Greenland’s Summers Surprisingly Cooling Over Past Decade…Driven by Natural Oceanic Cycles

From the NoTricksZone

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.

5 24 votes
Article Rating
198 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ben Vorlich
June 12, 2022 2:09 pm

To my untrained and jaundiced eye it looks like there was a 5-7 year pause before temperatures fell.

Loydo
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 12, 2022 3:47 pm
Derg
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:06 pm

PBS?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:53 pm

1981-2010 baseline.

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:16 pm

April average anomaly +6°C.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:31 pm

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.

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 11:00 pm

Isn’t that weather?

Oh, no, silly me if it’s too hot it’s the climate, too cold it’s the weather.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 12:25 am

Interesting that they try to make that image appear to be an entire hemisphere. I wonder what the rest of the picture looks like..

Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 7:59 am

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?

Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 8:14 am

“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:

comment image?ssl=1

Julien
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 11:04 am

This is just cherry picking a particular date to show a point, we’re discussing long term trends here

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 3:48 pm

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?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
June 12, 2022 7:57 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 12, 2022 8:34 pm

180° off, nicely played.

June 12, 2022 2:20 pm

“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.

RickWill
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
June 12, 2022 4:18 pm

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.

ATheoK
Reply to  RickWill
June 13, 2022 4:48 am

When WUWT is recognised{sic} 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.

Sage
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
June 12, 2022 4:20 pm

Remember that the IPCC was created to investigate how man is causing Climate Change, not if man is causing Climate Change.

Loydo
Reply to  Sage
June 12, 2022 4:56 pm

Name one prominant sceptic who has any doubt man is a contributor to global warming.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:06 pm

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.”

Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 5:34 pm

“If we doubled CO2, it’s well accepted that you should get about 1 degree warming if nothing else happened”

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:39 pm

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.

tree-stump-climate.jpg
Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 6:04 pm

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.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:11 pm

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.

Last edited 2 months ago by David Kamakaris
Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 6:23 pm

I’ll take that as a no.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:25 pm

I’ll take that as a total dodge of the points I and others have made.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:33 pm

Loydo subs in for Griff
Sigh

6C5EFFD0-EB45-4C4C-9433-73B3F0B34B33.jpeg
AndyHce
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 7:31 pm

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.

DrEd
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 7:28 am

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

DrEd
Reply to  DrEd
June 13, 2022 7:30 am

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.

MGC
Reply to  DrEd
June 13, 2022 9:43 am

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.

MGC
Reply to  DrEd
June 13, 2022 9:37 am

Typical half truth misrepresentation of the survey data, DrEd.

80% said human influence was at least as great as natural influence.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:02 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 6:21 pm

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.

comment image

“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.

DrEd
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 7:52 am

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

MGC
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 9:26 am

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 4:06 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 13, 2022 8:34 pm

“…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.

comment image?w=768&h=511

“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.”

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
June 14, 2022 9:32 am

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?

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 9:47 am

Forgot the graph.

loydo co2 vs temp.jpg
MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 13, 2022 10:38 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 9:47 am

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.

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.”

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.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 6:54 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 7:36 pm

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

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 8:47 pm

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”.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 15, 2022 8:18 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:02 pm

“… if nothing else happened[sic]” pretty much says it all to real scientists.

Doonman
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 13, 2022 7:48 am

Every moment in time is unique, so something is always happening that never happened before.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:08 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 5:34 pm

“I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small…”

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:40 pm

Oh merciful Heavens. How did I miss that one?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 13, 2022 1:47 am

“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.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:04 pm

Warming has been small, and there is no sign of any increase in the rate of warming.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 6:39 pm

“no sign of any increase in the rate of warming.”

I assume you just made that up.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:20 pm

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).

djs
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 6:16 am

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…

MGC
Reply to  djs
June 13, 2022 4:53 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  djs
June 13, 2022 8:47 pm

“Arctic ice cover is above it’s 30 year average…”

Did you just make that up?

comment image

Mmm, you did.

