What’s Natural?
by Jim Steele
Glaciers around the world reached their greatest size in four thousand years by 1850. Then abruptly the world began to warm. Arctic sea ice lost 40% of its thickness by 1940. Around the Arctic island of Spitsbergen melting sea ice allowed shipping season to lengthen from 3 months to 7 by 1940, meanwhile 400 additional square miles of sea ice was melting along the Russian coasts. By 1950, 96% of Europe’s glaciers were retreating and small glaciers had simply disappeared. In the tropics, Africa’s Kilimanjaro’s iconic glaciers was also shrinking alarmingly.
In the far north, pine forests couldn’t reproduce between 1850 and 1900 due to the cold. But with warming, all age classes of seedlings proliferated. Tree-line rose by about 70 feet in a few decades. Plants were flowering earlier, and seeds and berries ripened earlier. Atlantic cod moved northward creating a new Greenland fishery and several southern bird species moved into Iceland.
This warmth was an extraordinary climate reversal and scientists sought to understand that change. By the 1950s a foremost glacier expert, H.W. Ahlmann, stated the growing consensus the dramatic warming was due to “an increased transfer of heat through the atmosphere by a strengthening of the winds carrying heat from southern parts to the Arctic.” Today’s top climate scientists are observing similar natural climate change that pushes warm winds and warm ocean currents northward, melting the Arctic once again.
To be fair, In the 1940s the British engineer G.S. Callendar also suggested CO2-global warming was melting glaciers. But he was a lone voice and peer-reviewers had refused to publish his paper attributing CO2-global warming for Kilimanjaro’s melting glaciers.
Today there is growing scientific support for the theories that changing winds cause decades of warming or cooling in the Arctic. One measure of naturally shifting winds is called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index. The NAO alternates between a positive phase in which westerly winds increase, bringing warmer winters to western Europe. Switching to its negative phase, the westerly winds decline causing western Europe to cool, but that phase also causes warmer winds to blow from south to north more frequently. Scientists admit that as much as 100% of observed climate change could be due to that natural variability.
As political battles over who controls energy policies intensified, interest in fossil fuels and CO2-global warming theory was revived. Scientists promoting CO2-global warming exhumed Callendar’s private papers and elevated his status to a founding hero of global warming theory. A few scientists believed that rising CO2 could affect the winds and the phase of the NAO. Because the positive NAO had produced strong westerly winds that warmed much of Europe and Asia, they predicted the current positive NAO would continue and further intensify global warming.
But that hypothesis failed quickly. The NAO reversed to its negative phase as the 21st century began. That caused westerly winds to weaken. That produced more persistent blocking high pressure systems and a wavier jet stream as seen in the diagram. Blocking weather systems are slower moving than normal storms and force the prevailing winds and other storms to move around them. This was outlined, again, in the 1950s by climate scientists who pioneered our present understanding of blocking systems. Weather satellites now confirm those weather effects. They also showed when early 20th century blocking systems forced warm air from the south to pass over Greenland, surface temperatures rose 10° to 12°C above normal.
In the diagram orange colors are warmer and blue colors are cooler. Blocking systems in the Pacific push warmer air (orange) into Alaska and draw cold air into the southern USA. Thus, Alaskan temperatures are sometimes higher than northern Florida. Likewise, blocking in the Atlantic pushed warm air over Greenland causing extreme melting but brought a cold snap to Europe. Americans became aware of the power of a negative NAO and blocking when a weak hurricane was prevented from normally moving out to sea. Instead it was diverted into New Jersey, transforming into the devastating Superstorm Sandy. In 2019, a warm air mass from the baking Sahara Desert moved northward. Crossing Europe, the Saharan air brought record high temperatures. Continuing northward, that warm air then caused Greenland’s 7th greatest period of melting since 1978.
The theory that the NAO and shifting winds create the conditions that drive Greenland’s warming and cooling is supported by all observable evidence. Greenland lost ice in the 1930s then gained ice in the 1970s and 80s. Although Greenland’s ice has been melting extensively in recent decades, that melt rate is now slowing and the shifting NAO suggests the ice will rebound. In contrast, the competing CO2-global warming theory suggests as CO2 continues to rise, Greenland’s ice will increasingly melt and dramatically raise sea levels. That theory has prompted calls to abandon our coastlines and invest in managed retreat. But before you panic, know your climate history and listen to the science. All the science!
Published in Battle Born Media newspapers 10-13-2020
Jim Steele is retired director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU
and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Contact: naturalclimatechange@earthlink.net
“Although Greenland’s ice has been melting extensively in recent decades,”
Doing my own research says this isn’t so.
Polar Portal, DMI, NSIDC, Climate4you, Wiki
A few hundred net Gt/y out of 2.6 E6 Gt is a long way from extensive.
Thank you Nick, for the voice of common sense.
Callendar wrote his first paper on man-made global warming in 1938. He thought it was beneficial, with a climate sensitivity of two degrees C per doubling of CO2.
Some say he gave up on the hypothesis after the frigid winters in the early 1960s, but others maintain that he never abandoned it.
In his archives it specifically says he seriously questioned his theory following the 1962/3 severe British winter
Tonyb
Not rying to channel any inner Michael Mann here, because I don’t have one thank God, but was that period cold globally?
We kids in Yorkshire loved it and I don’t remember ever being cold as I think we had the appropriate clothing. We would make 30 yard ice slides slightly downhill in the school yard. Kids with the steel studs (chegs) on their soles were banned from using them, except of course the school yard bully. Happy days ……. I think.
as a Yorkshire borne kid but unfortunately living in Lancashire at the time we also had a brilliant time, hand glued neoprene diving trousers a pair of mits and we were off, steerable sledges from the top of the kop and snowmen in the middle of the roads, snowball fights everywhere. Even more unfortunately moved to the south coast of Devon, half an inch of snow comes down and they send everyone home early and declare a white out. They just dont know what snow is any more.
philincalifornia
“… was [the early 1960s] cold globally?”
As far as northern hemisphere winters go, 1965-69 was a colder period than 1960-64 according to HadCrut4.
My mother often spoke of the bad winter in 1962/63 in Ireland. That’s still the record coldest winter on record in Northern Ireland (Met Office record starts 1884). But across the northern hemisphere HadCut4 has winter 1962/63 +0.22C warmer than the 1961-90 average.
