How Global Warming Isn’t

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I kept reading that warming oceans around Antarctica are melting the ice shelves. However, I’ve also read that Antarctica hasn’t warmed in seven decades. Say what?

So I thought I’d take a look at the trends in ocean temperatures. As usual in climate, the results were not what I might have expected.

I used the Reynolds Optimally Interpolated sea surface temperature (SST) dataset. It is built on satellite and in-situ data, and starts in 1982. Here are the SST trends in that dataset.

Like I said … not what I expected. Cooling around almost all of Antarctica. Cooling in the Pacific clearly demarcated by the Equator. Cooling in the center of the North Atlantic.

About the only thing I did expect was that the La Nina Pump is working harder to keep the temperature stable. This is reflected in the eastern Pacific cooling, along with the warming where the La Nina pump moves the warmer water first westward and from there towards the North and South Poles.

But why the cooling in the center of the South Atlantic? Why the cooling north of Greenland, but not south of Greenland?

Gotta love “settled science” … mysteries are wonderful.

Best wishes to everyone, stay healthy, stay crazy …


My Usual Request: I can defend my own words, as can most folks. But I can’t defend your interpretations of my own words. So when you comment, please quote the exact words you are discussing. If you don’t, I am likely to wax wroth …

4.8 46 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 23, 2021 10:07 am

My question to you Willis, is did you wear one or two masks while interpreting this data? LOL

Reply to  FrozenOhio
April 23, 2021 10:36 am

I’m betting 3 masks and a snorkel … smiles!

Reply to  GoatGuy
April 23, 2021 11:21 am

Monday while snorkeling on the west end of the Big Island of Hawaii I wore both mask and snorkel. There were a bit fewer fish but I saw three seas turtles so I can conclude… well nothing.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 23, 2021 12:59 pm

There should have been 5 turtles by my calculations, so, yes, its bad

Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
April 23, 2021 4:46 pm

My model with rising CO2 shows them extinct by next year. It’s science!

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 23, 2021 4:10 pm

2 step beach – i was there

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
April 23, 2021 9:08 pm

No matter how much wildlife you might have seen, Greta is still Disappointed with you.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 24, 2021 4:26 am

and your wetsuit better be rainbows cos black would be rayciss ya know, cultural appropriation n all that

Charles Higley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
April 24, 2021 10:27 am

Nobody has pointed out that night is racist and the Sun is white supremacist. Gotta keep up.

April 23, 2021 10:24 am

According to a 30 Oct 15 (updated: 6 Aug 17), study by NASA the Antarctic ice mass is increasing.

“A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.”

Has NASA joined the “denialist” ranks? Decidedly not. Later in the report it says:

“IF [emphasis added] the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years.”

This mealy mouthed statement should prevent a fall from grace with the faithful adherents.

The point is, the “Settled Science” says the Antarctic ice mass is presently decreasing. The heretical NASA science says it is not.

Here is an interesting question. How can the AGCC models accurately predict sea level rise, when they assume that the Antarctic ice/snow mass is decreasing, and ignore the fact that for 10K years, and at least for another 20 years, it is increasing (and may never decrease)?

Reply to  Sage
April 23, 2021 10:45 am
The Monster
Reply to  Sage
April 23, 2021 11:11 am

The more snow falls on Antarctica (and Greenland), the more the weight of all that snow bearing down on the snow underneath it causes glacier flow toward the ocean. And that provides a steady supply of photo-ops when a glacier extending over the water can finally break off a piece. These “calving” events are presented as if they’re proof that the ice is melting. It’s actually the opposite.

Climate believer
Reply to  The Monster
April 23, 2021 1:24 pm

Remember the MSM frothing at their keyboards over the A68 icebergs that were supposed to cause a penguin extinction and sink the islands of South Georgia…

What happened? oh they broke up and just floated by like hundreds of icebergs before them…. << crickets >>

Reply to  Climate believer
April 23, 2021 6:01 pm

Last time I drove up the A68
I saw neither penguins nor icebergs.
Clearly the Soutra Icefields have gone.
But is this cause for complaint?

Bob boder
Reply to  The Monster
April 23, 2021 3:19 pm


The same point I have been making for the last 15 years of this nonesense

Reply to  Sage
April 24, 2021 6:20 am

You never know with NASA… one day its science, the next it’s Muslim outreach.

H. D. Hoese
April 23, 2021 10:30 am

The ocean floor is “poorly explored.” The bottom of the ocean is “getting warmer.”

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 23, 2021 10:37 am

… and if you drink lots of warm milk and PeptoBismol, you can eventually cure stomach ulcers. Wait, what?

Reply to  GoatGuy
April 23, 2021 7:49 pm
Alan M
Reply to  GregK
April 23, 2021 10:39 pm

I think Wait, what? actually meant sarc \

Last edited 1 year ago by Alan M
Reply to  GregK
April 24, 2021 2:41 am

Dr Barry Marshall quote: “I don’t believe in authority.”

Reply to  GoatGuy
April 23, 2021 11:36 pm

And eating eggs raises your blood cholesterol… wait, what?

