By Kenneth Richard on 3. March 2026
Climate changes fostered by “unforced natural climate variability” may be more than an order of magnitude larger than the climate changes commonly attributed to anthropogenic forcing.
In a new study, scientists have attempted to identify the mechanisms explaining Greenland’s many historical (~80,000-11,700 years ago) climate changes that amounted to 10-15°C “in a decade or two.”
The warmer Greenland climate endured for centuries, and the ice sheet’s meltwater contributed to the 20-40 m of sea level rise during these interstadial periods.
Greenland’s abrupt climate changes were likely induced by circulation shifts in ocean heat storage linked to the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which were, in turn, triggered by volcanic forcing and spontaneous, random “internal variability” or “noise”.
“…the AMOC can undergo spontaneous transitions between these [climate] states solely due to internal noise”
“…unforced natural climate variability can modulate the likelihood of a transition occurring under volcanic forcing”
Image Source: Vettoretti et al., 2026
In contrast to the dramatic climate shifts tied to volcanism and “unforced natural climate variability,” modern Greenland has not warmed (net) in the last 100 years despite the foreboding “anthropogenic forcing” that we have been warned about since the 1980s.
Furthermore, the Greenland ice sheet has contributed just 1.2 cm to sea levels from 1992-2020. This is a far cry from the dozens of meters of meltwater contribution induced by internal climate variability, volcanic forcing, and/or “noise” throughout the last glacial.
I smell a rat🙄….. something seems a bit bogus about this so-called “New Study”! Not sure what for now but I’m sure it will become evident over the course of the ensuing discussion …..!
Maybe a follow up study will soon be released “AMOC at its slowest,Volcanos at their lowest in history – yet fastest warming ever.Proof of AGW”
Or maybe just some guys who actually bothered to make a climate study without the AGW honeypot in mind.
And as Stradivarius already suggested below : There are so many parameters in this game that it is impossible to predict any outcome.
We could probably compar two random regions on earth and find out that there are significant differences during the same period of time that can not be explained.
If this is the case then there will never be a model that can make accurate predictions.
And we haven’t even touched highly speculative stuff like meteor impacts or tectonic shifts that open up or bury volacanic fields.
We are still discovering new underwater volcanos on a regular basis as the ones in the arctic, the supervolcano in the pacific and even in small basins like the Mediterranean sea /Sicily.
And Greenland is said to have some freaky underground things going on that is even effecting the arctic.
We literally know a fraction of a fraction of what is going on, yet some know everything about climate because co2 went up ffrom 0.03 % to 0.04 %.
And that’s the problem.
“Stradivarius”
That’s… Strativarius as in Fender Stratocaster.
And not evenly around the world as often spruiked…eg SH is still below 400ppm.
Darn. I need a new bogometer. Mine just broke.
As ever, the take home message is quite simply: nobody knows how it works. They certainly cannot forecast ahead when their state of the art models are crippled at birth by their own subjective biases and faulty assumptions.
That said, one simply has to revel in Ed Miliband’s discomfort.
Donald Trump has urged the UK government to “open up the North Sea” to increase oil and gas production in response to rising energy prices.
Not a single well has been drilled in the last year, the first time since 1964
Donald Trump lights a fire under Ed Miliband – now Starmer has a huge decision to make
As war rages in Iran, Ed Miliband is in the firing line too. And it’s his own stupid fault. – Express
Miliband’s department risks a war of words with Donald Trump after flatly refusing his call to “open up the North Sea”.
…
issuing fresh licences to explore potential oil fields would “not take a penny off bills . . . and will only accelerate the worsening climate crisis”, the Department of Energy Security & Net Zero [DESNZ] insisted. – GB News
Miliband is a complete idiot. When you buy gas from a supplying nation there is competition with other buyers on the international market… Now you know why we’re in such a mess. It’s a pity we don’t have an active volcano.
“Miliband is a complete idiot…”
No, he can’t be complete – there’s something missing somewhere… a brain?
flatly refusing […] to “open up the North Sea”.
Is akin to the mind of Dr Mengele – who is now carrying out research for the NHS
Animal experimentation No. Human experimentation Yes.
This appears to be another report about how dynamic the natural Earth variations are. The final closing of the Isthmus of Panama, about 3 million years ago, may have enforced the Ice Age we now live in, with timing by the Milankovitch cycles. They just discovered a great fossilized dinosaur skeleton in the Sahara. This kind of natural variation is why geologists laugh at the idea of a 1.5 deg C temperature increase and a one third meter sea level rise.
I’m a geologist living in SE VA. in eastern Virginia (and along the mid-Atlantic region in general) we have the Coastal Plain. the CP is a sequence of marine sediments from the basement rocks to the near surface and represents sands, silts and muds deposited in former marine environments (the sea, for the uninitiated). In VA, CP sediments extend as far inland as near Richmond, and to an elevation of near 200 ft above (current) sea level. Now that’s sea level rise.
Was the water higher or was the land lower?
Bingo, relative sea level rise. Probably a little of both. Tectonic stresses cause crustal blocks (basins or embayments) to move up or down over time. An uplifting embayment would result in shallowing seas and relative sea level drop, while a downdropping block would result in deepening seas and relative sea level rise. (I don’t remember that much from my Coastal Plain Geology courses. that was so last-century).
And we really have no idea of how much those undersea levels have gone up or down since our satellites can’t microwave range underwater…on only 70% of the planet plus ice covered parts.
With accumulated sedimentary geosynclinal sequences of up to approximately 40,000-feet, what’s one foot of sea level rise among friends?
The first paragraph of that paper has the word “could”. As soon as I see that word I stop reading.
I’m more worried about those who are absolutely certain and think that science can be “settled” like by a judge, poll or popularity contest.
All that “could” really means is that it is not impossible. It says nothing about the numeric probability except an implied low probability.
Chaos in action. Not hard to understand. Reality.
What’s the difference between a ‘forcing” and a “noise”? That’s a problem, when using such undefined terms in something that is purporting to be a technical discussion. It certainly makes one wary of any conclusions that are drawn. I appreciate that the word “forcing” is used regularly in Climate Cult discussions. That doesn’t make it defined. It certainly doesn’t relate to a technically defined “force”.
And “noise” really means “stuff we don’t understand”.
Both Forcing and Noise are defined in their appropriate fields.
I went googling for the definitions,
“Climate forcing refers to an imposed change in the Earth’s energy balance—the difference between sunlight absorbed and energy radiated back to space. Measured in Watts per square meter, it represents the driver of climate change, where positive values warm the surface and negative values cool it.”
“Noise in climate science refers to unpredictable, chaotic, short-term fluctuations (like daily weather or internal climate variability) that obscure long-term, human-caused trends (the signal). Distinguishing this noise from the climate change signal is crucial for detecting trends and improving model accuracy, often requiring multi-model ensembles to average out noise.”
These seem like obfuscations to me… eg what does “unpredictable” mean to a field that makes no testable predictions?
Then starts over-analysis like what weight is the word “imposed” carrying in the phrase “imposed change”?
Those are common language, social, context derived definitions that have no relationship to the concise scientific/engineering definitions.
,which are…?
That is the tell that gives away the unstated assumptions.
You are focused, as you should be, on the mistaken use by skeptics using the Tans-Reality Alarmist lexicon.
*appaluse*
Hard to type properly when you’re rolling around on the floor laughing, isn’t it?<g>
Or it could be periodic Milankovitch cycles that are thought to cause glacial cycles at ~100,000 year intervals. Unless Mr. Vettoretti thinks that there are periodic volcanic cycles at 100,000 year intervals for which he cites no evidence. And who needs evidence when he has computer “simulations?”
Now we have that to worry about.
These are HOLOCENE climate swings, not “historical” climate swings
What! Only 10-15 degrees? If the alarmists are going to utilize scare tactics as usual, why stop at such low numbers? Go for the 30-40 degrees within only a decade because few people are paying any attention to these figures regardless of how conservative or outlandish they might be.
“spontaneous, random “internal variability” or “noise””
Probably large changes in indirect solar forcing.
D-O events can’t happen during an interglacial as Greenland is already 10-15°C warmer.
Anybody checked what happens if icebergs plug the Denmark strait at the top of the big underwater waterfall?