Most northern hemisphere winters in the 1970s were also colder than average according to HadCrut. Winter 1971/72 was -0.46C cooler than average in the N hemisphere.
It was quite cold in Pennsylvania, USA during that time.
My memory is of us neighborhood kids digging tunnels in snowbanks. Snowbanks that froze solid during the next night.
It was normal for a few inches of snow or the crusts of the snowbanks to freeze overnight; not the whole tunnel.
1965-66 had more snow, less cold than the earlier period.
60-61 and 61-62 were very cold, snowy winters in western MD too.
“… 1962/3 severe British winter”. That would have done it. I will never forget that one. Looking for the tea shop on the top of Great Malvern around May 11th. Then I found the chimney just sticking up out of the snow. I was standing on top of it.
Is that paper available John? I’d be curious as to how he calculated the two degrees C.
The reference you request is fn 8 to essay ‘Sensitive Uncertainty’ in ebook Blowing Smoke. Its his 1938 paper. In the essay text, I provide the math to derive ECS from his 1938 logarithmic curve, resulting in an implicit ECS of ~1.7. The rest of the essay first explains the GHE in detail and then, after Callander, other observational means of deriving ECS. It was published in late 2014, two years before the first of two excellent Lewis and Curry papers that are pretty much the final word observationally on ECS. Ebook is inexpensive and availble at both iBooks and Amazon Kindle. Foreword from Dr. Curry.
Philip
The paper is here. You will need a cup of coffee and 20 minutes. The temperature calculations were used by Hansen 40 years later for his own work
https://www.eas.ualberta.ca/jdwilson/EAS372_15/exams/Callendar_QJRMS1938.pdf
Tonyb
Thanks Rud and Tonyb. Got some homework to do,
Gave it a quick read and yes, you’re right, need to give it a longer read with coffee later. Great paper though, no conclusion-based conclusions. The discussion at the very end of the acknowledgement of vertical convection was more than interesting.
5% (CO2) of 4% (anthropogenic), throw in the Beer-Lambert Law and vertical convection. For how much longer can this farce continue?
Arthur Holmes FGS of 1962 ilk has the net temperature rise after all the consumption of all coal reserves (there are few more tonnes of reserves added since his book) of some 6C net after absorption by the sea. If coal consumption continues then sea levels will rise by some 75 metres or more. His forecasts are made before the deep ice drilling in Greenland and Antarctica. Principles of Physical Geology P467.
Jim Steele always presents well-reasoned reports, and I consider him to be an expert. Considering the southern hemisphere effect sort of analogous to the NAO, the ENSO, I consulted another expert, an enologo. Since I live (not intentionally, I assure you) in one of the great red wine production areas of the world, Mendoza, Argentina, the enologos (experts in grape harvest dedicated to wines) track mega-weather patterns in great detail. Basically when cold water rises in the eastern Pacific it is the condition La Niña, and when warm water rises in the eastern Pacific it is El Niño. The latitude winds are much stronger with El Niño, and they provide blocking against cold air from Antarctica flowing north. La Niña bring less rain, whereas El Niño brings more rain, often in the form of thunderstorms. So, El Niño is a good boy, whereas La Niña is a bad girl. Sorry.
Vice versa in Australia. We hope for that girl to show up ever November to March!
Stop it! You’re like those damn skiers that keep hoping for snow. Wait a minute, does your wife know you’re waiting for bad girls?
Pelosi describing a wrap up media smear. This is appropriate for and discussion about GW for the past 15 years. Throw in corrupt money, what else do you need. This is how the GW hype started and has been fueled…..
https://youtu.be/vK5DCQhXKlY
Greenland has two seasons.. melting and accumulation. Last season was a short melting season and so far this year accumulation is on par or slightly ahead.
Aside from the low temperatures in the accumulation season, you also need water vapor (snow), so warmer wet systems need to move across northern Canada, up from the western Atlantic or in from north of Iceland. What governs all this are the Pacific and Atlantic oceans and the associated warm and cold pools and currents that create the highs and lows and the jet streams that direct them around the globe. When you get down to it, it is pretty amazing.
The La Niña is finally throwing a wrench in the warmer Pacific works. The source of all the warm water in the North Pacific east of 180W is gone and the waters north of it will slowly dissipate over the winters to come. The depth of the cold water in the ENSO areas is pretty deep at this point and will take some time to cycle back to El Niño conditions.
It is going to be very interesting to see what happens in the next 10 years. The trend is not towards warming and certainly not towards the alarming predictions of the climate models. Even the volcanoes are coming to life in Iceland and other places. How does it go? tick tick tick tick
The Warmists are ahead of you. They’ve stopped talking about Greenland and now only talk about the Arctic. With the jetstream as wild as it is (currently above the Arctic Circle and down as low as the Canaries) lots of warm air is being brought into the Arctic, making it warmer than average. They are talking about that.
Yep. The arctic is very warm for this time of the year. link Also, the sea ice may be heading for a record low for this time of the year. If this keeps up, watch out next summer. The alarmists will be jumping up and down for joy as they tout a new record low sea ice extent.
Of course any new record low sea ice extent is only with reference to when records have been kept. 🙂 As far as I can tell, the arctic has been seasonally ice free a lot during the current interglacial.
How much Arctic ice was there during the Minoan warm period? I would really like to know, but I doubt that a good estimate is available.
Funny… Google™ can’t seem to locate the Minoan satellite pics, I was going to estimate it from those. 🙂 But I still haven’t changed my opinion on Arctic Sea Ice from the first time I heard of the “Death Spiral™”… if or when the Arctic goes completely ice free, so what? The Earth has been there before and it still exists, and it will still exist after the next ice-free Arctic. With regards to Humanity, I think we would do much better with an ice-free Arctic than we would with a reiteration of the Laurentide Ice Sheet. Oh. Wikipedia says that even at the height of the Last Glacial Period,
While I don’t trust Wikipedia for much, I think their report is as good as any on this. So even under periods colder than present, there still was an “Arctic Death Spiral™”!
The Arctic is where warm air goes to die, so the more transported up there from the mid-latitudes and tropics the faster it dies. Plus you can get some terrific snows in the mid latitudes which affect albedo and cold, still nights can get brutally cold.
In the very early 1970s when I was working as a technician in the Physics department of a Scottish University one of the lecturers was interested in climate and its changes. One thing he often talked about was the changing, reducing, frequency of the prevailing wind in Scotland. I don’t think he had any opinion on what would happen in the future.
He left science to become a priest, I don’t rhink climate change was involved in that decision
Maybe he always had it in him and when he realized the gravity of the situation his inner force accelerated a devotion to perform mass.
… and as his inner force accelerated ever more, he gained more and more mass, but he never reached full enlightenment.
Until we can explain natural variation and how that influenced past climate and predict future climate through natural variation, everything is an educated a guess regarding additional CO2 accumulation the last 170 years. Since CO2 is fairly evenly distributed globally, it becomes problematic to ascribe changing climate everywhere to CO2 warming when we see little, if any, warming at the South Pole and Antartica in general. Blaming everything on GHG’s without understanding natural variation in climate may be the biggest failure ever in advancing genuine scientific knowledge with regards to understanding shorter term weather and longer term climate. Even if and when we do reduce CO2 levels, we will still be stuck with predicting natural variation and what causes what. Natural variation is the elephant in the room and additional CO2 may cause its trunk to wiggle a little. But it doesn’t change natural variation much.
Yes, climate changed before regardless of CO2.
E2, but note that the IPCC charter excludes consideration of natural causes of climate change, so nothing will alter their alarmism.
Speaking of wavy jet streams…
These jet stream waves (vortex dips) will amplify and repeat over North America in the coming 4 months is my prediction.
Speaking of a government organization that can’t predict the weather, CPC is in first place. This one may be right but any CPC forecast out past tomorrow is suspect.
It pretty solid bet that next week in the middle US and Central Canada is going to be the first hard shot of winter.
Arctiuc Waves (vortex dips) will come at 28 +/- 4 day intervals then for the next 4 months.
1st frost in Calgary 2 nights ago, snow last night, going to be ugly week and weekend.
Had to come eventually, i’m glad we had the longest warmest fall i can remember.
Although i’m sure that is also “bad”
and on CPC,
While agree their 30 day product is crap,
their 60 day product is wishful thinking,
and their 90 day product is fantasy.
Their 6-10 day has good track record IMO, and their 8-13 day product is okay.
Jim Steele makes a great point about the fact that a cold air mass over the North Atlantic steered Hurricane Sandy into New Jersey in 2012, where easterly winds between the eye (near Atlantic City, NJ) and New York City resulted in a huge storm surge along the Jersey shore. The usual culprits were quick to blame Sandy on “global warming”, but Sandy was actually due to unusually cold conditions–it also caused heavy snow in West Virginia in October.
Regarding Ron Long’s comment above, the current “ENSO meter” shows a fairly strong La Nina right now. I’m not familiar with the ENSO effect on the southern hemisphere where Ron Long lives, but in the Northern Hemisphere we have had a very active Atlantic hurricane season (four storms named after Greek letters after we finished the Roman alphabet), with a prolonged drought and heat in the western USA (very little rain between late May and early October).
What is the relationship between the ENSO El Nino / La Nina fluctuation in the Pacific and the North Atlantic Oscillation?
La Nina conditions exist at the moment. The La Nina won’t be an official La Nina until those conditions persist through February.
The ENSO meter above is not current either.
Yesterday’s weekly NOAA/CPC ENSO update has them at:
Niño 4 -0.8ºC
Niño 3.4 -1.2 ºC
Niño 3 -1.5ºC
Niño 1+2 -1.2ºC
(The Nino 3.4 anomaly is the key single metric to track here.)
The full update:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
If we’re being picky, I don’t think it’s a La Nina yet.
We are in La Niña conditions. If they persist a La Niña will be declared. But the conditions are here already.
The temperature at Niño 3.4 region is already lower than during the 2016 Niña and as low as during the 2018 Niña, so it has the potential of being colder than both.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/nino3_4.png
What is the relationship between the ENSO El Nino / La Nina fluctuation in the Pacific and the North Atlantic Oscillation?
Not much of one. A small statistically insignificant level at 28 months lag with Nino34 and MEI v2 at 27 months lags.
Jim,
Thanks for this.
A couple of questions:
>>> Africa’s Kilimanjaro’s iconic glaciers was also shrinking alarmingly.<<>>early 20th century blocking systems forced warm air from the south to pass over Greenland, surface temperatures rose 10° to 12°C above normal<<< What is normal? Who gets to decide?
Thanks
KC
KC, wrote about the declining Kilimanjaro glacier cap in essay ‘Snows of Kilimanjaro’ in my ebook. Cause is not less ‘climate change’ Precipitation/snow. It is illegal logging resulting in lower slope deforestation, resulting in less upslope humidity, resulting in higher ice Sublimation. Reforest the slopes and the remaining ice cap will stabilize then regrow.
Sorry, this didn’t post correctly
>>> Africa’s Kilimanjaro’s iconic glaciers was also shrinking alarmingly.<>early 20th century blocking systems forced warm air from the south to pass over Greenland, surface temperatures rose 10° to 12°C above normal<<< What is normal? Who gets to decide?
Thanks
KC
Ok ,this won’t post correctly, sorry
The problem with the NAO as an explanation is that it doesn’t account for the southern hemisphere warming: https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/plot/hadsst3sh/trend
From the article: “As political battles over who controls energy policies intensified, interest in fossil fuels and CO2-global warming theory was revived. Scientists promoting CO2-global warming exhumed Callendar’s private papers and elevated his status to a founding hero of global warming theory.”
Yes, and then the temperatures declined from the 1940’s to the early 1980’s.
So how does Callendar explain the temperature drop over the decades, from 1940 to 1980, in the face of rising CO2 levels?
I don’t think Callendar’s fans can explain it. Clearly temperatures declined while CO2 increased. What more evidence do you need to see that CO2 is not the control knob of the Earth’s climate?
Just you wait; somebody will produce a “scientific” paper claiming that increased air pollution from industrial activities during that time period caused the cooling.
To the AGW zealots, ALL climate activity is due to human activity.
As for explaining the historical climate, the inability of the AGW science frauds to do this, has not stopped them from proclaiming that the science is settled.
“Just you wait; somebody will produce a “scientific” paper claiming that increased air pollution from industrial activities during that time period caused the cooling.
To the AGW zealots, ALL climate activity is due to human activity.”
That has already been done. And I believe we have a few participants here at WUWT who subscribe to that theory.
Several weeks ago there was an article published here at WUWT where it was shown that if we took all of human emissions since the beginning of time and injected them into the atmosphere at one time, the total emissions would only amount to the equivalent of a modest volcanic eruption.
We know from history that large volcanic eruptions can reduce the Earth’s temperature temporarily. A large volcanic eruption can reduce the temperatures by about 0.5C for about two years, more or less. All of human emissions wouldn’t amount to one volcanic eruption of this magnitude. And the effect is only temporary and disappears after about two years. Humans don’t have a hope of matching that output, or causing this effect.
In other words, there are not enough human emissions at any one time to measureably affect the Earth’s temperatures.
For that matter, there is no measureable effect on the Earth’s atmosphere from CO2, either..
From the article: “Americans became aware of the power of a negative NAO and blocking when a weak hurricane was prevented from normally moving out to sea. Instead it was diverted into New Jersey, transforming into the devastating Superstorm Sandy.”
When mentioning Superstorm Sandy, I think we should always remind people that Superstorm Sandy was actually the combination of *two* strong stormfronts that combined over New York and New Jersey.
The other storm was a powerful front moving in from the northwest, from Canada, that met Hurricane Sandy over New York and New Jersey.
The alarmists called Sandy a superstorm with the aim of blaming the increased power on CO2, but the increased power was actually from the combination of two powerful storms, not CO2. We should point these facts out when the subject is raised just to keep everyone straight on the truth of the matter.
The other issue with Superstorm Sandy was that it happened at a full moon and a king tide which the additional storm surge was what caused a lot of the damage. You almost never hear that anymore. If it hadn’t been a full moon with a king tide, the damage from post tropical storm Sandy would have been a lot less. Atmospheric tides from the same gravitational forces are also a thing, but I am not sure how that affected Sandy, or the resulting cold storm fronts that caused Sandy to take the course it did. If massive tides in the ocean are caused by gravitational forces of the Sun and Moon in certain predictable monthly and annual alignments, then what do they do to the atmosphere?
Good points. A lot of things came together to make Hurricane Sandy a Superstorm. None of which had anything to do with CO2.
California’s persistent droughts are caused by blocking high-pressure systems over the Pacific Ocean and over California.
Some of California’s past droughts have lasted for decades, so persistent high-pressure systems off California must last for decades, too, at certain periods of time.
Has anyone else noticed the big white horse’s head and neck in the photo?
Aesthetically, if not scientifically, it seems significant.
Cannot see horse, but can see a white dog with a blue eye facing east. Possibly a Labrador.:)
Thanks Jim again for bringing back an important time perspective on glaciation.
According to this focused study of the last 11 interglacials, interglacials even without human influence tend to contain brief temperature spikes. Only the long MIS11 had none – flatlining for 30kyrs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571086607800327?via%3Dihub
Critically, there were sometimes temperature spikes right at the end of interglacials.
http://350.me.uk/TR/Hansen/GlobalSeauow045009.pdf
This strikes me as important. A big warming spike at the tail end of the last Eemian interglacial. I don’t think even Ruddimam could argue for a human influence 125,000 years ago.
Could we be in such an end-of-interglacial spike right now? For reasons unrelated to human activity? Curious minds would like to know.
I remember that William McClenney made some posts about this some years ago.
That article you link attributes the changes in sea-level at the end of the Eemian to the collapse of the WAIS and the GIS. That is the nightmare scenario for the warmists. A +6 m increase in sea level as they believe it took place at the end of the Eemian.
Thanks.
Did those collapses precipitate end-Eemian glacial inception ?
Or were they just coincident for unrelated reasons?
There is no good information on whether the ice sheets collapsed or not. We don’t know with precision the global sea level at any time in the past.
Spratt & Lisiecki 2016 is the state of the art in past sea levels reconstruction, and it has a millennial resolution, and has 9 m 1σ uncertainty. Curiously they don’t see any abrupt increase at the end of the Eemian. Levels peak at 121 kBP at about the same level as in the Holocene. So this is all highly speculative.
Spratt, R. M., & Lisiecki, L. E. (2016). A Late Pleistocene sea level stack. Climate of the Past, 12(4), 1079-1092.
https://escholarship.org/content/qt51f657tj/qt51f657tj.pdf
What we do know is that the longest Greenland ice core shows a late Eemian warming right before glacial inception (~1500 years). This warming did not reach the Eemian Optimum but almost. The warming is not perceptible in Antarctic cores so it must have been mainly a Northern Hemisphere thing.
NEEM Community members. “Eemian interglacial reconstructed from a Greenland folded ice core.” Nature 493.7433 (2013): 489-494.
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/500331/1/2012-07-09846-NEEM_revised.pdf
Then there is the LEAP, the late Eemian aridity pulse right after glacial inception. It was described by Scirocko et al.
Sirocko, Frank, et al. “A late Eemian aridity pulse in central Europe during the last glacial inception.” Nature 436.7052 (2005): 833-836.
I put all that info on the Eemian some time ago in a figure so we can see what the Eemian was about as far as we know.
The Eemian interglacial and its transition to the Weichselian glaciation. a) Obliquity configuration (continuous line; after Laskar et al. 2004). b) Summer energy at 70°N (dashed line; after Huybers 2006). Dots indicate current values. c) Methane levels (continuous line; after Loulergue et al. 2008). d) Carbon dioxide levels (dashed line; after Bereiter et al. 2015). e) Interglacial temperature profile (continuous line, no scale). f) Sea level (dashed line; after Spratt and Lisiecki 2016). g) Antarctic temperature anomaly (continuous line; after Jouzel et al. 2007). h) Greenland temperature anomaly (dashed line; after NEEM Community Members 2013). H11: Heinrich event 11. LEAP: Late Eemian aridity pulse. C25 and C26: North Atlantic cold events 25 and 26.
There is no evidence that the WAIS collapsed during the Eemian. Greenland IS cannot go anywhere as the land is depressed in the center and raised at the borders and its average annual temperature is many degrees below freezing.
Thanks Javier for that trove of great data on the Eemian. The “overhang” of CO2 persisting at elevated levels for the first few hundred or even thousand years of glacial inception, is of course a problem for CO2 as the control knob. Temperature clearly leading CO2 not the reverse.