Last edited 2 months ago by Loydo
Graemethecat
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 7:53 am

MarkW is quite correct.

See the current USCRN and UAH temperature anomalies.

MGC
Reply to  MarkW
June 13, 2022 9:34 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:05 pm

If the warming continues.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 13, 2022 1:50 am

That is the question.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 1:43 am

“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.

comment image

It might get cooler. It has happened in the past. In the recent past.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 13, 2022 9:54 am

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 13, 2022 6:17 pm

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.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 13, 2022 10:32 pm

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

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 9:56 am

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.

mgc co2 equation.jpg
MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 6:39 pm

Wow, Gorman. Total wow.

It’s not a “linear” function. It’s a natural log function.

Holy “Fail From The Start”, Batman !!

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 7:54 pm

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?

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 8:41 pm

Yet another total non-sequitur of a “response”.

What “linear regression” ? Where?

Are you drunk or something?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 13, 2022 1:36 am

Happer describes the situation perfectly.

Robert Lande
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:26 pm

Name one scientific study showing the size of mankind’s contribution by empirical evidence

Loydo
Reply to  Robert Lande
June 12, 2022 5:44 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:05 pm

In other words, even you admit that what you have been spewing is pure propaganda.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 6:40 pm

Warning, Markbot deployed.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:09 pm

We have seen the Loydobot deployed many times.

Richard Page
Reply to  Derg
June 13, 2022 9:18 am

Loydobot? Hardly – it’s just a basic abacus with repeat function.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:24 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 6:54 pm

“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.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:00 pm

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

060917_1702_aholocenete5.png
Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 8:00 pm

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?

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 5:54 am
Redge
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 12, 2022 11:14 pm

You don’t recognise a Holocene temperature reconstruction?

No wonder you are ill-informed

MGC
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 13, 2022 10:12 am

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”

Temp past 12K years.JPG
David Kamakaris
Reply to  MGC
June 13, 2022 3:36 pm

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?

MGC
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 13, 2022 10:11 pm

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.

Marcott Temp Reconstruction.JPG
lgl
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 11:47 am
MGC
Reply to  lgl
June 14, 2022 5:45 pm

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.

lgl
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 11:16 pm

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.”

MGC
Reply to  lgl
June 15, 2022 8:08 am

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.

Last edited 2 months ago by MGC
lgl
Reply to  MGC
June 15, 2022 11:42 am

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.

MGC
Reply to  lgl
June 15, 2022 6:18 pm

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.

lgl
Reply to  MGC
June 15, 2022 11:34 pm

CMIP5:
https://virakkraft.com/icmip5_tas_Amon_modmean_rcp45_-38–37E_72-73N.pdf (summit)

Obs:
comment image

“Greenland” is mentioned 9 times in the head post. “global” once.

MGC
Reply to  lgl
June 16, 2022 8:42 am

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.

lgl
Reply to  MGC
June 16, 2022 12:10 pm

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.

MGC
Reply to  lgl
June 16, 2022 5:50 pm

Matthew Chapter 23 Verse 24

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:26 pm

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”.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:38 pm

What global warming?

10kyT.jpg
Loydo
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 12, 2022 6:46 pm

You realise that graph ends 72 years ago? Here’s the rest of it.

comment image

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:09 pm

Hockey stick away !

Mr.
Reply to  Derg
June 12, 2022 7:28 pm

Duck!

Richard Page
Reply to  Mr.
June 13, 2022 9:19 am

Fowl ball!

lee
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:46 pm
ATheoK
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 5:04 am

Pure fraudulent fakery.

“The figure below shows a 20-year LOWESS smoothed average of the models from 2000 through to 2100 added on to the end of the observational temperature data. Temperatures clearly exceed any experienced in Greenland during the Holocene by 2050 and are much warmer by 2100.”

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!

