Greenland Surface Temperatures Fall for 20 Years in Fresh Blow to Climate Alarm Narrative

by Chris Morrison

Further evidence that surface temperatures across Greenland have been cooling for around 20 years has emerged with the recent publication of findings from a group of Thai scientists and mathematicians. Processing 31,464 satellite recording from 2000-2019 over the entire area, they found that the average temperature fell by 0.11°C. This is said to indicate a “non-significant change in LST [land surface temperature]”. The latest evidence of actual cooling over a significant area of the Arctic will not be news in scientific circles since it backs up previous findings of recent temperature falls. But the information is of course kept out of the mainstream since it casts doubt on the key Net Zero scare about soaring sea levels caused by the catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

There are some crumbs of comfort for alarmists since the Thai authors found that the ice-free sub-regions of Greenland are warmer than the ice-covered sub regions. But perhaps not – the authors attributed it to “population density”. Urban heat yet again corrupting the temperature data, even in Greenland. The illustration below charts the temperature record for all areas of Greenland.

The World Economic Forum recently reported on a study that predicted a “total collapse” of the Greenland ice sheet within a few months. This suggestion is only slightly more ludicrous than the scares routinely published to induce mass psychosis in populations with the aim of promoting a collectivist command-and-control Net Zero solution. The recent farce around the COP in Baku showed the conspiracy operating in plain sight. Stop the developing word developing with hydrocarbons, then invent a number of fake scares such as island states disappearing beneath the waves. Everyone knows this and most of the other scares are false as scientists have shown on numerous occasions, but no matter. Invent some ridiculous composite figure – say $250 billion a year, or $1.3 billion by 2035 – then pretend your taxpayers can be rinsed even though the only country that could conceivably afford it is leaving the party in January.

All of this means that genuine attempts to explain the science around the climate changing are stuck in a ‘settled’ narrative hellhole. The corals can grow like topsy in record amounts on the Great Barrier Reef and the Arctic sea ice can show a small decade-long recovery. Meanwhile, mainstream media and politics prefer to take their cue from characters like  ‘Jim’ Dale, who points out of the window and attributes every puff of wind to a human cause.

Nowhere is this lack of scientific inquiry more evident than at the two Poles of the Earth. Antarctica has barely warmed during 70 years of detailed observations, while the situation in the Arctic, as we can see, is complex and open to many interpretations. The Thai mathematicians stick mainly to their statistics and find “no evidence of warming over ice-free and ice-covered areas”. But they do note earlier work by a group of Japanese scientists (Matsumura et al. 2021) that suggested the Central Pacific El Niño Southern Oscillation teleconnection played a “key role” in recent summer Arctic climate change.

The Matsumura team found a recent slowdown in Greenland ice loss and warming. The El Niño role is also thought to have helped the recent overall Arctic sea ice recovery. Changes around Greenland can be attributed to “natural variability, rather than anthropogenic forcing”, note the scientists. “Most climate models were unable to reasonably simulate the unforced natural variability over Greenland,” they added.

As we can see, Antarctica is another difficult place to get a good scare going due to a decades-long lack of any warming. Fears of a ‘tipping point’ are often heard after natural melting and ice breaks in western Antarctica. But late last year, the Daily Sceptic highlighted a paper by a group of international scientists that found significant recent cooling across the entire area. The paper was published by the American Meteorological Society and it observed a 2°C fall in the 20 years to 2018. During the spring season, the fall was a massive 1.84°C every decade, while the winter reduction came in at 1.19°C over the same time period. As is usual when temperatures drop, the carbon dioxide blame game is laid aside and answers are sought in natural climate variations. In this case it was noted that temperatures in the eastern Pacific equatorial region had dropped over the last 20 years under review.

Again don’t expect the climate models to have much idea about what is happening in the real atmosphere. There is said to be “no robust agreement” among the models on the important sea temperatures driving the western Antarctica air temperature.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor.

4.6 24 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

135 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 26, 2024 6:41 pm

But it’s warming twice as fast as everywhere else – they tell me……

Scissor
Reply to  Mike
November 26, 2024 6:50 pm

Manbearpig says 30 millions tons of ice melt every hour.

Reply to  Mike
November 26, 2024 6:56 pm

That’s statistical abuse for you.

Reply to  Mike
November 27, 2024 12:50 am

Twice as fast?

“Greenland’s glaciers are melting 100 times faster than estimated”
https://www.livescience.com/greenland-glacier-melt-model

… and they wonder why people are becoming more skeptical.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Alpha
November 27, 2024 2:23 am

We all need to publicize crap like that more widely; + world on fire, + boiling oceans ( at the same time as cooling Gulf Stream ! ), + no arctic ice after 2014, + …
to get more people skeptical.

Reply to  Alpha
November 27, 2024 12:23 pm

From the article

Researchers already knew their Antarctica-based understanding of Arctic glaciers was not a perfect match. But it’s hard to get close to the edges of Greenland’s glaciers, because they’re situated at the ends of fjords — long, narrow inlets of seawater flanked by high cliffs — where warm water undercuts the ice. This leads to dramatic calving events where chunks of ice the size of buildings crumble into the water with little warning, creating mini-tsunamis, according to the researchers. 

So at best loosely based in physics. There’s just no way a model could be two orders of magnitude out if it was truly modelling the physical process with energy considerations. It’s another example of a bad fit dressed up as “physics based” and definitely applies to the new “better”model.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Mike
November 27, 2024 2:09 am

According to the ‘me-dud-a’, everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else,
( probably because of all the early snow blankets keeping us warm ) !!!

Rational Keith
Reply to  Mike
November 28, 2024 5:37 pm

😉
Of course popular claim is that the Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the planet.
But data shows the other pole is slowly cooling.
A mess of rhetoric and sometimes real data.

November 26, 2024 6:53 pm

The coldest and driest climates are the most sensitive to local man-made changes, with urban heating being the biggie. Even warmer climates can be sensitive to local changes, for instance the deforestation around the base of Kilimanjaro and the subsequent reduction in snowfall on the mountain.

abolition man
November 26, 2024 7:19 pm

Just as glacial calving is seen as proof of CAGW, I’m sure that libtard alarmists will claim that Camp Century’s depth of a paltry 30 meters is proof that the models are totally right about Greenland’s icecap melting! Why do we bother with ANY scientific data or observations when computer models are SOO much more convincing and sport fantastical accuracy to boot!
If you are a devout alarmist, you might be a complete maroon!