Charles Higley
Reply to  menace
April 24, 2021 10:35 am

Since cholesterol is a healing chemical and you make it in many tissues, why would they assume it is bad for you. Dietary cholesterol allows a feedback mechanism that controls in vivo synthesis. Some days, the only thing I eat is eggs (4–6). I have health no issues at 70, on no medications, and my only complaint is my right thumb which I twisted badly years ago skiing.

A little known fact is that normal weight or less males have higher cholesterol as they age and they also live the longest. What? Yes, the longest. My father-in-law is 97, still independent, and has had high cholesterol his entire life. I got him to stop taking statins, which are liver poisons.

Mark Austin
Reply to  Charles Higley
April 24, 2021 1:47 pm

They assume cholesterol is bad with the same yardstick they use for CO2… File under junk science

Reply to  H. D. Hoese
April 23, 2021 12:58 pm

Funny how the warming is always where there aren’t reliable instruments or repeatable observations (or where the records can be edited), ain’t it?
Last I checked, the bottom isn’t where the ice is. Must be a problem with that.

Last edited 1 year ago by dk_
Reply to  dk_
April 24, 2021 4:53 am

Extrapolation and interpolation or IOW if you have inadequate hard data, make it up! Corner stones of the foundation of “Climate Science”.

April 23, 2021 10:39 am

Good work, again, Willis. By the way, glaciers almost always melt first at the bottom edges and grow at the top. So, weirdly, Antartica IS melting AND getting colder AND gaining more ice AND calving iceburgs in season. When people use either/or logic, they neatly avoid the cases when both, or unforseen alternatives are true.

Charles Higley
Reply to  dk_
April 24, 2021 10:38 am

Perhaps it is the 150 or so volcanoes under the ice sheet having some spurious effect, like melting ice.

Calving glaciers are a sign of normal or growing glaciers. They do not calve when melting back due to warm air, they crumble.

April 23, 2021 10:39 am

But why the cooling in the center of the South Atlantic?”

Could it be the South Atlantic Anomaly? It could be causing increased cloudiness and precipitation. There is a developing theory of magnetic (and resulting electrical) influence on the Earth’s weather as well as earthquakes. This is a major problem for satellites and especially human health as they pass through this area.

Richard M
Reply to  rbabcock
April 23, 2021 3:43 pm

Or, it could be pollution flowing from Eastern SA rivers into this part of the Atlantic.

Reply to  Richard M
April 24, 2021 3:59 pm


Reply to  Ruleo
April 25, 2021 12:05 pm

It could be any of a number of things. Willis’ real point (I believe, but don’t let me put words into your mouth Mr. Eschenbach) was, this can’t be explained right now, maybe it should be investigated? Rather than just dismiss it as “settled science”?

April 23, 2021 10:43 am

First of all, you need to call it a warming “hole” in the North Atlantic to be compatible with the politically correct Brits. Cooling and cold are not acceptable words in the imperial climate state.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 23, 2021 12:37 pm

“It never rains ’til after sundown
In Camelot”

Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 23, 2021 2:36 pm

We’ll need to call it “double plus unwarming” soon. At least in Oceania.

Last edited 1 year ago by MarkH
Alan M
Reply to  MarkH
April 23, 2021 10:43 pm

Simply -ve warming

Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 25, 2021 11:53 am

That was about sentence #4 in my Thermodynamics class: From a thermodynamic standpoint, there is no cold. There is more heat and less heat, but never use the term “cold”. Just as from a physics standpoint, there is more light and less light, but there is no “dark”. So when my high school senior picture photographer had a sign on his darkroom door, “Please do not leave this door open. You let all the dark out.” we know it’s a joke. But when your mother tells you, “Don’t leave the refrigerator door open, you’ll let all the cold out!” you can’t get metaphysical on her, she’ll box your ears.

April 23, 2021 10:45 am

I’m sorry. I can’t get past the obvious racism and hegemony displayed in the graphics as represented by the white land masses.

Reply to  Scissor
April 23, 2021 2:42 pm

Land of white, or, alternatively, mass of white. White land is considered to be a color judgment (i.e. diversitist), including racism, or rightly geographicism.

Rich Davis
April 23, 2021 10:50 am

“Cooling in the center of the North Atlantic.”

I think you meant South?

John Tillman
Reply to  Rich Davis
April 23, 2021 11:38 am

Both. Smaller area in the NA.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 24, 2021 7:13 am
April 23, 2021 10:51 am

Here’s a plug for plate tectonics and the missing 90 percent of the planet by volume under foot.

Energy unleashed by submarine volcanoes could power a continent | EurekAlert! Science News

BTW, it is politically acceptable to talk in terms of this heat for renewable energy but thou shalt not mention warming in any other context outside of the one true warming god of CO2.It’s in the ten climate commandments don’t ya know.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 23, 2021 9:15 pm

Well, continents don’t need power. People do.

Charles Higley
Reply to  ResourceGuy
April 24, 2021 10:41 am

There might have been 20 commandments but Moses dropped one tablet on his way down the mountain, a la Mel Brooks.