MGC
Reply to  ATheoK
June 13, 2022 10:18 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 9:58 am

LOL. You don’t know enough to even realize what you said is not a validation of the graph.

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 5:22 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 6:35 pm

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!

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 7:40 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 6:27 pm

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:57 pm

There’s a big difference between being a “contributor” and being the major cause, if not sole cause, as most alarmists claim.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 6:49 pm

Um, no thats a made up lie you just totally pulled that out of your arse.

Dude just stop making stuff up.

Chris Nisbet
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 6:52 pm

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).

Loydo
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
June 12, 2022 7:25 pm

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…

comment image

Dave Fair
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:25 pm

Loydo, why do you continue to use data based on the outdated 1981-2010 reference period?

Loydo
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:28 pm

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

lee
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:56 pm

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. 😉

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 6:32 pm

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?

Richard Page
Reply to  Chris Nisbet
June 13, 2022 9:26 am

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.

Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 8:24 pm

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.

H.R.
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
June 12, 2022 10:25 pm

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.

Reply to  H.R.
June 13, 2022 12:40 am

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.

H.R.
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
June 13, 2022 4:45 am

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™.

Redge
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 11:06 pm

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%

Editor
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 5:37 am

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.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Wayne Raymond
June 12, 2022 7:58 pm

Notice he gives no scientific reference for that statement? Pure CliSciFi speculation: His group didn’t study that issue.

Chaswarnertoo
June 12, 2022 2:30 pm

Warmists lie. Who’d a thunk it.

Meisha
June 12, 2022 2:30 pm

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.

H.R.
Reply to  Meisha
June 12, 2022 10:37 pm

👍👍 And don’t forget plate tectonics and the positions of the various plates in conjunction with Milankovitch cycles, Meisha. It all adds up.

H. D. Hoese
June 12, 2022 2:38 pm

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.

Loydo
June 12, 2022 2:48 pm

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

Last edited 2 months ago by Loydo
TonyL
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 4:10 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  TonyL
June 12, 2022 4:58 pm

Got something better? Post it.

TonyL
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:28 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  TonyL
June 12, 2022 5:58 pm

You’re right, those two images are only of monthly anomalies; March and April. Do you have something more long-term you can post?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:42 pm

How’s this?

11kyT0.jpg
Loydo
Reply to  Old Man Winter
June 12, 2022 7:02 pm

‘Years Before Present’ (in this context) mean before 1950.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 4:57 pm

Good of you to label your posts with the strawman alert, Loydodo, but it’s not necessary. Just seeing your name suffices.

Loydo
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 5:13 pm

So now Rich Davis = resort to ad hominem attack?

ATheoK
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 5:05 am

Simple truths hurt. Not an ad hominem, simply the truth.

Richard Page
Reply to  ATheoK
June 13, 2022 9:31 am

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.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 6:15 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 7:09 pm

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.

Richard Page
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 9:33 am

George Monbiot. Greta Thunberg as well, in a tv interview.

Last edited 2 months ago by Richard Page
Richard Page
Reply to  Richard Page
June 13, 2022 9:57 am

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.

David Kamakaris
Reply to  Richard Page
June 13, 2022 3:49 pm

Don’t forget about Bill Nye.

Loydo
Reply to  David Kamakaris
June 13, 2022 8:59 pm

And his exact quote is what? Or did you just make that up?

Loydo
Reply to  Richard Page
June 13, 2022 8:58 pm

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.

Terry
June 12, 2022 2:57 pm

Ummm I always thought the Atlantic was south of Greenland!

TonyL
Reply to  Terry
June 12, 2022 6:10 pm

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!!

H.R.
Reply to  TonyL
June 13, 2022 7:53 pm

I’ve never been able to fly for 12 hours. My arms get really tired after about 3 or 4 hours.

Rud Istvan
June 12, 2022 2:58 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 12, 2022 3:12 pm

comment image

Mmm, mmm natural variations.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 3:59 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 12, 2022 4:31 pm

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.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:02 pm

I already did, long ago. The exact link to his paper, in my 2014 essay cited above. You lose. Bigtime.