Reply to  abolition man
November 26, 2024 9:29 pm

Camp Century was constructed by bulldozing trenches at the surface, placing arched steel sheets in the trenches, and back-filling with snow. The current 30-meter depth is the result of both snow accumulation over the last 65 years, and things left behind sinking by plastic deformation of the ice. The Ice Worm project was abandoned because of the plastic deformation of the ice created unsuitable missile launching sites.

I have personal experience with the plastic deformation in an ice tunnel at Camp Tuto, which was the take-off point into the glacier for those building Camp Century. I was supervising the final, annual ice deformation survey in 1966, before the army closed Camp Century and Camp Tuto. My two years in the service was assigned to the US Army Cold Region Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, NH.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  abolition man
November 27, 2024 3:56 am

Or an ignoranimus.

November 26, 2024 7:45 pm

The ice extent on Greenland is expanding so it follows that the average temperature will reduce, particularly in the southwest where there is still ice free ground in summer.

However if you look at the temperature of the Greenland plateau in January, it has the fastest rate of rise of anywhere on the planet.

Any new snowfall records today?

Chris Hanley
November 26, 2024 8:38 pm

As is usual when temperatures drop, the carbon dioxide blame game is laid aside and answers are sought in natural climate variations

Arctic temperature trends are closely related to the AMO index that has been stable since about 2000 similarly the West Antarctic Ice Sheet temperature trend is related to the negative phase of the PDO index since 1990 as the linked paper explains.
In neither case can anything be inferred as to any longterm temperature effect of increasing CO2.

John Hultquist
November 26, 2024 8:42 pm

I think the full amount being asked for was $1.3 trillion, not billion.

And:
” the only country that could conceivably afford it is leaving the party in January.”

If the USA is meant, be advised the Nation is in debt. Uncle Sam would have to borrow the money from China or create new money from nothing. That never ends well.

Robertvd
Reply to  John Hultquist
November 26, 2024 11:25 pm

That’s the inflation we all see in prices going up and the purchasing power of your saving melting like ice in the Sahara.

November 26, 2024 8:55 pm

Oh my.
Error bars. Are those back?

I no longer remember which alarmist sites banned me for which questions, but I know one of them was for asking where the error bars were and insisting they were important. Skeptical Science perhaps.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
November 27, 2024 6:48 am

The paper from which the graph originated used MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) satellite data and as usual for climate science, ignored the measurement uncertainty of the raw values:

“…the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) has become a reliable source for satellite-based data on LST…”

No other mention of the quality of the source data is made, can they really resolve 10 mK?

https://mausamjournal.imd.gov.in/index.php/MAUSAM/article/view/6099

Andrew
November 26, 2024 10:12 pm

Confirmation bias

observa
November 27, 2024 12:24 am

So have they found out why the CO2 doesn’t hang about over Greenland yet? What gives with the hole in the CO2 layer?

November 27, 2024 12:43 am

Meanwhile, western civilization is being actively and methodicaljy destroyed.

Reply to  Petit-Barde
November 27, 2024 5:38 am

By the Radical Left.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 9:21 am

The “Climate Crises” & the “Net Zero” solution is not a left or right thing … it’s a stupidity thing.
I know a lot of ‘right-wingers’ who are totally onboard with the scam.

Reply to  1saveenergy
November 28, 2024 1:18 am

I can’t think of any right-wingers that are preaching climate change gloom and doom.

I can think of a lot of left-wingers that are preaching climate change gloom and doom.

That’s not to say that some on the Right don’t think CO2 is a problem, which just proves that people on the Right can be misled about CO2, too.

Reply to  1saveenergy
November 28, 2024 2:14 pm

Maybe they are the other right?

November 27, 2024 1:40 am

UAH v6.1 provides coverage of the entire arctic area (NoPol column), land and ocean, right up to October 2024, rather than stopping 5-years ago.

From 2000 the Arctic warming trend according to UAH is +0.26C per decade. Over land areas the trend is even faster, +0.27C per decade, with three of the years since 2019 (2022, 2023 and 2024) all in the top 5 warmest years in the UAH Arctic land record.

Crumbs of comfort?

Arctic-land
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2024 3:01 am

roflmao.

That is the atmosphere, which as even the most dumb person can see, has responded to the 2016/17 El Nino.

Do you have any evidence of human causation?

Reply to  bnice2000
November 28, 2024 10:16 am

You see, some times I think I should respond to wee b-nasty, but then I remember that I am not a psychiatrist.

LT3
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2024 8:07 am

One would think if the warming was from greenhouse gasses, a warming trend in the summer would be obvious, but the data tells a different story.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

ArcticCircleMeanAnomalies
Reply to  LT3
November 27, 2024 10:38 am

One would think if the warming was from greenhouse gasses, a warming trend in the summer would be obvious…

Why? The greenhouse effect, heat from increased downwelling radiation, is much more likely to be obvious in winter, when there is little to no sunlight in the Arctic.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2024 11:06 am

Idiot, if there is no increase energy upward then there can’t be any downward

Stop making up moronic anti-science.

LT3
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 28, 2024 2:50 am

Because that is when the maximum amount of solar is heating the surface and consequently the maximum amount of energy would be radiating from the surface.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  LT3
November 27, 2024 1:09 pm

“One would think if the warming was from greenhouse gasses, a warming trend in the summer would be obvious, but the data tells a different story.”

Not if you have any understanding of meteorology it wouldn’t.

Summer temperature in the Arctic are (still) entirely constrained by sea ice.
Now at what temperature is melting ice at?
Correct.
So summer temperatures are not going anywhere in the Arctic basin – except for the land station around the edges such as is shown by bnice2000 in *his* multi overlain graph below.

