South Pole’s Winter Weather Record

By Michael Kile

Last winter, in one of the bleakest places on earth after Canberra and Belushya Guba, the capital of Novaya Zemlya, a novel hypothesis was proposed by a  rogue researcher in lockdown: the more anthropogenic hot air spoken in the northern hemisphere before a United Nations climate conference, the colder it becomes in the southern hemisphere, especially at the South Pole.

The conjecture has yet to be validated by a peer-reviewed article in Nature Climate Change. Nevertheless, a lot of people – especially the self-appointed guardians of truth who call out “fake news” and “misinformation” – hope it never reaches that learned journal, and certainly not the smartphones or Twitter accounts of apoplectic activists and hysterical weather-worriers. They would prefer it just goes away and does not linger like a bad smell; or is buried deep under Antarctic snow and ice, with or without the perpetrator, before the Conference of the Parties (COP 26) begins in Glasgow-on-Clyde next month, with or without President Xi.

Yet the supporting evidence is impressive. The first part of the hypothesis is affirmed daily in the media, and by cartoons like this one (The Telegraph, 14 October, 2021):

As for the second part, global warming took a long winter vacation, at least in Antarctica. The Antarctic interior recorded its coldest April-to-September this year since records began in 1957. According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), the average temperature at the US Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station was minus 60.9ºC for the six months. It was also the station’s second coldest winter (June, July and August) on record, with an average seasonal temperature of minus 62.9ºC. This was an extraordinary 3.4ºC below the long-term average (1881-2010) for winter.

Antarctic sea ice extent also was above average for several months.  In late August it was the fifth highest in the 43-year satellite record. The maximum observed on September 1 was 18.75 million square kilometres (7.24 million square miles, over twice the size of Australia) and the second-earliest seasonal maximum in the satellite record.

Ironically, it was “relatively cool” near the North Pole last summer, compared to recent years, which allowed September’s ice extent to be the highest since 2014.

On Thursday September 30, Maximiliano Herrera, a climatologist, tweeted:

Exceptional cold in the Antarctic Plateau. The Russian Base of Vostok on 30 September dropped to a min. temperature of -79.4C, which is only 0.6C above the world lowest temperature ever recorded in October (recorded at the former Plateau Station, also in Antarctica). Extreme Temperatures Around The World

The jury is still out on precisely what caused it and its significance. According to NSIDC:

 the unusual cold was attributed to two extended periods of stronger-than-average encircling winds around the continent, which tend to isolate the ice sheet from warmer conditions. A strong upper-atmosphere polar vortex was observed as well. (NSIDC, October 5, 2021)

How did the MSM cope with news that must have ruffled a few feathers on the green canary-in-the-coal-mine? Find an expert or climate waffler to hit the “anomaly” on the head quickly and dismiss it as a nothing-to-see-here “blimp”.

The other option was simply to ignore it, at least until next winter. They did that four centuries when Galileo Galilei asked a few members of the priestly class if they would like to see the moons of Jupiter through his telescope. He was later charged him with heresy placed in home quarantine, aka house arrest, for the rest of his life and given daily injections of truth serum.

In 1992, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences and Pope John Paul II officially declared he was right. It takes time, but some anomalies can turn a worldview upside down.

There was no mention of the record cold on our ABC. Perhaps I missed it. My ABC Search for the “South Pole and Antarctic winter temperatures 2021” produced, inter alia, the following: Rare event over Antarctica driving Australia’s hot, dry weather (9 Sep 2019); How Pluto’s moon Charon got its red cap (15 Sep 2016); One year in Antarctica: Darwin teacher’s life surrounded by whales, polar caps and pirate parties (3 Feb 2015); Fact check: Rupert Murdoch misleading on North and South Poles (12 Aug 2014); and Russia reaches ancient Antarctic lake (9 Feb 2012).

The Washington Post, however, jumped the gun. Its Capital Weather Gang made this post four days before the NSIDC announcement: “South Pole posts most severe cold season on record, a surprise in a warming world. While the rest of the world sizzled, the South Pole shivered with an average temperature of minus-78 degrees [Fahrenheit] over the past six months.”

We first learned of this record through a tweet from Stefano Di Battista, who has published research on Antarctic temperatures. The legitimacy of Di Battista’s information was confirmed by Richard Cullather, a research scientist at NASA’s Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, who provided a chart. (Washington Post, October 2, 2021)

To prevent a pandemic of climate anxiety among nervous folk struggling to “process” the South Pole data, the Gang emphasised “the planet and Antarctica are still warming”.

Scientists stressed that the record cold over the South Pole in no way refutes or lessens the seriousness of global warming. Antarctica is notorious for its wild swings in weather and climate, which can run counter to global trends.

In other words, record cold is merely “weather”. Global warming is “climate”, even if there is no such thing as a global climate. The post included the following quotes:

Ted Scambos, senior research scientist, University of Colorado: “the Antarctic climate is extremely sensitive to high-altitude winds and Pacific Ocean conditions and prone to rapid change.”

Eric Steig, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Washington: “One cold winter is interesting but doesn’t change the long term trend, which is warming.”

David Bromwich, professor of atmospheric sciences, Ohio State University: attributed the cold to increasing “short-term variability” at the South Pole in recent years. “In the long-term average Antarctica is warming.” Not only is Antarctica warming over the long-term, but its ice is allegedly “rapidly melting, contributing to sea-level rise”.

CCN posted a week later. Allison Chinchar, a CNN meteorologist, stressed the difference between short-term weather and long-term climate: “scientists agree that since the 1950s extreme cold snaps do occur, but climate change is bringing far more heat records than cold records.” Yet there have been no “cold snaps” of this year’s magnitude ever recorded at the South Pole or the Antarctic interior.

Ms Chinchar then added this comment:

One great example of this is while June-August of this year may have been quite cold, February of the previous year recorded the new all-time record high for the Antarctic continent. On February 6, 2020, the Esperanza Research Station recorded a high temperature of 18.3°C degrees (64.9°F). This broke the previous record for the Antarctic region (continental, including mainland and surrounding islands) of 17.5°C (63.5°F) recorded in March 2015 at the same station. (CNN Weather, October 9, 2021)

As I explained in a post early last year, the Esperanza base is actually outside the Antarctic Circle, which runs 66°33′48.0″ south of the Equator. It is misleading – some might say mischievous – to imply that “record” temperature measurements on the Antarctic Peninsula – less than 5 per cent of the continent – and especially those taken on the “surrounding islands” at its northern extremity, are meaningful for the Antarctic continent itself.

Antarctica’s hottest day? Not so Fast

Zack Labe, a climate scientist at Colorado State University, and many other experts, also explained it away: “while the globe may be warmer than average as a whole, some areas will still observe colder temperatures and even severe cold outbreaks.”

As for data that might challenge the warming orthodoxy, if you cannot identify its cause, if your model did not – and could not – predict it, you can stuff it in an attic labelled “natural internal variability”; or shove it down an Orwellian memory hole, “whereupon it would be whirled away on a current of warm air to the enormous furnaces hidden somewhere in the recesses” of a NetZero precinct.

