Reposted from the NoTricksZone
By P Gosselin on 19. September 2021
The IPCC 6th Report seems to have missed a lot, hasn’t it? Recent publications since the 5th Report show ALL OF ANTARCTICA, including the peninsula, has cooled since the late 1990s.
Friday I wrote about how the entire continent of Antarctica (except its peninsula) was found by leading scientists to be cooling significantly.
The publication by Zhu et al, however, found that the Antarctic Peninsula had been warming – but not a statistically significant rate – over the past 4 decades.
Now in a reader comment Kenneth has brought our attention to three scientific publications that show the peninsula has in fact been cooling since the late 1990s, after having warmed since the early 1950s!
Image source: sciencedirect.com
Here are the three terribly inconvenient papers for those still believing the lie the South Pole is warming, when in reality it is cooling at a “statistically significant” rate.
2. https://www.sciencedirect.com/
According to Kenneth: “The cooling since the 1990s hadn’t fully taken over the warming from 1979-1999 yet, so that’s why the overall trend is still a slight, statistically insignificant warming when referencing the entire 40-year period.”
Has Al Gore been down there recently?
#goreeffect
No chance: all the hot air he breathes out would have melted the place!
This is one of those Inconvenient Truths.
He won’t need a cherry picker to show the temps going down
Big Al says “but, but, but, next year”
The whole planet has been in a cooling trend since February 2016.
Actually for the past 3,000 years..
For the past 50 million years:
Ignore the antiscience fantasy on the right side of the graph. We’re not going to enjoy Eocene warmth in this century or millennium.
It’s been cooling universally since just after the Big Bang when the temperature reached ~1 quadrillion degrees C.
True.
But for Earth’s climate we’re stuck with intervals of hundreds to tens of millions of years or less.
In the Hadean. our planet was covered by oceans of molten rock. We’ve cooled since then.
In the Proterozoic Eon, Earth was covered with oceans of water ice. Since then, we’ve definitely warmed.
Of course in the short term anything can happen. 🙂
Earth formed some 4.5 billion years ago, and cooled down over a relatively brief span of about 50 million years until the global surface magma (at temperature of about 1200 °C, or 2200 °F) had largely solidified. This was the early part of the Hadean Eon, which by convention is stated to have ended 4.0 billion years ago. The later Hadean did have a climate—not too hospitable:
“Liquid water oceans existed despite the surface temperature of 230 °C (446 °F) because at an atmospheric pressure of above 27 atmospheres, caused by the heavy CO2 atmosphere, water is still liquid. As cooling continued, subduction and dissolving in ocean water removed most CO2 from the atmosphere but levels oscillated wildly as new surface and mantle cycles appeared.”
— source of italicized quote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadean
Earth has been cooling since a looooong time ago!
Big Bang was about 13.8 billion years ago. Earth did not form until about 4.5 billion years ago.
I little bit of a mismatch there, assuming your word “It’s” refers to Earth.
Yeah, you say that but you forget it’s about the change that affects man! I mean, we ALL KNOW that modern man cannot cope with rapid climate change like we did in the Medieval times. Or the Romans. Or the Minoans. Modern man has ZERO ability to use technology to offset any effect that a small change in climate may cause!
Yes, that’s why all those Canadians from Quebec immediately die of heat stroke when they get off the plane in Miami. 😁
We call them “Snowbirds”
Some, err errors with that graph – actually highlighted here at ….
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/13/crowdsourcing-the-wuwt-paleoclimate-reference-page-disputed-graphs-alley-2000/.
also :
”This graph is misleading for a number of reasons.
First, the x-axis is mislabelled. In fact, it should say “Years before 1950”, rather than “Years before present (2000 AD)”. The GISP2 ice core only extends up to 1855 – 95 years before 1950. This means that none of the modern observational temperature period overlaps with the proxy reconstruction. (Easterbrook’s graph shows the uptick in the final 100 years or so of the record – shown in red – incorrectly indicating that it is the observational temperature period.)
The figure was also featured in another post on the same blog, which conflated Greenland with global temperatures. Any individual location will have significantly more variability than the globe as a whole. A single ice core is also subject to uncertainties around elevation changes and other perturbations to the ice core over time.
As Prof Alley told then-New York Times journalist Andrew Revkin back in 2010:
“The data still contain a lot of noise over short times (snowdrifts are real, among other things). An isotopic record from one site is not purely a temperature record at that site, so care is required to interpret the signal and not the noise.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change
this better depicts the Greenland plateaux climate (more that a single location)
”Greenland temperature reconstruction from Vinther et al. (2009) using proxy data from six ice cores. Data spans the past 12,000 years with a resolution of 20 years. Observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth is shown at the end in black, with a 20-year smooth applied to match the proxy resolution. Proxy records and observations are aligned over the 1880-1960 period.”
I presume Anthony, you’ll have the graph showing the run-away warming in the Antarctic like the thermageddonists predicted, won’t you?
What the Greenland proxies indicate is the high and low temperature extremes of the past 10,000 years far exceed any modern temperature fluctuations, and all while CO2 was moderated at approximately 280ppm. If CO2 drives climate, how could the dramatic temperature swing that occurred about 5,900 years ago (Anthony’s graph), and the thousands of years prior to the modern era, have possibly occurred? I have yet to hear any proponent of man-made CO2 causing global warming answer this basic question.
The recent warming seems to be in a step-wise fashion following strong El Ninos. It seems reasonable to surmise that cooling will likewise be in a step-wise fashion following strong or protracted La Ninas.
We’ve just had a La Nina. link It looks like we’re going to have another one without an intervening El Nino. link It will be very interesting to see if we get a strong step down in global temperature as a result.
Various people have forecast a 30 year period of cooling based an the ENSO and AMO cycles. As you point out, we may already be seeing the beginnings of that trend. With any luck, it will be strong enough that it can’t be ignored.
Couple successful predictions of global cooling based on natural cycles with recent renewable energy disasters and people could become really skeptical about CAGW.
Man-made global warming causes global cooling!
But seriously, folks, Las Niñas were in the cards, due to end of Solar Cycle 24 in December 2019.
“With any luck, it will be strong enough that it can’t be ignored.”
At one stage I thought the” Deniers” were overcoming the” Warmists”. I don’t believe that anymore….the warmist’s are winning… indeed have already won IMO.
The world is now full of indoctrinated people who simply don’t listen to facts and reality…the media generally speaking are not interested in disproving or critically examining the false narratives…It has become the new religion and we all know facts don’t matter if you are a believer.
People are willing to go along to get along, until it costs them too much to do so.
The Democrats learned nothing from the election of President Trump. He won because of the votes of people the Democrats called deplorables. My fear is that someone will come along who is everything the Democrats accused Trump of being.
George Friedman is calling this The Storm before the Calm. Hold on to your hats folks.
When the dust settles, the CAGW hoax will just be a bad memory.
John- Seriously, whatever happens in a five year time span cannot constitute a trend. It’s meaningless, and I don’t understand why you would even say such a thing?
Hansen announced the Venus Express after ten years of warming.
But then he ignored 17 years of “Pause”, 1998-15.
If CO2 be the control knob on climate, how can there be 5.5 years of cooling under ever increasing plant food in the air? How about 32 years after WWII?
The CACA hypothesis was born falsified.
Agreed. At the very least, it’s nature and not the folly of man still in control.
How many years of cooling do you consider meaningful?
We’re liable to get at least six.
Arctic sea ice has been in an uptrend since 2012 and flat since 2007. Are 15 years significant to you?
Most importantly, not just a few years, but those years under increasingCo2, which was supposed to force the exact opposite.
Southern Hemisphere has experienced ever reducing sunlight since 1585. The last time perihelion occurred before the austral summer solstice.
It was bound to eventually have an impact.
To balance that, Northern hemisphere has been getting more sunlight. But more in the boreal summer and less in the boreal winter.
Climate on Earth is constantly changing. I doubt there are reliable systems up to the task of extracting the long terms trend from the noise inside timeframe of centuries.
Thank you RickWill,
you have just explained, the Austral ozone hole and lack of Boreal one! Less direct sunlight means less ozone/ bigger hole and vice versa!
Cheers
mike
Neither pole gets any sunlight during the local winter.
The Austral ozone hole is caused by local weather patterns that isolate the air over the South Pole during the local winter. Similar air patterns do not exist at the North Pole.
Ahhhh – the null hypothesis rears its declarative head and trumpets natural variability is the source of both past warming and now cooling on the Antarctic penninsula. Not once, but thrice! Bravo!
Natural processes and phenomena can completely explain record highs, lows, and divergent events.
“Peninsula cooling since before Greta was born”. Pretty low bar that.
Greta? Yeah, prette low bar, and then some.
Obviously these sensors are being funded by big oil, so they must be ignored.
Once Leftists’ silly CAGW religion crashes and burns, I wonder what new crazy religion Leftists will create to waste $trillions on?
Global cooling, silly.
Covid ….
😉
Critical X Theory.
Hollow earth
Godzilla coming for us all
ha ha
The global warming crisis will never end
It is always coming in the future.
It will always be coming in the future.
And never forget the global average temperature
is whatever goobermint bureaucrats say it is.
No one can double check their numbers.
Some of the numbers are made up (aka infilled)
“Saint” Paul said Jesus would return “within your lifetime”. In fact there was no reason to have children because they wouldn’t have a chance to grow up before the end of the world as it was then known.
Over 2,000 years later, no Second Coming yet, despite which Christianity is still going strong, and many people expect that Second Coming any day now. Religions like AGW are impervious to facts. We could have another Summer like the one in the LIA, which was called the Year Without a Summer, and it would just be attributed to Climate Change. 🙁
Polar bears had the bad sense to multiply at least five fold.
Penguins in reality are not cute, nor do they dance or talk.
Walruses are not cute.
Then, recently I read an article where environuts want to save/restrict salmon runs for orca diets alone…
They’re doing focus groups trying to find the next poster critter for their next big scare.
Doubt everything!
Covid
Gender dysphoria today, Down Under.
griff not here yet to postulate his ill conceived pseudo-science?
Conjuring up the Devil is never a wise strategy. 🙂
More than a bit inconsistent with the CO2 is the thermostat model.
The CO2 hot clouds are modern science’s “minority report”.
That’s odd. According to UAH_TLT there has been a very slight warming trend (+0.01 C/dec) over Antarctic land areas (see column SoPol_Land) since Jan 2000. In the period 1979-1999 there was a cooling trend of -1.0C/dec. The opposite of what is claimed here.
Overall, since Jan 1979, UAH shows a slight warming trend of +0.09C/dec in Antarctic land areas. This is because the average monthly temperature anomaly in UAH SoPol_Land from 1979-1999 was -0.19C below the 1990-2010 average; whereas, from 2000 to the present it has been +0.08C above the 1990-2010 average.
Don’t the satellites have poor coverage over the poles ?
Yes. Coverage stops at 85 N and S latitude.
According the UAH data page (linked to above) their SoPol region covers 90S-60S.
It says 90, but that’s only to define the geographic region, not the actual area covered. The satellites actually only see to about 85 degrees.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/docs/readme.msu
TheFinalNail
” … covers 90S-60S. ”
That was true for UAH5.6, but isn’t for UAH6.0. Roy Spencer probably forgot to adapt the file to the new revision in 2015.
When you look at the 2.5 degree grid anomaly and climatology data, you see that in the grid, the three bottommost and topmost latitude bands never have valuable data. Thus: 60 S – 82.5 S.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
I agree with you on many points (what results in my comments often getting downvoted as well, so what).
But here is a graph I made about 6 months ago, comparing GHCN daily stations (located really between 60S and 90S) with UAH6.0 Antarctic land:
Trend for the stations during the sat era: -0.9 °C / decade
Thanks, I did try to look up the satellite orbit angle relative to the n-s axis, but couldn’t find it.
De nada! Please see link above for coverage.
Most surface stations are close to the shores in Antarctica also.
ToeFungalNail, precious how you refer to the surface data in areas where the UAH satellites have much better coverage but refer to UAH in areas where it has poor visibility.
Where did I say I prefered the surface data?
Misdirection and false red herring logical fallacies!
Hundredths of one degree C warming over ~ 40 years?
Measured how? And where?
Get a grip on reality TFN.
The Antarctic air temps would drop 10C with every puff of wind.
You’d need to see Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH about the details, it’s their data.
The point is that the UAH satellite data contradict the claim being made in the article that there has been cooling in Antarctica since 2000.
On the contrary, temperatures have on average been warmer than they were between 1979 and 1999 according to UAH. They could be wrong; they have been several times before.
No, their data do not. Their satellite observations don’t cover the core of Antarctica.
TheFinalNail, thank you for pointing out that the UAH satellite data understate the cooling trend in Antarctica. Of course, this means that the UAH temperature data overstate the global warming trend since 1979. I didn’t realise that you were a sceptic.
Their data shows the 0.01C change. You are the one who is trying to claim that such an extremely tiny change means something.
It appears that no uncertainty or confidence interval is provided for any of the estimates at your link. No statement of statistical significance is provided to accompany what is, I presume, your calculations.
Warmists don’t believe in uncertainty. Once the models have spoken all doubt must be eliminated.
Odd things happen over Antarctica due to the extreme cold and elevation. There’s a permanent temperature inversion / negative lapse rate over much of it. CO2 cools it.
The proof that AGW causes not only warming, but also, cooling … flooding, snowing, storming, droughts, thundering, hails, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, islands capsizing …
..and milk going sour in cows udders…
Dogs and cats, living together!
I have a dog and a cat that are buddies!
That just proves John Tillman’s point. 🙂
Mass hysteria!
Cooling, calving, penguin parades.
That’s off topic, n.n.. This thread isn’t about Washington D.C. politicians.
😜
Don’t forget
ice ages always start when the planet is at its warmest
and end when it is at its coolest…….
The current cycle of glaciation began 400 years ago. It will be apparent within this millennium.
The recent flooding rain in the northern hemisphere is the early signs that moisture levels over the North Atlantic are picking up in the warmer boreal summers ahead of cooler boreal winters.
Showfall over land abutting the North Atlantic will rise and not all will melt. That will lead to accumulation.
Source or links please Rick
“…the overall trend is still a slight, statistically insignificant…”
This observation applies to pretty much any and all “climate” and “warming” data.
If you really think the Antarctic is warming then hell why not take the kids there camping?😳
Probably not a good idea to go in winter can be a tad chilly I am told.
Mid summer would be nice. Pack your swimmers, beach towel and sunblock.
…..ffs.
Even in high summer you can get an Antarctic “Ship Of Fools” effect.
This just in: Biden has announced plans for fighting the “extreme heat” that Americans are being exposed to due to “climate change”. One way of beating the heat will be sending people on trips to the Antarctic, to cool off.
You heard it here first.
Gulags you mean?
According to Greenpeace…
“ The Antarctic is also an important barometer for how climate change is impacting our planet. “
https://www.greenpeace.org.uk/news/what-climate-change-means-for-the-antarctic/
“All Of Antarctica Is Cooling”
No doubt because of global warming!
It’s clear that saving whales causes global warming. There was documented global cooling occurring until the Rainbow Warrior started sailing the high seas.
Antarctica has two unusual causes of warming unrelated to CO2
The peninsula is affected by changes in ocean currents.
For the rest of Antarctica, there is some local warming near
the edge of the glacier, that is near known underseas volcanoes.
That specific pattern of warming could not be caused
by greenhouse gasses.
The Antarctica temperature trend since the 1970s is flat.
I believe the slight warming trend from some measurements
is within the likely measurement margin of error.
This is a little OT but necessary I think.
I said the other day I had read where Biden as part of his effort to force vaccinations on the public had said that Veterans Hospitals would not treat veterans if they had not been vaccinated.
I thought this was a little strange when I read it. The veterans and at least the conservative media would be up in arms over such a thing. But they were not up in arms.
I found out why last night. It seems the original article making these claims had a disclaimer down at the very bottom of the page that said this article was a fake. But apparently this was missed by some and a few articles were written off this original.
Anyway, the story is *not* true. Biden did not threaten to withhold medical care from unvaccinated military veterans.
I thought that needed to be cleared up.
Who published the fake story?
Ever since Russia colluuuusion I struggle to understand what is really true in anything I see, hear or read in the news. Very sad indeed.
I’m not sure who did the original story. I get a news feed that has stories from all over the place, from all the credible sources and some not so credible sources.
I notice in the newsfeeds that certain subjects will receive a lot of attention and lots of separate articles will be written by different authors covering the same subject, as they are all, presumably, writing using the same original source, and they add their particular take on the subject.
The only thing us consumers can do is read as carefully as possible, and correct mistakes when they are found.
Here’s an explanation:
https://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-claim-biden-withholding-215307513.html
Fact check: Claim that Biden is withholding benefits from unvaccinated veterans originated as satire
The CO2 “greenhouse effect” goes into reverse over Antarctica, cooling rather than warming:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/05/16/negative-greenhouse-effect-over-the-high-and-cold-antarctic-plateau/
Linked to Antarctica there are widespread signs of recent Southern Hemisphere oceanic cooling:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/widespread-signals-of-southern-hemisphere-ocean-cooling-as-well-as-the-amoc/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/05/13/southern-hemisphere-sea-ice-now-extends-80-km-farther-north-than-prior-estimates/
Antarctica “punches above its weight” in the global climate due to its oceanic influence. It acts and the “Grand Central Station” of the Thermohaline circulation system:
The southern ocean is the flywheel and the three linked oceans the pistons that keep the shaft spinning. The whole globe sensing the vibrations from this big planetary engine. Fortunately there do not work in phase so are mostly stabilising but sometimes they synchronise and that can cause big climate swings globally.
A word of caution despite the three papers and PG’s good reputation. The satellites do not cover much above 85 N/S Latitude; they are near polar, not polar, orbits. And the actual Antarctic ground stations are very sparse. A lot of inference.
But, the increase in Arctic ice plus this Antarctic cooling possibility does tend to debunk the ‘polar amplification’ part of climate warming alarm. The planet is provably more complicated than simple monolithic heat transport ‘cartoons’.
+100
High atmosphere ozone causes warming. We need to emit more cheap refrigerants.
Yep, pretty flat according to GISS data.
What credibility can be placed on temperature measurements between 64S and 90S in 1880. There were no planes in 1880 capable of getting to the South Pole and no satellites. I doubt there were weather balloons launched from 90S or anywhere near it.
In fact I learnt in school that Amundsen was the first person to get to the South Pole in 1911.
So what magic of mathematics or time travel has enabled temperature to be accurately determined for the South Pole and north from there to 64S in 1880?
To label that curve far-fetched would be an understatement of grand proportions. The nearest term to describe the chart comes out of a bull’s backside.
Rick,
I agree the data in 1880 is suspect and more represents the southern mid-latitude. However, the cold event from 1910-1950 is intriguing. Isn’t that during the 1940 global warm pause event? From 1960 on, the Southern polar region is rising at a significantly lower rate than global temperatures which are dominated by Northern Hemisphere data.
but those people in the mid ’30s had NO CLUE how to read a thermometer.
IPCC “scientists” breathe out a great sigh of relief and admit to themselves: “Thank God we changed the meme from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’.”
Well duhhhhh, that’s because the Antarctic cooling is caused by warming. Its so simple.
Which goes far to explain why alarmists have been inventing all sorts of warming South Pole currents melting the underside of glaciers and leading to the alarmists’ prophesized sea level rise.
Meaning, they know darn well that Antarctica is not warming as they claim.
Social media and the MSM have been heating us up for last 50 years particularly our insecurities .
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-58600725
”A trip to a melting glacier will shape how the BBC’s new climate editor, Justin Rowlatt, reports on the story of climate change.
You cannot help but be awed by the scale of Antarctica, the great white continent.
I visited just before the pandemic struck and it is impossible not to feel humbled in the presence of something that seems so much bigger and more powerful than you.
But that sensation is an illusion.
When we finally flew over the front of the enormous glacier after weeks of travelling, I found myself staring down at an epic vision of shattered ice.
As I wrote at the time, it felt like I’d reached the frontline of climate change; a place where the equilibrium that has held our world in balance for thousands of years was slipping and crashing.”
This guy has a vivid imagination.
Here are a few other recent studies of temperature trends across the Antarctic continent.
As you should expect – it’s complicated
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336910771_Antarctic_Temperature_Variability_and_Change_from_Station_Data
“Thirteen of the 17 stations have experienced a positive trend in their annual mean temperature over the full length of their record, with the largest being at Vernadsky (formerly Faraday) (0.46° ± 0.15 C dec−1) on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula. The deepening of the Amundsen Sea Low as a result of the more positive SAM and changes in the IPO and PDO have contributed to the warming of the Peninsula. Beyond the Antarctic Peninsula there has been little significant change in temperature. The two plateau stations had a small cooling from the late 1970s to the late 1990s consistent with the SAM becoming positive, but have subsequently warmed. During spring there has been an Antarctic‐wide warming, with all but one station having experienced an increase in temperature, although the only trends that were significant were at Vostok, Scott base, Vernadsky and Amundsen‐Scott. In this season much of the Peninsula/West Antarctic warming can be attributed to tropical Pacific forcing through the IPO/PDO. “
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z
“Over the last three decades, the South Pole has experienced a record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 ± 0.34 °C per decade, more than three times the global average. Here, we use an ensemble of climate model experiments to show this recent warming lies within the upper bounds of the simulated range of natural variability. The warming resulted from a strong cyclonic anomaly in the Weddell Sea caused by increasing sea surface temperatures in the western tropical Pacific. This circulation, coupled with a positive polarity of the Southern Annular Mode, advected warm and moist air from the South Atlantic into the Antarctic interior. These results underscore the intimate linkage of interior Antarctic climate to tropical variability. Further, this study shows that atmospheric internal variability can induce extreme regional climate change over the Antarctic interior, which has masked any anthropogenic warming signal there during the twenty-first century.”
With tropical NV the causation …..
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz1490
“Recent Antarctic surface climate change has been characterized by greater warming trends in West Antarctica than in East Antarctica. Although this asymmetric feature is well recognized, its origin remains poorly understood. Here, by analyzing observation data and multimodel results, we show that a west-east asymmetric internal mode amplified in austral winter originates from the harmony of the atmosphere-ocean coupled feedback off West Antarctica and the Antarctic terrain. The warmer ocean temperature over the West Antarctic sector has positive feedback, with an anomalous upper-tropospheric anticyclonic circulation response centered over West Antarctica, in which the strength of the feedback is controlled by the Antarctic topographic layout and the annual cycle. The current west-east asymmetry of Antarctic surface climate change is undoubtedly of natural origin because no external factors (e.g., orbital or anthropogenic factors) contribute to the asymmetric mode.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abf9903
“While West Antarctica has experienced the most significant warming in the world, a profound cooling trend in austral summer was observed over East Antarctica (30°W to 150°E, 70° to 90°S) from 1979 to 2014. Previous studies attributed these changes to high-latitude atmospheric dynamics, stratospheric ozone change, and tropical sea surface temperature anomalies. We show that up to 20 to 40% of the observed summer cooling trend in East Antarctica was forced by decadal changes of the Madden-Julian oscillation (MJO). Both observational analysis and climate model experiments indicate that the decadal changes in the MJO, characterized by less (more) atmospheric deep convection in the Indian Ocean (western Pacific) during the recent two decades, led to the net cooling trend over East Antarctica through modifying atmospheric circulations linked to poleward-propagating Rossby wave trains. This study highlights that changes in intraseasonal tropical climate patterns may result in important climate change over Antarctica.”
Vulcanoes under West Antarctica may contribute some tenth or hundreths of degrees to a the measured temp. change. A paper writing about unknown reasons can’t be taken for serious same as data based on models.
solar wind drives climate, not co2
https://solarclimate.tumblr.com/post/662931197224271872/solar-wind-drives-climate-not-co2
Just a little bit of cherry picking perhaps? Clem et al., Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades, Nature Climate Change, 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0815-z