Hence the hovering around 0C for the summer months.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 1:47 pm

Anthony is correct.
Here is the link to DMI, you can choose any year you want, temps vary during the winter but in the summer they coalesce around the melting point of ice.

https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 1:52 am

Greenland is ~9% by area of the Arctic.

comment image

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.6771

“We provide an updated analysis of instrumental Greenland monthly temperature data to 2019, focusing mainly on coastal stations but also analysing ice-sheet records from Swiss Camp and Summit. Significant summer (winter) coastal warming of ~1.7 (4.4)°C occurred from 1991–2019, but since 2001 overall temperature trends are generally flat and insignificant due to a cooling pattern over the last 6–7 years. Inland and coastal stations show broadly similar temperature trends for summer. Greenland temperature changes are more strongly correlated with Greenland Blocking than with North Atlantic Oscillation changes……”

comment image

“Greenland ice sheet land station record annual temperature anomalies with respect to the 1951–80 base period. Multiples of standard deviations for the 1951–80 period are included. Major volcanic eruptions are indicated.”

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/22/14/2009jcli2816.1.xml

Also:
“Thai authors found that the ice-free sub-regions of Greenland are warmer than the ice-covered sub regions. But perhaps not – the authors attributed it to “population density”.”

I can find no reference to that in the paper.

And
“The World Economic Forum recently reported on a study that predicted a “total collapse” of the Greenland ice sheet within a few months.”
“But the information is of course kept out of the mainstream since it casts doubt on the key Net Zero scare about soaring sea levels caused by the catastrophic melting of the Greenland ice sheet.” ??

Err No.
From the paper (via the Guardian)…
“The scientists said: “There is some concern that any small source of freshwater may serve as a ‘tipping point’ that could trigger a full-scale collapse of the Amoc …”

The AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation).
And not the Ice sheet.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 2:45 am

Thanks for the clarification and setting the record straight. Too many biased views obscuring reality. Why can’t people at least try to determine accurate information rather than deliberately obscure things, according to their own bias……on both sides?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 3:03 am

Gistemp is meaningless because it is based mostly on faked and corrupted surface data.

Neutral1966
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 3:55 am

Mostly” or some…..corrupted data?

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 5:50 am

The sea surface temperatures are guesswork.

If a global average temperature were created using just the written, surface temperature records, the temperature profile would show that it was just as warm in the recent past (1880’s/1930’s) as it is today because that’s what the written temperature records from all over the world show. They don’t show a “hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick profile.

So the Bastardizers of the Global Temperature record just made up sea surface temperatures and added them into the written record mix which had the effect of cooling the past and warming the present. Just the kind of temperature profile you would want to see if you were promoting human-caused Climate Change.

The Global Hockey Stick temperatues are a lie meant to sell the Human-caused Climate Change narrative.

The written, historical temperature records refute the Hockey Stick temperature profile.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 6:52 am

Exactly, there are no SST data.

Neutral1966
Reply to  karlomonte
November 27, 2024 8:24 am

Please see my question to Tom Abbott above. Same question to you…🤔

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 9:12 am

About linear trends? Are these regression fits resolvable from real data?

Where are the historical SST data for the south Indian Ocean?

Reply to  karlomonte
November 28, 2024 2:21 pm

There are the ARGO floats in recent times. However, limited coverage.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 7:36 am

If a global average temperature were created using just the written, surface temperature records, the temperature profile would show that it was just as warm in the recent past (1880’s/1930’s) as it is today… 

Demonstrably false.

NOAA land only surface data since 1850 shows todays temperatures globally are much warmer than in any previous period on record, including the 1880s and 1930s.

NOAA
Neutral1966
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2024 8:32 am

This graph shows roughly the last 140 years of temperature records. Question 1: Some here argue that the beginning of this period was anomalously cold. Do you dismiss this claim. If so, please provide evidence for doing so.
Q2: Many here claim that the temperature record has been corrupted by biased UHI effect, increasingly as time has passed since the beginning of the temperature record. Do you also dismiss this claim, and again, please provide evidence for doing so.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 10:54 am

This graph shows roughly the last 140 years of temperature records.

1850-2024 is roughly 174 years of temperature records, not roughly 140 years. (140 years would have started in 1880, as NOAA used to. Do you need to update something?)

Some here argue that the beginning of this period was anomalously cold. Do you dismiss this claim. If so, please provide evidence for doing so.

Do you mean starting 1850 or 1880? Please provide clarity before I can answer.

Q2: Many here claim that the temperature record has been corrupted by biased UHI effect, increasingly as time has passed since the beginning of the temperature record.

UHI is one of the many things corrected for in the analysis. If the UHCRN data highlighted in the side bar on this site are anything to go by, then it appears that the adjustments applied to correct for things like UHI effect are, if anything, overcompensating for them. USCRN is currently running warmer than the adjusted ClimDiv data over their joint period of measurement.

That’s right; the adjusted data have a slower warming rate than the ‘pristine’ data in the US.

Draw your own conclusions.

Neutral1966
Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 27, 2024 1:23 pm

Thanks for getting back to me and apologies for the confusion.
“Do you mean starting 1850 or 1880? Please provide clarity before I can answer.”
Preferably from the earliest point of the temperature record, although I’m not sure that the 30 years in the latter half of the 1800s makes a whole lot of difference. The claim that is made by some is that this period was at the end of the so called “Little Ice Age”, and therefore not an ideal starting reference point. Others have argued that the “Little Ice Age” was much further back in the past and that it was a regional event rather than global. If associated with the so called “Maunder Minimum”, I would have thought this would have been a global phenomenon but some of course argue that the two events are not linked. Anyway, hopefully you get the gist of my questions. Please reference any studies you believe produce overwhelming evidence to support the case that the starting point of the temperature record is representative of something close to what would be expected of an average or mean global temperature. Only then, is it possible to determine if current warming is anomalous or extreme. In conjunction with this, it might be useful also to know the relative concentration of temperature recording stations by continent in latter half of 1800s, so as to establish if the temperature record itself can realistically represent global temperature during that period. I appreciate these are possibly quite complex questions to answer, so I’ll be happy if you just point me in the right direction. I like the advice in your last post, ” to draw my own conclusions”. I will do this only if I can establish that there is a minimum of bias in the information gathering.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 5:03 pm

You’re an AI bot, aren’t you.

Reply to  TheFinalNail
November 28, 2024 1:35 am

“Demonstrably false”

Here are about 600 regional, written temperature records that demonstrate it is true. They show that it was just as warm in the past as it is today.

No “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profiles here in the written, historical records.

So how do you get a “hotter and hotter and hotter” Hockey Stick temperature profile out of data that does not have a “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile?

Answer: You cheat and lie, and add in fake sea surface temperature data.

That’s your worldview and you just can’t allow yourself to see the discrepancies that form this worldview. I know, it is disconcerting to have one’s worldview turn out to be wrong.

You can fool yourself, but you can’t fool Mother Nature.

I have other charts, if you still want to claim it wasn’t as warm in the recent past as it is today.

https://notrickszone.com/600-non-warming-graphs-1/

Neutral1966
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 8:16 am

“The sea surface temperatures are guesswork”. Thanks for your reply. But here’s a question. Do you subscribe to the existence of the El Ninõ/La Ninã phenomenon? If so, how do you propose SSTs are measured in order to establish ENSO readings? Or is that all guesswork too?

Neutral1966
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 8:22 am

“The written, historical temperature records refute the Hockey Stick temperature profile.”
Again, thanks for taking the time to reply. Can I ask what evidence you have for this? I’ve observed many on this site making a similar point but I’ve not seen much in the way of hard evidence. Maybe I’ve missed it?

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 28, 2024 1:58 am

Well, I supplied a link just about to a FinalNail post showing 600 regional temperature charts that show it was just as warm in the past as it is today.

Here are a couple of charts from around the world that show it was just as warm in the past as it is today.

They certainly don’t show the “hotter and hotter and hotter” temperature profile of the bogus Hockey Stick global temperature chart. They show it was just as hot in the past as it is today.

Since there is much more CO2 in the air today than there was in the past and it is no warmer today than in the past, that must mean that CO2 has very little to do with atmospheric temperatures. More CO2 does not mean hotter temperatures going by a legitimate temperature record.

comment image?resize=640%2C542

comment image?resize=640%2C542

comment image?resize=640%2C542

Now, FinalNail will probably say these charts are out of date, and he would be right, but that doesn’t change the fact that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere. No effect from CO2 can be detected. Other than the greening of plantlife.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 28, 2024 1:47 am

In the modern era we get a lot of measurements of sea surface temperatures, so no, I don’t consider this guesswork.

In the 1800’s and early 1900’s we had very little data on sea surface temperatures. I do consider any sea surface temperatures from this era to be guesswork, and you should, too.

Even the Temperature Data Mannipulators admit there is very little sea surface temperature data available.

Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 6:51 am

Banton always has the gistemp hockey stick at the ready.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  karlomonte
November 27, 2024 9:37 am

And the Hadcrut
And the Berkeley
And JMA
And NOAA

comment image

Oh, and OHC ….

comment image

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 11:07 am

All either using the same FAKEed data or deliberately matched to each other.

They are not independent.

Robert Cutler
Reply to  karlomonte
November 27, 2024 10:37 am

I don’t trust any of the global temperature plots prior to 1900. While I couldn’t find global SST plotted anywhere, it’s easy to compute. I make no claims as to the accuracy of the SST data either, but prior to 1900 it is different from NOAA GST. One has to wonder why. It also is a better match to my predictions, which are also less accurate prior to 1900 because of sketchy sunspot data prior to 1800.

comment image

Reply to  karlomonte
November 28, 2024 2:05 am

The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is the only “evidence” the climate alarmists have, so they bring it out every time.

A couple of decades of warming is supposed to be evidence that CO2 has an effect on the atmosphere.

The Climate Alarmists ignore the fact that it has been just as warm in the past as it is today with much less CO2 in the air then than now. No correlation there, but they want us to think there is a correlation now.

The current warming very well could be all Mother Nature and Climate Alarmists can’t prove otherwise, and a Hockey Stick chart is not that proof, it is only proof of science fraud.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 3:37 am

Let’s use GHCN V4 instead.

After a spike in 2010, Greenland temperature has cooled and is now about what it was in the early 1900s.

GREENLAND-YEARLY-AVERAGE-1
Neutral1966
Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 3:50 am

The tendancy in so many of these articles is to misrepresent certain elements of the studies in question. As soon as this happens, in my opinion anyway, the article is compromised. I think some of those who challenge AGW theory feel that it’s important to “balance the scales”, somehow. By using information manipulation tactics to counter what is believed to be similar tactics used by mainstream CC science, this somehow balances the scales! It doesn’t! It just muddies the waters further, making it even more difficult to wade through the mire of misinformation! Both sides are culpable.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 9:11 am

No one knows what the “global” land absolute temperature was in the 1800’s. That means anomalies are not calculated. Proxies don’t allow the determination of an absolute temperature, only anomalies with a large uncertainty at best.

Don’t make the mistake of calling anomalies a “temperature”, they are not, they are a ΔT. Unless you know the baseline used to calculate the anomaly or know the absolute temperature used you can’t determine the correct value.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 27, 2024 1:30 pm

Ok, this makes sense and if true, goes some way to answering my earlier questions to “The Final Nail”. So, you’re saying that temperature records from the 1800s are: all? mainly? partially? or minimally? based on proxies?

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 3:09 pm

I think they are minimally based on nothing! (sic) There just weren’t temp stations located globally outside the U.S. and Western Europe.

Comparing anomalies as to which one is “warmer” than another is a joke. Anomalies are changes in temperature. I can have an anomaly at of +1 degree at -40 degrees and another anomaly of +1 degree at 30 degrees, how do you tell which one is “warmer”?

I can say that anomalies show that a similar growth rate is occurring, but I can’t say one is occurring at a warmer temperature.

The only way to compare anomalies would be to use one common global temperature as a baseline. Climate science doesn’t want to do this because it would require them to objectively define what the global average temperature SHOULD BE.

Reply to  Jim Gorman
November 27, 2024 4:22 pm

You can’t even define a growth rate as a percentage. 1deg at 30deg is a different growth percentage than 1deg at -40deg.

Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 2:17 am

This “study” is BS
It is data mining and contradicted by all other measurements.

DATA MINING
Climate requires a period of at least 30 years
This is only 19 years
Global warming affects most of the surface
Greenland is 1,2% of Earth’s surface

OTHER DATA
According to recent research, Greenland’s surface temperature has shown a significant warming trend, particularly since the mid-1980s, with the average temperature increasing by approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade over the period 1950-2022; this warming trend is most pronounced in coastal regions, with winter temperatures experiencing the most dramatic increase compared to summer temperatures.

“The ANN indicates a Greenland-wide positive trend of T10 m at 0.2 ∘C per decade during the 1950–2022 period, with a cooling during 1950–1985”
TC – Recent warming trends of the Greenland ice sheet documented by historical firn and ice temperature observations and machine learning

The UAH global average temperature in 2024 is the warmest since records began in 1979. And does show Arctic warming in recent years.

The author has no clues that the lack of warming of Antarctica is a symptom of more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Because of the permanent temperature inversion over most of Antarctica, there is a negative greenhouse effect over most of Antarctica

This study is data mining for science deniers. The article is UK claptrap.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 2:57 am

Certainly the study is at odds with data from both data recording systems: surface & satellite. It’s possible Greenland is anomalous. Similarly, Antarctica is a bit of an anomaly. However, here’s a question: If the polar regions are supposed to be warming more rapidly than other regions, how come Antarctica isn’t? You claim this is due to temperature inversion. Please explain how this is measured. I’m intrigued! Much of the continent is at significant altitude. Do these regions lie above or below the inversion layer? Inversion conditions are usually the result of high pressure systems. Is the whole area under semi permanent high pressure? Looking forward to your reasoning on this🙂

Neutral1966
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 3:03 am

Or is the temperature inversion explanation based on theory rather than on data/evidence?

Neutral1966
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 5:54 am

I see at least 2 people have disapproved of this question. I’m unsure on what grounds the disapproval is based? It’s a perfectly reasonable and genuine question and deserves a reasonable response. I’ve also asked in a previous post more specific questions about the temperature inversion explanation. I’m not challenging it as such, I just want to know more about why Antarctica remains cold and how much evidence there is for temperature inversion explanation. The claim seems like a very interesting one to me…. that GHGs are actually causing the temperature inversion over Antarctica, and that is how the lack of warming in the region is explained. Just present the evidence and I’ll be happy 🙂.If however, it’s based on a computer model and is purely theoretical, then I’ll maintain a degree of skepticism.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 7:09 am

Reasonable physics questions get downvoted regularly around here, apparently by people who obviously don’t know anything about physics. If they had any actual counterargument, they certainly would have presented it instead of just hitting -1. Don’t let it bother you 🙂

Reply to  stevekj
November 28, 2024 2:24 am

Yes, don’t let it bother you. You can’t please everyone and you shouldn’t try. It’s an impossible task.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 9:14 am

GHG does not cause the temperature inversion.

GHG cause global cooling where there is a temperature inversion. Usually called a negative greenhouse effect.

According to research, the average temperature inversion in Antarctica during winter months can be over 25°C, with the strongest and most persistent inversions occurring over the interior of the continent, particularly at locations like Vostok Station, where the inversion is measured as the difference between the air temperature at a standard height (like 1.5 meters) and the maximum temperature in the troposphere; this inversion is most pronounced during the winter months from May to October. 

The Climate Howlers are always talking about Antarctica melting. But there is only a small amount of melting of two ice shelves and the peninsula. The claimed ice mass loss per year is 150 gigatons versus the total ice mass of 24.4 million gigatons. 150 gigatons is certainly below the margin of error of the estimates.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 1:38 pm

Ok, thanks for this, that makes sense. So, I guess this temperature inversion over m Antarctica is nothing new? The negative greenhouse effect there, also not a new phenomenon? Or has the effect been made more extreme by increasing CO2 concentration in the atmosphere by 200ppm/0.02%? Or should I say doubling CO2 in the atmosphere? Concentration up by100% in the last100 yrs. Yep, doubling…sounds extreme for sure but double zero is still zero, as CO2 tends to zero…and all that. Double 0.02%=0.04% according to my schoolboy math. Is this tiny percentage increase all attributable to burning fossil fuels and is it really enough to tip the balance?

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 28, 2024 2:22 am

“I see at least 2 people have disapproved of this question. I’m unsure on what grounds the disapproval is based?”

Yeah, downvoters should voice their opinions about why they disagree rather than hitting the downvote.

I don’t do downvotes. If I disagree, I usually say something.

I do hit the upvote button, though. And if I really like the comment, I will say so in words.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 9:03 am

“If the polar regions are supposed to be warming more rapidly than other regions, how come Antarctica isn’t? You claim this is due to temperature inversion.”

Do your own research.
You can find 10 sources in10 minutes using Google

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 12:36 pm

You could have provided an answer in less time than you’ve taken arguing with people here.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 1:54 pm

Yes, I know but I’m lazy, so I was hoping someone would give me a quick summary 🥴😉😅

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 3:13 am

Show us where Greenland surface temperature is measure.. does it include the expanding URBAN areas around the coast?

Your whole comment is based on data mining.

“is most pronounced in coastal regions”

You mean the expanding coastal towns??

Is there any other evidence of human or CO2 causation apart from very dubious urbanising surface data ?

Even you must have figured out by now that 2024 is a continuation of the 2023 El Nino warming event. You have shown absolutely no evidence of any human causation.

As you are well aware, there is no evidence of any CO2 warming anywhere.

——

“And does show Arctic warming in recent years.”

No actually, UAH NoPol shows a ZERO TREND from 2000-2015,

Then a spike at the 2016 El Nino, THEN COOLING until the 2023 EL Nino.

UAH-NoPol-2023
Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 3:22 am

Temperatures from around the Arctic show 1940 warmer than around 2010.

arctic_temp
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 6:02 am

I like that chart! It shows the real, benign, temperature profile.

It was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, even in the arctic region.

CO2 has had no discernable effect on the arctic temperatures. More CO2 is in the air today than in the past, but it is no warmer today than in the past, therefore, CO2 is a minor player in determining the Earth’s temperatures. How minor is yet to be determined since we can’t even detect a discerable effect from CO2 yet. It can’t be much.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 10:24 am

comment image

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 11:12 am

roflmao..

Banton still hasn’t realised there was a major El Nino in 2023.

Still uses JUNK and maladjusted agenda-faked data.

When will it ever learn. !

UAH from 2000-2015 is zero trend.

Nothing from NOAA’s rabid activists can be trusted.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 12:57 pm

From:
https://zacklabe.com/arctic-temperatures/

comment image

”Annual average 2-m temperature anomalies in the Arctic (67°N+) for various reanalysis data sets. Anomalies are calculated from a 1981-2010 baseline. GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP) is available from 1880 to 2023 at https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (Berkeley) is available from 1850 to 2023 at http://berkeleyearth.org/data/. Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CRv2c) is available from 1851 to 2014 at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.20thC_ReanV2c.pressure.html. NOAA-CIRES-DOE Twentieth Century Reanalysis (20CRv3) is available from 1836 to 2015 at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.20thC_ReanV3.html. ERA-20C is available from 1900 to 2010 at http://apps.ecmwf.int/datasets/data/era20c-daily/levtype=sfc/type=an/. JRA-55 is available from 1958 to 2023 at http://jra.kishou.go.jp/JRA-55/index_en.html. ERA-Interim (ERAi) is available from 1979 to 2018 at https://www.ecmwf.int/en/research/climate-reanalysis/era-interim. ERA5 is available from 1979-2023 at https://apps.ecmwf.int/data-catalogues/era5/. Tools including the NOAA/ESRL Physical Sciences Division Web-based Reanalysis Intercomparison Tool: Monthly/Seasonal Time Series (WRIT) were used for the construction of this plot. Analysis will be updated as annual data becomes available. Graphic was last updated on 1/20/2024.”

That’s the lot Oxy.

There is no other data other than that above.
Please note temperatures in the 1940’s are some 2C below current.
But I’m sure you’ll polish yer tin-foil hat and deny reality somehow.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 3:24 am

Hansen and Jones Show 1940 warmer than 2002.. and we have seen that UAH shows no warming from 2000-2015.

Arctictemps
Neutral1966
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 4:59 am

UAH shows no warming from 2000-2015.
Really? Ok, there was a hiatus. What about the trend from 1979 to present? A clear warming trend, easily discernable by anyone with normal analytical faculties. While I understand the notion that 1960s through 1980s may have been colder than average, let’s just look at the excellent data, that does show a clear warming trend, and then deal with context at another time. If pointing the finger at others for cherry picking the data, why do you present this data in the way that you have?

Neutral1966
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 6:02 am

Here again, someone has disapproved of my post. Please explain why? My enquiry is perfectly valid. Why has the data been presented within a time frame that doesn’t present the whole story, since the beginning of the satellite era? Just in case you believe I’m what you might term a “warmunist”, please review some of my previous posts to see that I am also challenging CC supporters to present evidence for some of their claims.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 6:20 am

Look closely at this chart, the UAH satellite chart from 1979 (when it first got started) to the present day.

comment image

As you can see, the temperatures did in fact cool after the highpoint in 1998, and did not get back up to that level until 2016.

The UAH chart shows how dishonest the computer-generated charts of the period really are.

As you can see from the UAH chart, the temperatures never got higher than 1998, until the year 2016, where the temperature exceeded 1998, by about one-tenth of a degree.

But you wouldn’t know that if you follow NASA and NOAA’s temperature records. They proclaimed about 10 years between 1998, and 2016, as being “the hottest year ever”. One right after another was hotter than he last year, according to NASA and NOAA.

NASA and NOAA are Climate Change Liars and Propgandists.

Do you see any years between 1998, and 2015 that can be declared “the hottest year ever!” on the UAH chart?

You are being lied to about the temperature record. Don’t feel bad as you are no alone in being fooled by dishonest climate alarmists. There are a lot of people in that boat.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 7:03 am

“But you wouldn’t know that if you follow NASA and NOAA’s temperature records. They proclaimed about 10 years between 1998, and 2016, as being “the hottest year ever”. One right after another was hotter than he last year, according to NASA and NOAA.”

First off, UAH is an average of temperature of a depth of atmosphere centred on 4000m, estimated via algorithm from radiances observed by AMSU satellite.
And NOT surface temperature. 
LWIR radiances are particularly sensitve to WV – hence the exaggeration of EN spikes, and conversly LN dips.

comment image

Secondly, UAH necessary misses the rises in land minima (greater than maxima).

Thirdly, 71% of the Earth’s surface is ocean and SST’s have been rising.
UAH does not, cannot, see that.
( Global temperature use SST’s as surface temperature as a substitute for T2m).

comment image

“Global SST changes from 1955 through 2023 according to first level (1 m) data in the IAP/CAS temperature gridded analysis (°C). The black line is the annual value, and the red is the monthly value. The anomalies are relative to a 1981–2010 baseline. The within-year variation of SST is shown in the inner box, with 2023 values shown in black. Credit: Cheng et al.”

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 11:16 am

Idiot, Before 2005 there were no reliable SST measurements for a large proportion of the globe.

But you knew that, didn’t you.

Just deliberately putting forward MADE-UP data again.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 7:58 am

And yet….. there’s still an overall warming trend, when you look at the whole graph, from start to finish….🥴

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 28, 2024 2:56 am

Look at this graph.

It is the U.S. regional chart (Hansen 1999):

comment image

You don’t see that same warming trend in the U.S.

What you see is it was cold in the 1910’s and then the temperatures warmed by about 2.0C into the 1930’s, then the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, and then the temperatures warmed again by about 2.0C to 1998, and both warming periods were of the same magnitude.

CO2 was steadily increasing all during the time period from the 1930’s to the 1970’s, yet the temperatures cooled by about 2.0C. Cold enough that there was a great deal of consternation that the Earth was about to enter another ice age.

What this U.S. regional chart shows you is that it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today (1998=2016=2024) although there is much more CO2 in the air today than there was in the 1930’s.

So the U.S. regional chart and all the other regional charts from around the globe do NOT show this “gradual warming” you refer to. They show that it warms for a few decades and then cools for a few decades and the pattern repeats, and the high and low points are separated by about 2.0C, the high point of today being no higher than in the past.

The “gradual warming” of the bogus Hockey Stick chart is science fiction.

Richard Greene
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 27, 2024 9:28 am

“after the highpoint in 1998, and did not get back up to that level until 2016.”

1998 and 2015/6 were both affected by temporary El Nino heat releases.

This is data mining BS.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 11:23 am

Yes dickei-boi.. the El Ninos cause a warming spike + step.

You finally got there. !!

These El Nino events are, according to the data, the ONLY warming in the UAH data.

Please show us any warming in the UAh data apart from the major El Nino events.

Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 12:12 pm

This is where they never see the connection, it is amazing they fail to see your case.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
November 28, 2024 3:02 am

Blinded by CO2 propaganda.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 28, 2024 3:01 am

Data mining? All I did was state the facts about temperature history. I said nothing about El Nino so this is another of your “Red Herrings”. You are getting bad about throwing them out. Stay on topic.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 11:14 am

… UAH shows no warming from 2000-2015.

YES.. also no warming from 1980-1997

And cooling from 2017 until the 2023 El Nino

There is basically no warming in the UAH data apart from at El Nino events.

Richard Greene
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 9:24 am

UAH warming since the 2014 trough is about +0.4 degrees C. and faster than surface warming data.

The 2023 El Nino ended in May 2024

Socrates
To Do Is To Be

Plato
To Be Is To Do

Sinatra
Do Be Do Be Do

BeNasty2000
Dodo Posting Doo Doo

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 27, 2024 11:23 am

RG the forum clown starts at a trough then uses the two strong El Ninos in 2016 and 2023 to show NATURAL warming

He is well aware that he is creating a totally BOGUS warming trend that has absolutely nothing to do with anything humans have done.

Also thinks the effect of the 2023 El Nino has left the atmosphere.. Such gormless ignorance does not go un-noticed.

Let’s watch little dickie run away again…

1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.

3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.

Reply to  Richard Greene
November 28, 2024 2:18 am

“Climate requires a period of at least 30 years”

Says who?

Oh, yeah, some official-sounding organization makes this arbitrary claim.

November 27, 2024 5:02 am

I have a problem with all the attention being given to the anomaly values as “temperature”. They are not absolute temperatures, they are a ΔT from a baseline absolute temperature. If the baseline is -10°C, then a +2°C anomaly would have an absolute temperature of -8°C. Exactly how much more melting of snow/ice takes place at -8°C than at -10°C?

Duane
November 27, 2024 5:39 am

The warmunists will of course ignore if not attack any data that conflicts with their ideology.

What they have been focusing on for years, knowing that the actual surface temperatures are not warming, is calving of glaciers along the land-sea boundary, claiming that means the glaciers are melting … which is the exact opposite of how glaciers function.

Glaciers only calve off into the sea when they are moving, not melting. They can only move faster (if they are even moving any faster) if either 1) the slope of the underlying land mass increases (uplift in the interior of Greenland), or 2) if MORE ice is accumulating upslope from the land-sea boundary. It’s physics.

But the warmunists count on ignorant media to spread their disinformation.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Duane
November 27, 2024 6:09 am

“….knowing that the actual surface temperatures are not warming,….”
Not true! UAH also shows a clear warming trend since the beginning of the satellite era. Let’s be honest here. I fail to understand why you don’t accept this. Of course it doesn’t necessarily provide overwhelming evidence for AGW but if Christy et al present this data and stand by it, then so should anyone who has reasonable analytical faculties 🙂🤔

Duane
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 10:22 am

Read the data in this post. If you believe the data are wrong, prove it

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Duane
November 27, 2024 7:31 am

The warmunists will of course ignore if not attack any data that conflicts with their ideology.”

The plank thine own eye.

This article has several easily verified errors (see above) and concerns a small area of the Globle …. over a short period.

It most certainly is not data that has any statistical veracity.

Neutral1966
Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 8:04 am

Actually, from what I’m witnessing on this chat, the opposite seems to be the case! Mostly what I see is those with a skeptical bias attacking anyone who produces evidence counter to their own bias. Can’t we keep our comments objective (as far as that is possible) and respectful, rather than going on the attack purely on the basis of disliking evidence that runs contrary to one’s own opinion.

Duane
Reply to  Neutral1966
November 27, 2024 10:27 am

But is so much easier to shout “not true!” than it is to prove the data are not true.

Reply to  Neutral1966
November 28, 2024 3:14 am

“purely on the basis of disliking evidence that runs contrary to one’s own opinion.”

Be careful what you consider to be evidence.

The main dispute between Climate Alarmists and Skeptics is skeptics say climate alarmist don’t have the evidence to back up their claims about CO2.

And they don’t. So if you see something you think is evidence, you should think twice about it. Examine it a little deeper. There is a difference between evidence, and speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions.

All the Climate Alarmists have are speculation, assumptions and unsubstantiated assertions. That’s all they have.

Note that when a skeptic asks a climate alarmists for evidence, the climate alarmists goes silent. That’s because they don’t have any evidence to present. They know it and we know it. Someday, maybe you will know it. It’s good that you are trying to understand the situation.

The main thing to keep in mind is: Bogus Hockey Stick charts are not evidence of anything to do with CO2. The temperatures just happen to be increasing while CO2 is increasing, but that is not always the case, and just because temperatures are increasing doesn’t mean the increase is connected to CO2.

If the climate is acting in a cyclical way, as it has in the past, then there is cooling in our future. The last time it cooled, from 1930’s to the 1970’s, CO2 was steadily increasing. So no correlation with temperatures there.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 28, 2024 3:46 am

 just because temperatures are increasing doesn’t mean the increase is connected to CO2.”

Correlation is not causation. CAGW is so full of “assumptions” and “guesses” that it is unusable. E.g. “CO2 is well mixed globally” – NASA’s own data shows that isn’t the case yet that assumption is endemic in CAGW.

Duane
Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 10:26 am

It is the “small area of the globe” that the warmunists have always claimed would cause the destruction of the Atlantic heat conveyor belt that would plunge northwest Europe into a new ice age.

Very convenient of you to ignore that.

You claim “8 errors” – prove it.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Duane
November 27, 2024 9:58 pm

“8 errors”

Err, I think you may need some new glasses ( in the US – for the eyes).

what I said above ….

This article has several easily verified errors (see above) and concerns a small area of the Globle …. over a short period.”

And I did.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
November 27, 2024 11:25 am

Poor Banton. Nothing he posts has any veracity whatsoever. !

He is well aware it all his GISS and similar graphs are made from corrupted surface data and mal-adjustments.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 9:59 pm

Bless, Oxy projects his own inconsequence.

November 27, 2024 6:25 am

Haven;t seen the actual paper, but this is sounding a lot like other “pauses”. Why focus on such a short period of time, when the uncertainties are enormous. From the published uncertainty graph, Greenland could have been warming at 0.3°C / decade, and still have produced the same trend. Nothing that disproves global warming.

Here’s my approximation of Greenland temperature using UAH data. (Just averaging a rectangle around the area.)

You can see an insignificant cooling trend from 2000 to 2017, agreeing with his article. But the longer term trend is upwards, and significant.

20241127wuwt4
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 6:37 am

The trend from 2000 – 2017 inclusive is

-0.09 ± 0.59°C / decade

From 1979 – 2023 it’s

+0.24 ± 0.14°C / decade

Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 6:38 am

And here’s what the trends look like globally from 2000 – 2017

20241127wuwt1
Duane
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 10:30 am

But it is these very recent years that the warmunists have based their claims of imminent disaster from calving glaciers and “global boiling”.

Can’t have it both ways.

Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 11:30 am

Why focus on such a short period indeed.

Greenland has been COOLING for 8000 years !!

Greenland-at-least-3C-warmer-than-today-with-more-melt-events-during-the-Early-Holocene-Westoff-2022
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 11:33 am

And was cooling from 1930-1995

Greenland-Drinkwater06-copy1
Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 11:35 am

The surface mass balance was also less around 1930, than any time after.

Greenland-Surface-Mass-Balance-Fettweis08
Michael Ketterer
Reply to  bnice2000
November 27, 2024 12:24 pm

not according to more recent papers from the author you cited.

https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2016-268/tc-2016-268.pdf

Reply to  Bellman
November 27, 2024 11:53 am

And From Mikkelsen 2018, we see that the warmest period since 1880was around 1930, and the coldest was in the 1980s.

Current temps , similar to those of the early 1900s

Greenland-Since-1850-Mikkelsen-2018
Steve Oregon
November 27, 2024 6:31 am

Isn’t David Appell out there somewhere explaining things for us?

Steve Oregon
November 27, 2024 6:39 am

Sort of conviniently interestingly I ran acroiss this article. Greenland seems to match the solar brightness decline. .
 
David Appell October 15, 2015

Judith Lean, a scientist at the Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. who studies how the Sun influences Earth’s climate, calls this the most compelling evidence for the conclusion that the Sun is not the cause of Earth’s warming.

“In the past four decades at least — we’ve measured the Sun’s brightness since 1978, using very precise space-based instruments”– Lean explains. “And the overall trend has been downwards by a few tenths of a percent.”

Yet at the same time, the global surface temperature has increased by about 1.1⁰F (0.6⁰C). If the Sun’s irradiance were the dominant force driving changes to our climate, the planet should be experiencing a slight cooling.

Reply to  Steve Oregon
November 27, 2024 1:29 pm

If the Sun’s irradiance were the dominant force driving changes to our climate, the planet should be experiencing a slight cooling.”

It’s actually proof that UHI is a major contaminant for surface temperatures.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Tim Gorman
November 27, 2024 10:04 pm

Yes, a fact that the USCRN proves (sarc)

I'm not a robot
November 27, 2024 7:36 am

It seems to me that attention to any individual measurement value trend characterizing a coupled non-linear dynamical (chaotic) system is nothing more than navel-gazing. You’ll see any trend you want depending on which period you choose.

Trending the value of an intensive quantity like temperature is just as wacky.

The atmosphere is a heat engine, not an insulator.

Talk to me about enthalpy, not temperature.

Oh oh, spell check has not heard of enthalpy, either. Probably from an Ivy League university.

Reply to  I'm not a robot
November 27, 2024 10:52 am

The atmosphere is a heat engine, not an insulator.

The people in climate science need to learn how 
thermosiphons work, like the cooling systems in early ICE farm tractors. Pretty similar to the heat engine inherent in the atmosphere.

I'm not a robot
Reply to  I'm not a robot
November 28, 2024 5:56 am

Where went the edit button?

I meant to write “Trending the average value of an intensive…”.

Sparta Nova 4
November 27, 2024 7:38 am

Extrapolations on partial data can give amazingly wrong results.

The simplest example is a sine wave.

Plot the curve from – PI/2 to 0. It is a curve starting at -1 and ending at 0.
Now extrapolate from the -PI/2 point going more negative. The slope at -PI/2 is zero so you get a straight horizontal line that extends to minus infinity.
Now extrapolate from the 0 point going more positive. The slope at 0 is vertical (infinity).
The result is a hockey stick like graph.

Nyquist sampling is valid. In order to reconstruct one must sample at a rate of > 2x the frequency in question with general approach being 10x to gain fidelity.

Sampling a quarter cycle and extrapolating gives you nonsense.

The point? How much of natural variation occurs in 30 years and not hundreds, thousands, millions of years? Unless the sampling is adequate, reconstruction is flawed or, worse, meaningless.

30 years can be statistically analyzed to yield a trend over the interval, but it can not reveal fundamental cycles in natural variability. Prior to IPCC, climate was in terms of hundreds of millennia and longer. MICRO climates were regional assessments based on 30 years to give people an idea of what kind of weather to expect in the near term.

November 27, 2024 9:08 am

What? “There is said to be “no robust agreement” among the models”.
The easiest thing in the world is to achieve agreement among ‘models’.
After all, they are computer constructs for a particular narrative.
Previously, models with very different internal components have agreed nearly perfectly on what the past climate should have been (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1407229111), in contradistinction to what all measurements said it actually was.
The measurements were deemed at fault.
How sad that the models have not been robustly consistent with the preferred narrative, whatever it is today. Do not fret, the issue will soon be corrected. The expected strong polar warming will be detected – in the models – as expected – irrespective of the actual data.

DFJ150
November 27, 2024 9:17 am

These data points can’t be correct. They don’t fit the models.

November 27, 2024 9:38 am

There are two data sets which are rarely, if ever, mentioned. Apparently, updates were not released after 2010. Why is not clear. Greenland summit temperature was measured from 1987 to 2010, every 3 hours. This is the time period during which the greatest warming SHOULD have occurred according to all climate models. The two data sets, which overlapped, accurately and precisely for several years, are plotted below on the same scale.
The parallel lines are mine.
No significant temperature change, other than usual seasonal variations occurred during those 23 years. If anyone has access to subsequent summit data, I’d like to add it to the plot.

greenland-summit-temps-1987-to-2010
Reply to  whsmith@wustl.edu
November 27, 2024 11:40 am

Interesting graph… thanks 🙂

November 28, 2024 2:08 pm

“Again don’t expect the climate model[er]s to have much idea about what is happening in the real atmosphere.”

December 2, 2024 2:48 pm

Despite the assertion of the OP that the Greenland surface temperature has gone down for 20 years the total Greenland ice has steadily decreased since 1996 (the last year it increased.

Verified by MonsterInsights