Reply to  Charles Higley
April 24, 2021 4:19 pm

Too bad, the 11th commandment was “thout shall not make up thy data.” With that tablet in the dust there is nothing to stop thw warmists.

Reply to  Charles Higley
April 25, 2021 12:08 pm

According to the picture I saw, he was juggling three tablets, when he dropped one it left 10, so an even distribution would mean there had originally been 15 Commandments. Just exactly the same as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin (so I don’t have to add /sarc).

April 23, 2021 11:03 am

My understanding is that it is not the ocean surface temperatures around Antarctica that are claimed to be warming; rather, it is the sub-surface temperatures that are said to be on the rise. It is these warmer sub-suface waters that are said to be eating away at the bases of the ice shelves – the so-called ‘grounding zones’. Why else would glaciers like Thwaites or Pine Island be observed to be retreating, given tgat surface waters are not warming?

John Tillman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 23, 2021 11:39 am

Because of subglacial volcanoes in West Antarctica, on the Ring of Fire.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 23, 2021 12:05 pm

I can’t find it now but published reports a few years back by the Thwaites and Pine Island study groups, after their first use of robot submarines that could go deep enough to study the undersides of the glaciers’ shelf ice, said their initial evaluation was that the very thick ice shelves had been melting, due to warm water rising from below, for from 300 to 1000 years.

Several later reports claimed the heat is from geothermal vents discover on the ocean floor below the shelf ice but the more generally accepted view is that the heat comes from yet undiscovered currents seeping under the Antarctic circumpolar current from outside the Antarctic circle.

Reply to  AndyHce
April 25, 2021 12:10 pm

Gotta watch them sneaky underhanded currents.

Granum Salis
Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 23, 2021 1:52 pm

An alternate explanation is that the mass of the terminal moraine has grown such that the snout rides up and over the top, exposing the ice to wave action erosion and resulting in rapid retreat of the glacier until a new end moraine forms and advance resumes. No heating required.

Reply to  Granum Salis
April 25, 2021 12:11 pm

Not to mention the existing moraine provides a fulcrum point under the glacier and a perfect place for the glacier to break. (I’m just guessing, I have no data or analysis, or even equations, to support my SWAG.)

Reply to  TheFinalNail
April 24, 2021 2:21 pm

Typical of alarmist claims. Warmth without an origin.comment image?w=881&ssl=1

Just where does your alleged warm water come from?

Besides that most of those alleged warming of deeper water claims also fail to cite direct observations over time. Just what they believe they measured for the first time; i.e. no history it must be warmest ever…

Spalding Craft
April 23, 2021 11:07 am

This surprises me quite a bit.

We’ve heard a lot about how Atlantic hurricanes are being amped by warmer water. Intuitively seems to make sense.

For the past few years Gulf of Mexico water has been quite warm, right?

Could it be that these are surface temps? But why would temps be consistently cooling?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Spalding Craft
April 23, 2021 2:10 pm

We’ve heard a lot about how Atlantic hurricanes are being amped by warmer water. Intuitively seems to make sense.

Yes, we’re heard that. But it’s garden variety bullshit, as usual.

It is the temperature differential (between the surface and the upper atmosphere) that “amps up” hurricanes, not the water temperature. So if, for example, the upper atmosphere increases in temperature by the same amount as the water temperature, no “amping up” will result. The claims of warmer water “amping up” hurricanes is yet another “all other things held equal” assumption.

A few years back there was a hurricane approaching the Carolinas, and it was all the media could do to fall over each other breathlessly predicting how the hurricane was going to “strengthen” as it approached the coast due to it being bound for “warmer water.” My mental prediction was that the “strengthening” would probably amount to naught, because the notion is based on the usual “assumptions.” What happened? The hurricane fizzled as it moved over the “warmer waters.” So much for what we’ve “heard.”

April 23, 2021 11:17 am

Very interesting data. I wish there was the same data from the late 1940s. I would love to see what the negative phase of the AMO did to ocean surface temperatures.

I also think the South Atlantic cold regain is tied to the magnetic anomaly. Increased evaporation perhaps?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Nelson
April 23, 2021 3:11 pm

What would be the mechanism for a magnetic field, or the Van Allen belt, to increase evaporation at the ocean surface?

April 23, 2021 11:20 am

Thanks for this important hat tip to Antarctica – which is perhaps the most important place on earth climatically. It leads both glacial termination and glacial inception. For instance Antarctic warming had started 20,000 ago, way before the Holocene started 4-6,000 years later. Antarctica rules ocean circulation acting as the “Grand Central Station” of the THC – Thermohaline circulation.

There are indications that oceanic cooling is developing around Antarctica and in the Southern Hemisphere in general. In blogger Javier’s recent analysis, the “decision” for the next glacial inception has already been taken – thousands of years ago. Antarctica is slowly leading the world into the next glaciation.

Last edited 1 year ago by Hatter Eggburn
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 23, 2021 11:25 am

Here’s the “Grand Central Station” figure:

Ian W
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 23, 2021 11:59 am

Perhaps if everyone stops eating steak and tries to heat their homes using heat exchangers…….

Innumerate power hungry politicians are unconcerned about dates beyond the next election and even less about reality

Last edited 1 year ago by Ian W
Richard M
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 23, 2021 3:50 pm

It’s very possible the next glacial inception was delayed by human pollution of the oceans. Notice how the warmer areas of the map correlate nicely to locations fed by currents that originated close to higher populated areas. Not to mention the cold areas are where you don’t find many humans.

Reply to  Richard M
April 24, 2021 4:22 pm

Or maybe people don’t like to live where its cold?

Steve Case
April 23, 2021 11:27 am

“I kept reading that warming oceans around Antarctica are melting the ice shelves.”

The usual claim is that warm water is eating away at the grounding line where the ice cap meets the sea. Articles like this one

Underwater Robot Detects More Warm Water 
Beneath Antarctica’s Doomsday Glacier

from last week imply that the warm water that melts the ice is a new phenomenon caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. How do they know that? What evidence do they have that water at the pinning points or grounding line is new and has not been going for hundreds of thousands of years? Icebergs have been present in the Southern Oceans for as long as people have sailed ships there.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Case
M Courtney
Reply to  Steve Case
April 23, 2021 12:00 pm

How much energy is released by scraping a heavy glacier across the ground as it flows to the sea under its own weight?
I really don’t know. I may be off the rails here.
But some heat must be released.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Steve Case
April 23, 2021 12:25 pm

Yes, I thought the same thing about that “we found warm water under the ice shelf” article in their first ever measurement with a robotic under-ice vehicle, and thus it must be worse than we thought.

It’s similar to the Antarctic spring-time stratospheric ozone hole formation found the first time ozone concentrations began to be measured in the South Pole startosphere in the 1970’s. The impulse is to immediately jump to the conclusion, “This must be new and serious since we’ve never seen it before and it’s not what we expected.”

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 23, 2021 2:15 pm

Yes, that’s always the rub. When things are “not as expected,” something must be wrong with the observations, or it must be a “crisis.” Their ignorance never gives them pause.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 23, 2021 1:06 pm

No warning of any kind is happening anywhere in the vicinity of Antarctica except maybe around the volcanoes under the Western Peninsula.

Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
April 23, 2021 1:47 pm

No warming

Joel O'Bryan
April 23, 2021 11:43 am

Willis asks, “But why the cooling in the center of the South Atlantic?”

The growing South Atlantic magnetic anomaly (SAA) would be a good working hypothesis.

mechanism: The flux of solar energetic particles induces cloud formation. Cloud formation lessens SW solar energy input to those oceans below. A mesoscale Svensmark-effect IOW, more along the lines of solar energetic particles flowing down to the SAA (rather than Svensmark’s GCR mechanism) and into the upper troposphere to seed cloud formation. SST cools.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 23, 2021 11:49 am

I see that commenters, rbabcock and nelson have already suggested a SAA link.
The bottom line is that clouds impede SW solar from warming the top layer of the oceans. More clouds = suppressed warming.
The sticky part come in disentangling OLR, convective heat transport in the tropics (where SST rises above 25 ºC), and stratus-type clouds across all those oceans where latitude and thus insolation matters greatly.

Richard M
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
April 23, 2021 3:55 pm

Try following ocean currents from the coast of eastern S.A. Could it be a place where pollution tends to gather?

Mumbles McGuirck
April 23, 2021 12:40 pm

You might want to check decadal cloud cover trends for the same time period. Wondering if your mid-Atlantic cool spots might be due to greater cloudiness.

Curious George
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 23, 2021 2:51 pm

The headline of the red contour line – 0 degrees C – has nothing to do with clouds.

Reply to  Curious George
April 24, 2021 2:40 pm

The headline in the graphic say;

“Decadal Change in Cloud Area”

The subtitle is misstated, but the main headline and the data match.

Curious you didn’t quote the main line in the headline.

Robert W Turner
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 23, 2021 7:11 pm

I think most of the pattern can be explained by changes in rates of upwelling/downwelling. Areas of cooling are increasing in upwelling/downwelling whereas areas of warming are experiencing decreased upwelling/downwelling.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
April 24, 2021 3:12 am

I was also thinking of downwelling and upwelling. There may be a big negative greenhouse effect over the continent of Antarctica resulting in cold winds far out into the ocean. This may give colder downwelling water around the coast. Some of this can come up again west of South America.

Reply to  nobodysknowledge
April 25, 2021 12:26 pm

Given the heat capacity of dry air relative to the heat capacity of liquid water, I say not likely. Although a 2010 cold air mass moved south over the south eastern United States all the way to beyond the Florida Keys, and cool the water temperatures enough to cause coral bleaching. So maybe I don’t know what I’m talking about. Yes, I do… The temperature change of the air would have to be YUUGE (like 40° F or more) to cause a significant change in the water temperature, and we know corals are sensitive to temperature changes of <5° F, so it took a a huge drop in air temperature, sustained for several days, to cause a drop in water temperature of a few degrees. From your description, I don’t think there would/could be enough difference to cause a significant temperature change in the water.