A recent study concluded that Arctic warming is linked to colder winters. It claims to show that “increases in extreme winter weather in parts of the US are linked to accelerated warming of the Arctic.

According to one of its authors, Professor Chaim Garfinkel from Jerusalem’s Hebrew University: “there has been a long-standing apparent contradiction between the warmer temperatures globally and an apparent increase in cold extremes for the United States and in northern Eurasia. And this study helps to resolve this contradiction.” Except there was nothing “apparent” about the US cold extremes. They were real. A Nobel Prize must be a shoo-in for such flights of fancy.

Note the intriguing logic: warming apparently can produce cooling. If so, then presumably evidence of cooling anywhere cannot be used as a counter-argument to challenge the global warming paradigm.  A frigid winter, therefore, even on a continental landmass twice the size of Australia “doesn’t mitigate the seriousness of climate change.”

Yet as Karl Popper argued last century, a theory that is not refutable or falsifiable by any conceivable event – one that is explanatory like Marxism or Freudian psychology, or climate prognostication – is pseudoscience.

Even when no warming is detected, it is apparently still there, invariably “masked” by something else.  That at least is what Clem, K. R. et al. suggested in their Nature Climate Change paper last year, Record warming at the South Pole during the past three decades. The summary:

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.

The “statistically significant warming”, of course, now looks somewhat less significant given last winter’s 3.4ºC below the long-term average (1881-2010) a year later, not to mention projected global warming of 1.5C ºC by mid-century.

As for the proposed “intimate linkage of interior Antarctic climate to tropical variability”, it sounds like the butterfly effect in chaos theory on steroids. If you accept that renewable-energy witchcraft can change a planet’s temperature and climate, you will have no trouble linking intimately with this claim.

A correction was published online on 29 June 26, 2020, obviously a typo and not a Freudian slip: “In the version of this Article originally published, in Fig. 4, the label ‘West Pacific cheating anomalies’ should have been ‘West Pacific heating anomalies’.

The Clem paper was a treat for Carbon “clear on climate” Brief, who posted on it on June 26, 2020. It must have been surprised to learn the so-called “record heat” was driven “largely by natural swings in Antarctica’s climate”, according to study lead author Dr Kyle Clem. Dr Clem is a polar researcher at the  Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Dr Kyle Clem: Research over the past couple decades revealed the Antarctic plateau, the coldest and one of the most remote places on Earth, had been cooling while global temperatures were increasing…Our study has found that this is no longer the case. The South Pole is now one of the fastest warming regions on the planet, warming at an incredible three times faster than the global average rate. (Carbon Brief, 26 June, 2020.)

How odd, then, it still “appeared very likely that it worked in tandem with human-caused warming….Our results suggest global climate change very likely played a role, but it was not the dominant driver.” In fact, their modelling found that the warming “would have been possible in a world without greenhouse gas emissionsbut only just.”

Climate Brief dodged the obvious question: how did Dr Clem’s team differentiate human-caused warming from the natural swings and roundabouts. It remains a mystery, at least to this author.

It took humankind most of its existence to wake up to the fact that the sun does not rise in morning. A few months of data from the South Pole, however important, is unlikely to deflate three decades of climate alarmism and today’s madness. The Church after all survived the heliocentric revolution, so will Church of Climate Change. The greater human misery, the more seductive the promise of redemption, especially if a vast amount of money can be conjured up by gaming the warming scare. The Church’s ancient indulgences have morphed into “carbon” (dioxide) credits, its Heaven into a Net Zero utopia.

As Galileo remarked: “people tend to refuse to consider evidence, if what they might discover contradicts their beliefs.” As he left the courtroom, it is said he whispered (translating from the Italian), “all the same, it moves – and minus 60.9ºC is rather chilly, especially on a warming planet.

Michael Kile

19 October 2021

5 29 votes
Article Rating
150 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shoki Kaneda
October 22, 2021 6:07 am

Look in the deep ocean, it’s hiding there. Heat is sneaky. Sometimes the data must be massaged to find it.

Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
October 22, 2021 8:18 am

Most climate scientists apparently have failed to discover the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in their own work.

John Tillman
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
October 22, 2021 11:54 am

Mammoth Mountain, central CA ski resort, to open early:

https://news.yahoo.com/one-americas-best-ski-resorts-145925006.html

Jim S
Reply to  John Tillman
October 24, 2021 10:10 am

Anybody that lives in SoCal knows it’s been cooler than normal for a few years now. Yesterdays high was 9 degrees below normal at Orange County airport. The low was 6 degrees ABOVE average. These are typical readings the last couple of years and it doesn’t take rocket science to see that the low is distorted by urban development around the airport. NASA continues to report SoCal as above average temperatures.

Ric
October 22, 2021 6:16 am

Has Greta been deported to her personal igloo over there yet?

Joao Martins
Reply to  Ric
October 22, 2021 6:31 am

No, recent news indicate that she is “seeing” the hot air all over Europe.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Ric
October 22, 2021 12:45 pm

I’m pretty sure that she is currently on a mule & rowboat trip to Glasgow where she will scold everyone for not doing enough damage to their economies

Ron Long
October 22, 2021 6:18 am

Interesting report by Michael. The section where he quotes that the warm ocean waters move into the Antarctic interior strikes me as true, due to the (South) Polar Outbreaks we see in South America (like the one that went into SW Brazil and froze the coffee beans), and if there is an outbreak something needs to fill in behind it. But, how does warm air into the Antarctica interior lower the temperature to new record low? I can’t figure this out, maybe another cup of coffee (from Columbia) will help.

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Ron Long
October 22, 2021 8:02 am

sorry to be pedantic: Colombia

Reply to  Ron Long
October 22, 2021 8:23 am

The sudden stratospheric warming events seen as the Arctic polar jet kinks that cause polar vortex drops to mid Latitudes can occur in the South Polar jet. But the triggering perturbation likely has to be much stronger in Antarctica.

What is the triggering perturbation? The Trillion dollar question.

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 22, 2021 8:34 am

Carbon , or course. Specifically, the carbon from the use of fossil fuels by the West…

John Tillman
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 22, 2021 8:57 am

One possibility is solar UV radiation variability, which also affects the trade wind fluctuations behind ENSO.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 10:50 am

John, can you cite a source for the correlation?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
October 23, 2021 7:34 pm

Thank you, John, but this does not speak to the influence of UV on the trade winds.

Also, as an aside, when starting from a low baseline, as in the early-Spring, it is possible to get large percentage increases in UV as the sun comes above the horizon, but it may not be consequential. Looking at Fig. 3, I don’t see anything unusual happening under the Arctic vortex that isn’t happening around the whole NH at the same latitude. Indeed, the maximum UV Index in southern Greenland appears to be no more than about 3 or 4, when it commonly gets to 14 in the clear-sky Australian deserts.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 22, 2021 12:40 pm
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
October 23, 2021 7:49 pm

This article suggests that mid-latitude ozone levels in the Spring are driven by continental air masses working their way southward. Not what I would call Trade Winds.

Again, as an aside, this article as is usually the case, focuses on ozone levels and percentage changes, not surface-level UV fluxes. Part of the hand waving that has been going on for decades with respect to the concern about skin cancer and cataracts.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 22, 2021 12:58 pm
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
October 23, 2021 8:10 pm

Thank you, John. This is what I was interested in seeing. The implication is that we should therefore see a relationship to the sunspot cycle because the UV flux increases during high sunspot activity.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 3:32 pm

Another possibility is random fluctuations.
We saw strengthening of the polar vortex during the cold 1970s, and also during more recent years that were not occurring in the midst of intense long term cooling of the global AST.
So one possibility that ought to be, IMO, considered, is that since such events are ultimately just weather, then logically just like weather there is a strong element of randomness involved.
Watch a lava lamp for a while, and occasionally an extra big bubble of wax rises to the top.
And occasionally, an extra large bubble of wax sinks away from the top.
Random fluctuations randomly become additive all at once for no particular reason other than randomness.
Just like they can also randomly all cancel each other out for some amount of time.

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
John Tillman
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 22, 2021 4:18 pm

Fluctuations just from weather is certainly defensible, but the frequency and intensity distributions of polar vortex outbreaks aren’t random. They correlate with the solar cycle, although when they happen in any given year is independent of that variable.

Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 6:21 am

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Cooling is warming?

SxyxS
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 8:31 am

And global warming is like sea level rise and marxist Utopia.
It exists everywhere,except there where human beings live.

And that may be the reason why one of the coolest summers with snow in hot regions
and record breaking cold antarctic weather had the hottest July ever and 2021 will be remembered(spoiler ) as the hottest year on record- at least officially.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 10:06 am

Raining is drought too. The California droughtists, you know, the ones who want everyone to wet the bed because California drought (or raining) is a proxy for Global Droughtism, are having a rough day today and it’s only going to get worse through Sunday.

No problem, just like the US Cavalry – Global Mudslidism to the rescue.

Tom Halla
Reply to  philincalifornia
October 22, 2021 10:12 am

Oh, don’t worry. The Peoples Republic will make sure there is a water shortage by draining the reservoirs to preserve the Delta Smelt.

AndyHce
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 9:14 pm

Smelt that have been successfully hiding, every one, for the last half dozen or so years?

J Mac
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 1:38 pm

Uhhhmmm….. I thought ‘climate change’ was supposed to be causing warming at the poles? But the field data shows the coldest antarctic winter on record?!

Tom Halla
Reply to  J Mac
October 22, 2021 1:40 pm

This looks more like something related to a Milankovic cycle.

Gary K Hoffman
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 1:57 pm

Speech is violence. Violence is speech.

RickWill
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 22, 2021 3:46 pm

Cooling is warming?

This is not far from reality. When ocean surface heat uptake is at its maximum, the surface temperature is at its lowest. And the reverse, less heat input makes the surface temperature warmer. This can be observed over an annual cycle with maximum heat input in January giving the lowest surface temperature and minimum heat input in July giving the highest surface temperature.

The observed long-term warming of the deep oceans is due to a gradual reduction in the surface heat input to the oceans that is slowing the water cycle – transfer of ocean water to land. That means the cool water at depth is not being drawn up as fast so the average temperature is increasing.

Dr Ken Pollock
October 22, 2021 6:23 am

Has anyone actually stated how much warmer the oceans are, how that varies with latitude and season? I read a lot about “warmer oceans” but no-one seems to have actually measured the temperatures. Happy to be contradicted…

John Tillman
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
October 22, 2021 6:33 am

I don’t have a link to the UAH team’s Ocean Minus Land data set, but those satellite observations should be available somewhere on their cite:

https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/11/on-the-1998-apparent-step-up-in-uah-land-minus-ocean-lower-tropospheric-temperatures/

Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
October 22, 2021 9:30 am

Hmmm
comment image

gbaikie
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
October 22, 2021 10:36 am

For decades it’s been stated that ocean temperature is about 3.5 C, the global average ocean surface is about 17 C with global average land surface about 10 C, giving global average surface air temperature of about 15 C
Also said that more 90% of ocean is 3 C or colder.

I would say if the ocean had uniform temperature of 3.5 C, rather than average temperature of 3.5 C, it have dramatic effect upon global average air temperature- or global average ocean surface temperature would not be about 17 C.
But if not kept at this uniform temperature, the energy of sunlight would, within months, significantly warm the ocean surface temperature.
But if kept at this uniform temperature, Earth would absorb more energy than it emits to space. Earth would have very low global surface air temperature for thousands of years.
But eventually would have “massive global warming”.

Our global climate is icehouse climate, because over last 34 million years, our ocean has been cooling, and has cooled to it’s lowest temperatures within the last 2 million years.

A warm global climate would have ocean temperature of about 10 C {or warmer}.
In our cold global climate, 5 C average temperature of entire ocean is very warm. And in last 2 million years, our ocean hasn’t become this warm. And in our lifetimes such warm ocean is simply not possible.

RickWill
Reply to  Dr Ken Pollock
October 22, 2021 3:51 pm

The nino 34 region, notable for its significance to global weather, has cooled very slightly over the satellite and moored buoy era.

There has been a slightly cooler period recently so the downward trend is more pronounced than shown on the attached.

Nino34_NCEP.png
John Tillman
October 22, 2021 6:25 am

I assume that 1881-2010 should read 1981-2010.

Dantastic
October 22, 2021 6:29 am

How does the ice extent fall when temperatures are so cold?

Screenshot_20211022-082644_Chrome.jpg
John Tillman
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 8:29 am

Antarctic sea ice always falls this time of year. Winter is over.

Ice extent was above average until late September.

Antarctic sea ice has grown since 1979, unlike Arctic. Its record high extent in the dedicated satellite record was in 2014. The record low Arctic minimum was in 2012.

Dantastic
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 9:02 am

I see what you are saying John, but the temperature data incates September 2021 was cold even on the last days of the month. How does the ice melt when temps are so low?

MarkW
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 9:19 am

Sea ice extent depends on many things, only one of which is air temperature.

John Tillman
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 9:31 am

Sea ice extent is not just about air temperature but also that of water, strength and direction of winds, albedo and cloud cover, plus other factors. In the Arctic, soot and dust figure in, as well as ice-breakers and industrial heat and pollution entering rivers.

Both polar regions are volcanic, too.

philincalifornia
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 10:43 am

Yeah, not sure why Dan was getting down votes. Seemed like it was a legit question to me. Glad it got legit answers.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 10:52 am

It can be melting at the bottom from rising ‘warm’ water.

AndyHce
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 9:30 pm

Extra strong wind storms have, upon occasion, blown a large amount of sea ice out of the colder regions – where it easily melts.

Mr.
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 8:56 am

Good question Dan.
While we’re at it, we could also ask why temperate zones such as Texas trip over into Alaskan winter conditions during this era of anthropogenic global warming.

Mark BLR
Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 9:02 am

How does the ice extent fall when temperatures are so cold?

Maybe because the sea ice isn’t located near the South Pole (or the Vostok station) …

Dantastic
Reply to  Mark BLR
October 22, 2021 11:15 am

Agreed. Also note the graphic indicates coastal areas were also well below freezing. It is an interesting dynamic. Thanks for everyone’s input.

Reply to  Dantastic
October 22, 2021 9:28 am

As you may see, it’s “re”growing.

Martin Cropp
Reply to  Dantastic
October 23, 2021 1:34 am

Dantastic
Surface winds caused the sea ice extent reduction in the chart before the usual peak

Solomon Green
October 22, 2021 6:29 am

I loved the last two paragraphs. I intend to quote them to any of the very few idiots amongst my acquaintances who still believe in the Church of Climate Change.

John Tillman
Reply to  Solomon Green
October 22, 2021 9:10 am

Except that GG almost certainly did not say, “Yet it moves”.

This research project strengthened the case against the probably apocryphal story:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/did-galileo-truly-say-and-yet-it-moves-a-modern-detective-story/

Coming as it does from Antiscientific American, its last paragraph is predictable, but the rest of the article is good.

AndyHce
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 9:50 pm

No doubt there are permanent modifications in the arrangement of molecules of the building’s stones, caused by the vibrations of Galileo’s muttering, that can be interrogated via holographic imaging to learn the real truth. Then there will be no need to resort to adjustments.

Solomon Green
Reply to  John Tillman
October 23, 2021 11:34 am

and, of course, he would not have said “- minus 60.9ºC” since Celsius only invented the system in almost 100 years after Galileo’s death!.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 6:35 am

This winter will be just as cold in Antarctica, and perhaps the cooling will extend into the spring months. Just see the size of the ozone hole in 2020 and 2021. In 2020, the ozone hole in November and December was a record high in the history of measurements.comment image

SxyxS
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 7:19 am

Can’t be.
We saved the ozone hole from Gipsy CFC’s travelling thousands of miles towards the poles without being absorbed by the tropospherical ozone etc in all the travelling years.

Now crazy conspiracy theorists may ask “Why the detour to the arctic?Instead of damaging the ozone layer above the countries where it was released”

“And how were scientists able to blame CFC’ s and exclude natural causes(sunrays + tilt of earth axis) as they only had data since 1969 and the ozone holes may have been there for millions of years ?”

“And how can it be that we only have(official ) arctic ice satellite data since 1979 while we have ozone satellite data since 1969? tough the arctic is located straight below the ozone holes?”

Seems Lysenkoism started in the west the year it ended in the USSR .

Last edited 1 month ago by SxyxS
Don
Reply to  SxyxS
October 22, 2021 3:13 pm

Not to mention a Volcano directly below the ozone hole that has the highest output of Chlorine than any other Volcano on earth , Mount Erebus !

SxyxS
Reply to  Don
October 23, 2021 4:10 am

And not to mention that only a fraction of CFC’s was released in the southern hemisphere (most of it was released in western countries and the only regions with significantCFC use that were anyhow close to the antarctic are the low populated Australia,New zealand and Patagonia )
Yet the CFC ozone hole in the south is bigger thann the one in the north.

( and let’s not forget that the Corialis force that deflects winds (and therefore gases) has Zero impact on keeping CFC’s from the poles.
Seems CFC’s have some kind of VIP please travel to the poles to destroy the ozon – pass)

Mr.
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 9:00 am

But, but, but, didn’t the scientific consensus about refrigerant gases and the ensuing Toronto protocol that banned them fix this catastrophic problem?

saveenergy
Reply to  Mr.
October 22, 2021 9:45 am

I think you mean – ‘The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer’ 1987′.

& No it didn’t !! … but it did make a fortune for DuPont/Chemours who hold the patents for the replacement gasses.

Mr.
Reply to  saveenergy
October 22, 2021 9:53 am

Yes. My bad.
Coffee shortage this morning.
Off to remediate that right now!!
😱

philincalifornia
Reply to  saveenergy
October 22, 2021 10:50 am

…. and 3M who made the propellants/devices for what became the inferior asthma inhalers.

Max P
Reply to  Mr.
October 22, 2021 9:48 am

The Green Activist Check List for banning anything

If it is:

Safe
Effective
Beneficial
Inexpensive
Prolongs Life

Then it must be banned.

Max P

ih_fan
Reply to  Max P
October 22, 2021 10:48 am

Add “Fun” to that list

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 10:55 am

The “ozone hole” is largely a function of the strength of the polar vortex, which isolates the polar region from warmer air at lower latitudes.

John Tillman
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 22, 2021 4:21 pm

Ozone being made and broken by UV.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  John Tillman
October 23, 2021 8:23 pm

Yes, but it isn’t that simple. The Dobson Brewer Circulation moves ozone polewards from the tropics, where is is continuously being generated. However, in the Winter, the tropical ozone can’t get past the polar vortex. Ozone is metastable and has a relatively short half-life, and will decompose into regular oxygen. If it isn’t replenished by tropical ozone, then the level slowly decreases because there is no UV to create polar ozone in the Winter. In the springtime, when sunlight first reaches the polar stratosphere, it can create new ozone, but if it is very cold, the opposing effect of photocatalytic destruction caused by halogens on the surface of ice crystals dominates the reactions. Thus, there is a precipitous drop in ozone concentration. Finally, when the vortex breaks up, the anomalously high concentrations of ozone outside the vortex is able to mix with the depleted air inside the vortex.

Dagmar van Dusschoten
October 22, 2021 6:36 am

Several recent papers show that most of the South Pole is cooling over tgeclast 40 years. How come the authors cited above claim the opposite. This is really confusing. Who can we trust?

John Tillman
Reply to  Dagmar van Dusschoten
October 22, 2021 6:45 am

The South Pole has suffered a cooling trend since continuous measurement began there in 1957. This is from 2019, but the downtrend has continued:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/05/10/climate-data-shows-no-recent-warming-in-antarctica-instead-a-slight-cooling/

R Taylor
Reply to  Dagmar van Dusschoten
October 22, 2021 6:57 am

Trust those with the insistent and hysterical tone.

whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Dagmar van Dusschoten
October 22, 2021 7:41 am

…South Pole is cooling over tgeclast 40 years.

There are too many abbreviations and acronyms in the topic of climate. It took a moment of trying to decipher this one before I realized it was a typo and I could read it as “the last 40 years.”

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dagmar van Dusschoten
October 22, 2021 11:02 am

Nullius in Verba

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 6:50 am

The average temperature of the stratosphere below the -60th parallel was very low in 2020 and is equally low in 2021.comment imagecomment image
UV radiation very low compared to previous years.comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
fretslider
October 22, 2021 6:55 am

” Here, we use an ensemble of climate model experiments “

Only they aren’t really experiments at all. You can’t go by the result because it isn’t a result of anything but parameterised guesses and guesstimates.

Even though there is a lot of seismic/volcanic activity, Antarctica has cooled, not melted.

“”My first thought was, ‘Okay, maybe its just coincidence.’ But then I looked more closely and realized that the mountains were actually volcanoes and there was an age progression to the range. The volcanoes closest to the seismic events were the youngest ones.””

https://phys.org/news/2013-11-volcano-smoldering-kilometer-ice-west.html

“NASA: volcanic magma plume under Antarctica may explain ice sheet instability”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/07/nasa-volcanic-magma-plume-under-antarctica-may-explain-ice-sheet-instability/

There is a definite heat source under the Antarctic and it isn’t warm waters from the oceans or global warming.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  fretslider
October 22, 2021 11:06 am

I think that “scenarios” would be a better translation than “experiments.”

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 22, 2021 12:55 pm

I think that “scenarios” would be a better translation than “experiments.”

I think ‘made-up, predetermined computer simulations’ is more accurate.

TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 7:16 am

Not sure what the significance of unusually cold temperatures over a 6-month period at a single weather station is supposed to have on the scientific understanding of climate change or on the MSM reporting of it?

According to global UAH satellite data, the period April to September 2021 was +0.11C warmer than 1991-2020 average for those months; the 7th warmest Apr-Sep in their global record, which starts in 1979.

Why would colder than average conditions in one location be deemed more significant than warmer than average conditions globally over the same period?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
John Tillman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 7:27 am

Warming isn’t global.

The Arctic appears to have warmed since dedicated satellite observations (which don’t over high polar latitudes) began in 1979, but the Antarctic has cooled. While less than the Arctic, temperate Northern Hemisphere has also allegedly warmed, but that might be just from the UHI effect and other human activities besides CO2 production.

The tropics haven’t warmed to any statistical signifigance, but less in the SH than NH. The Southern Temperate Zone has also not warmed significantly. Combined with Antarctic cooling, the SH might well have cooled as well, except for Super El Nino years.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 7:34 am

Warming isn’t global.

That’s odd, because if you look along the bottom row of the UAH satellite data linked to above, which shows decadal trends per region since 1979, the only one of the 27 regions featured that doesn’t have a warming trend is SoPol_Ocean (-0.02 C/dec).

Every other region shows a warming trend, including SoPol_Land. The tropics have warmed just fractionally slower than the global average, according to UAH (+0.12 vrs +0.14C per dec globally).

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
fretslider
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 7:54 am

Warming isn’t global.

You say 

Every other region

But then it isn’t global, as you know. Because it isn’t global if even one region is unaffected. And this is a very large region.

I bet you got that from a model

TheFinalNail
Reply to  fretslider
October 22, 2021 7:18 pm

No, got it from UAH. If they got it from a model, and if all models are bad, then I wonder why so many around here rely so heavily on UAH?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 8:14 pm

UAH is *NOT* a direct measure of temperature. It is a measure of radiance which is used as a proxy for temperature. It is *not* a model either. It is an algorithm used to convert radiance to temperature. As such it cannot be perfectly accurate, i.e. some uncertainty is always introduced when performing such a proxy calculation. The big question is whether that uncertainty masks the differences they are trying to discern.

AndyHce
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 22, 2021 10:06 pm

Every temperature “measurement” is a measuement of some proxy for temperature.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  AndyHce
October 23, 2021 5:03 am

True. Some proxies are better than others however.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 23, 2021 4:36 am

I used UAH as an example because it’s the only data set anyone around here seems to pay any attention to – that is, until it disconfirms their opinions.

If you want to use surface data then the same thing applies. According to GISS, the period Apr-Sep 2021 comes in as the 4th warmest Apr-Sep period globally since 1850.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 5:05 am

So what? Where was that temperature measured? I can’t seem to find it on the map!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 23, 2021 1:23 pm

You can get that information at the GISS site and the peer reviewed papers that state their methods.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 2:00 pm

*YOU* are the one making the assertions here, not me. Any proof that is needed is on YOU, not me.

whiten
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 9:26 am

Final,

No any warming, global or otherwise can be attributed to AGW,
unless a clear detection of an accelerated warming of cryosphere…
aka, clear detection of accelerated ice melt and acceleration of sea lvl rise.

As per the IPCC AR4.
Specifically under the chapter of Anthropogenic Global Warming (chapter) of that report.

IPCC reports consist as the very main scripture of
the anthropogenic climate science.

cheers

whiten
Reply to  whiten
October 22, 2021 1:37 pm

Oh,
it is even worse,
as far as anthropogenic climate science goes, as per the scripture.

Even in the case of a detection of acceleration of cryosphere warming,
which supposedly adds value to a supposed anthropogenic effect on climate;

still non valid, as per or in connection with the GHE of CO2,
the supposed effect of a minor GHE gas…

Unless a clear association of a accelerative cryosphere warming,
with and the very much required detection of the Tropical Warming;
the Tropical Hotspot…
accommodated.
Still, there, no any accommodation of/for the CO2 anthropogenic effect on climate…

Even in the case of a detection of some acceleration warming of cryosphere,
still without a Tropical warming, or a Tropical hotspot detection, in association ;
the anthropogenic CO2 GHE is non valid… in consideration of climate.(either as per natural or man-made).

But still;
thus far, realistically, no any Tropical Warming, and/or no any warming acceleration of cryosphere observed or detected….
Not thus far!

WHAT SO EVER!!!

cheers

TheFinalNail
Reply to  whiten
October 22, 2021 7:22 pm

You can clearly see, from the UAH data linked to, that warming has occurred globally. Just saying ‘no it hasn’t’ seems a bit like… I don’t know… denial?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 8:21 pm

There is no true “global average temperature”. There is no true global average temperature anomaly.

How often does UAH measure the radiance at any one spot on the earth? Once per 24 hours? Those are snapshots in time of a time varying function. And the time those snapshots are taken varies considerably during the 24 hour day.

That’s like taking a daily snapshot in time of a car traveling back and forth across the US and trying to determine its average velocity based on those snapshots. It really wouldn’t tell you much about what happens each day. And that carries over into each week, month, and year. And you can’t assume that you can create an average velocity that is meaningful either. The car may be travelling *very* fast at some points and *very* slow at others. Just like temperature!

AndyHce
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 22, 2021 10:13 pm

According to Spencer’s explanation of how UAH temperatures are derived, quite a few million measurements are made every 24 hours (perhaps about 8 million?). His writings on this are somewhere on his site. Of course, every individual measurement is independent of every other as the satellites are constantly in motion.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  AndyHce
October 23, 2021 5:07 am

As the satellite travels it takes time to move. That means those 8 million samples are all taken at different times during the day. They are still a snapshot in time of a time varying function.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 23, 2021 4:41 am

There is no true “global average temperature”. There is no true global average temperature anomaly.

No, there’s just a best estimate. The best estimates of all the temperature data producers, surface or satellite, is that the period Apr-Sep 2021 was one of the warmest Apr-Sep periods on record globally.

Against that we have a single station that was colder than average over the period and the implication that this is somehow more significant than the fact that most places were generally warmer than average. Why?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 5:18 am

The estimates are useless. What does “warmest” actually mean? Does it mean maximum temps went up? Does it mean minimum temps went up? Does it mean a combination happened?

If you don’t know and can’t tell me then what *does* “warmest” mean?

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW! Otherwise good judgement cannot be exercised on what mankind needs to do in the future. Minimum temps going up is a GOOD THING and will cause the GAT to go up just as much as max temps going up. The continual rise in food harvests over the past twenty years stands as evidence for rising minimum temps instead of rising maximum temps. Longer growing seasons and increased nighttime growth both result in larger harvests.

It is apparent that *YOU* assume that “warmest” means maximum temps are going up and Earth is going to turn into a cinder unless we do something. You have a lot of company, however. That seems to be the message that the climate alarmists and politicians are all bellowing – with no actual scientific backup at all!

Max temps were higher in the 30’s than they are today. The earth didn’t turn into a cinder then. Why should we think it is going to happen today with lower maximum temps?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 23, 2021 11:00 am

The estimates are useless.

That’s your opinion. Most scientists, including those at UAH, apparently find them useful.

It is apparent that *YOU* assume that “warmest” means maximum temps are going up and Earth is going to turn into a cinder unless we do something.

Bit of a silly statement there really, isn’t it? The trend in average temperatures over several decades is statistically significant. That’s whether you use surface or satellite or both. It’s highly unlikely that is happening by chance in a random system. That’s all I’m saying.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 12:29 pm

That’s your opinion. Most scientists, including those at UAH, apparently find them useful.”

It’s not opinion, it is fact. Can you tell me from the GAT if minimum temps are going up or if max temps are going up thus causing the GAT to go up?

If you can’t answer even such a simple question by looking at the GAT then of what possible use is the GAT?

The trend in average temperatures over several decades is statistically significant.”

What trend? Minimum temps or maximum temps? The “average” is made up of minimum and maximum temps. If you don’t know which of those two components are causing the average to go up then how do you know if you are helping or hurting the Earth by banning CO2?

That’s all I’m saying.”

As usual you are saying absolutely nothing!

If your garden is returning more and more harvest every year shouldn’t you be interested in why? If you aren’t then how do you know any changes you might make would cause smaller harvests as opposed to even larger harvests?

You want us to trust to luck and your religious faith that increasing CO2 levels are evil.

Sorry, call me an atheist in that case. I don’t believe in your religious dogma!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 23, 2021 1:18 pm

You want us to trust to luck and your religious faith that increasing CO2 levels are evil.

I don’t think I mentioned CO2 once… Just checked again and no, I didn’t. You brought CO2 up, not me.

My comments on this subject concern the author’s use of data from a single temperature station, one among literaly thousands, that show cooler than average temperatures between Apr-Sep 2021. He holds this up as a reason to trash the very concept of global warming, even though, globally, temperatures were much warmer than average over that very same period.

You don’t have to take my word for it. Even UAH, often the darling data set of climate skeptics, confirms that global average temperatures were well above normal between Apr-Sep 2021, whatever the cause; CO2, ‘Mars wobbles’ or dancing unicorns.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 1:59 pm

If you don’t believe CO2 is *the* control knob for the warming you say the GAT shows then what *do* you believe is the control knob? And does that control knob raise minimum temps or maximum temps?

Meab
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 8:47 am

ToeFungalNail,

You would have more credibility if you had posted this same message in reverse every time some climate crisis nut in the MSM writes that some regional warm event is evidence of catastrophic global warming. But you haven’t. In that regard, you’re no better than the MSM.

By the way, thanks for posting the actual numbers that clearly show the recent warming rate is small and certainly nothing to get your panties in a bunch over. A tenth of the smallest division that you can see on your thermometer and it takes a decade to see it. That’s imperceptible.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Meab
October 22, 2021 7:34 pm

No, no… thank you, Meab (I won’t invent a silly variation of your chosen name here because I am not a child) for acknowledging that even the coolest global temperature data set we have shows a warming trend over time.

So, regarding the question of why we should be concerned about a single surface station’s temperature record over a 6-month period, whilst ignoring the global lower troposphere temperature record over 4 decades… what say ye?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 11:08 am

Not sure what the significance of unusually cold temperatures over a 6-month period at a single weather station is supposed to have on the scientific understanding of climate change …

In a word, “autocorrelation.”

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 22, 2021 7:35 pm

Autocorrelation is indeed a word. What is it’s significance in this case?

AndyHce
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 10:16 pm

There have been a number of articles over the past decade reporting the temperature readings from the (not so many) Antarctic land stations. Most do show a consistent cooling trend since measurements began.

TheFinalNail
Reply to  AndyHce
October 23, 2021 4:42 am

I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that, Antarctic cooling or not, all the temperature data sets say that globally it’s getting warmer. That the period Apr-Sep 2021 was one of the warmest Apr-Sep periods on record globally.

Why ignore the forest for this single tree?

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
AndyHce
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 10:54 am

the world is warming somewhat. Evidence says it has been considerably warmer before. The world and abundant life are still here. There seems to be no logic or rationality in the claims that another degree or two will be any significant problem this time. It might be interesting to make observations and measurements but why worry about the nonsense of the constant propaganda?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  AndyHce
October 23, 2021 12:50 pm

Would you consider using data from a single temperature station over a short period to imply that climate science is wrong about global warming, whilst ignoring global data that shows much warmer than average temperatures over that same period, to be propaganda?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 1:47 pm

Who’s using a single station over a short period of time?

Using a single station for a long period of time gives a far better indication of local and regional climate, especially if the uncertainty is properly propagated down the line.

If each data point is plotted with a dot the width of the uncertainty interval associated with that value, e.g. +/-1C for 1900 to 1980 and +/- 0.5C for data from 1980 through today, then you could see if you could discern a temperature trend in the tenths or hundredths digit. You could probably lay out any trend line you want, stagnant, up, or down, and still be within the uncertainty interval depicted on the graph though, especially since your temperature curve would be a time dependent, oscillating function.

You would quickly find that the temperature profile, a time dependent, non-stationary function, doesn’t give very good information by taking snapshots along the profile. You could fix this by converting that time dependent, non-stationary function into a non-time dependent, stationary one. Perhaps by integrating the curve with respect to time. Integrate the daytime hours and then the nighttime hours and plot the results on separate graphs. (hint: (temp/time) * d(time) = temp, simple dimensional analysis)

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 8:34 pm

… the temperature data sets say that globally it’s getting warmer.

No, the claim is that the global average is increasing, not that every place on the globe is getting warmer. One should be concerned that the apparent warming is contaminated by the Urban Heat Island effect. Before you sputter “But, but, …” BEST didn’t do a correct analysis of the situation. They should have looked for warming in and downwind of cities.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 8:27 pm

The significance is that a single weather station can be a proxy for temperatures in a large area. Those who advocate homogenization claim that it can be a circular area with a radius of 1200 Km.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 22, 2021 10:42 pm

7th warmest?
That means it’s cooling? Great news!!
Oh wait, that’s bad news because cooling is always bad, history says so.

That means CO2 controls nothing since it increases steadily and yet temperature does not?

7th warmest in a 40 year period, and you are wetting your pants?
Why?
It’s pretty clear there is nothing special going on.

If it’s only the 7th warmest year in a short selected period of time, how can we be in a climate emergency/crisis/deathnell?

Explain?

Tim Gorman
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 23, 2021 5:20 am

Good point!

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Pat from kerbob
October 23, 2021 10:56 am

7th warmest? That means it’s cooling? Great news!!

Actually, it doesn’t, but that’s beside the point. The point is that temperatures at a single station over a short period are not reflective of conditions globally, and to suggest that they are is silly and smacks of desperation.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 12:20 pm

Global climate is made up of the climates of regions and locales. As goes the climate of those regions and locales so goes the global climate.

In essence it sounds like you are trying to convince us that global conditions are independent of regional and local conditions.

Think about it using Venn diagrams if necessary. If your so-called global temp is going up then there are several possibilities. One possibility is that there is only one Venn circle containing all regions and locales and they are all getting warmer. If this isn’t the case then you have to have two non-overlapping circles.. One containing regions and locales that are getting colder and another containing regions and locales that are getting warmer. For every region or locale in the cooling circle there must be two in the warming circle or otherwise one would just cancel out the other and you would have stasis.

Now, are there twice as many locales and regions that are warming as there are cooling? How would you know this?

TheFinalNail
Reply to  Tim Gorman
October 23, 2021 1:01 pm

In essence it sounds like you are trying to convince us that global conditions are independent of regional and local conditions.

Quite the opposite. There will always be local and regional variations, but a piece is a part of the whole. The author of the above post has found a single location that was colder than average during the period Apr-Sep 2021 and is using this to imply that the scientific consensus about climate change must therefore be wrong and must be torn up. He ignores all the other regions where Apr-Sep 2021 was much warmer than average, resulting in a much warmer than average global temperature during that same period.

Look again at the UAH data. Look at the bottom row, which shows the regional decadal trends of all the different regions since 1979. Only one major region has seen a cooling trend, and even that’s very far from being statistically significant.

Last edited 1 month ago by TheFinalNail
Tim Gorman
Reply to  TheFinalNail
October 23, 2021 1:58 pm

but a piece is a part of the whole.”

The whole is made up of the parts. If one region goes up 1C and another goes down 1C then your “average” doesn’t change. The warming region has to go up *more* than 1C to see a “warming”.

If the entire globe is warming then why isn’t *everyplace* on the globe warming?

If only some parts of the globe are warming then shouldn’t we be finding out *why* only some parts are warming? If you don’t then you may wind up with a solution that doesn’t need to be applied globally!

If you apply a global solution based on one thing, one thing that which apparently doesn’t cause a change everywhere, then you are quite likely to *hurt* some places while you are helping other places. Robbing Peter to pay Paul in essence!

CAGW Assumption 1: CO2 is well mixed globally
CAGW Assumption 2: CO2 is *the* warming control knob for every place.

Both of these assumptions simply can’t be true at the same time if some places are warming while other places are cooling.

You are going to have to do better than assert some useless metric, i.e. the GAT, shows the globe is warming when you can’t even tell from the GAT where the warming is coming from – warmer nights or warmer days!

ResourceGuy
October 22, 2021 7:29 am

Send Jerry Brown to investigate. He’s an expert on Antarctica, at least when mining money from DC to waste.

October 22, 2021 8:17 am

The promise of the Church of Climate Change’s “heaven of Net Zero realized” will be little different from The Dark Ages hell on Earth of actual famine, misery, and cruelty.

John Tillman
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
October 22, 2021 8:24 am

Lives nasty, brutish and short, as humanity is ridden over roughshod by the Four Horsemen of famine, pestilence, war and societal collapse.

Mr.
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 9:26 am

Horsepersons, if you don’t mind John.

whiten
Reply to  Mr.
October 22, 2021 10:05 am

As the fourth (or/and forth), supposedly is feminine (naturally, or otherwise)…
as per the account!

🤪😝

cheers

Last edited 1 month ago by whiten
John Tillman
Reply to  Mr.
October 22, 2021 10:20 am

Persons of horse!

whiten
Reply to  John Tillman
October 22, 2021 11:30 am

… suposedly…

As per horse – triple R;

a) Ride
b) Raid
c) Rid

cheers

Duane
October 22, 2021 8:26 am

It’s funny, but the fact that Antarctica is cooling, not warming, completely destroys the sea level argument of the warmunists. The mass and volume of ice in Antarctica vastly exceeds the volume and mass of ice in the Arctic, even including Greenland. So the net must be a sea level decrease, if “global temperatures” were the cause of our extremely low sea level rise.

Yet nobody seems to ever consider that erosion and siltation are the primary cause of sea level rise. After all, it is no mystery that the 30% of the planet’s surface that is land constantly erode and ends up .. gee, where? oh yeah, into the oceans. We all know, or should know, that mountains erode fast, even when they are still rising – like the Rockies – due to plate tectonics. And that in areas that are not still rising, like the Appalachians, have eroded away to a sliver of what they used to be. And flat areas also erode continually, albeit at a slower pace than mountainous areas, which is why all the lowland rivers and streams tend to be rather muddy, and constantly drop silt into the ocean, be it in estuaries or deltas.

Not to mention plate tectonics have a direct effect on sea level when there are areas of subduction, pushing coastal land masses up and out of the ocean, and lava eruptions.

But no, according to the warmunists, whatever minor amount of sea level rise we are experiencing today must be due to SUVs and coal and gas fired power plants and letting the “little people” ride around on airliners and cruise ships.

dodgy geezer
October 22, 2021 8:33 am

I am sure that, once corrections have been applied, the Antarctic will turn out to have had its warmest winter ever….

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 22, 2021 1:00 pm

They will homogenise it with some nearby weather station. Perhaps at an airport in Australia…

Peta of Newark
October 22, 2021 8:57 am

The enquiring mind here is wondering all about this and how it relates to The Amazing Wonderful All Bow Down And Worship Sputnik (TAWABDAWS)

Isn’t there a theory that says Arctic and Antarctic ‘bounce’ off each other temperature-wise?
i.e. One warms up while the other gets cold

In which case, why does TAWABDAWS tell us that the Radiation Balance Emittings at the top and bottom of the world/planet are The Same to within one tenth of a Watt per sqaure metre

Just like that Malms joker in Sweden ##, something is less than fragrant around here

## C’mon, give the Swedes a break.
In between getting drunk and ABBA re-unions, Malms is the only excitement they get.
When you’ve seen one Northern Light, you’ve seen them all and, Santa Claus is pretty reclusive so little excitement there
whats left?

Brian R Catt
October 22, 2021 8:59 am

Um, the reality is that the Antarctic is surrounded by all the main global oceans and encircled by their current, oceans which contain most of the Earth’s surface heat. THis makes it the stablest climate of any continent, albeit a tad chilly for humans a fact well seen in the data for the Scott Amundsen Weather station, no significant change for 50 years if observations. Just sayin’.

PS The arctic is a tiny shallow ocean surround by land, which can freeze and thaw very easily, so it very unstable, in particular during the glacial phase of the ice age.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257035697_Fifty-year_Amundsen-Scott_South_Pole_station_surface_climatology?enrichId=rgreq-f716af2964444a5fe2ed623218b18d8e-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1NzAzNTY5NztBUzoxMTkzMzc5MzU0NDYwMTZAMTQwNTQ2Mzc4OTQzOA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf

John Tillman
Reply to  Brian R Catt
October 22, 2021 9:34 am

Antarctica is also at high elevation, rather than sea level, as at the North Pole.

Brian R Catt
Reply to  John Tillman
October 23, 2021 2:55 am

Sure the South Pole temperature will be lower at altitude, if that is the simple point? Obs. But the variability is really what the discussion is about, rather than the absolute.

I don’t know, but assume as the atmosphere is twice as thick at the equator than the polar regions, due to the low solar heating, that the lapse rate is also roughly double at the poles?

That’s also a generalistion which is wrong as far as the land goes without the ice. There are some high areas, at 1,000m max, some in the Western Volcanic areas where there are 140 volcanoes under the ice, hence the anomalous behaviour along the line up to Tierra Del Fuego. Clue’s in the name. The actual structure is a messy archipelago of rock and frozen channels with a lot of ice on top. See kink.

There are the deepest canyons in the World at 3,000m below sea level under the ice, all tastefully covered up by precipitation. Greenland has similar high mountains and lower central plain but different structure under the ice, a bowl of ice preserved from the ice age glacial periods and the Gulf Stream by a ring of mountains, kept chilled inside by Polar winds, etc. A handy ice store. Warmed by the occasional volcano under the ice, same plume as Iceland was created from, I read.

https://scitechdaily.com/high-precision-map-shows-what-the-land-looks-like-under-antarcticas-ice-sheet/

saveenergy
Reply to  Brian R Catt
October 22, 2021 9:53 am

PS The arctic is a tiny shallow ocean surround by land, which can freeze and thaw very easily, so it very unstable, in particular during the glacial phase of the ice age.”

Basically it’s a big lake, with the remnants of the gulf stream going in one side & fair amount of sub-sea volcanic activity.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 9:03 am

The greatest extent of sea ice in the south is observed in September.comment image

October 22, 2021 9:10 am

“Eppur, si Muovo!”

John Tillman
Reply to  Leo Smith
October 22, 2021 9:15 am

Eppur si muove, which he most likely didn’t say.

Clyde Spencer
October 22, 2021 10:46 am

… record-high statistically significant warming of 0.61 ± 0.34 °C per decade, …

Stated properly, that should be “0.6 ± 0.3 °Cor ±50%! It is almost certainly a 1 sigma uncertainty, because the 2 sigma uncertainty of ±0.6 would make the claimed value appear unreasonably uncertain! That would effectively say a positive number less than 1.2 °C.

Last edited 1 month ago by Clyde Spencer
Mark BLR
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
October 23, 2021 3:41 am

Alternatively, looking at annual average values in the 60s and 70s the numbers for 2021 could be seen as simply a “return to the mean” after people got all hot and bothered about the “decadal trend” of the 2010s …

PS : “Over the last three decades” for a dataset starting in 1957 … I wonder if there was anything unusual about the temperatures in 1990/1/2/3 which might just “tilt” the trend calculations …

South-Pole_1957-2021.png
Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 11:35 am

When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earth’s surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.”
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 22, 2021 11:49 am

The ability to forecast these kinds of events is increasingly important as NASA prepares to send the first woman and the next man to the Moon under the Artemis program. Research now underway may have found a reliable new method to predict this solar activity. The Sun’s activity rises and falls in an 11-year cycle. The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.”
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration

ATheoK
October 22, 2021 12:29 pm

Eric Steig, professor of atmospheric sciences, University of Washington: “One cold winter is interesting but doesn’t change the long term trend, which is warming.”

Except, the long term trend for Antarctica does show that Antarctica is getting colder.
Apparently, Steig has trouble discerning reality through the model fogs.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  ATheoK
October 22, 2021 1:17 pm

Com’on man ! His paycheck depends on saying that ! / snark . / or not .
😉

John Tillman
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
October 22, 2021 4:23 pm

You know, the thing!

RickWill
October 22, 2021 3:37 pm

Warming oceans means the water cycle is slowing down due to less ocean surface heat input. That has been occurring since 1585.

Southern Hemisphere is getting less sunlight and northern hemisphere more sunlight. Overall the ocean surface energy uptake is in slow decline for the next 12,000years meaning they are getting warmer at depth as the water cycle slows down.

Greenhouse gasses is a well dressed myth.

Andy Pattullo
October 22, 2021 3:50 pm

If warming causes cooling then the extreme warming of our current climate emergency could dump us right back into the depths of the ice age. I am afraid, very afraid. Should we stop the warming so we can stop the cooling or should we warm things up so we are ready for the extreme cooling. I can’t see any way out of this, unless perhaps we stop repeating the utter nonsense the climate community keeps scraping out of their shorts.

a happy little debunker
October 23, 2021 1:52 am

Nothing is so cold and bleak as a Canberra winter…

John McGoo PhD
October 23, 2021 6:05 am

Isn’t it amazing how CO₂, a trace gas of 0.04% of the atmosphere has become a PLANET DESTROYING super gas? The earth’s atmosphere is chaotic & extremely complicated. To pretend that humans have the power to make a difference in earth’s climate is utterly naive.

LENDZEN.png
Reply to  John McGoo PhD
October 24, 2021 6:22 am

John
I don’t have a problem with humans affecting the environment and even climate, at least locally. Land use changes, overfishing, pollution with plastic and fishing gear, deforestation, hunting animals to extinction e.g the marsupial wolf etc., are all real issues. Although even with these there are often flail-assumptions without real scientific basis e.g. the repeated extinction of the Great Barrier Reef that just seems to bounce back every time. And as for trees, not many would realise that in North America for instance, there are more trees now than 100 years ago.

However regarding CO2 the alarmists are utterly wrong. CO2 enhancement of the atmopshere is the one thing humans are doing that is an unmitigated good. Plant growth has been boosted by 30% wordwide due to fertilization of photosynthesis. Desserts are shrinking – althoguh this is not stopping habitual unfounded claims that they are growing.

If you were to ask the goddess Gaia – would she accept all human environmental destruction as a price to pay in exchange for the enhancement of atmospheric CO2 by the same humans, she would not hesitate to say yes to the deal.

Gunga Din
October 23, 2021 9:39 am

I’m waiting for a variation of “But the MWP was just the Northern Hemisphere.”
I haven’t read all the comments. Did anyone claim yet “But this is just the Southern Hemisphere.”?

October 24, 2021 2:02 am

Great article with lots of tongue-in-cheek humour exposing a lot of official double-speak and wishful thinking, hiding from the reality of a cooling Antarctica. Personally I suspect Antarctica is already starting to lead the earth into glacial inception; as it led the earth into glacial termination starting 20,000 years ago long before the Holocene got started.

There are a lot of anecdotal signs of ocean system cooling in the Southern Hemisphere in recent years:

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/

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 24, 2021 4:18 am

Scambos sounds about right.

%d bloggers like this: