and not a tipping point.

    • A much shorter answer: there are no tipping points. If our atmosphere had any tipping points, it would have tipped a long time ago (on the order of billions with a b years ago) and we wouldn’t even be standing here to argue about it.

        • “what sunlight reaches the surface is at such a low angle”
          In June and July more insolation lands on the North pole than anywhere on the planet’
          http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/C_1.gif

          False, it tips at the start and the end of each interstadial and has major tips in and out of icehouse/hothouse regimes.

          “sea ice clears, it allows the ocean to cool”
          True, that is a negative feedback, one of many feed backs both positive and negative. The positive feedback from reduced albedo swamps the others, meaning that unless there is a major reversal of global temperature Arctic sea-ice will remain on a downward trajectory. Once the heat sink of melting ice is no longer there to act as a thermal buffer, temperatures will rise sharply higher quickly leading first to Eemian like conditions, beyond that is uncharted territory for homo sapiens.

  8. From original post:

    Warm dense “Atlantic water” constantly enters the Arctic Ocean. Some heat ventilates but some is stored at intermediate depths.

    Warm Atlantic water should be less dense than deeper water in the Nordic seas after crossing the Greenland-Scotland bridge.
    https://www.whoi.edu/multimedia/an-undersea-waterfall/
    Only after cooling / brine forming will it sink to greater depths.
    Imo the warming in the Arctic is coming from below.
    see eg https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/10/04/svalbard/
    The Arctic is largely covered with ice or warm(er) Atlantic water, both providing a “lid” for the geothermal warming from below.
    Using the average 100 mW/m^2 geothermal flux and assuming an average depth for the Arctic waters of 2000m it takes ~2600 years to warm all Arctic water 1K.
    Given the high geologic activity on the Arctic seafloor (mantle plume?) this may be as short as 1000 year for 1K warming.
    This may be fast enough to drive the Dansgaard-Oeschger events, and explain the current warming/ venting in the Arctic.

  9. Regarding ” If the increasing inflows of warm water caused most of the Arctic’s recent sea ice loss, then reduced flows should allow sea ice to recover within another decade. In contrast, the competing hypothesis is warming from increasing CO2 concentrations will cause an ice-free Arctic Ocean.”: I don’t see reality as being such an such an either-or situation. What about increased warm water flow being responsible for some of the recent ice loss, and as the warm water flow decreases the ice coverage merely stabilizes or slows down while increase of CO2 causes some warming? The fact that more CO2 causes warming does not mean it causes as much warming as claimed by the loud voices saying it’s a big problem; CO2 causing warming is not inconsistent with lower climate sensitivity figures such as those from Lewis & Curry.

    • Donald L. Klipstein
      ” The fact that more CO2 causes warming ”

      “CO2 causes warming” is not a fact, it is only a hypothesis.

  10. thanks for a very understandable article. really enjoyed it.

    and lyodo thanks for the giggles

    theres a hell of a lot of warming equals cooling statements BY the agw devotees
    everytime an areas snowed in or theres a subzero “coldsnap” and people say its not that warm is it..
    co2 gets blamed as warming can make it cold too

    but nowhere is there an actual credible explanation of just how.

  11. Great article, Jim. I liked the “covered pot” example.

    And, From the article: “A new monitoring system established off the coast of southern Florida in 2002, reports warm water increasingly flowed towards the Arctic until 2008, but since then warm inflows have been decreasing. So, we will now witness a natural experiment that tests competing climate hypotheses.”

    Oh, I like that! And we won’t have to wait until 2100!

  12. A warming of the atmosphere of “… temperatures 3°F -10°F warmer than today…” is pretty difficult to explain as heat from an ocean, warmed by AGW, escaping to the air. Heat flows from hot places to cold places. The alleged ocean warming currently is measured in hundredths of degrees. A sudden warming of the magnitude posited here requires a change in ocean circulation; that is, it requires that a different source of rather warm ocean water, warmer than the warmed air, enter the Arctic. In other words, the causative mechanism is complex and involves ocean dynamics which is one of the deficiencies of climate models.

    • I don’t know what the flux at the poles is, but the amount of energy produced by mankind per annum is equal to 1 hours worth of sunlight falling on the earth.

  13. “However, the Arctic has been the greatest climate outlier and its much warmer temperatures, averaging 3.6°F higher than the 1951–1990 average, has shifted the global warming average upwards.”

    And exactly how do we know this? Do we really have data from the arctic in 1951 that is in anyway comparable to the information that we have now about the arctic?

    • We don’t actually know this because there are only a few near arctic temperature stations which are extrapolated to the entire region. The same problem applies to most of the surface of the planet. Climate “science’ never began with the initial requirement to divide the surface into equal areas and place one temperature station at mean altitude in each area. Temperature station are mostly clumped in the temperate zone in large cities with known urban heat island effect. We don’t actually know the real temperature over most of the planet but assume tendentious extrapolations from urban heat islands will give enough data compared to historic recreations to prove a preposterous hypothesis that ppm CO2 controls the climate instead of parts per hundred H2O.

      In short, science has nothing to do with “Climate Science”: recreations, homogenizations, extrapolations, computer modelling with unverifiable assumptions, uncalibrated proxies, and other forms of magical thinking.

  14. The physical mechanism presented in this article may be the explanation of the observed Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which is currently ending its 30 years in the warm phase and likely moving into 30 years or so of the cool phase.

    This natural climate cycle (and others) would probably be widely known and understood by now if climate science had not been hijacked more than 30 years ago. (I really miss atmospheric SCIENCE!)

    If you liked the weather of the 1970s, you are going to love the 2030s.

  15. Perhaps cooling is cooling

    Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance
    by Steven Dewitte 1,*, Nicolas Clerbaux 1 and Jan Cornelis 2
    Abstract: Decadal changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation (RSR) as measured by CERES from 2000 to 2018 are analysed. For both polar regions, changes of the clear-sky RSR correlate well with changes of the Sea Ice Extent. In the Arctic, sea ice is clearly melting, and as a result the earth is becoming darker under clear-sky conditions. However, the correlation between the global all-sky RSR and the polar clear-sky RSR changes is low. Moreover, the RSR and the Outgoing Longwave Radiation (OLR) changes are negatively correlated, so they partly cancel each other. The increase of the OLR is higher then the decrease of the RSR. Also the incoming solar radiation is decreasing. As a result, over the 2000–2018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 ± 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 ± 0.06 (1 σ
    ) W/m2dec.

    https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11060663

    • A La Niña at the start of the 18 year trend. A very strong El Niño near the end. Seems like the best explanation.

  16. Glad to see an article that gives credit where credit is due – warmer waters entering the Arctic raising the ocean/atmosphere temperatures.

  17. 2019 FAILED to be the warmest year on record for the third year in a row!

    ergo, Climate Change has ended!

Comments are closed.