Loydo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 12, 2022 4:43 pm

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:

comment image

“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.”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 5:03 pm

You cite skepticalscience.com and expect to be taken seriously, Loydope?

Loydo
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 5:08 pm

So you do more than just as hominem attacks, you analysed their rebuttal? What did you find? Post it.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:04 pm

Loydo, I did what you requested, long ago. You lose on this, big time.

Loydo
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 12, 2022 7:30 pm

You uncritically regurgitated what confirmed your bias.
Turns out it was big time garbage. But you stick to your smoke-blowing.

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
June 12, 2022 6:26 pm

What, there is someone who takes Loydo seriously?

Loydo
Reply to  MarkW
June 12, 2022 7:33 pm

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.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 7:12 pm

Skeptical science 😉

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 1:09 am

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?

Last edited 2 months ago by Right-Handed Shark
Loydo
June 12, 2022 3:05 pm
Reply to  Loydo
June 12, 2022 3:13 pm

Is that your respiration analysis ? 😀
Shame on you !

Dave O.
June 12, 2022 3:20 pm

Until “scientists” can guarantee that their predictions are more than just a guess, I’m in the “natural variation” camp.

Dan Sudlik
Reply to  Dave O.
June 12, 2022 4:35 pm

Computer simulations, enough said 🤪

Loydo
Reply to  Dan Sudlik
June 12, 2022 5:04 pm

“…guarantee that their predictions are more than just a guess…”

Imagine the outcry if they said they could guarantee their predictions. lol.

Walter Sobchak
June 12, 2022 3:45 pm

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

Felix
June 12, 2022 5:42 pm

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,

Kristian Fredriksson
June 12, 2022 7:20 pm

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.

Loydo
Reply to  Kristian Fredriksson
June 12, 2022 7:40 pm

Can you show a link, post a table to these “rises and fall 4 C in periods of 80 years.”?

lgl
Reply to  Loydo
June 13, 2022 3:59 am

More like 2 C ? (annual)

comment image

Loydo
Reply to  lgl
June 13, 2022 9:06 pm

…and no 80 year cycle, he just made it up or blindly repeated what someone else here just totally made up.

lgl
Reply to  Loydo
June 14, 2022 1:45 am
Reply to  Loydo
June 14, 2022 1:21 am

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)

Marc
June 12, 2022 7:25 pm

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.

Ireneusz Palmowski
June 12, 2022 10:45 pm

When will it be warmer in Greenland and Antarctica?comment imagecomment image

Last edited 2 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Tom Abbott
June 13, 2022 1:25 am

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.

Rod Evans
June 13, 2022 1:26 am

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….

Last edited 2 months ago by Rod Evans
June 13, 2022 3:39 am

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.

Last edited 2 months ago by Scottish Sceptic
Enlightened Archivist
June 13, 2022 5:03 am

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?

SAMURAI
June 13, 2022 5:37 am

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…

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  SAMURAI
June 13, 2022 7:11 am

PDO increased temporarily after the solar peak in 2014 (El Niño 2016).comment image

Steve
June 13, 2022 5:52 am

Cue the data adjusters!

MGC
June 13, 2022 9:19 am

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.

Rod Evans
Reply to  MGC
June 13, 2022 10:49 am

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?

Kevin A
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 12:55 pm

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.

MGC
Reply to  Kevin A
June 14, 2022 5:16 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 6:40 pm

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!

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 7:31 pm

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.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  MGC
June 14, 2022 7:39 pm

Your theory doesn’t explain the Little Ice Age nor the warming that ended it.

Try again!

MGC
Reply to  Jim Gorman
June 14, 2022 8:50 pm

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.

June 13, 2022 11:06 am

“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.

MGC
Reply to  Charles Higley
June 14, 2022 8:55 pm

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.

%d bloggers like this: