By P Gosselin
Science Daily here reports: “Climate changes in the tropical Pacific have temporarily put the brakes on rapid warming and ice melting in Greenland.“
Hat-tip: Klimaschau
Science Daily adds: “A puzzling, decade-long slowdown in summer warming across Greenland has been explained by researchers at Hokkaido University in Japan. Their observational analysis and computer simulations revealed that changes in sea surface temperature in the tropical Pacific Ocean, thousands of miles to the south, trigger cooler summer temperatures across Greenland. The results, published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment, will help improve future predictions of Greenland ice sheet and Arctic sea ice melting in coming decades.”
Greenland GC-Net Swiss Camp JJA summer temperatures. Source: Hanna et al, 2020. Temperatures have dropped off rapidly since 2012. Cropped from Klimaschau.
Apparently this is connected to changes to the El Niño climate pattern in the Pacific, say the researchers, and these powerful Pacific cycles have ramifications for weather and climate patterns around the globe.
“The findings, and the slowdown in Greenland’s summertime warming, do not undermine the seriousness of climate change or the need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions,” Matsumura insists. But the scientists admit that the cooler summers in Greenland have been unexpected They also need to need to start admitting that they’ve been severely underestimating these powerful natural oceanic cycles, naively thinking that CO2 drives the whole show.
“We expect that global warming and ice sheet melting in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic will accelerate even further in the future due to the effects of anthropogenic warming,” Matsumura says.
And Matsumura will keep telling us that – until, that is, the next natural cycles bury man’s modest impact once again. A trace gas is no match for the gigantic, still mysterious thermal fluxes of the oceans…a phenomenon for which we have little historical data and remains poorly understood.
Also read here.
To my untrained and jaundiced eye it looks like there was a 5-7 year pause before temperatures fell.
Mmm, plumetting…
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSMm6_sXwAAKlz-?format=jpg&name=900×900
PBS?
1981-2010 baseline.
April average anomaly +6°C.
So we are 4 times past 1.5 and can stop worry as it’s too late
Thanks Loydo, knew you’d be good for something eventually.
By the way, you climate Scientologists say the earth has only warmed 1.1c in 200 years and last year was only 6th or 7th warmest ever.
Which means it’s cooling and co2 controls nothing.
Isn’t that weather?
Oh, no, silly me if it’s too hot it’s the climate, too cold it’s the weather.
Interesting that they try to make that image appear to be an entire hemisphere. I wonder what the rest of the picture looks like..
Looking at that image you wouldn’t think there was any North Atlantic cooling at all. Very reassuring for the faithful. How’s the Jacobshavn glacier doing these days btw?
“plumetting”
Well here’s Greenland’s ice balance, it was sort of plummeting down till about 5 years ago when it changed to plummeting up:
This is just cherry picking a particular date to show a point, we’re discussing long term trends here
Hey, if warmists can tout warming degree changes out the 1 one-thousandth of a degree, what is wrong with touting the same when it cools?
Mk1 eyeballs say nothing much has been happening temperature-wise for about 20 years. I’d guess that without the latest Super El Niño there’d been a drop.
180° off, nicely played.
“We expect that global warming and ice sheet melting in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic will accelerate even further in the future due to the effects of anthropogenic warming,” Matsumura says.
As long as researchers feel the need to put in provisos of this type, we will know the biased Anthropogenic Climate Crisis crowd still controls the allotment of research money.
Exactly – Nothing gets published into the arena of the woke unless it pays homage to the belief.
When WUWT is recognised as the most influential climate blog you will know that the tide has turned.
Been there, done that.
They stopped running the awards competition when WUWT overwhelmingly won 3 times in a row.
Remember that the IPCC was created to investigate how man is causing Climate Change, not if man is causing Climate Change.
Name one prominant sceptic who has any doubt man is a contributor to global warming.
Richard Lindzen
“Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age.”
“If we doubled CO2, it’s well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened”
Wow, Loydo. If you’re right and Lindzen and Happer are wrong, it might even get warm enough for spruce trees to cover what today is the Arctic Tundra as they did during the mid-Holocene.
I guess that means you’ve given up trying to find anyone willing to repeat that bs. What about you David? Where do you stand? Has human CO2 made a contribution to the observed warming? A straight yes or no will suffice.
What bs are you talking about? That trees grew on the Arctic tundra during the mid-Holocene? That picture I posted provides conclusive proof that they did. The fact trees don’t grow on the tundra today is because, in spite of the modest warming since the end of the Little Ice Age, it’s still too cold. Apparently, you can’t stand that fact.
I’ll take that as a no.
I’ll take that as a total dodge of the points I and others have made.
Loydo subs in for Griff
Sigh
At that time, due to differences (from today) in obliquity and precession, summer insolation at those latitudes was markedly higher. That has to be part of the calculation, just as the tropics are warmer due to higher local insolation.
2016 Survey by American Meteorological Society
•That new survey found just 29 percent of AMS members agreed with the stricter wording of the scientific consensus that climate change has been caused “largely or entirely by human activity.”
•
•https://slate.com/technology/2016/04/meteorologists-and-regular-people-still-arent-sure-humans-cause-climate-change.html
A survey of weathercasters’ feelings on global warming was published in this month’s edition of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.
November 15, 2009
•“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
•“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.
•“Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet.” Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.
If you look at the details of that 2009 survey, you find that the more scientifically well informed the respondent, the more likely they were to state significant human influence.
Among those AMS members who were working scientific research professionals, almost 90% expressed strong agreement that climate change is human induced.
Gotta remember that many AMS members are just TV weather bimbos with not a lot going on upstairs.
Typical half truth misrepresentation of the survey data, DrEd.
80% said human influence was at least as great as natural influence.
There’s no doubt amongst alarmist activists. However there is lots of doubt amongst those who’s salaries don’t depend on keeping up the myth.
ALL, let me repeat that, ALL of the studies that have been done over the last 10 years have concluded that even if all of the warming over the last 150 years was caused by CO2, then the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was at MOST about 1/2 a degree.
And since ALL but the most rabid of alarmists agree that CO2 is not responsible for all of the warming of the last 150 years.
“ALL (my emphasis) of the studies concluded… climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 was at most about 1/2 a degree.”
Stop making stuff up, very few did.
“responsible for all (again, my emphasis) of the warming”
Thats why I specifically said “contributor”, no one says humans have caused all the warming, stop making stuff up.
Care to name someone? But please don’t just make it up, I’ll check.
•ECS has been estimated as between 1.5 (insignificant) and 4.5 (worrisome)
•Since we’re halfway there (from 280, now at 410 or so) we should use the last 40 years’ experience to estimate ECS. The result is 1.2 – 1.3 Less than insignificant.
•By David Wojick October 20th, 2020 CFACT
Yep, MarkW has just made false stuff up out of thin air.
Again.
And yet “skeptics” like MarkW still wonder why they are not taken seriously by the scientific mainstream.
After all the studies and probably trillions of dollars spent on studies and models, not ONE, I repeat, NOT ONE, shows any mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature growth.
The only thing that has been shown is a part time correlation between the two. You may consider correlation to be evidence of a causal connection, but most scientists will not.
Instead, you need to concentrate on why similar concentrations of CO2 can have multiple temperatures and why temperatures fall when CO2 is rising. Explain those and maybe you can have a major impact. Otherwise you are just giving folks a way to pass the time.
“…probably trillions of dollars spent. The only thing that has been shown is a part time correlation…”
Totally made up bs by Make-it-up-Jim. Too afraid off what you might find by looking, so you don’t. So used to living in an echo-chamber where no one checks the even slightly bogus claim, you just make stuff up up instead and pass it off as fact. Grant Foster has done exactly what you say has never been, on his blog, for free, again, last week.
“The correlation coefficient between the two variables is a whopping 0.9467, but what really counts is its statistical significance (which is not guaranteed by a large coefficient). In this case the significance is undeniable (with a p-value < 10-15).
Perhaps most notable is the slope of the correlation. That’s why I chose units of “doublings of CO2” for the climate forcing: because this slope is an estimate of the climate sensitivity, the amount of global warming (relative to pre-industrial) we expect from a doubling of CO2 (relative to pre-industrial).
That value (2.4 deg.C per doubling) is close to the mean of what the climate models have to say.”
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2022/05/05/correlation-between-co2-climate-forcing-and-temperature/
Thats right: “…close to the mean of what the climate models have to say.”
You aren’t even a mathematician. Pardon the freehand lines I put on your image.
A mathematical relationship is a function. You have obviously used a simple linear regression since you have one slope. A multiple regression would have an equation like y = a1a+a2b+a3c+…+constant.
You do know that a function with one independent variable (log CO2) has only one output for one input, right? Those lines I drew show that Log CO2 vs Temp just not do that. In order to have multiple dependent values for one independent variable, one must also have other terms, i.e., multiple regression is needed. Think in terms of PV = nRT. You will need something like Temp = aCO2 + bENSO + cTSI + dClouds + constant. Why do you think climate models have been so unsuccessful if only one variable was at work?
The best you can do is “correlation” regardless of what you think. I’ll bet I can find other things like that also correlate like postal rates, DUI charges, drug overdoses, twitter posts, etc. Do you think they are related to temperature?
Forgot the graph.
re: “not ONE, I repeat, NOT ONE, shows any mathematical relationship between CO2 and temperature growth.”
Yet another Gormanian demonstration of a lack of knowledge on this topic.
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/temperature%20increase%20eqn%20derivation.pdf
Another “skeptical” talking point reduced to rubble.
As usual, ad hominem’s are your go to form of argument. You would not pass a high school debate class.
The link you posted does not appear to be from a published paper of a study. Here is what I said.
Funny how you left out the context.
Lastly, look at the “function” described in your post.
ΔT = ln(C / C0)
This is a function. It describes ONE AND ONLY ONE output for EACH input value. The graph shown does not do that. It only shows a correlation not causation.
Gorman, your “objections” are every bit as ridiculous as trying to pretend away the obvious and strong effect of the sun’s location in the sky on temperature, using as your “argument” that “there is not one and only one temperature for every location of the sun in the sky”.
This kind of pseudo-scientific gibberish is why the scientific mainstream cannot take so-called “skeptics” seriously.
Hardy har har. You gave the reference that showed the following:
ΔT = 1.66 ln(C / C0)
see your link:
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/temperature%20increase%20eqn%20derivation.pdf
Where do you find irradiance from the sun in this function?
Maybe you should ask the author of your reference why he didn’t include the sun’s radiation
And Gorman has now demonstrated that he can’t even understand an analogy.
“ridiculous gibberish” doesn’t even begin to properly describe these non-sequitur Gormanian “responses”.
And oh, by the way, pointing out a demonstrated lack of knowledge on a topic is not an “ad hominem” attack. It is a simple statement of fact.
The one here who would not pass a high school debate class is most certainly not me.
“… if nothing else happened[sic]” pretty much says it all to real scientists.
Every moment in time is unique, so something is always happening that never happened before.
Will Happer
No chemical compound in the atmosphere has a worse reputation than CO2, thanks to the single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas by advocates of government control and energy production. The incredible list of supposed horrors that increasing carbon dioxide will bring the world is pure belief disguised as science.
“I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small…”
Oh merciful Heavens. How did I miss that one?
“will be small” is what jumps out to me.
Some people claim the warming will be so small it will actually be cooling. They think CO2 ends up net cooling the atmosphere.
Actually, there are all sorts of theories out there about how and why the climate does what it does. CO2 is just one of them and none of them have been proven.
One of these days we will figure out how the atmosphere really works. But we are not there yet.
Warming has been small, and there is no sign of any increase in the rate of warming.
“no sign of any increase in the rate of warming.”
I assume you just made that up.
Well, Loydo, if so, CliSciFi practitioners misspent a hell-of-a-lot-of money trying to explain the late 20th Century and early 21st Century period of about 20 years where there was no significant warming. Failing in any explanations for the pause, they enlisted Tom Karl to adjust-in some warmth to the period records.
Who knows how long the pause would have lasted in the absence of the latest Super El Niño. It seems CO2 has a mind of its own by acting or not during long periods in the early 20th (warming in its absence) and 21st Centuries (not warming in its abundance).
Arctic ice cover is above it’s 30 year average…. and will continue over the cooling period…
Loydo… CO2 has nothing to do with climate…
The sun and it’s solar cycles drive are climate… Contrary points of view are silenced… if you don’t know that… well…
djs says:
“CO2 has nothing to do with climate…
The sun and it’s solar cycles drive are [sic] climate”
And what is the “evidence” to support this claim by djs?
“Merely because I, the great and powerful djs, have declared it to be so.”
Nothing more.
Meanwhile, every major scientific organization in the entire world has concluded otherwise, and they have over a century’s worth of well verified evidence backing their position.
Sorry, djs, but I’ll accept the say-so of every major scientific organization in the entire world over your say-so, any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
“Arctic ice cover is above it’s 30 year average…”
Did you just make that up?
Mmm, you did.
MarkW is quite correct.
See the current USCRN and UAH temperature anomalies.
MarkW claims “Warming has been small”
MarkW: what would the earth’s temperature be today if this “small” warming rate had been occurring continuously ever since the Egyptians built the pyramids? In geo-historical terms, that’s just the blink of an eye ago.
Current warming rate is at least 1.3 degrees C per century. The Egyptians built the pyramids 50 centuries ago.
You do the math. If you can.
If the warming continues.
That is the question.
“The warming” is so small its effects, if any, are so small as to be undetectable.
Cooling occurred from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, while at the same time, CO2 was increasing in the atmosphere. How does that square with CO2 causing detectable warming? CO2 increases, yet the temperatures cool. Just the opposite of what Alarmist claim should be happening.
Today, CO2 is increasing, yet the temperatures are cooling.
It might get cooler. It has happened in the past. In the recent past.
Yet another repost of this silly “argument”, Abbott?
Of course there are other influences, such as El Nino / La Nina, volcanoes, etc. that create short term ups and downs superimposed upon the long term trend. Doesn’t change the long term trend. Nor does it change what’s causing the long term trend (human CO2 emissions).
I’m not a religious man, but the constant reposting of such a silly “argument” bring Proverbs 26:11 to mind.
re: “It might get cooler. It has happened in the past.”
“Skeptics” have been trotting out this same tired old totally lame excuse for decades now. And they’ve been wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong every single time. Temperatures over the long term have just continued to rise.
So there is no direct mathematic relationship between CO2 and temperature. There are other pieces of the puzzle, yet you and other warmists seem sure that none of them can cause long term warming, only CO2 can do that, right?
Let me mention one, clouds! Funny how you never post any studies or data about cloud cover, or the lack of it.
re: “So there is no direct mathematic relationship between CO2 and temperature.”
And the Gormanian falsehoods just keep on comin’.
Read and learn:
http://www.globalwarmingequation.info/temperature%20increase%20eqn%20derivation.pdf
The described equation is a linear function. Can you show me a graph where CO2 vs temperature has only one value for each each ppm value of CO2.
Fail from the start.
Wow, Gorman. Total wow.
It’s not a “linear” function. It’s a natural log function.
Holy “Fail From The Start”, Batman !!
Then why are you using a “linear regression”.
A linear regression is to show a linear response between the independent and dependent variable. In other words a (y = mx + b) relationship.
You still haven’t addressed the issue of multiple values for a single value of the independent variable.
Lastly, your original graph shows
(log C/280)
as the independent variable.
Now you’re saying
(ln C/C0)
Which is it?
How about neither?
Yet another total non-sequitur of a “response”.
What “linear regression” ? Where?
Are you drunk or something?
Happer describes the situation perfectly.
Name one scientific study showing the size of mankind’s contribution by empirical evidence
So because we don’t have a human-free, duplicate planet to examine as a control, you err on the side of zero? Fingers crossed.
In other words, even you admit that what you have been spewing is pure propaganda.
Warning, Markbot deployed.
We have seen the Loydobot deployed many times.
Loydobot? Hardly – it’s just a basic abacus with repeat function.
So because we don’t have a human-free duplicate planet to examine as a control, you prefer to panic over climate changes that fall well within the range of natural variability.
“well within the range of natural variability” Mmm like that gisp2 data below? Don’t start just making stuff up (like you-know-who) post something supportive and I’ll be persuaded.
Here you go. But I don’t expect you to be persuaded. I totally understand that you need to support the narrative no matter what
David I am happy to be persuaded by persuasive evidence. Your graph is interesting but who created it, when, and what has it been reconsructed from?
The graph came from this paper.
A Holocene Temperature Reconstruction Part 4: The global reconstruction – Andy May Petrophysicist
You don’t recognise a Holocene temperature reconstruction?
No wonder you are ill-informed
The graph you posted does not go all the way to the present, David. Attached is what it actually looks like updated to today.
“But I don’t expect you to be persuaded. I totally understand that you need to support the “skeptical” narrative, no matter what”
I haven’t seen this before. Given that May’s paper is only 5 years old, I suspect you’ve taken hockey lessons from Michael Mann. But I’ll keep an open mind. I’ll send your revisions to Andy May and see what he has to say. Fair enough?
BTW, how are you liking today’s gasoline prices?
David says:
“I haven’t seen this before.”
Why am I not at all surprised that your sources of “information” have never shown you this.
And why do you say May’s “paper” ? It’s a web blog, not an actual research paper. And it’s really only a reconstruction of research data that actually was published in the scientific literature (Marcott et al 2013) nine years ago.
Attached is what the data from the published Marcott research study looks like … taken directly from Andy Mays page at:
https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/05/31/a-holocene-temperature-reconstruction-part-1-the-antarctic/
Look familiar?
And oh by the way, even this graph only goes to 1950. There’s been almost another full degree C more warming since then. That puts today’s temperatures way way WAY beyond the top of the graph.
That’s fraud. Here’s one done properly.
https://cbhighcharts2019.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/Greenland+Proxies/Greenland+multi+10k.html
lgl,
For the sake of accuracy, let’s be clear: what you’re claiming to be fraudulent is a graph taken directly from WUWT contributor Andy May’s own webpage.
Also, for the sake of accuracy again, let’s remember that we’re talking about global temperature reconstructions here. The chart you posted is only for a teeny tiny little bit of Greenland.
So I’m sorry, but no, for the sake of a conversation about global temperature reconstructions, a graph for just a teeny tiny little bit of Greenland is not a graph “done properly”.
Moreover, there’s reason to think that the graph you’ve referenced is not even correct for that teeny tiny little bit of Greenland. It shows only a little more than 1 degree Greenland temperature increase since 1970. But practically every measurement station I checked on Greenland has had at least twice that amount of warming since 1970, and there are multiple stations there with 3 to 4 degrees warming, or more, since 1970.
Maybe try again.
Hint:resolution.
“Observational temperature data from Berkeley Earth is shown at the end in black, with a 20-year smooth applied to match the proxy resolution.”
re: “20-year smooth applied”
So as the smoothing catches up to present day warming, the black line will end up being at least twice as high, even if there’s no further warming over the next 20 years (which is highly, highly unlikely) . And it will be higher again in 20 more years.
20 year smoothing looks to me like just another flimsy excuse to try to pretend away the reality of significant human climatic influence.
And by the way, that quote about the smoothing is not included in the graph reference you posted. Where is it all actually originally from?
And lastly, one final reminder, for the sake of accuracy and completeness: your graph is not even a global reconstruction but only Greenland.
Hehe, Zeke makes just another flimsy excuse to try to pretend away the reality of significant human climatic influence.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
already linked to by lee.
Yes, you will find some wild model speculations there too. CMIP5 shows +1.5 C since 1940, observations show +0.5 C.
And yes, I post about Greenland in a thread about Greenland.
The thread was not about Greenland. It was about global climate history.
re: “CMIP5 shows +1.5 C since 1940, observations show +0.5 C.”
More totally made-up phony baloney.
Just another sub-par “skeptical” fail from lgl.
CMIP5:
https://virakkraft.com/icmip5_tas_Amon_modmean_rcp45_-38–37E_72-73N.pdf (summit)
Obs:
“Greenland” is mentioned 9 times in the head post. “global” once.
Lordy lgl,
You cherry picked a short term high point spike in the temperature data in Greenland and then compared changes from that point in time against model results that do not contain that large short term temperature spike. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of disingenuous.
And so-called “skeptics” like you wonder why the scientific mainstream won’t take you seriously? SMH in disbelief.
And I’m sorry, but no matter how much you try to handwave and pretend otherwise, the particular conversation you injected yourself into was most certainly discussing global climate history, not just Greenland. Another woeful demonstration of integrity issues.
Short term high point spike? The high period is at least 15 years. (yes it’s more like around 1930 not 1940)
My only point in the first comment was the method. Like they write: “Prof Vinther explains that showing proxy data and observations side-by-side is appropriate as long as the data both have the same “temporal resolution”. In other words, because each point in both datasets represents an average of the 20 years of surrounding data, they can be more accurately compared.”
I just pointed to an example of good practice. Just as important when dealing with global data as regional data.
Back to Greenland. There was a long period of high volcanic activity and temperature fluctuated around -19 C. Then the volcanoes took a brake and the temperature rocked to around -17 C within a decade. When the volcanic activity increased again the temp again went back to around -19 C, a little above. The volcanoes went to sleep again and almost exactly the same cycle repeats, temp back to a little above -17 C this time and levels off.
“A puzzling, decade-long slowdown in summer warming across Greenland”
Only puzzling to the firm believers of climate models, which totally fail to simulate this system behaviour.
Matthew Chapter 23 Verse 24
You just hit the final tipping point into absolute conjecture Loydo.
You’re essentially saying that AGW can’t rely on actual observations, a hypothetical twin planet to Earth is needed as a laboratory in order to “settle” the AGW “science”.
What global warming?
You realise that graph ends 72 years ago? Here’s the rest of it.
Hockey stick away !
Duck!
Fowl ball!
https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-what-greenland-ice-cores-say-about-past-and-present-climate-change/
Skepsci looks nothing like this.;)
Pure fraudulent fakery.
Average of models tacked onto an ice core reconstruction places your silly graph in the abject fraud department.
What a complete joke you are, lolly!
AtheoK
The graph that Loydo referenced ends in 2019. There is no such “average of models from 2000 to 2100” tacked onto that graph as you mistakenly want to imagine. It’s actual temperature data.
Yet another typical “skeptical” fail.
LOL. You don’t know enough to even realize what you said is not a validation of the graph.
Another total non-sequitur fail, Gorman,
I’m sorry that you are unable to accept the fact that the graph is actual data and is fully valid.
Don’t know what you are looking at but “actual” data from 2000 or 3000 years ago?
You have no idea of the “baseline” at those lengths of time in the past. The errors could be ±4 degrees. To attach current temps to the end is ridiculous.
You are not impressing anyone!
It is truly amazing how Gorman so consistently demonstrates fail after fail after fail after fail.
In the context of the remarks to ATheoK,, the “actual data” is the contemporary instrument record, not the proxy data from 2000 to 3000 years ago.
Duh.
Not to mention that “the errors could be ±4 degrees” for the proxy data is not correct either.
Do you not find it funny that from say 1800 to 1885 the temperature increased about 2.5 degrees. That would be long before “human caused CO2” existed as a climate problem.
There’s a big difference between being a “contributor” and being the major cause, if not sole cause, as most alarmists claim.
Um, no thats a made up lie you just totally pulled that out of your arse.
Dude just stop making stuff up.
And if we accept that humans contribute to global warming, so what? It seems to me that if we can help to reduce extreme weather a tiny bit, or help agriculture a wee bit, isn’t that a good thing? It might even help to offset the carnage being inflicted on us by the alarmists who seem intent on having us freeze in the dark.
Meanwhile, NZ is suffering through a polar blast. This has its benefits – MSM have shut up about global warming for a bit, although they did try to imply this blast should have happened earlier when they said winter has ‘finally’ arrived (not even two weeks in).
I know it’s hard to accept and I guess that explains why most here still don’t. Next thing to accept is that local, seasonal temperature fluctuations and global temperature trends are two completely different things. As long as you mix them up you’ll stay confused. The best indicator of a global temperature trend I’ve seen is this because of the thermal inertia in the ocean, orders of magnitude greater than that of the atmosphere. I know its hard to accept…
Loydo, why do you continue to use data based on the outdated 1981-2010 reference period?
Annual mean global average sea surface temperature (SST).
https://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/kaiyou/english/long_term_sst_global/glb_warm_e.html
1890 So how many data points in the Southern Hemisphere in 1890. And of course even Phil Jones CRU said that the normals in the SH were mostly made up up until the buoys. 😉
Do you buy stocks or gold or bonds based on previous performance? You shouldn’t, do you know why?
Time is not an independent variable that determines the value of temperature. This is a pure time series that has no predictive skill beyond the time for actual data. Do you know why?
I recently saw an article about Australian frogs being decimated by chytridiomycosis – normally it only affects them in the winter, below about 27C, but for the last few years it’s been killing them throughout the year as temperatures remain lower than usual all year round.
I think most skeptics would agree that CO2, a small fraction of which is man-made, should–in the absence of feedbacks and other factors–produce a small increase in daily minimum temperatures, but little or no change in daily maximums. The data are consistent with that. Thus, as you assert, this leads to a modest increase in average temperatures. However, contrary to the constant claims of AGW acolytes, this increase in the average is associated with a decrease in extreme temperatures, both of cold and heat. The data are consistent with that as well.
Wayne Raymond: “[…] that CO2, a small fraction of which is man-made, should–in the absence of feedbacks and other factors […]”
–
The emphasis was mine and that was beautifully stated… but largely ignored in practice by those intent on alarming the populace.
Your whole comment captured my understanding of CO2’s role but said it better than I ever could. 👍
–
–
Wayne, what I have trouble wrapping my head around is why changes in CO2 lag changes in temperature, yet CO2 is supposedly the the control knob. I have difficulty understanding how that works.
Yup, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it just seems to be irrelevant as an element of the only truly global climate states that I am aware of; glaciated Earth and interglacial Earth. Otherwise, all the other regional climates are in various states of flux depending on where the global climate stands in its transition between the glacial and interglacial states.
I suppose it all relates to that “in the absence of feedbacks and other factors” you pointed out. It would appear that the Earth is nothing but feedbacks and other factors.
It is not surprising that CO2 lags temperatures…exactly as we would expect for the largest reservoir of CO2–the oceans–under the influence of Henry’s law. As temperatures rise in the ocean, CO2 outgases at the surface, limited in speed by the slow mixing of its layers. When ocean temperatures drop, atmospheric CO2 dissolves. I expect you know this, H. R., and like me are amazed that the AGW crowd seem oblivious to this basic science, in accord with the observed many hundreds of years lag of atmospheric CO2 behind earth temperatures.
Wayne, your suspicion is correct. It’s the second part, that CO2 is the control knob of temperature when it’s known that CO2 lags temperature, that has me stumped.
There are many believers in the CO2 control knob part, but any Climate Scientist™ pushing it should know better.
It appears ‘why’ really does all come down to getting the grant money and/or pushing the political agenda part of Climate Science™.
I think 100% of people here have no doubt man contributes to global warming through his activities.
If you had asked for people who are sceptical of CO2’s role in global warming being catastrophic the answer would be 100%
The argument is about how much. A large number of studies, many or all of which are by people recognised as sceptical of CAGW, calculate or estimate ECS as much lower than the figures that the IPCC use. But they all have ECS above zero. That means that they all agree that man-made CO2 contributes to global warming. But what they all show is that that warming is not at all threatening. Remove the ‘C’ from CAGW, as all these studies show should be done, and there is nothing to be alarmed about.
Notice he gives no scientific reference for that statement? Pure CliSciFi speculation: His group didn’t study that issue.
Warmists lie. Who’d a thunk it.
Yep, that’s been my opinion—that decadal and maybe even centennial changes in global atmospheric temperatures, if they have any trend, are driven by primarily by changes in oceanic current flows. And, I don’t think scientists have the faintest clue what drives those—maybe long term tidal changes which, by astrophysical definition, are very difficult to predict on top of delays and resonances equally if not more chaotic. Longer than centennial…Milankovitch cycles. Man made CO2? Spit in the wind just like we are dust in the wind.
👍👍 And don’t forget plate tectonics and the positions of the various plates in conjunction with Milankovitch cycles, Meisha. It all adds up.
Has anybody ever asked these advocates if they have ever been seriously to sea. It is a BIG OCEAN, always a surprise to the novice, miles and miles, even more kilometers and kilometers, without seeing plastic or even life in long journeys. Flying over, even the whole Pacific, doesn’t convey the necessary awareness. They probably don’t even read sailing magazines.
Strawman alert.
“They also need to need to start admitting that they’ve been severely underestimating these powerful natural oceanic cycles, naively thinking that CO2 drives the whole show.”
But no one does. Perhaps he should stop naively ignoring the oscillation in Southern Oscillation.
“A trace gas is no match for the gigantic, still mysterious thermal fluxes of the oceans…”
Still recycling the trace gas line? Thats just lazy.
Meantime back on Earth:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FQ1FLksWUAQovxi?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
One of my favorite graphic images.
First, it is GISSTEMP data. Second – The Arctic is screaming with heat. The whole of the top of the planet is painted in bright red.
What do you know??????
GISSTEMP is notorious for having very sparse to no arctic data.
They are showing Record temperatures where there are no thermometers, only “infilled” and fabricated data. They infill up to 1200 km, by their own admission. And they find record high temperatures in the infilled data there.
Well done, Loydo.
Got something better? Post it.
But just above, *you* posted something entirely different.
In responst to this threads first comment, by Ben Vorlich.
Here it is, in case you missed what you posted.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FSMm6_sXwAAKlz-?format=jpg&name=900×900
Here, the Arctic is *Cold and Blue*, just the opposite.
Amazing. Of course Greenland is searing hot, but the Arctic is cold.
Good old Loydo. I do not miss Griff (everybody remember him?) quite so much.
Griff provided comic relief to this site. Back in the day.
You’re right, those two images are only of monthly anomalies; March and April. Do you have something more long-term you can post?
How’s this?
‘Years Before Present’ (in this context) mean before 1950.
Good of you to label your posts with the strawman alert, Loydodo, but it’s not necessary. Just seeing your name suffices.
So now Rich Davis = resort to ad hominem attack?
Simple truths hurt. Not an ad hominem, simply the truth.
Exactly. Not an ad hom, merely an accurate and concise critique of Loydo’s typical post contents. Like having “F – could do better” on a school report card.
Actually there are quite a few alarmists who routinely claim that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming.
As to your picture
1) As always, if it’s a heat wave, it’s automatically claimed that only CO2 could have caused it. Highly dishonest and unscientific, but it’s what we have come to expect from you alarmists.
2) It’s hot in the northern hemisphere during northern hemisphere summer. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
“Actually there are quite a few alarmists who routinely claim that CO2 is responsible for all of the warming.”
Either you just made that up or you can name one. How sad, you made it up.
George Monbiot. Greta Thunberg as well, in a tv interview.
Admittedly it is more common for activists to simply say “humans cause climate change.” That has been a much more common quote from numerous sources over the years, from EDF and NASA then repeated ad nauseum by others.
Don’t forget about Bill Nye.
And his exact quote is what? Or did you just make that up?
More lies pulled out of arses. Show us the quote or go to the naughty corner. Or here’s a thing maybe just stoppin friggin’ lying.
Without much words:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/meanTarchive/meanT_2022.png
Ummm I always thought the Atlantic was south of Greenland!
A common and perhaps, understandable misunderstanding. If you are in Greenland and fly directly due South for 12 hours, you end up over the Pacific, as the world turns under you.
This effect, for example, is why Columbus thought he had found a new route to the Far East when he discovered the New World, when in fact, he was in the Bahamas.
Science!!
I’ve never been able to fly for 12 hours. My arms get really tired after about 3 or 4 hours.
I doubt that El Niño cycles in the tropical Pacific have much if anything to do with Greenland. Akasofu showed in a 2010 paper ( discussed in essay Unsettling Science in ebook Blowing Smoke) that there is a quasi cyclic about 60-65 year Arctic full cycle of warming then cooling. There is much circumstantial evidence to support his paper, discussed in essay Northwest Passage.
The coincidental problem for Wadhams and his fellow alarmists is that satellite Arctic summer sea ice observations began at about the maximum in about 1979. Fast forward 32 years to 2012 and we have the summer Arctic sea ice nadir. It has been recovering since. Greenland summer temperatures the past decade are a likely just reflection of this purely natural Arctic variation, and a Greenland contribution to the fact that sea level rise has not accelerated.
Mmm, mmm natural variations.
Loydo, you cheated. You showed Asafoku’s history to 2000. NOT his full history graph to 2010 when his article published, with his projection to 2100. You should have realized I published on this in 2014 precisely to defeat your kind of prevarication.
Bad dog, no biscuit.
I didn’t cheat, I googled, Akasofa, 2010 and that is what I found. If you have something more to your liking how about you post a link to it.
I already did, long ago. The exact link to his paper, in my 2014 essay cited above. You lose. Bigtime.
You cheated. In an attempt to promote your own product (again) you posted anecdotal bs and made out it was credible.
Here is an absolute trashing of Akasofu’s junk.
https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=862
Including this:
“Akasofu assumed a linear trend of unknown cause, an unknown periodic variability, and assumed that these two unknown phenomena will continue in the future, while disregarding what we know about the physics of the climate system. Unfortunately there’s no knowledge to be gained from Akasofu’s paper, except how not to predict future climate change.”
You cite skepticalscience.com and expect to be taken seriously, Loydope?
So you do more than just as hominem attacks, you analysed their rebuttal? What did you find? Post it.
Loydo, I did what you requested, long ago. You lose on this, big time.
You uncritically regurgitated what confirmed your bias.
Turns out it was big time garbage. But you stick to your smoke-blowing.
What, there is someone who takes Loydo seriously?
Nah thats right, why would you bother replying or replying to other replies or making up lies to every response or…if it wasn’t serious? Lol Talk about hoisted with your own petard.
But do go on.
Skeptical science 😉
Maximum deviation of the red line from the blue is around six hundredths of 1ºC. What a huge error. Red line terminates in 2009. What happened since?
Some not so mysterious thermal fluxes.
http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/images/2020/figures/SoTC2020_GreenhouseGases_CapeGrim2.png
Is that your respiration analysis ? 😀
Shame on you !
Until “scientists” can guarantee that their predictions are more than just a guess, I’m in the “natural variation” camp.
Computer simulations, enough said 🤪
“…guarantee that their predictions are more than just a guess…”
Imagine the outcry if they said they could guarantee their predictions. lol.
Oh, Greenland is a dreadful place
It’s a land that’s never green
Where there’s ice and snow and the whale fishes blow
And daylight’s seldom seen, brave boys
“Greenland Whale Fisheries” trad.
Peter, Paul and Mary
It’s another indication that AGW is a religion — “the climate moves in mysterious ways”. No matter what they find, no matter how much it indicates the opposite of everything they claim, it is just further proof that the AGW god moves in mysterious ways, and More Research Is Needed,
The only suprising thing here is that the scientists don’t check the statistics from the last 150 Years at Greenland. There they can see that the temperature rises and fall 4 C in periods of 80 years.
Can you show a link, post a table to these “rises and fall 4 C in periods of 80 years.”?
More like 2 C ? (annual)
…and no 80 year cycle, he just made it up or blindly repeated what someone else here just totally made up.
There is a 80 year ‘cycle’ and it’s volcanic.
https://virakkraft.com/Greenland-Denmark_volcanic-forcing.xlsx
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7
Figure 2 in Levitus et al 2009 shows AMO in lockstep with Barents sea surface (150m) temperatures over a century or more. OK only ~0.5C at 100m depth.
Barents_Sea_multidecadal_variability20170428-3118-172zf6q-with-cover-page-v2.pdf (d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net)
I flew over the southern most portion of Greenland last Thursday. Was amazed the ice pack and large glaciers visible from 35K feet. After all the mass media clamor about the shrinking of the Greenland ice sheet I expected to see some ice free land mass on the southern edge of the island. I saw none.
When will it be warmer in Greenland and Antarctica?
From the article: ““The findings, and the slowdown in Greenland’s summertime warming, do not undermine the seriousness of climate change or the need to tackle greenhouse gas emissions,” Matsumura insists.”
Nor do the findings support the “seriousness of climate change”.
In fact, nothing supports the “seriousness of climate change”. It’s a figment of the imagination to date.
The thing we know about the weather and climate systems is they are chaotic.
We also know, the only accurate data we have is historic. Sadly, those with a political agenda are even trying to present ‘adjusted’ data as valid, providing the adjusted data can be adjusted to better sell their alarming story of, man made catastrophic climate change.
Those engaged in modelling the climate or modelling the chaos to be more precise, are presenting state funded crystal ball predictions. Those predictions have so far fallen down/failed, when compared to the real climate/weather data collected this past thirty years.
It is against that background, I am able to sleep soundly at night, certain that weather and climate concerns are the least of our troubled world’s issues.
We must also thank the likes of Loydo for their ongoing beliefs. The need for individuals to provide their alternative viewpoint, provide the devils advocate position, if you will, ensures our attention to details and keeps us focused.
NB This week here in central England UK the temperatures are likely to reach 30 deg. C for a couple of days. I have not lit the wood burner in the last two days. Summer is finally coming, apparently….
Looks like half of a Multi Decadal Oscillation peaking round 2011. If we assume a 60 year cycle, the cooling should reach its maximum in 2026.
Next you will be telling us you failed to take into consideration the impact of that huge orb in the sky after you explain how there is any ice left in Greenland. Wasn’t it predicted that the artic would be ice free by now?
It’s because the AMO 30-year warm cycle peaked about 12 years ago, and is about to reenter its 30-year cool cycle from around 2025..
The PDO 30-year cool cycle started about 6 year ago, which is why there hasn’t been a global warming trend in about 7 years…
Just wait until 2025 when both major oceans are in their respective 30-year cool cycles.
I can’t wait for Leftists to explain global cooling is the new global warming ‘cuz, climate change identifies as global cooling…
CAGW is so busted…
PDO increased temporarily after the solar peak in 2014 (El Niño 2016).
Cue the data adjusters!
It is now pretty much well established fact within the worldwide professional scientific community that human CO2 emissions are a significant driver, if not the most significant driver, of current climate change. But here we are with yet another author trying to somehow pretend otherwise.
Looks like yet another example of what Willis E. has already directly admitted:
WUWT publishing known false content.
Just curious, is the worldwide ‘professional’ scientific community a different group to the worldwide scientific community?
What are the qualifications for becoming a member of the professional scientific community as opposed to the more usual scientific community?
And hidden from the public view, H2o. None of the AGW bar charts show H2o along side of other GhG, if they did show H2o you wouldn’t be able to see the other GhG gases. I keep hearing how ‘we’ have never experienced Co2 levels ‘we’ currently are having, true but a lie, ‘we’ have only been around a few years while the earth has been around billions of years.
As it stands I’m wearing long underwear with isolated coveralls at 4,000 feet irrigating in 36°F on June 14th, I could use that 2° warming any time your ready.
KevinA says: “None of the AGW bar charts show H2o along side of other GhG, if they did show H2o you wouldn’t be able to see the other GhG gases”
Another typically incorrect “skeptical” mischaracterization.
Although yes, water vapor is the largest greenhouse effect contributor, a bar chart of the warming capacity of the various greenhouse gases would clearly show CO2:
Attribution of the present day total greenhouse effect
Schmidt et al JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH 2010
“water vapor is the dominant contributor (~50% of the effect), followed by clouds (~25%) and then CO2 with ~20%. All other absorbers play only minor roles.”
Moreover, because warmer air can hold more water vapor, the warming effect of CO2 acts to increase the greenhouse warming effect of water vapor. Changes in CO2 due to human emissions are thus controlling most all of the greenhouse warming effects.
Lots of words, but isn’t it sad that CO2 lags temperature increase? Makes it difficult to prove your hypothesis. Both temps and increased water vapor precede the rise of CO2!
Isn’t it sad that Gorman blindly parrots this tired old, long debunked pseudo-scientific excuse for trying to pretend away the long known and well verified CO2 warming influence?
Yes, CO2 lagged temperature increase in ice core records. Something else, like orbital changes, started a temperature increase. That temperature increase led to an increase in CO2. The CO2 increase then led to even more warming. Duh.
The only thing that tired old so-called “skeptical” talking point proves is the existence of poor critical thinking skills on the part of those who blindly parrot it.
Your theory doesn’t explain the Little Ice Age nor the warming that ended it.
Try again!
I’m not a religious man, but Matthew chapter 23 verse 24 applies quite well to the never ending parade of excuses that Gorman uses so that he can blindly continue to accept anti-science falsehoods.
““We expect that global warming and ice sheet melting in Greenland and the rest of the Arctic will accelerate even further in the future due to the effects of anthropogenic warming,” Matsumura says.”
Based on virtually nothing but an unfounded assumption. Wow. They have faith that global warming will progress despite no evidence for it. It is indeed the money phrase that will keep their funding going from the global warming machine.
re: “They have faith that global warming will progress despite no evidence for it.”
Totally false, of course.
All during these “pauses” in temperature rise and, now, in ice melt, heat has continued to accumulate in the oceans … several times more heat energy than what has caused the longer term atmospheric warming.
It can only be a matter of time until the next major El Nino releases that heat to the air and the ice. And then yes, the ice melt will continue to proceed further. It is almost guaranteed.