Much further back at the start of the end-Ordovician glaciation, 444 million years ago, recent accurate palaeo data has shown clearly that CO2 levels increased as the glaciation started and the ice sheets moved equatorwards.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/05/the-ordovician-glaciation-glaciers-spread-while-co2-increased-in-the-atmosphere-a-problem-for-carbon-alarmism/
The end-Ordovician (Saharan-Andean) glaciation is of course also problematic since high CO2 persisted for much of the multi million year duration of the glaciation.
It seems possible that growing CO2 may be a commmon feature of glacial inceptions. Perhaps cold sea water can’t suck CO2 out of the air when it’s ice-covered. Some authors prefer explanations involving silicate weathering. But it weakens the basis for arguing a dominant role of CO2 in temperature forcing.
I don’t think anything forces climate. It’s internal oscillations are much more powerful than changing external influences. External influences such as Milankovitch and other solar changes are better described as “nudging” than forcing – especially if they nudge at the right frequency.
The omnivorous kodiak bears must be thriving with the increasing fish and greenery in Alaska. Do we want to reverse this trend with the adoption of renewable energy? Let the kodiak bear be the new poster boy for climate deniers /sarc.
In the far north, pine forests couldn’t reproduce between 1850 and 1900 due to the cold. But with warming, all age classes of seedlings proliferated. Tree-line rose by about 70 feet in a few decades.
In this paper by Esper and Schweinburger 2004, the ebb and flow of the northern tree-line in the vast Siberian Taiga forest showed advances during exactly the periods where the most rapid recent climate warming occurred: the 1940s and 50s, and then the 1970s.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228991744_Large-scale_treeline_changes_recorded_in_Siberia
But careful investigation of these 20th century tree-line advances revealed something important. Stumps of ancient trees coexisted with the regions of Arctic tundra which the recently advancing treeline had re-occupied. These ancient stumps were about a thousand years old. Their presence showed that this was not the first time that the Taiga had spread this far north. It had been there before, during the climatically hotter “Medieval Warm Period” (MWP) a thousand years ago. The treeline had since then retreated south during the colder centuries of the intervening “Little Ice Age” (LIA). With the natural warming rebound from the LIA, the Taiga treeline is just returning to the northward extent that it had previously occupied during the MWP a millennium ago.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/07/09/the-to-and-fro-of-the-siberian-taiga-tundra-treeline/
“the competing CO2-global warming theory…”
It’s not a competing theory at all, that is a deliberate lie.
Then, ironically, you say: “The theory that the NAO and shifting winds create the conditions that drive Greenland’s warming and cooling is supported by *all observable evidence*.”
Your own NAO link has this to say: “These multidecadal (NAO) variations are superimposed on long-term anthropogenic forcing trends that are the dominant factor in long-term Arctic sea ice loss and hemispheric warming.”
So not just a lie, a dumb lie.
“the competing CO2-global warming theory… has prompted calls to abandon our coastlines…”
But let me guess, your pet theory means its all about to just cyclically reverse?
Lies and disinformation. You should be ashamed of youself.
“These multidecadal (NAO) variations are superimposed on long-term anthropogenic forcing trends…”
More specifically, about when did “long-term anthropogenic forcing trends” start? Are they referring to centuries or decades in the past — or including such stretches of time in the future?
You are the one that should be ashamed, as you push your LIES and IGNORANCE only other people.
You are an incompetent fool that cannot present even the slightest evidence to back up anything you say.
AMO is most definitely linked to Arctic sea ice. (AMO vs upside down NH sea ice)
AMO is DEFINITELY closely linked to Arctic temperatures.. (eg Reykjavik vs AMO)
You are either TOTALLY ignorant.. or just a slimy little LYING POS !
Now, do you have ANY empirical evidence at all that atmospheric CO2 causes warming?
The profile of your AMO chart resembles the temperature profile of the U.S. surface temperature chart. Both show the warm 1930’s and the cool 1970’s. Unlike the bogus Modern-era Hockey Stick chart.
Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart:
cont…
Do you have ANY EVIDENCE AT ALL of any long term anthopogenic forcing factors on Greenland?
…. which incidentally , is only a tiny bit down from its HIGHEST area in 8000+ years.
That is because Greenland is still very much at a cold period of the last 10,000 years
Any real melting happened early in the Holocene.
As you say.. YOU are trying to regurgitate a DUMB LIE.
But that is all you are capable of, isn’t it. !
And FAILING as always.
Greenland temperatures also follow the AMO cycle closely
As do temperatures all around the Arctic.
Notice also that Arctic sea ice in the Greenland Sea is only a tiny amount down from the EXTREME HIGH EXTENT of the Little Ice Age.
The whole region is STILL very much stuck trying to escape from the cold inhospitable freezing of the period only 150-200 years ago.
Trying to escape the cold that ended 200 years ago? Tell us more Fred.
You are IGNORANT of the Little Ice Age as well ??????
No-one can cure that sort of willful and deliberate ignorance.
When do you think the end of the Little Ice Age was, twerp. ?
I know you are too dumb to look it up yourself, but most data shows somewhere around 1850-1870, some say a bit earlier…. so 150-200 years ago
Try to LEARN something for once in your life, child. !
In science there are always competing theories. More or less popular, more or less supported by evidence.
It is often the case that the most popular theory turns out to be wrong. That’s because our knowledge advances, and to advance it is clear that we have to be more ignorant and believe in more wrong things than we are aware.
We’re still waiting from you for empirical evidence for the effect of atmospheric CO2 on temperature rather than vice versa, for which there is a ton of evidence. Computer modelling isn’t evidence.
Don’t know quite where to post this. Here is as good as any.
A book recommendation: “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson
Comprehensive and an easy read.
And tainted like most everything by greenhouse and carbon dioxide nonsense.
What I found of particular interest was that several major insights, breakthroughs and explanations of the earth’s science and history were made by persons imminently unqualified to make them especially in the eyes of the pretentious, good-old-boy, scientific “consensus” network that stood by throwing rocks, name calling and making threats when in the end it became obvious they were the ones in error.
Sound familiar?
” . . . imminently [sic] unqualified to make them especially in the eyes of the pretentious, good-old-boy, scientific “consensus” network . . . .”
So well said. Perfect! Thank you.
Loydo, Your dishonest smear is totally expected from the troll factory’s idiots I suggest you read the paper I linked to Climate change: detection and attribution of trends from long-term geologic data. They wrote “anywhere from a major portion to all of the warming of the 20th Century could plausibly result from natural causes according to these results”
But only a dishonest troll would try to suggest there are not competing theories
“I linked to…”
Craig Loehle? From Heartland? From 2004?
Competing theories, as in CO2 might not cause global warming? and the only retort you’ve got is “troll”. SMFH.
LOL, Typical of trolls when scientists publish peer reviewed science they disagree with, they deny the science.
I didn’t need to comment on its accuracy, I just pointed out the micron thin flimsyness of the supporting evidence for your so-called competing theory.
Your localised oscillation – as interesting as it is – explains nothing, zero about global warming, but I will add it to the long, desperate, straw-clutching and ever-growing list of all the things that are anything but CO2.
Poor loy, still living in a state of mental miasma. Poor
KNOWS he cannot prove CO2 has any war,img effect whatsoever.
Poor dolt has FAILED UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY at all feeble attempts,
talk about FLIMSY.. as to be NON-EXISTENT.
Now he has to DENY all the measured data that shows the AMO and similar oscillations are totally linked to Arctic temperatures.
Last I saw he was also DENYING that the Little Ice Age even existed.
So dumb, so ridiculous.
Loydo, you are a troll, and not a very good one. If you have any evidence that you’re not a troll, would you please post it.
He has never posted any evidence of anything.
He is an IGNORANT TROLL, totally unable to produce any scientific empirical evidence to back up ANYTHING he worships.
A religious cult fundaMENTAList, stuck on brain-dead belief. !
If somebody defends a position in a site where 99% defend the opposite position, that somebody gets labelled as a troll. It has happened to me for defending an anti-alarmist position in an alarmist site.
Loydo’s position is the orthodox one. Defended publicly by most scientists and endorsed by scientific societies and international organizations. He cannot be a troll for embracing it or defending it here unless we believe that internet should be segregated.
I for one, like to read opinions and arguments that are contrary to mines. My only complain about Loydo and Griff is that they are not very good at what they do, so I don’t find their comments interesting. Pretty much the same problem I have with Mosher drive-by-shooting.
The climate wars have become essentially uninteresting. The positions are entrenched. There are no new arguments, and climate changes very slowly. It takes decades to see the data change in meaningful ways. It’s too slow for our perceptions.
Now we will have a couple of years of cooling due to La Niña, then slightly more warming. By then 10 years will have passed since the big El Niño of 2015-16 and people will start talking about a new Pause. The obvious argument is that we already know these things happen and the warming continues. So we are looking at what, 20 more years of the same?
Prominent skeptic climate scientists are a rare breed. Young climate scientists know they won’t have a career if they go skeptic. In science climate-skepticism is a dead-end. Only when catastrophic anthropogenic climate change becomes the accepted norm will a new generation of scientists that challenge the norm appear.
It appears that we are near peak CACC insofar as mainstream science goes. But we are really no where near the actual catastrophic part yet. More insurable damage yes, but that is because there is more people everywhere with more risky infrastructure built everywhere in the forest, in floodplains and coastal settings subject to periodic extreme normal weather.
If we have some flat-lining or even cooling, and then a longer pause the next dozen years and the world doesn’t end with sea level spikes, then perhaps it will be back to science progresses with the expired generation of the current climate scientists. Either their predictions come true, or they don’t and if in 30 years by 2050 things are pretty still much the same as they have been the last 20 years, then the deliberate scary part of the alarmist narrative has to be re-written with more accurate science.
Javier, there’s a quantal difference between someone being called a troll when they aren’t one versus someone being called a troll when they are one.
Unlike griff, loydo and the others, the previous trolls on here at least attempted to fake their scientific credentials.
Given Mother Nature and the passage of time since then, the current crop now have to lie about the data (see griff’s post below) and call everyone else liars. This is good for outside observers to see and I doubt that they have reached the bottoms of their barrels yet. I hope they continue on here, because it’s an excellent way to show the casual non-scientist observer the truth.
With respect to loydo, my falsifiable hypothesis is that he/she can’t show any post that shows that he/she’s not a troll.
Well that’s the thing. You cannot scare two generations with the same tale without the wolf showing up. People may still believe on it but get bored, stop paying attention, and demanding action. Once Greta is 35 years old and the catastrophe has not materialized she will be a skeptic argument.
But another wolf has showed up. The pandemic is order of magnitudes more credible and has a death toll that is being counted. And people cannot fear two wolves at the same time. One has to be the alpha. Climate wolf will get relegated, but not defeated.
But whether there is cooling or warming is irrelevant in scientific terms. The dominant hypothesis does no longer depend on additional warming. It would take a heck of a lot of cooling to knock it off and that isn’t going to happen.
Trouble is that Loy is just regurgitating failed and worn out mantra, lies and propaganda without even attempting to back it up with any actual science.
He/she/it is only capable of these evidence-free rants that he/she/it knows are easy to shot down because they have no actual scientific basis.
“Craig Loehle?”
Yes, a REAL scientist.. something you know NOTHING about
Heck you don’t even know what empirical evidence is !!!
“Craig Loehle? From Heartland? From 2004?”
What do Heartland and the Date have to do with anything? Either the paper is good or it’s not, but a name and date won’t do it.
Craig Loehle, PhD Natural Resource Management
14 years with Dept of Energy
Now with NCASI
“The NCASI Foundation supports environmental science and data to promote the sustainable use of earth’s resources, inform regulatory policy, educate, and execute the charitable activities of NCASI, Inc”
So totally competent to look at NATURAL resources like energy, oceans, data related to climate.. etc etc etc etc
vs loy… who is totally INCOMPETENT at basically everything.
You really HATE that the Heartland Institute searches for REALITY and the TRUTH, through actual SCIENCE, don’t you Loy !
By saying that Loehle is associated with the Heartland Institute Loydo is using the guilt-by-association fallacy. Whether he is associated or not to the Heartland Institute is irrelevant to his science. The date indicates that the data included is at least 16 years old. New data could strengthen or weaken the arguments.
Good or bad is in the eyes of the beholder. The paper has been cited 56 times according to Google Scholar, so it did not have a great impact on the scientific community, but it was not ignored either. The journal “Ecological Modelling” appears a strange choice since the paper is not about ecological modelling, but skeptics have been shunned from many journals and have to resort to publish where they can.
I know it is not a popular position here, but I don’t think all the warming during the 20th century can be attributed to natural causes. When I take into account the changes in solar activity and the effect of natural variability that Jim Steele describes in this article, there is still from a quarter to a third of the warming unaccounted for, that agrees well with the increase in GHGs. I guess that makes me a lukewarmer.
Guilt by association is absolutely standard practice for leftists and green activists when faced with inconvenient data. There is a very simple technique for dealing with it. Simply ask such people if the information is true or false rather than politically-correct or incorrect.
Even if we ascribe half the warming of the last 150 years to human influence, that is still less than .5 C in any human caused warming, which isn’t a lot. Which would be on track for a 1 degree warming per doubling of CO2. Especially in a UHI setting, where we know with absolute fact that large city infrastructure retains/releases thermal heat over night. It’s much warmer in urban settings where the multitudes actually feel warmer, especially at night. Because it can be easily measured, we know this to be true. So for city folk, local warming is true although they may mistake it for global warming which might be a stretch.
If being labeled a lukewarmer for a measly half degree C is considered sacrilegious, especially if no one can prove anything definitively the last 30-40 years, then we have our definitions and labels all messed up. To think that 7.7 billion people on the planet wouldn’t cause minimal direct UHI and anthro warming (especially in the NH) would also be a wrong assumption. The truth of the matter is likely somewhere in the middle. Which is good, because a little warming is a good thing and an insurance policy on severe temporary cooling, whether any kind of long term natural variation due to ocean currents, from solar effects or shorter term volcanic forcing. A cost benefit analysis should show warming preferential as compared to cooling. That is prima facia just common sense.
I couldn’t agree more with both answers.
We live in interesting times.
Jim,
This is my competing theory.
Anthony doesn’t like it, so I’ll address it straight to you.
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere, makes the earth cooler than it would be without the atmosphere like that reflective panel set on the dash. Remove the atmosphere and the earth becomes much like the moon, a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree.
2) the GHG up/down “trapping”/warming loop requires “extra” energy which it gets from
3) the surface of the earth radiating “extra” energy as an ideal, .95 emissivity black body which
4) it cannot do because of the non-radiative contributions of the contiguous atmospheric molecules.
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 = 0 RGHE + 0 GHG warming + 0 CAGW.
All science backed up by experiment, the gold standard of classical science.
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-schroeder-55934820_climatechange-globalwarming-carbondioxide-activity-6655639704802852864-_5jW
One question I would ask about this conclusion is: how can an oscillation cause a long term warming trend?
Being an oscillation, it’s understnadable that the NAO can cause periods of warming and cooling in greenland and elsewhere in the northern hemisphere; but how can it explain a long term temperature trend? If it did cause long term warming (or cooling), then it wouldn’t be an ‘oscillation’, surely.
FinalNail,
The article only refers to Arctic and Greenland warming. Here is a link showing those temperatures have 20th century decadal oscillations
Jim,
The oscillations are clear enough. If you detrended that data the ups and downs caused by natural oscillations, probably the NAO included, would still be there. I don’t think anyone is denying the existence of natural variations that cause temperature changes.
What I’m questioning is how the long term warmining trend came about? It’s clear from eyeballing alone that even your linked chart from that one location in Greenland has a strong warming trend 1850-2010. It’s that long term trend that can’t be explained just by the NAO, as far as I can see anyway.
TheFinalNail
October 13, 2020 at 6:09 pm
Final, I’m sure you’d agree that we’d expect temperatures to rise when we come out of a (Little) Ice Age. Just why it ended is not well understood as far as I can see and I’ve certainly not seen any evidence to suggest we started using cars and SUVs in 1850.
One day we might understand these big changes but I think that day is still some time off.
FinalNail,
It is a good question regards what happened to switch from the Little Ice Age (LIA) to the current warming. There was definitely a climate trend reversal around 1850, and physics argues CO2 had nothing to do with it. The cold temps and growing glaciers coincided with solar minimums. The change solar energy is not enough to explain the changes, but any change in solar irradiance alters the hemispheric temperature gradients and therefore the winds.
The upwelling off the coast of Peru we reduced during the LIA and increased after 1850 indicative of increasing trade winds. Kilimanjaro melting glaciers is attributed to changes in the transport of moisture which also lowered the region’s lake levels. Similarly the rapid loss of glaciers in Glacier National Park from 1850 to 1930 is attributed more frequent droughts.
Greenland is interesting because the loss of surface mass is not in sync with glacier discharge. The negative NAO causes more southerly winds increasing melt and loss of surface mass balance. In contrast, the increased westerly winds during the positive NAO, cool the North Atlantic Ocean temperatures and send that warmth to Europe. But the cooler water changes buoyancy and alters ocean currents causing a greater northward flow into the Arctic. That flow melts the outlet glaciers from below and cause increased discharged.
Jim,
“There was definitely a climate trend reversal around 1850, and physics argues CO2 had nothing to do with it.”
Regarding a climate trend ‘reversal’ starting around 1850, I don’t see one; not in the northern hemisphere anyway. If you look at the early part of the HadCRUT4 northern hemisphere data from 1850, there really isn’t any trend that would suggest a sustained warming had begun. The 80 year period 1850-1930 had no trend (or slight cooling, actually) in the northern hemisphere, according to HadCRUT4 (NH): https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4nh/to:1930/plot/hadcrut4nh/to:1930/trend
So this often repeated claim that northern hemisphere temperatures began a sustained warming trend from around 1850 appears to be a myth. It’s just not there in the temperature record. Your observation that these early trends had nothing to do with CO2 appears to be right. What we see in the early part of the HadCRUT4 (NH) record does appear to be more readily explained by natural variability. In the absence of any other underlying influence, oscillations such as the NAO and AMO, etc would be expected to produce long periods with net zero temperature trend.
What they don’t explain is the undoubted warming trend that is found in the northern hemisphere temperature record across the course of the 20th century and up to today. In as far as I understand it, CO2 warming theory ‘does’ provide an explanation, whether we care for that particular theory or not.
I remember concern in the 50s about the effect of increasing temperatures. This one was about difficulty of southern populations of eastern oysters with higher temperatures which occurred in the Gulf during the 1930s and 50s. They turned out to be more resilient than expected, able to adapt to a very large range of temperature, up to around 35c was the concern. Collier, A. 1954. A study of the response of oysters to temperature, and some long range ecological interpretations. Convention Addresses National Shellfisheries Association (1953):13-38. I knew the exceptional Collier, almost made it to age 99. He was Texas’ first state marine biologist hired because of the 1935 red tide. Hired out of his doctoral program at Rice because of lack of jobs during the depression
Jim, I wonder whether there is a relationship between the AMO and NAO. It seems to me that the AMO is the more dominate cycle explaining changes in Greenland, Iceland and Artic ice. The unadjusted US temperature certainly displays and AMO cycle. I just not familiar with the research looking at the relationship. It looks to me that the AMO is slowly but surely headed to a cold phase. Combined with a weak sun and dropping magnetic field, we could be in for interesting times.
Nelson, I believe the research shows the NAO and AMO are related. The NAO measures changes in atmospheric pressure while the AMO measures changes in ocean surface temperatures. The NAO has been shown to change the ocean currents which would affect the AMO. I agree that the AMO is headed to the cool phase and the northward flow of warm Atlantic water is decreasing. Having studied these natural oscillations and flow of arm water I have predicted Arctic sea ice will begin rebounding by 1930. The only wild card is how much the heat stored between 100 and 900 meters in the Arctic ocean gets brought to the surface as iceless seas allow the winds to stir the water and inhibits sea ice formations by the the lack sea ice
The real point here is that glaciers now recede much more quickly than they did 2 decades or even a decade ago, that the sea ice is declining even faster, that temperatures across the arctic have set new records not only in the last decade, but in the last few years.
This is not some slow and continued progression since 1850 – this is an acute, increasing change, seen more as we get closer to the present.
This is arctic sea ice extent over a month since minimum – lower than minimums in the 80s and 90s.
The real point here is that alarmist climatology is in fundamental and entrenched denial of the existence and reality of natural climate changes and oscillations. In double-speak they pretend to acknowledge it while at the same time dismissing it as long term, slow, small and insignificant. It is not long term or slow or insignificant. It occurs on all spatial and temporal scales according to fractality as is inevitable from th enonlinear dynamics that generate it. The modern record of polar ice is far too short to conclude anything of substance whatsoever on secular climate trends if they exist at all. Climatology clings absurdly to the myth of Edenic stasis as a null hypothesis. Thought for the day: climate change is the null hypothesis.
There are phases, Griff. The ice and the surface temperature are offset by a time delay. The warming during the 80s and early 90s produced very little melting, then in the late 90s and early 2000s temperature didn’t change much yet ice melted at high speed. Late 2000s and 2010s saw an ice stabilization and the resume of the warming. Now we are back to the opposite situation, temperatures are slowly decreasing yet ice melting accelerates.
Being an alarmist you can always change focus to what is changing faster to claim its unprecedented. The reality is that climate changes slowly even now. We are just measuring the changes with greater than ever precision and at places we never measured before. That is what is unprecedented.
WRONG AGAIN, griff
Most glaciers were receding quicker from 1920-1940
They slowed through the 1970s, of course, because that was a colder period.
Current Greenland area is just a tiny bit down from the EXTREME HIGHS of the Little Ice Age
And the temperature in Greenland is just a small bump out of the coldest period in 10,000 years
This is all NATURAL, and you have never been able to produce one single piece of evidence otherwise.
Sea ice isn’t declining griff. Arctic sea ice decline started bottoming out in 2007 and the Antarctic sea ice is as robust as ever.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
NoTricksZone has discussed a published proxy review which embarrasingly shows practically no ocean warming in the last two centuries:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/12/unheralded-global-ocean-2000-year-temperature-reconstruction-reveals-embarrassingly-small-modern-changes/
It also confirms that the oceans were much warmer at the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago (that’s why it’s called the optimum!).
They key paper – McGregor et al 2015 – is behind a paywall but the NTZ post includes the important figures that include significant recent cooling in parts of both the Atlantic and Pacific:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2510
Absence of recent warming in this review of all (quality controlled) ocean proxies puts the JoshWillisised Argo data in an uncomfortable light – makes it look like a children’s story book by Josh Willis.
BTW the main evidence of both Greenland and Antarctic ice loss is the “GRACE” satellite gravity based estimates. This data is somewhat on its own and very suspect. Where alternative measurements are available (e.g. in Iceland) GRACE data fare poorly in comparison:
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/209/1/226/2893456
Note that what happens at the base of ice sheets is about geology and nothing about climate. Climate is about the surface. In Antarctica the focus is all on the Western Peninsula ice which happens to sit on a string of active volcanoes. The main eastern part of Antarctica is cooling. The entire southern ocean is cooling. The polar warming desperate fantasy will before long collapse spectacularly like one of the calving ice cliffs. It is likely that Antarctica is already – for some time – leading the climate into glacial inception, as it always does, even as the likes of Loydo and Griff prophecy warming doom for political gain.
Apart from its inherent and known measurement issues, GRACE is trying to measure ice mass by gravity over a rather active volcanic magma sack.
All you can really say ….. D’OH !….. as Homer or Loy is wont to do.
A WW2-era plane that was forced to land on Greenland ice sheet in 1942 was discovered a couple years ago under more than 300 feet of ice. What does this tell us about the state of the surface mass balance over the past 80 years? It appears to be pretty strong anecdotal evidence, at least, of substantial growth.
A WW2-era plane that was forced to land on Greenland ice sheet in 1942 was discovered a couple years ago under more than 300 feet of ice. What does this tell us about the state of the surface mass balance over the past 80 years? It appears to be pretty strong anecdotal evidence, at least, of substantial growth.
We hear a lot about warmer north Atlantic waters warming the artic but what if now the cooler Arctic waters are cooling the north Atlantic.
https://apps.ecmwf.int/webapps/opencharts/products/w_sst?area=North%20Atlantic&base_time=202010150000&level=sst&valid_time=202010300000
The consensus of IPCC circulation models is that rising CO2 forcing increases positive NAO conditions, which is associated with a cooler AMO as well a cooler Greenland.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
The coldest periods in Western Europe are typically during centennial solar minima, due to increased negative NAO conditions, so naturally the AMO and Greenland are warmer then.
How come all of this little ice age, glaciation, moraines, etc. stuff seems to happen in the NH and hardly worth a mention in the SH?