Reply to  Robert W Turner
April 24, 2021 4:04 am

Hatter Eggburn has a very interesting reference to Phil Salmon:
About upwelling and downwelling:
Antarctic cold downwelling
Chilean coast cold upwelling
South African costal upwelling-cooling
AMOC slowing
And: Thomas Crowley in 1992 showed a direct connection between North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW) formation and Southern Hemisphere temperatures. NADW formation by cold downwelling around the Norwegian Sea in the far north Atlantic, is the downward and southward arm of the AMOC (Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation). The Atlantic ocean, practically from pole to pole, is “meridionally bounded”, that is, it is walled in to the east and west by the continents of Africa, Eurasia and South and North America. This constrains the 3D deep ocean circulation, such that if water flows in either north or south at one depth, then it must flow in the opposite direction at another depth, to conserve volume and prevent the ocean bunching up in a way contrary to gravity.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 23, 2021 7:55 pm

A big green blob of slightly less cloudy over the north-centre of the continent of Oz. Interestingly very wet [and presumably therefore cloudy] in this region in the just ending wet season

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 24, 2021 7:56 am

You need to go back further than 20 years to see cloud cover changes in the Atlantic. UK annual sunshine hours reveals a change during the 1990’s.

comment image

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
April 24, 2021 8:18 am

How were they measuring cloud cover pre-satellite?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 24, 2021 2:52 pm

Counts showed less umbrellas in the inside brolly holders.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
April 26, 2021 1:33 am

They are not measuring cloud cover they are measuring sunshine hours.

April 23, 2021 1:49 pm

When l see pools of cooler water in mid ocean my first thoughts are a increase in wind speeds and/or a increase in colder air masses over the area. Also a increase in cloud cover.
The cooler pool in the North Atlantic may suggest that there has been a increase in Atlantic lows stalling in the area.

John Tillman
Reply to  taxed
April 23, 2021 2:44 pm

Or less volcanic activity on Mid-Ocean Ridges.

Reply to  John Tillman
April 23, 2021 3:14 pm

Maybe that’s also a cause.
The reason am thinking it maybe due to a increase in low pressure stalling over the Atlantic is because that would force changes to the wind patterning over the North Atlantic. Which in turn would force changes to the flow in the north Atlantic drift.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  taxed
April 23, 2021 3:34 pm

Or an error in the choice of the base period in maps using the anomaly method? This is a guess I have not tested. Geoff S

Richard M
Reply to  taxed
April 23, 2021 3:57 pm

Or it could be places that for some reason (eg. changes in ocean currents due to AMO) see increases in cold upwelling deep ocean water.

Reply to  Richard M
April 23, 2021 4:31 pm

A other reason l think it maybe due to stalling lows is because it would link to what’s been happening to the UK climate over this time. Since the 1970’s the UK climate has been getting warmer and sunnier. What l think is most likely to be the cause of this is a increase in Azores highs ridging across over to europe and/or high pressure sitting over europe. As this would lead to not just to a increase in sunshine but also to warm air been drawn up from the south. Now with a increase in high pressure over europe this will help to block or slow down the progress of Atlantic lows across the ocean. Which would lead to the lows spending more time over the Atlantic.

Richard M
Reply to  taxed
April 23, 2021 4:56 pm

But what caused the changes in the Azores highs? Changes in ocean currents could be a factor. Always tough to separate changes in the oceans and atmospheric circulation as they are so closely tied together.

Reply to  Richard M
April 23, 2021 5:41 pm

To me its looking like there is a link between sun activity and changes to the jet stream. lts looking like that during extended low sun spot activity the smooth zonal flow of the jet stream brakes down and it becomes extended and scattered across the globe.
These changes am currently seeing in the jet stream go along way to explaining what was going on during the LIA.

David A
Reply to  Richard M
April 24, 2021 7:46 pm

Definitely, yet it must be considered that, over longer term time scales, the ocean is the dog, and the atmosphere is the tail.

April 23, 2021 3:04 pm

I think argument might be that it takes energy to melt ice and hence cooling is an indication of energy flow towards melting.

But I’m sceptical. Particularly since other regions also show cooling. Unless they can be adequately explained then our understanding of climate and AGW catastrophe prediction is, as always, on shakey ground.

Reply to  TimTheToolMan
April 25, 2021 12:31 pm

Ummmm… maybe we understand the AGW prediction quite accurately, and it’s the prediction that is on shaky ground? *tongue in cheek*

Richard M
April 23, 2021 3:19 pm

The answer could be as simple as one word …. pollution.

Fresh water has the highest evaporation rate. When anything is added to water the evaporation rate drops. This is why higher salinity water has a lower evaporation rate. Since evaporation is a cooling mechanism, anything that lowers the evaporation rate will lead to warming.

Now where do you think the lowest pollution rates might be found? If you guessed Antarctica you hit the jackpot. In addition, the area off South America is where we see the most upwelling of deep water. That water flows up from Antarctica and would likely contain much lower levels of pollution.

It is very possible that the warming from the Little Ice Age is a side effect of colonization of North America. As the population grew and farming and industry increased, we would expect more pollution with direct access to the Gulf Stream. Hence, warmer waters carried into the Arctic.

Maybe humanity saved the Earth from plunging into the next glacial period.

Peter W
Reply to  Richard M
April 23, 2021 4:34 pm

The earth has been cooling for the past several thousand years, ignoring, of course, the shorter term effects of the usual 1.000 year or so sunspot cycle.

Richard M
Reply to  Peter W
April 23, 2021 4:54 pm

I know of no evidence of a thousand year sunspot cycle. If you are referring to the MWP, RWP and Minoan warming, they are not close to a thousand year cycle. I do have my own ideas as to what caused these periods. Natural cycles of ocean salinity variation.

The cooling into the LIA is well documented even if we don’t know the cause. The following warming is also of unknown origin. However, we don’t know how long that warming would have occurred naturally. It could be human pollution may have caused that warming or has accelerated the warming and reduced the chances of glacial inception.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Richard M
April 24, 2021 9:48 am

I agree with all of your statements

“We don’t know”
“It could be”
“I have my own ideas”.

The problem in this field is those with certainty, that they know and everyone else is wrong, in a field that has far more uncertainty that certainty.

When I argue these points with people, my walk away line is “neither of us know for sure, but only one of us is smart or honest enough to admit it”.

David A
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
April 24, 2021 7:55 pm


My simplistic image of climate science is several dozen Red/blue teeter- todders, all different sizes, all moving up and down at various rythyms, sometimes the blue ones synchronize more, sometimes the red.

I happen to think that the Sun and the oceans are the biggest of those teeter-todders.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Richard M
April 24, 2021 5:45 pm

Richard M:

The RWP, and the MWP were caused by low volcanic activity. (only 31 VEI4 or higher eruptions in the ~300 year MWP, for example)(10/century, 8 VEI5, or larger))

The~600 year LIA was caused by 144 Eruptions (avg. 24/century)(~37 VEI5 or larger). The periods of low sunspot activity within the LIA had no effect upon the climate).

Richard M
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 25, 2021 5:40 am

You could be right but the Pinatubo eruption was VEI6 and it only cooled the Earth for 2-3 years. From what I can tell it takes a tropical, VEI6 level eruption to produce cooling. How many of these occurred during the LIA?

Burl Henry
Reply to  Richard M
April 25, 2021 11:27 am

Richard M:

The Pinatubo eruption occurred during the moderate El Nino of April 1991 – July 1992. so its cooling effect (>0.0 Deg. C). was not apparent until August, and it never caused a La Nina, as normally happens, even with a VEI4 eruption.

Temperatures did not FULLY recover until 3 years later.

With respect to the location of an eruption, it seems not to matter much where it occurs.

I have examined the Central England Instrumental Temperatures .Data Set, (1659-present), and every known VEI4 or higher eruption is apparent in their data.(plus a few as yet unidentified eruptions)

.There were 6 VEI6 eruptions during the LIA, plus a VEI7, and possibly 4 others (Plinian eruptions with no VEI assigned). But as noted above, smaller eruptions contribute to the cooling, as well.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 25, 2021 1:20 pm


In your post, you say “There is a large expansion of the ice cap in the century from 900 to 1000, but nary a volcano in sight”

There was a VEI7 in 946, a VEI4+ in 950, and 3 more VEI4,s that would have helped to maintain cool temperatures.

Then, you say “but 1435? One lousy volcano in the half century around 1435”

In the half century around 1435, there were 5 VEI4’s, a VEI5, a VEI6,and a Plinian eruption in 1440, with no VEI as yet assigned.

With your erroneous data, how can you say that my claim is not true? ,

Burl Henry
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 25, 2021 4:55 pm


i am using Volcanoes of the World, Third Edition (2010), Siebert, et al. Published by the Smithsonian Institution.

I am presently in contact with one of the authors of “Comprehensive Record of Volcanic Eruptions in the Holocene (11,000 years), from the WATS Divide, Antarctica Ice Core” March 2021

They claim to have precisely identified and dated 426 large eruptions in the Southern Hemisphere.

I want to compare their data with my reference. An Antarctic Ice Core may miss eruptions in the Northern Hemisphere, but I doubt it, since the Central England Instrumental Temperatures Data Set showed a temperature response to every known VEI4 or larger eruption, 1659-2019

another ian
April 23, 2021 3:28 pm


In the first para below the diagrams you have “North Atlantic” – looks like it should be “South”?

Reply to  another ian
April 24, 2021 3:49 am

Per the images there is a small area south of Greenland and a large one in South Atlantic. Upwelling from deep gyre, perhaps. The small one up north does seem a bit odd, you would think Gulf Stream would be pushing warm currents through that whole region.

April 23, 2021 4:04 pm

Always expect the unexpected from the usual suspects Willis-
‘Pizzly’ bear hybrids are spreading across the Arctic thanks to climate change (

Disclaimer: I have nothing whatsoever to do with making this stuff up but no doubt trans/alphabet soup bears will be seen as a big plus for climate change in many quarters.

April 23, 2021 4:10 pm

“….cooling north of Greenland….” I don’t see it…

Peta of Newark
April 23, 2021 7:14 pm

I’m giving myself some serious brain-ache here – which is in great danger of trashing what tiny little faith I had in Sputniks anyway..

It comes from reading the explanation of how these temperature measuring Sputniks work, (I sort of knew from explanations elsewhere) and it goes thus:

The Sputnik is not directly seeing or reading the temperature of The Water. It’s looking at radiations coming from atmospheric gases, radiations that are temperature and pressure dependant.
My long-time gripe has been and still is that this is not any sort of ‘Direct or Absolute Temperature Measurement’
The radiometers aboard the Sputniks have to be calibrated against known thermometers: on the ground, in the water or in the air

So obvious problem #1 is that if the ‘calibrated’ theremometers are running high/low/middling/median or even at Goldilocks temps, so are the Sputniks.
Thus problems arise with Urban Heat Islands but also my pet gripe, ‘Farmland Heat Oceans’

My new gripe, Problemo #2, and one that gets me to the point of walking into a lawyers office to level a charge of Unreasonable Behaviour, is with this line in the linked article (TY Willis):
Quote:””One of the greatest limitations in the AVHRR derived SST is the obstruction by clouds in the field of view.”

Errm what!

1) Daytime:
Generally and usually warmer than night-time. Also cloudier. And windier = more evaporative cooling (especially) over the ocean.
So what does the Sputnik, its software & handlers and data adjusters do with ‘cloudy data’
Ignore it. Average it (with what). Make it up

But in any case, the Sputnik can only take ‘valid’ readings when its not cloudy and thus warmer than when it’s not cloudy.
Is that NOT a problem?

Certainly they have tried to address the problem that the air above the water does not always (or ever?) equal the temp of the water by calibrations using ships * buoys.
How do plumes of hot Saharan Heat get to the UK or, as is happening now, how does all that cold Arctic air make it does into France and Germany.
It has to cross large expanses of water to get there
How can they and their Sputnik say the water temp exactly matches that of the air, all the time, when it patently doesn’t in (just) those 2 examples?

And also, concerning the Argo floats. What became of them. Are they the calibration sources(s) for the Sputniks? Maybe a modicum of hope if = “yes”

But otherwise they say they use ships. But ships only go where people go/are.
The ships will be where vast plumes of warm air are coming off farms & deserts but cities (almost always beside the sea)

2) Night-time
Generally less cloudy/windy than daytime and typically cooler.
What causes what we all wonder? No matter. (that even the Ancient Greeks had that worked out)

So at night, the Sputnik will see/record the low temps, under a cloudless sky.
But when it’s cloudy, then what?
Not least and as Everyone Knows, “Clouds at night ‘trap heat’ and make it warm”

The clouds are there at night because a bubble of warm air, created at some distant place during daytime at whichever place, has rolled over the land/sea/ocean, field or fence and slowed its progress/stalled wherever you are. We call them Warm Fronts here in the UK. (You can get Cold Fronts too, strangely enough)

The warm air created the cloud and the cloud remained where it was formed because the wind drops at night and thus fails to blow it away.
The cloud did NOT create the warm air or cause the wind to drop.

Sorry, I digressed.
What does the Sputnik make of the, cloudy night-time, situation?

Is the Sputnik data, as suggested on NASA’s explanation page, adjusted to agree with the ground/sea based (actual real) thermometers?

This is what causes my brain-ache, how does all that fit together and so, how is it handled by Sputnik’s handlers?
Am I right in saying a Warm Bias is introduced in both day and night situations whenever there are clouds in the sky?

It fits perfectly with my assertion that
“The Very Last Thing” anyone needs or wants is a Warming Atmosphere – because – it represents a Cooling Earth.

The (not so) pretty cold colours from Antarctica say as much, because, there are no people there

There’s only so much heat energy coming from El Sol and once it gets into the atmosphere, that’s it. Gone. History.
Atmospheric heat energy cannot do any surface heating/warming.
The GHGE is junk and the science is total mess

Last edited 1 year ago by Peta of Newark
Rud Istvan
April 23, 2021 8:07 pm

I thought long and hard about even replying to this very good rational post, Finally decided to do so minimally, based on a long ago Climate Etc post over at Judiths concerning the EAIS Totten glacier.
The claimed ice problem is not SST. It is Antarctic ocean temp about 400 meters down, where most Antarctic glaciers ground. NOBODY knows these numbers except at certain monitored locales like PIG.
So SST per the Antarctic experts isn’t relevant—even tho it obviously is.

April 23, 2021 10:20 pm
April 24, 2021 6:38 am

“the La Nina Pump is working harder to keep the temperature stable”

Don’t think so. When La Nina is working hard we get the opposite pattern, warming of the south and cooling of the north. No trace of heat being pumped north.

comment image

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 24, 2021 1:14 pm

Sorry, hope I’m allowed to do this…
First page here:

Last edited 1 year ago by Willis Eschenbach
Ulric Lyons
April 24, 2021 7:53 am

“the La Nina Pump is working harder to keep the temperature stable”

ENSO drives the largest inter-annual variability. It drives warming when the solar wind is weaker, and drives cooling when the solar wind is stronger, like the AMO does on longer scales.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 24, 2021 3:13 pm

I use the OMNI data. The main point though is that ENSO and the AMO don’t keep the temperature stable, they drive the biggest variability, globally, and regionally.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 25, 2021 11:42 am

It doesn’t help saying that ENSO keeps the temperature stable. It does act as a negative feedback, but amplified, so it has considerable overshoot.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 26, 2021 5:13 am

““Overshoot” is a required feature for any thermoregulatory system governing a lagged variable”

Why? A servo control of a system with inertia shouldn’t do motor-boating.

“When the surface water in the Eastern Pacific gets really hot..”

That’s the negative feedback in action, either due to weaker solar wind states, volcanic aerosols, or orbital forcing changes over millennia. El Nino was largely absent during the Holocene Thermal Optimum, and increased from about 5500 years ago, and during glacial maximum states there are near permanent El Nino conditions.
Increasing poleward heat transport increases the mean global surface temperature. And the warmer SST’s also reduce low cloud cover apart from in the central tropics and Arctic.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
April 24, 2021 6:03 pm

Ulric Lyons::

There is NO such thing as as a “La Nina heat pump”.

All La Ninas are caused by random volcaniic eruptions, at least up to the start of the Industrial Revolution. A few after then were caused by high levels of industrial SO2 aerosol pollution.

When the volcanic SO2 aerosols eventually settle out, they usually form a volcanic-induced El Nino.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 25, 2021 11:44 am

Nonsense, volcanic eruptions cause El Nino conditions.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
April 25, 2021 2:31 pm

No. NOT nonsense.

El Ninos are caused by decreased levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, which results in increased insolation.

With respect to volcanoes, when their SO2 aerosols (fine droplets of H2SO4) settle out of the atmosphere, they coalesce with others in the atmosphere, flushing enough of them out to cause temperatures to rise enough to form an El Nino.

Applies to all VEI4 and higher eruptions, except those closely followed by another eruption.

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Burl Henry
April 25, 2021 5:36 pm

No the solar dimming drives El Nino conditions. Study the literature.

Burl Henry
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
April 25, 2021 7:11 pm

Ulrich Lyons:

There have been FAR more El Ninos (at least 45 since 1850) than there ave been periods of “solar dimming”.since then.

Explain them, please.

there are FAR mor

Serge Ferry
April 24, 2021 9:48 am

Got once the weather data (but did not save the link, sorry) from the French base Dumont-d’Urville since 1956. Made the diagrams (attached). No warming except for winter months getting colder from 2005 on.

April 24, 2021 10:35 am

Like I said … not what I expected.
Examine your assumptions. Do you generally accept that increasing CO2 should lead to warming? In which case you will find a lack of warming unexpected.

This is not meant personally. From observation, WUWT for some time has generally appeared to be in the “lukewarm” camp. I believe this is a mistake. CO2 may lead to warming, cooling, or no effect and there is no person on earth that knows the answer.

The evidence? For 2 generations, tens of thousands of researchers, and hundreds of billions of dollars invested have not been able to improve the uncertainty in climate sensitivity. In mathematics, when you see something like this, it suggests that climate sensitivity is non-physical. In which case, to paraphrase Bertrand Russell, you can prove anything (and prove nothing).

In other words, the GHG theory is likely wrong. We already know that real greenhouses enhance warming by controlling convection, not by LW/SW filtering of radiation, contrary to long time error of belief. Likely the same error applies to the greenhouse model of earth.

Your finding is further evidence that the GHG theory of warming is not correct.

Last edited 1 year ago by ferdberple
Burl Henry
Reply to  ferdberple
April 24, 2021 6:21 pm


“and there is no person on Earth that knows the answer”

Our climate is controlled solely by changing amounts of dimming SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere, which affects the intensity of the sun’s rays striking the Earth’s surface..

CO2 has ZERO effect.

Julian Flood
April 25, 2021 3:15 am

The detail is not enough to show what is going on in the little blob between Madeira and Portugal. Having seen a major (10,000+ sq miles) smooth in that area I’m interested in the reason. BTW, do the ocean warm blobs match the major gyres? As these could be concentrating floating pollution that might be an explanation.


April 28, 2021 6:54 am

Quick notes:

  • Arctic warming, Antarctic cooling, net effect is …?
  • As for Greenland, I can’t see cooling north of it on the graphic, ocean currents are of course known, some pushing from Atlantic into Arctic oceans – perhaps some water flows between Greenland and Canada, the southern tip of Greenland is in the Atlantic Ocean.
  • Keep in mind there are islands out in oceans, which will affect currents to some degree, Bermuda and the Azores are out in the central-north Atlantic, volcanic Iceland east of Greenland.
  • interesting that one blob stops at the equator. Trying to remember basic engineering: centrifugal acceleration from earth rotation will push water out, gravity will pull it back, does it go to lesser radius, gravity obviously being stronger as the water says on the earth? Well, maybe not, could be just currents and happenstance, as Willis always points out, tropics are a heat and weather area compared to the rest of the earth
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights