Anthropogenic Influence On Arctic Climate
‘Too Small To Be Detected’
Source: Haine, 2016
The evidence compiled in scientific papers continues to rapidly accumulate.
An anthropogenic signal in the regional Arctic climate is still too small to be detected.
Temperature, glacier melt, and sea ice changes are all well within the range of natural variation for the Arctic region. The changes that do occur have identifiable origins that are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations or human emissions.
Below is a brief summary of some of the latest research that underscores the lack of connection between anthropogenic influences and climate-related changes in the Arctic.
Arctic Temperature And Ice Retreat Mechanisms
1. Arctic Warming Since 1990s ‘Dominated By Natural Variability’ (NAO)
Orsi et al., 2017
The recent warming trend in North Greenland … We find that δ 18O [temperature/climate proxy] has been increasing over the past 30 years, and that the decade 1996-2005 is the second highest decade in the 287-year record (Figure 4). The highest δ 18O values were found in 1928, which is also an extreme year in GISP2 and NGRIP ice cores, and in a coastal South Greenland composite [Vinther et al., 2006; Masson-Delmotte et al., 2015], but the decadal average (1926-1935) is not statistically different from the decade (2002-2011).
The surface warming trend has been principally attributed to sea ice retreat and associated heat fluxes from the ocean [Serreze et al., 2009; Screen and Simmonds, 2010a, b], to a negative trend in the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) since 1990, increasing warm air advection on the West Coast of Greenland and Eastern Canada [Hanna et al., 2012; Fettweis et al., 2013; Ding et al., 2014], and to an increase in the Greenland Blocking Index [Hanna et al., 2013]. These latter mechanisms could be dominated by natural variability rather than forced response to the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gases [Fettweis et al., 2013; Screen et al., 2014].
2. Arctic Ice Melt Since 1995 Due To Natural Cloud Cover Decrease, NAO
Hofer et al., 2017
Decreasing cloud cover drives the recent mass loss on the Greenland Ice Sheet … The Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has been losing mass at an accelerating rate since the mid-1990s. … We show, using satellite data and climate model output, that the abrupt reduction in surface mass balance since about 1995 can be attributed largely to a coincident trend of decreasing summer cloud cover enhancing the melt-albedo feedback. Satellite observations show that, from 1995 to 2009, summer cloud cover decreased by 0.9 ± 0.3% per year. Model output indicates that the GrIS summer melt increases by 27 ± 13 gigatons (Gt) per percent reduction in summer cloud cover, principally because of the impact of increased shortwave radiation over the low albedo ablation zone. The observed reduction in cloud cover is strongly correlated with a state shift in the North Atlantic Oscillation promoting anticyclonic conditions in summer and suggests that the enhanced surface mass loss from the GrIS is driven by synoptic-scale changes in Arctic-wide atmospheric circulation. … Th[e] strong correlation between summertime NAO index and the MAR-based cloud cover could be used to forecast whether the observed reduction in cloud cover during summer, and the associated increase in GrIS melt, is likely to continue.
3. Geothermal Heat Flux From ‘All Over’ Greenland The ‘Primary Process’ Behind Temperature Changes
Rysgaard et al., 2018
The Greenland ice sheet (GIS) is losing mass at an increasing rate due to surface melt and flow acceleration in outlet glaciers. … Recently it was suggested that there may be a hidden heat source beneath GIS caused by a higher than expected geothermal heat flux (GHF) from the Earth’s interior. Here we present the first direct measurements of GHF from beneath a deep fjord basin in Northeast Greenland. Temperature and salinity time series (2005–2015) in the deep stagnant basin water are used to quantify a GHF of 93 ± 21 mW m−2 which confirm previous indirect estimated values below GIS. A compilation of heat flux recordings from Greenland show the existence of geothermal heat sources beneath GIS and could explain high glacial ice speed areas such as the Northeast Greenland ice stream. … Geothermal springs with source water temperatures above 0 °C have been found all over Greenland, especially around Disko Island in West Greenland, where several thousands of such springs have been identified. … Therefore, we assume that vertical turbulent mixing and GHF [geothermal heat flux] are the primary processes behind the observed salinity and temperature change.
4. Recent Winter Arctic Warming Driven By Planetary Scale Waves
Baggett and Lee, 2017
The dynamical mechanisms that lead to wintertime Arctic warming during the planetary-scale wave (PSW) and synoptic-scale wave (SSW) life cycles are identified by performing a composite analysis of ERA-Interim reanalysis data. The PSW life cycle is preceded by localized tropical convection over the Western Pacific. Upon reaching the mid-latitudes, the PSWs amplify as they undergo baroclinic conversion and constructively interfere with the climatological stationary waves. The PSWs [planetary scale waves] flux large quantities of sensible and latent heat into the Arctic which produces a regionally enhanced greenhouse effect that increases downward IR and warms the Arctic two-meter temperature. The SSW life cycle is also capable of increasing downward IR and warming the Arctic two-meter temperature, but the greatest warming is accomplished in the subset of SSW events with the most amplified PSWs. Consequently, during both the PSW and SSW life cycles, wintertime Arctic warming arises from the amplification of the PSWs [planetary scale waves].
5. Recent Canadian Arctic Warming (1988-1996) And Cooling (1997-2016) Driven By The AO
Mallory et al., 2018
The AO [Arctic Oscillation] has positive and negative phases that infuence broad weather patterns across the northern hemisphere (Thompson et al. 2000). For example, during the positive phase of the AO, atmospheric pressure over the Arctic is lower than average, which tends to result in warmer and wetter winters in northern regions as warmer air is able to move further north (Thompson et al. 2000; Aanes et al. 2002). … From 1988 to 1996, the summer intensity of the AO was largely in the positive phase, with a mean value of 0.207 (± 0.135 SE), and this was a period of population stability or growth for each of the three herds that we examined here. In contrast, from 1997 to 2016 the summer AO has remained largely in the negative phase [cooling], with a mean value of − 0.154 (± 0.077 SE), and over this period the Bathurst, Beverly, and Qamanirjuaq herds declined in abundance. … We found that positive intensities of the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in the summer were associated with warmer temperatures, improved growing conditions for vegetation, and better body condition of caribou.
6. Greenland Glacier Retreat, Growth Linked To The NAO
Bjørk et al., 2017
Changes in Greenland’s peripheral glaciers linked to the North Atlantic Oscillation … [W]e map glacier length fluctuations of approximately 350 peripheral glaciers and ice caps in East and West Greenland since 1890. Peripheral glaciers are found to have recently undergone a widespread and significant retreat at rates of 12.2 m per year and 16.6 m per year in East and West Greenland, respectively; these changes are exceeded in severity only by the early twentieth century post-Little-Ice-Age retreat. Regional changes in ice volume, as reflected by glacier length, are further shown to be related to changes in precipitation associated with the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), with a distinct east–west asymmetry; positive phases of the NAO increase accumulation, and thereby glacier growth, in the eastern periphery, whereas opposite effects are observed in the western periphery. Thus, with projected trends towards positive NAO in the future, eastern peripheral glaciers may remain relatively stable, while western peripheral glaciers will continue to diminish.
7. Arctic’s Polar Vortex Changes ‘Primarily A Result Of Natural Internally-Generated Climate Variability’
Seviour, 2017
Weakening and shift of the Arctic stratospheric polar vortex: Internal variability or forced response? … By comparing large ensembles of historical simulations with pre-industrial control simulations for two coupled climate models, the ensemble mean response of the vortex is found to be small relative to internal variability. There is also no relationship between sea-ice decline and trends in either vortex location or strength. Despite this, individual ensemble members are found to have vortex trends similar to those observed, indicating that these trends may be primarily a result of natural internally-generated climate variability.
Arctic Temperature Changes In Recent Decades
8. No Net Warming Since 1940s/1950s In Alaska, Subarctic North Atlantic, Siberia…Climate Trends Consistent With 50-90 Year AMO
Nicolle et al., 2018
Persistent multidecadal variability with a period of 50– 90 years is consistent between the subarctic North Atlantic mean record and the AMO over the last 2 centuries (AD 1856–2000). … In the North Atlantic sector, instrumental sea surface temperature (SST) variations since AD 1860 highlight low-frequency oscillations known as the AMO (Kerr, 2000). … The LIA is, however, characterized by an important spatial and temporal variability, particularly visible on a more regional scale (e.g., PAGES 2k Consortium, 2013). It has been attributed to a combination of natural external forcings (solar activity and large volcanic eruptions) and internal sea ice and ocean feedback, which fostered long-standing effects of short-lived volcanic events (Miller et al., 2012).
9. Greenland Has Been Cooling Since 2001
Westergaard-Nielsen et al., 2018
Here we quantify trends in satellite-derived land surface temperatures and modelled air temperatures, validated against observations, across the entire ice-free Greenland. … Warming trends observed from 1986–2016 across the ice-free Greenland is mainly related to warming in the 1990’s. The most recent and detailed trends based on MODIS (2001–2015) shows contrasting trends across Greenland, and if any general trend it is mostly a cooling. The MODIS dataset provides a unique detailed picture of spatiotemporally distributed changes during the last 15 years. … Figure 3 shows that on an annual basis, less than 36% of the ice-free Greenland has experienced a significant trend and, if any, a cooling is observed during the last 15 years (<0.15 °C change per year).
10. Greenland Has Been Cooling Since 2005
Kobashi et al., 2017
For the most recent 10 years (2005 to 2015), apart from the anomalously warm year of 2010, mean annual temperatures at the Summit exhibit a slightly decreasing trend in accordance with northern North Atlantic-wide cooling. The Summit temperatures are well correlated with southwest coastal records (Ilulissat, Kangerlussuaq, Nuuk, and Qaqortoq).
11. No Net Warming In Greenland For The Last 90 Years
Kobashi et al., 2017
Arctic Sea Ice Changes
12. Arctic Sea Ice Expanding Since 1988 (Bohai Sea), AO & NAO ‘Primary’ Climate Factors
Yan et al., 2017
Afforded by continuous satellite imagery, evolution of sea ice cover over nearly three decades from 1988 to 2015 in the Bohai Sea [North China] as a peculiar mid-latitude frozen sea area is reported for the first time. An anomalous trend of slight overall increase of 1.38 ± 1.00% yr–1 (R = 1.38, i.e. at a statistical significance of 80%) in Bohai Sea ice extent was observed over the 28 year period. … Correlation with decreasing Arctic Oscillation (AO) index (r = –0.60, p < 0.01) and North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index (r = –0.69, p < 0.01) over the study period suggested AO and NAO as the primary large-scale climate factors for Bohai Sea ice.
13. Arctic Sea Ice Oscillates…Not Significantly Lower Now Than In The 1940s
Connolly et al., 2017
According to this new dataset, the recent period of Arctic sea ice retreat since the 1970s followed a period of sea ice growth after the mid 1940s, which in turn followed a period of sea ice retreat after the 1910s. Our reconstructions agree with previous studies that have noted a general decrease in Arctic sea ice extent (for all four seasons) since the start of the satellite era (1979). However, the timing of the start of the satellite era is unfortunate in that it coincided with the end of several decades during which Arctic sea ice extent was generally increasing. This late-1970s reversal in sea ice trends was not captured by the hindcasts of the recent CMIP5 climate models used for the latest IPCC reports, which suggests that current climate models are still quite poor at modelling past sea ice trends.
14. Arctic Sea Ice Extent Only Slightly Lower Now Than During Little Ice Age, Much Higher Now Than Most Of Last 7,000 Years
Perner et al., 2018
[W]e find evidence of distinct late Holocene millennial-scale phases of enhanced El Niño/La Niña development, which appear synchronous with northern hemispheric climatic variability. Phases of dominant El Niño-like states occur parallel to North Atlantic cold phases: the ‘2800 years BP cooling event’, the ‘Dark Ages’ and the ‘Little Ice Age’, whereas the ‘Roman Warm Period’ and the ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’ parallel periods of a predominant La Niña-like state. Our findings provide further evidence of coherent interhemispheric climatic and oceanic conditions during the mid to late Holocene, suggesting ENSO as a potential mediator.
15. Solar Forcing Drives Arctic Sea Ice Trends, Sea Ice Higher Now Than Nearly All Of The Last 8,000 Years
Yamamoto et al., 2017
Millennial to multi-centennial variability in the quartz / feldspar ratio (the BG [Beaufort Gyre] circulation) is consistent with fluctuations in solar irradiance, suggesting that solar activity affected the BG [Beaufort Gyre] strength on these timescales. … Multi-century to millennial fluctuations, presumably controlled by solar activity, were also identified in a proxy-based BSI [Bering Strait in-flow] record characterized by the highest age resolution. … Proxy records consistent with solar forcing were reported from a number of paleoclimatic archives, such as Chinese stalagmites (Hu et al., 2008), Yukon lake sediments (Anderson et al., 2005), and ice cores (Fisher et al., 2008), as well as marine sediments in the northwestern Pacific (Sagawa et al., 2014) and the Chukchi Sea (Stein et al., 2017).
16. Southwest Greenland: Sea Ice Increasing Since 1930s, No Net Change In Temperature Since 1600
Kryk et al., 2017
Our study aims to investigate the oceanographic changes in SW Greenland over the past four centuries (1600-2010) based on high-resolution diatom record using both, qualitative and quantitative methods. July SST during last 400 years varied only slightly from a minimum of 2.9 to a maximum of 4.7 °C and total average of 4°C. 4°C is a typical surface water temperature in SW Greenland during summer.
The average April SIC [sea ice concentration] was low (c. 13%) [during the 20th century], however a strong peak of 56.5% was recorded at 1965. This peak was accompanied by a clear drop in salinity (33.2 PSU).
17. Arctic Sea Ice Trends Linked To The AMO, NAO, Sea Ice Lower Than Today During Medieval Climate Anomaly
Kolling et al., 2017
[O]ur reconstructions reveal several oscillations with increasing/decreasing sea ice concentrations that are linked to the known late Holocene climate cold/warm phases, i.e. the Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages Cold Period, Medieval Climate Anomaly and Little Ice Age. The observed changes seem to be connected to general ocean atmosphere circulation changes, possibly related to North Atlantic Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation regimes. Furthermore, we identify a cyclicity of 73–74 years in sea ice algae and phytoplankton productivity over the last 1.2 kyr, which may indicate a connection to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation mechanisms.
18. Arctic Amplification, Sea Ice Loss Not Explained By CO2 Forcing
Kim et al., 2017
Understanding the Mechanism of Arctic Amplification and Sea Ice Loss
Sea ice reduction is accelerating in the Barents and Kara Seas. Several mechanisms are proposed to explain the accelerated loss of polar sea ice, which remains an open question. … [T]he role of upward and downward longwave radiations in Arctic amplification is vague and not fully understood.
[CO2 is not mentioned in the paper as a mechanism responsible for Arctic amplification or sea ice loss.]
Long Term Changes In Arctic Region Temperatures
19. Greenland 1°C to 3°C Warmer Than Now For Most Of The Last 8,000 Years
Kobashi et al., 2017
After the 8.2 ka event, Greenland temperature reached the Holocene thermal maximum with the warmest decades occurring during the Holocene (2.9 ± 1.4 °C warmer than the recent decades) at 7960 ± 30 years B.P.
20. Arctic-Wide Temperatures Warmer Than Now During The Medieval Warm Period
Werner et al., 2017
[S]tatistical testing could not provide conclusive support of the contemporary warming to supersede the peak of the MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly] in terms of the pan-Arctic mean summer temperatures.
21. Northern Alaska Warmer During Medieval Times
Hanna et al., 2018
Here, we utilize one such sediment archive from Simpson Lagoon, Alaska, located adjacent to the Colville River Delta to reconstruct temperature variability and fluctuations in sediment sourcing over the past 1700 years. Quantitative reconstructions of summer air temperature […] reveal temperature departures correlative with noted climate events (i.e. ‘Little Ice Age’, ‘Medieval Climate Anomaly’). … Reconstructed temperatures are generally coolest between 300 and 800 CE (Tavg = 2.24 ± 0.98°C), displaying three temperature minima centered at 410 CE (1.34 ± 0.72°C), 545 CE (1.91 ± 0.69°C), and 705 CE (1.49 ± 0.69°C). Temperatures then rapidly increased, reaching the warmest interval (800–1000 CE) in the approximately 1700-year record. During this interval, average temperatures were 3.31 ± 0.65°C, with a maximum temperature of 3.98°C.
Why am I not surprised about the findings of these 20 papers?
They back up basically everything that was already known.
1. We are at a cold period in the current interglacial. Cooler than the MWP, and only a bit warmer than the LIA.
2. Even in the last 100 years, temperatures are probably not dissimilar from those of the 1940s
3. Humans have had very little effect on climate as a whole.
4. there is no indication of any warming effect from CO2
Hmm, comment got deleted? Or just lost again?
Well whatever … I clicked on one of the papers and it was talking all about the influence of GHGs in Greenland. Not at all what the title of this post promised. Will this also happen when actually reading the other papers?
Please do find it and expose this!
K,
From the look of a comment down the bottom, It appears seb is referring to an “AGW compliance” bit of modelled commentary basically saying that the NEOGLACIATION would have been more rapid if it weren’t for GHG forcing from SUVs.
Ahhh…. I see it now.
Apparently SebastianH thinks that anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising in the “late Holocene”.
Interestingly, Greenland began cooling (for 4-5 decades, 1940s-1980s/1990s) immediately after anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising.
Yep, so much data is now being gathered that shows that opposite correlation.
Now the AMO is truning downwards, more and more evidence will come to light that CO2 has very little effect…
Certainly NO WARMING (that is already proven by the fact that there has only been El Nino warming in the satellite temperature era)
Possibly a slight COOLING due to enhanced radiative transfer.
Nope, that is entirely your interpretation and not what the author writes or I think.
The title of the post says that these papers crush a man-made link to Arctic climate change. Considering the “influence of GHGs” in Greenland began in the Late Holocene according to the actual quote from Kobashi et al. (2017)…
“Therefore, the decreasing temperature trend from the middle to the late Holocene likely results from orbital forcing, but 43% of the orbitally induced cooling was compensated by the increasing GHG forcing.”
…and you claimed this Kobashi quote is “not at all” what the title of the article “promised”, a reasonable interpretation of your accusation above is necessarily that the man-made influence began when the GHG influence began…”the late Holocene”.
And please do tell. Why did Greenland cool by 1-2 degrees C for 40-50 years after the 1940s, or just as anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising, if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are what cause warming in Greenland? Why did the opposite of your claim occur?
For that matter, why does the Kobashi paper (the one you think supports your beliefs) state that Greenland has been cooling since 2005? Why would Greenland be cooling just as human emissions were sky-rocketing? How does this support YOUR claim that the Kobashi paper does not support the claim made in the title?
Ah, so the rise in atmospheric CO2 was TOTALLY NATURAL.
Thanks seb. !
As you well know seb,
There is absolutely ZERO PROOF that CO2 causes any sort of warming.
So the modelling obviously misses out on something in the way of what caused the cooling.
Just like current climate models miss out on what REALLY caused the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL warming since the LIA.
The only temperature data that is reliable , the satellite data, shows VERY CLEARLY that the ONLY warming has come from EL Nino events..
… and there has been ABSOLUTELY ZERO sign of any warming from the HIGHLY BENEFICIAL rise in atmospheric CO2.
If you really had even the remotest REAL science that proved CO2 warming, you wouldn’t keep RUNNING and HIDING from producing such proof.
Kenneth, if you must re-read that sentence a hundred times. Show the sentence to friends and family and ask them what it means.
I have no idea why you would come to the conclusion that GHG influence began in the late Holocene. Especially when you are looking at the figures in this paper. You see what you want to see …
Again, you’re missing it. You claimed that that quote about GHGs influencing temperature was “not at all” what the title promised. For the third time explaining this to you now, the title talks about a MAN-MADE influence on Arctic climate. As you know, MAN-MADE CO2 emissions didn’t begin rising until the 1940s. You are making the assumption that Kobashi is saying that the warming in Greenland coincided with the MAN-MADE CO2 emissions increase. It did not. The increase in temperatures for Greenland occurred during the 1870s to 1930s/40s period, as shown clearly on the graph I’ve provided both here and in the article. That temperature rise occurred before MAN-MADE CO2 emissions began rising. This is why both AndyG55 and I wrote that it would appear that you are now agreeing that the CO2 rise was natural, as it occurred before the MAN-MADE emissions began rising. Hopefully, with this 3rd attempt, you will finally understand what it is that we have been explaining to you. Or you’ll just continue repeating yourself and pretend you don’t understand.
Since the 1940s, or since MAN-MADE emissions began rising, Greenland cooled for 5 decades and there hasn’t been any net warming trend for 80 years. It’s been cooling since 2005. That’s what the Kobashi paper shows. Do you think this helps support your beliefs that MAN-MADE emissions are significantly affecting the Greenland climate?
Seb as always..
COMPREHENSION ZERO
SCIENCE ZERO !
Do try harder, seb.. we need the comedy.
This is beyond ridiculous now.
Nope.
The very first figure (part b) in that paper clearly shows an increase later on.
The temperature varies and this paper clearly shows that the GHGs forcing in the NH is significant. Just look at figure 3. I don’t know how you could even get that impression.
Wth?
I am afraid you are the one who is not understanding what I have written. But that’s ok. You have that tendency …
You must be kidding, right? What is so hard to understand from that simple sentence? Almost half of the orbitally induced cooling was compensated later on by the increase in GHG forcing (which happened in the last few decades, not the over the whole “late Holocene”.
So you think you explained something 3 times now and still, you interpret that paper like a good “skeptic” who believes in nothing but “everything is natural”. No, the influence didn’t began in the late Holocene, it began when human emissions increased the GHG forcing. Very clearly visible in the graphs in figure 3 of that paper. Then you think that GHG forcing necessarily means that something has to actually warm, when not cooling as much as without it is the same thing. It’s really weird what you guys assume and then argue against.
Go on, live in that fantasy world. I won’t bother reading the other papers, but my guess is at least one third doesn’t “crush” any claims. That’s only a result of your imagination.
Correct. The 1990s-2005 increase in temperature occurred after the 50-year cooling trend (1940s-1990s) did. Since 2005, it’s been cooling again. The entire post-1940s trend is no warmer than the 1920s to 1940s trend, meaning that there has been no net warming in the last 80 years — the same period of time that anthropogenic emissions began rising. This does not support your original claim that the Kobashi paper supports the position that an anthropogenic signal is detectable for Greenland. The opposite is true.
Does it? Here is a graph of the NH ocean temperature found in the paper.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Hemisphere-Ocean-Temps-Kobashi-2017.jpg
Notice that not only are the modern temperatures still colder than most of the last several thousand years, but neither is there even a clearly detectable uptick in temperature trends during the recent century. So where is this “NH” anthropogenic fingerprint, SebastianH?
So why isn’t this detectable in the graph above, which shows the ocean temperatures in the NH are no warmer today than during most of the Little Ice Age, or the MWP, when temperatures were warmer but CO2 concentrations were in the 270 ppm range and anthropogenic emissions were zero?
If it began when anthropogenic emissions began rising, the anthropogenic influence began in the 1940s. Since the 1940s, though, there has been no net warming in Greenland (Hanna et al., 2011).
It’s even cooled since 2005 (Kobashi et al., 2017). Some scientists even say it’s been cooling since 2001 (Westergaard-Nielson et al., 2018) So in what way has the anthropogenic influence (that began in the 1940s) been detectable (assuming the anthropogenic influence has actually caused warming)?
Is it really a “fantasy world” that the increase in Greenland’s temperatures occurred before the anthropogenic influence did?
—
http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf
“Meteorological station records and regional climate model output are combined to develop a continuous 168-yr (1840–2007) spatial reconstruction of monthly, seasonal, and annual mean Greenland ice sheet near-surface air temperatures. The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
Totally OT
Things people send me. How to get rid of snow !!
https://safeshare.tv/x/DYEsPODBwX#gKp20EM3Zibv4zoO.14
Impress show AndyG55.
Shows the power of a proper diesel engined loco has, try the same with one of those light-weight electric ones (and see it leave the rails).
Actually Tom the NZ diesel and electric locomotives are of similar weights, with the electric ones about 12% more powerful.
And the take-away message from all this research is that weather and climate variations are naturally cyclic, and not affected to any degree by humans achievements on this planet.
Of course on the mythological virtual climate world that the UN-IPCC subscribe to, it shows how pseudoscience and political bias give unverified nonsense. However this loudly promulgated UN-IPCC nonsense is used to move many in the western world to make stupid decisions, wasting resources and public money to no good effect.
tomomason:
They have Staff meetings to discuss how to waste resources, also to demand more resources to waste, and how to protest about the inadequate resources they get. Then, instead of their job, they write articles for sympathetic** media outlets about how badly they are treated, and complaining about adverse comments which concentrate on reality. A nice warm glow prevades the group, except for those who don’t wholeheartedly accept the non-sense.
Reminds me of the time I was in a P.S. office after techical advice and his gripe was that the offices hadn’t been up-graded in nearly 5 years (instead of the expected 3 years). I was hard put not to explain that my (public company office, nor that of my boss) hadn’t been up-graded in 13 years as he would have dismissed me as inferior.
Wit always wins over anger
When Gandhi was studying law at University College, London, a professor, whose last name was Peters, disliked him intensely and always displayed prejudice and animosity towards him. Also, because Gandhi never lowered his head when addressing him, as he expected… there were always “arguments” and confrontations.
One day, Mr Peters was having lunch at the dining room of the University, and Gandhi came along with his tray and sat next to the professor.
The professor said, “Mr Gandhi, you do not understand. A pig and a bird do not sit together to eat.”
Gandhi looked at him as a parent would a rude child and calmly replied, “You do not worry professor. I’ll fly away,” and he went and sat at another table.
Mr Peters, reddened with rage, decided to take revenge on the next test paper, but Gandhi responded brilliantly to all questions.
Mr Peters, unhappy and frustrated, asked him the following question. “Mr Gandhi, if you were walking down the street and found a package, and within was a bag of wisdom and another bag with a lot of money, which one would you take?”
Without hesitating, Gandhi responded, “The one with the money, of course.” Mr Peters, smiling sarcastically said, “I, in your place, would have taken wisdom, don’t you think?” Gandhi shrugged indifferently and responded, “Each one takes what he doesn’t have.
Mr Peters, by this time was beside himself and so great was his anger that he wrote on Gandhi’s exam sheet the word “idiot” and gave it to Gandhi. Gandhi took the exam sheet and sat down at his desk trying very hard to remain calm while he contemplated his next move. A few minutes later, Gandhi got up, went to the professor and said to him in a dignified but sarcastically polite tone, “Mr Peters, you signed the sheet, but you did not give me the grade.”
Open Nr. 19 then and actually read it. What’s the influence of GHGs according to this paper? 🙂
“From 7,000 years B.P. to the present, the experiment without orbital forcing displays a warming trend, whereas the simulation without GHG forcing overestimates the cooling trend.
Therefore, the decreasing temperature trend from the middle to the late Holocene likely results from orbital forcing, but 43% of the orbitally induced cooling was compensated by the increasing GHG forcing.”
So human emissions began rising in the “late Holocene”? I thought it was the late 1940s…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CO2-Emissions-GtC-1900-2016.jpg
Wouldn’t rising GHG forcing during the Late Holocene ensue from natural sources, not fossil fuel emissions?
Oddly, from the late 1940s to the late 1980s (when human emissions exploded), Greenland cooled. So how is this comment even remotely supportive of AGW?
It should be noted that the Greenland ice area is only a tiny dip down from the HIGHEST EXTENT in 8000 years.
https://s19.postimg.org/ceo16fi7n/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Briner.jpg
MWP would have been a much better time to live in Greenland, as the Vikings showed.
And the 6000 years before that would have been highly prosperous around the coast if anyone lived there.
Merely answering the lad’s question.
As to yours: Nothing in this paper is remotely supportive of AGW.
That’s not what the quote says, Kenneth. You often accuse me of misinterpreting you and that I should only refer to what you actually wrote. Yet you regularly get it wrong what other people are saying/writing. So read it again, please, and tell us what this is saying (if it helps, look at figure 3 in that paper).
Read the paper, Kenneth. Look at the figures. Of course the whole thing is just models, but you brought it up “to crush claims of man made link to arctic climate”, so i guess models are valid tools now.
“43% of the orbitally induced cooling was compensated by the increasing GHG forcing.”
If you look at the figures you’ll see the timespan this happened.
The title of the post says that these papers crush a man-made link to Arctic climate change. Considering the “influence of GHGs” in Greenland began in the Late Holocene according to the actual quote from Kobashi et al. (2017)…
“Therefore, the decreasing temperature trend from the middle to the late Holocene likely results from orbital forcing, but 43% of the orbitally induced cooling was compensated by the increasing GHG forcing.”
…and you claimed this Kobashi quote is “not at all” what the title of the article “promised”, a reasonable interpretation of your accusation above is necessarily that the man-made influence began when the GHG influence began…”the late Holocene”.
And please do tell. Why did Greenland cool by 1-2 degrees C for 40-50 years after the 1940s, or just as anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising, if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are what cause warming in Greenland? Why did the opposite of your claim occur?
For that matter, why does the Kobashi paper (the one you think supports your beliefs) state that Greenland has been cooling since 2005? Why would Greenland be cooling just as human emissions were sky-rocketing? How does this support YOUR claim that the Kobashi paper does not support the claim made in the title?
seb, INTENTIONAL MISINTERPRETATION as always.
Although “rising GHG forcing during the Late Holocene” would “ensue from natural sources, not fossil fuel emissions”, Fig.3(e) does provide a GHG warming Hockey Stick uptick at around the start of the Industrial Revolution.
Could this be the Fossil Fuel Fingerprint? ☺
Problematically, according to this figure from the paper, Greenland hasn’t had any net warming for the last 80-90 years. And it’s only in the last 80-90 years that anthropogenic CO2 emissions began rising…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/CO2-Emissions-GtC-1900-2016.jpg
Also, according to the paper, Greenland has been cooling since 2005.
So, again, unless SebastianH would like to suggest that anthropogenic CO2 emissions caused the 1870s to 1930s rise in temperature…even though emissions were flat and but 1/10th of what they’ve been in the 21st century…this paper does not support AGW like SebastianH apparently thinks it does.
Just a suggestion as to why the lad might believe that the paper supports his obsession with GHG forcing.
Thank you very much for your job, peer reviewed science is the is the only way to dismiss alarmist fraudulent claims and propaganda,it’s very utile.And the knowledge about natural drivers of the climate open the mind, anthropogenic C02 talking as the only one climate driver is realy boring and shortminded.
I hope IPPC will fall with the temperature in the next years.
The only thing i dont grasp very well is the real influence of the declining geomagnetic shield.On one side you can expect joule heating by space weather particles and on the other cooling by galactic rays cloud coverage.I read the cooling effect begin at 40% of the magnetic field or a geomagnetic storm can heat one part of greenland and cool the other part.If you have clues on this subject ,it could be very interesting.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2018/02/08/20-new-papers-crush-claims-of-a-man-made-link-to-arctic-climate-c… […]
[…] Kenneth Richard on 8. February 2018 // NoTricksZone […]