CO2 emissions exert no detectable effect on Arctic, Antarctic temperatures. The Arctic region is no warmer in recent decades than it was some 80 years ago, or before CO2 emissions began rising significantly.
Graph Source: Mikkelsen et al., 2018
According to the IPCC, the Arctic and Antarctic regions warm more than the rest of the globe — a phenomenon branded as polar amplification.
Further, it is conclusively stated (with “high confidence”) that this enhanced polar warming occurs largely in response to increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Image Source: IPCC AR5
A 2015 Scientific Paper Affirms CO2 Forcing Is ‘Weak’ To Negligible At The Poles
In late 2015, four climate scientists published a groundbreaking paper (Schmithüsen et al.,[2015]) in the highly-regarded Geophysical Research Letters scholarly journal.
Although obligatorily insisting their research did not undermine the main tenets of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory at one turn, the authors nonetheless landed a devastating blow to the conceptualization of a CO2-amplified polar climate – and thus to the narrative that says the ice sheets and sea ice are melting primarily due to increases in anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Schmithüsen and colleagues reached the conclusion that CO2-forcing is “rather small” and even “weak“ at the poles. They found the planet’s tiniest warming signal from CO2 occurs for central Antarctica; they characterized the CO2-forcing for the Arctic region as “comparatively weak”. For example, quadrupling CO2 concentrations over the Antarctic Plateau is poised to yield a net radiative forcing value of just 1 W m-2.
The authors even assert that increasing CO2 concentrations causes atmospheric cooling in some areas above the Antarctic continent. They characterize this as a “negative greenhouse effect” due to the “increased long-wave energy loss to space, which cools the Earth-atmosphere system”.
Key points from the paper are highlighted below.
Schmithüsen et al., (2015)
Warming From Increased CO2 Is ‘Comparatively Weak‘ For The Arctic Region
‘Polar Amplification’ From Increased CO2 Not Detectable For Antarctica
Consistent with the conceptualization that “polar amplification” from increasing human CO2 emissions has gone unrealized, the temperature records for the Antarctic continent do not suggest warming has occurred in recent decades.
Graph Sources: Climate4you, Miles et al., 2013, Turner et al., 2016
Increasing CO2 Emissions Has Exerted No Detectable Effect On The Arctic Region
Consistent with the conceptualization that “polar amplification” from increasing CO2 has gone unrealized, the temperature records for the Arctic region also do not suggest a discernible net warming has occurred in response to the rapid increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the mid-1940s. The Arctic region is no warmer in recent decades than it was ~80 years ago, or before CO2 emissions began rising significantly. This would support the conclusion that CO2 emissions increases have exerted no detectable effect on the Arctic region’s temperatures.
Graph Source: Hanhijärvi et al., 2013
Graph Source: Hanna et al., 2011
‘Weak’ To Negligible CO2 Forcing At The Poles Lands A Devastating Blow To AGW Alarm
If the warming effect from increasing CO2 concentrations is only “weak” to negligible for both the Antarctic and Arctic regions, then the justification to endorse the most alarming tenets of the anthropogenic global warming conceptualization may be thoroughly undermined.
For example:
1. The decline in Arctic sea ice since the late 1970s may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced Arctic warming.
2. Mass ice losses for both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the modern era may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced polar warming.
3. The net ice melt contribution to sea level rise from the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets in the modern era may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced polar warming.
4. The post-1980s temperature warming for the Arctic region (that has significantly affected the overall global warming trend) may no longer be predominantly attributed to CO2-induced Arctic warming.
In sum, affirming the Schmithüsen et al.,(2015) analysis leaves little room for continued insistence that rising CO2 emissions are a profound and existential planetary threat.
Wow, this whole article is demonstrating just how little you understand about the greenhouse effect and what polar amplification is. This whole piece reads like you think CO2 ought to cause direct warming of the air at the poles, even though you recognize that the greenhouse effect is pretty weak at the poles and can even be negative (can you explain how that works, I bet not).
Let me need if you need countering of any non-arguments brought up here, or if it is obvious why the claim that the paper discussed (Schmithüsen et al 2015) “wrecked” anything, is wrong and likely based on a deep misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the mechanism.
Repeating a graph that shows human CO2 emissions so we can visually compare the lack of correlation is an attack on the intellegence of your readers.
Sorry Kenneth, if you feel the need to delete this comment, go ahead. But please finally learn how the mechanisms work, so you can see how weird this claim of yours and your conclusion is. Thank you.
This comment is welcome, as it demonstrates that you have nothing of substance to offer in response to the article. All you offer is your usual you-don’t-understand-what-polar-amplification-means or you-don’t-understand-how-the-mechanism-works counter “argument”.
But it’s good to see that you acknowledge that “the [CO2]greenhouse effect is pretty weak at the poles”. That’s progress.
Kenneth, the article itself has no substance. We discussed this many times now. And you? You act like it’s surprising that the GHE is weaker at the poles (or generally where it is cooler). Even seems you think that acknowledging it somehow validates your contrarian belief. It can’t get any weirder at this point.
Seb, Your comment has NO substance, it is like every other of your post.
You continue to be unable to produce one iota of empirical eveidence of CO2 warming, yet you still “BELIEVE” fanatically.
It can’t get ANY weirder than that. !!
Tempting as it is: DNFTT!
According to the IPCC, the poles warm more than the rest of the globe primarily “in response to changes in the CO2 concentration”. And yet (a) Antarctica hasn’t been warming for decades despite dramatic increases in CO2 emissions, (b) the Arctic/Greenland is no warmer now than in the 1930s and 1940s despite dramatic increases in CO2 emissions, and (c) it is acknowledged that the weakest warming from CO2 concentration increases occurs at the poles — which is the opposite of what the conceptualization of CO2-dominated “polar amplification” phenomenon says should happen. In other words, the conceptualization that says the polar climates are predominantly affected by CO2 changes is not supported.
But it’s not surprising that you believe otherwise.
If the IPCC reports are too hard to understand, try the Wikipedia article about polar amplification. The change in CO2 concentration increases the GHE, the resulting heat gets transported polewards. That is why the poles warm. Not because the CO2 GHE at the poles increases so much …
Oh yes it has
No it isn’t
No, no, no. Please look up what polar amplification is, then try to argue against it. Don’t just invent what you like it to be.
Can’t tell if you are trolling or if this is really what you believe/think. Of course I believe otherwise, because what you tell people is not true. It’s made up, you ignore half of the story!
SebastianH, the water vapor concentration reduces from 40,000 ppm in the tropics to <1,000 ppm at the poles. Water vapor dominates the GHE. Therefore, a 0.000001 change (+1 ppm) in CO2 is not going to increase the GHE if the H2O concentration is reduced by orders of magnitude more than the CO2 concentration is increased. Likewise, the +0.000001 change in CO2 over the course of a year in the tropics is not going to compete with the variability inherent in 40,000 ppm H20 gas.
————————————–
Even we-try-to-make-hockey-sticks PAGES 2K indicates Antarctica hasn’t warmed: Antarctica, PAGES 2k
And, of course, the surrounding Southern Ocean has cooled too, by -0.4 C (annual mean) since 1979.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Holocene-Cooling-Southern-Ocean-1979-2011-Fan-2014.jpg
And even the adjusted instrumental record shows no net warming in the Arctic since the 1930s and 1940s.
HadCRUT4, Arctic
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Arctic-Air.jpg
We actually had that discussion several times now. Water vapor dominates, but water vapor is also not something that we emit and cause a concentration increase of, isn’t it?
Nothing competes with the variability of the day and night cycle or seasons. Does that explain away that it is getting warmer? 😉
The CO2 concentration increase slowly adds up. The imbalance causes the heat content of the system to increase and over time that causes higher temperatures where we live.
I see, that must be why the grounding lines retreat then … cooler water? 😉
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/704.png
What does whether or not we emit water vapor have to do with your claim is that the GHE is increased for the poles because of the 0.000001 increases for CO2? While CO2 is increasing by 1 part in 10,000 over the course of 80 years, H2O, the main GHG, dramatically drops by orders of magnitude more than the CO2 concentration increases the further one gets away from the tropics (40,000 ppm in the tropics, 100 to 1,000 ppm at the poles). So the main heat-trapping gases are far less common at the poles than in the tropics. And CO2 forcing is weak to negligible at the poles according to the analysis above. The water vapor differences for the poles vs. tropics destroys your “polar amplification” narrative. As do the non-warming trends.
Yep. It’s increased by a whopping 1 part in 10,000 since the 1920s-1940s. And since that time, there’s been no net warming trend for Greenland or the Arctic.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Greenland-Ice-Sheet.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Greenland.jpg
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Arctic-Air.jpg
–
Grounding lines retreat predominantly in areas where there is high geothermal heat flux. In areas where there isn’t high geothermal heat flux, the ice sheet is stable/advancing.
Cooler sea surface temperatures is why the Southern Hemisphere’s sea ice extent has been growing since the 1970s.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Sea-Ice-Southern-Hemisphere-Comiso-2017.jpg
“cause a concentration increase of,”
Which plants LUV.
Zero evidence CO2 causes warming of any sort.
“Does that explain away that it is getting warmer?”
You do know that not that long ago the world was in the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, don’t you ???
Do you want it to stay FREEZING COLD???
And as you may be AWARE of by now, the slight warming in the last 40 years has come from OCEAN events, which means that it CANNOT have come from any human influence. Purely NATURAL.
No warming in the Arctic since 1930s/40s seb
Get over it..
NOAA chart , .. that not adjusted, that is fabricated.
Real data (your enemy) shows the Arctic probably slightly below 1930s/40s temperatures.
“The imbalance causes the heat content of the system to increase and over time that causes higher temperatures where we live”
And there’s the UNPROVABLE NONSENSE/FAIRYTALE of the AGW mantra , yet again. !!
Just chant it , seb. all you can do,. !!
We are all STILL WAITING for empirical evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any effect apart from enhanced plant growth
You are TOTALLY EMPTY in this regard.
an UTTER FAILURE.
Kenneth, it is not “my” polar amplification narrative and I strongly suggest you google what it actually means. Then we can talk … doesn’t make sense when you continue to tell a story of how the GHE (whether it be from water vapor or CO2) is weak over the poles and how temperatures aren’t increasing.
One more time. Warming at the poles comes from heat transfer from lower latitudes. And the second part, well … Pierre said we should make our point and let it be. So I’ll ignore that you continue to bring up the “it’s not warming at the poles” line.
One reply in spam?
“tell a story of how the GHE (whether it be from water vapor or CO2) is weak over the poles “
Its weak to non-existent EVERYWHERE, seb
Its “not warming” in MANY places., and those where it is warming are a direct consequence of ocean effects, cycles etc
Since CO2 CANNOT warm oceans, it must be something else that has caused the slight but highly beneficial warming since the LIA.
ie THE SUN.
how convenient, how much heat does this geothermal heat flux contribute exactly?
Don’t confuse sea ice extent with what a retreat of the grounding lines means.
Enough to pose a “great threat” to the regional stability of the ice sheet due to “a widespread increase in ice loss” for these high geothermal flux regions. By comparison, how much does the forcing from CO2 concentration contribute?
Iverson et al., 2017
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11515-3
“The first physical evidence of subglacial volcanism under the West Antarctic Ice Sheet … New evidence from ice core tephra shows that subglacial volcanism can breach the surface of the ice sheet and may pose a great threat to WAIS stability. … The sources of these tephra layers were likely to be nearby subglacial volcanoes, Mt. Resnik, Mt. Thiel, and/or Mt. Casertz. A widespread increase in ice loss from WAIS could trigger positive feedback by decreasing ice mass and increasing decompression melting under the WAIS, increasing volcanism.”
You misread that … the author means that ice loss (not caused by volcanism) can trigger increase in volcanism because the ice wouldn’t compress the surface as much as before then.
For this we need to know a few things:
the volcanism below the WAIS didn’t just start to exist a few decades ago, right? So did it change recently? By how much? How much of it was caused by decompression?
The forcing from CO2 for the whole planet for double the concentration would be 3.7 W/m². As you correctly noticed it would be far lower at the poles, but also higher at the equator. It now depends on how much of the resulting increase in heat content gets transported toward the poles to determine the contribution from CO2 concentration change.
See, it’s not as simple as you make it out to be.
“The forcing from CO2 for the whole planet for double the concentration… blah, blah…”
Yet another load of scientifically unsupportable nonsense.
There is NO INCREASE IN HEAT from CO2.
It is a FANTASY..
… which you are turning into a DECEIT.
There is ZERO empirical evidence that CO2 has any effect whatsoever on warming of anything.
It is that simple.
“CO2 is the strongest anthropogenic forcing agent for climate change since preindustrial times.”
So , it starts with a scientifically unsupportable claim, to get passed the gatekeepers !!
ie.. it preaches the mantra.
Then it gets down to proving basically ZERO CO2 effect at the poles, totally destroying the “polar amplification” myth.
Your point is???
“how little you understand about the greenhouse effect”
What “greenhouse effect”, or is it unicorn farts???
Please show us measured empirical data about this mythical “greenhouse effect”
Show us the empirical data that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes warming of anything.
Its FANTASY, and a FAIRY-TALE, seb.
YOUR empty, mindless, mantra rhetoric comments are an attack on your own intelligence.
“deep misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the mechanism.”
How can one not understand a ZERO-science, fantasy, nonsense mechanism…. is that what you are wondering, seb ??
Just take the climate kool-aide and forget about any actual real science.. Like you have.
Could not be more obvious. No effect at all especially when you remember that IPCC scientists :)) say that the effect should be amplified.
While finding the cause of warming can be difficult, both poles are losing ice mass and both poles are warming despite you trying to tell a different story. Quite a detectable change …
Arctic:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236
https://www.globalresearch.ca/climate-engineering-and-polar-meltdown-how-long-has-it-been-going-on/5497738
https://climate.copernicus.eu/climate-2017-focus-region-european-arctic
Antartica:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268036325_New_Reconstruction_of_Antarctic_Near-Surface_Temperatures_Multidecadal_Trends_and_Reliability_of_Global_Reanalyses
(overall trend 0.11°C per decade for Antarctica)
And yes, it is even expected that sea ice extent increases with warmer temperatures. Grounding lines are however retreating: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z
Oops, wasn’t meant es a reply to Stephen Richards.
Oh dear.
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel now. seb.
first one
“which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age.”
Yes, we know it was warmer before the LIA, and that it has THANKFULLY warmed after that COLDEST period in 10,000 years. Thanks for the tiny step forward, seb.
second one.
Uses GISS, and a NOAA fabrication, basically says nothing. An Empty piece of zero-science propaganda rhetoric., you would like it.
Third one.
Yes, we have had warming as part of the natural cycle of the AMO since 1979. You do know that the late 1970s was a short period of COLD and extreme levels of sea ice in the Arctic, don’t you , seb?
Latest from the Russians on sea ice…
https://s19.postimg.cc/hcmhnqak3/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Alekseev-2016-as-shown-in-_Connolly-2017.jpg
And as we all know, Arctic sea ice is still well within the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.
https://s19.postimg.cc/vgdnb299v/Arctic-_Sea-_Ice-_Holocene-_Stein-17.jpg
fourth one.
Ocean driven melting, it says,
So absolutely NOTHING to do with CO2 or human influence. Just solar.
Meanwhile temperatures in the Antarctic have been falling for a long time.
https://s19.postimg.cc/nn6qmzrb7/antarcticacooling.gif
Thanks for the nonsense, seb.
We expect nothing more.
We certainly don’t expect any empirical proof that enhanced atmospheric CO2 causes anything except enhanced plant growth.
We all know that sort of proof is BEYOND you.
Indeed Stephen Richards,
This article show so well that the CO2 enhanced greenhouse effect is pure bunkum and is NOT observed in reality. These studies powerfully show that as atmosphere CO2 levels rise from being a very, very, very rare gas in the atmosphere, to just a very, very rare gas, NO warming effects are evident.
Polar ice is currently safe, sea level rise is NOT accelerating, nowhere on the planet has the temperature move out from normal variability.
The UP-IPCC’s supposition is a nonsense!
The sun is control, and all the UN-IPCC’s flimflam is distraction from the more realistic prospect of a coming cool period.
This AGW rubbish is wasting people’s lives, wasting time, and is a waste of money.
These studies? This article is about one paper. A paper that confirms the GHE and does a very good explaining it. So what study up there shows what you think it shows?
Do you honestly think that the existence of a negative GHE is “wrecking” the usually positive GHE?
It does not “confirm”, it gives tacit recognition, with zero-proof.
Then shows its effect is basically undetectable at the poles.
Just like warming from CO2 is undetectable anywhere else.
Your ineptitude at presenting one piece of empirical evidence of enhanced atmospheric CO2 causing warming of anything, shows the GHE to be a MYTH.
Better switch to the REALITY of the gravity/thermal regulatory effect, seb.
[-snip. This reader has had his commenting privileges revoked due to trolling, childish behavior]
ROFLMAO.
The troposphere warms from ocean based solar energy. Would have exactly the same effect.
NOTHING to do with CO2. Zero proof that it is.
You obviously don’t have the slightest clue what typifies empirical evidence.
You do know that even in RSSv$, the only warming comes from the El Ninos.
No warming from 1980-1997
https://s19.postimg.cc/kr0uu9cz7/RSS_V4_before_El_Nino.png
No warming from 2001-2015
https://s19.postimg.cc/jcuv319ir/RSS_V4_2001_-_2015.png
Just El Ninos, so ZERO effect from CO2
Still the total lack of empirical evidence of enhanced CO2 doing anything but enhance plant growth.
ZERO evidence that “heat” is trapped by so called radiative gases.
That is probably the most idiotic, anti-science piece of garbage ever hoisted on the UNAWARE and gullible public.
They actually act like a conduit for cooling, but lets not confuse you will too many facts.
Remain perpetually UNAWARE, Jack.. its your choice in life.
@Jack Dale 17. April 2018
Your plots only show the temperatures are changing, so what?
That is not evidence that it was CO2 wot done it, now does it?
You are right, it’s not. It only indicates that it can’t be the Sun.
It indicates NOTHING of the sort, seb
You are suffering deeply of imaginitis.
And if you feel that there is any merit to the UN-IPCC ideas, and superstitions about the enhanced greenhouse effect just remember this — in a real greenhouse the hottest part is near the roof of the building, in the atmosphere (specifically the troposphere) the warmest part is close to the ground (it gets colder as you ascend).
So what has the temperature of atmosphere to do with the heating effect of greenhouses — NOTHING!
Yep, the words” greenhouse effect” are a total anti-science misnomer.
The radiative greenhouse warming effect has never been measured anywhere. It is a MYTH.
What they should be calling the atmospheric warming effect, is the “gravity/thermal effect”, a proven, measured effect that works on all planets with a viable atmosphere.
Indeed AndyG55,
And here’s a couple of images you may recognize
To help those that need it Antarctica is quite large.
Antarctic Ice loss and volcano correlation.
My selected quotes from the guy that found some of the volcanoes aroung the Antarctic
“We found 180 cones, but discounted 50 because they weren’t matched with the other data,” says Bingham.
They settled on a final tally of 138 beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet, which includes 47 volcanoes already known because their peaks protrude through the ice – leaving 91 newly discovered. The volcanoes range in height from 100 to 3850 metres, with 29 higher than 1 km.
Bingham suspects that more volcanoes may lurk beneath the neighbouring Ross ice shelf, for which ground-penetrating radar information is sparse. If so, it could mean that the West Antarctic ice sheet and the adjoining area hide one of the world’s largest volcanic systems, comparable with the largest known – the East African rift system.
The team now wants to deploy instruments to find out how active the volcanoes are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then some people think that ice destabilization and ice loss is due to ‘Gloabal Warming’ — LOL.
Regarding “greenhouses” – – –
Real ones where plants are grown require continual introduction of CO2. In natural conditions, say a growing field of corn, wind is needed to bring new supplies of CO2 to the plants.
The 1,000+ ppm of CO2 in a greenhouse allows for better growth.
There are “radiatively active gases” (and it is a very interesting subject), but these seem to have very little or nothing to do with enhanced “global warming.”
[-snip. Sorry Jack but you’ve been booted from this forum. You can have your fun at your own.]
Yep, should be the gravity/thermal regulatory effect.
Nothing to do with CO2 what-so-ever.
ZERO empirical proof, just non-validated models and anti-physic ASS-umptions.
“Duh! “Greenhouse” is a metaphor”
Shows just how little science is actually involved, doesn’t it. Can’t even use correct terminology.. DOH !!
Even the fantasy of CO2 warming has basically zero resemblance to a greenhouse.
DUMB !!!!
@Jack Dale
Now the word ‘greenhouse’ was not deliberately chosen so that ordinary folk got the wrong idea about how the atmosphere actually works? Maybe, maybe not.
Of course one of the earliest a prolific user of the word was James Hansen. As IIRC he was one of the first to keep blathering on about it in relation to climate and it variations. In doing so he was giving it more recognition than it deserved.
As you can see here, in his 1988 testimony to the US Senate, he litters the script with reference of ‘greenhouse warming’, ‘greenhouse effect’, ‘global greenhouse signal’, ‘greenhouse impacts’ and even a ‘greenhouse mechanism’.
I note he never bothered to explain what any of those phrases meant.
Also see
https://notrickszone.com/2016/10/06/only-53-of-climatologists-meteorologists-36-of-engineers-geoscientists-19-of-agronomists-are-climate-consensus-believers/#comment-1137252
[…] Continue Reading […]
20 W/M^2 of greenhouse forcing in the tropics? Really?
New research by British Antarctic Survey shows that Antarctica paradoxically saw a 10 percent increase in snowfall on the continent. Researchers in the Antarctic have recently shown that while estimates for ice loss is approximately 125 gigatons of ice per year [between 2002 and 2016], evidence from 79 ice core samples collected across the continent, allows the researchers to estimate an increase in snow represents about 272 giga tonnes of frozen water.
Said lead author on the study, Dr. Liz Thomas
Dr. Thomas echoes the advice of Tim Naish, who acknowledged that the Antarctic is an important factor in climate change, but still a poorly understood one:
Antarctic’s total volume of ice and snow, and whether it’s trending up or down is a dynamic entity. Hopefully, scientists will achieve a better understanding within the next few decades or so.
Care to provide a link? I suspect you imagine that the measured ice mass loss doesn’t include mass gains from snowfall. Correct?
I think your suspicions are utterly imaginary, I understand the difference.
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
Jack Dale —
Just for you
“There is an international effort to create computer simulations of future sea-level rise in a warming world. It is complex and challenging for scientists to fully understand and interpret changes in the ice that we see happening today. We know that the two major influencers affecting change—the mass gain (from snowfall) and the mass loss (from melt)—are acting differently from one another. Our new findings take us a step towards improving our knowledge and understanding.”
As it can not be repeated too much!
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
So why is it you’re accusing others of cherry-picking when you are here selecting a quote about melt in regions of West Antarctica contributing to sea level rise when the abstract to the paper itself says that the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole has led to a net reduction in sea levels during the last 200 years?
Thomas et al., 2017
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1491/2017/cp-13-1491-2017.pdf
“Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼ 75 %) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123 ± 44 Gt yr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century.”
Kenneth, repeat after me: SMB does not include ice loss.
In the paper the author explains:
Do you know what the bold part means? SMB doesn’t include ice loss. Simple. Why do you ignore it and claim that Antartica’s ice sheet mass balance would be positive while clearly it is not?
I didn’t write about SMB. I wrote about the entire ice sheet’s contribution to sea levels. Since 1800, the Antarctic meltwater contribution led to a net reduction in sea level rather than a net rise. Are you concerned about Antarctica reducing sea level?
Did you know that the Greenland ice area is only just down a TINY amount from the LARGEST area in 8000+ years seb?
Did you know that not that long ago, the world was in a really COLD period called the LIA?
Did you know that the warming out of that LIA is totally NATURAL, with absolutely ZERO evidence of any warming from CO2, human or otherwise.
Just to put your mind at ease, here is a chart of the Greenland total mass since 1900.
https://s19.postimg.cc/9i1vx9lv7/Greenland_ice_mass2.png
And the Greenland temperature from the IOPCC
https://s19.postimg.cc/7tl7hii8z/greenland1.jpg
And Greenland December temperatures
https://s19.postimg.cc/jftrrchtf/Greenland_Dec_temps.png
Which of course match the Arctic temperatures quite well.
https://s19.postimg.cc/chlq0r1cj/Arctic_Had_Crut_4.gif
So don’t PANIC, seb, just become more AWARE,
There absolutely NOTHING untoward happening with the world’s climate.
No warming effect from enhanced atmospheric CO2.
… save yourself the inner angst and self loathing for being totally dependant on fossil fuels.
No, you quoted from a paper that wrote about SMB and then somehow imagined that would be the complete contribution to sea level change from Antartica. Even though that very same clearly states that is not the case.
It’s not. But I am concerned that you are so stubbornly defending that false claim.
Thomas et al., 2017
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1491/2017/cp-13-1491-2017.pdf
“Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼ 75 %) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123 ± 44 Gt yr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century.”
Considering Antarctica has contributed a grand total of 0.37 cm to sea levels between 1958 and 2014 (Frederiske et al., 2018), do you believe this represents an alarming sea level contribution for the entire Antarctic ice sheet? Or would you agree this is about the equivalent of zero?
Kenneth … don’t ignore the first part of the sentence: “Our results show that SMB for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of […]” and if it helps you understand it, scroll down to chapter 4 (Total Antarctic SMB change), where the same sentence is even clearer: “The total Antarctic SMB increased at a rate of […]”
The SMB is increasing (as one would expect in a warming world), not the ice sheet or the ice sheet mass.
Well, what can you reply to someone who can’t even multiply a 0.06 mm/y trend with 56 years?
You posted this image a while ago:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Global-Sea-Level-Change-3-Inches-1958-to-2014-Frederiske-2018.jpg
Remember? It does a good job at visualizing the acceleration of the sea level increase. Antartica contribution between 1993 and 2010 was 0.27 mm/y, a fourfold increase over the longer 1958 to 2014 period.
Is it zero? Nope … the current contribution is around 8% to 9% of the total increase. That is not nothing.
Are you concerned about Antarctica reducing sea level?
You’re right. Since 1958, or since anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose from 2 GtC/yr to 10 GtC/yr, Antarctica has contributed a whopping total of 0.34 of a centimeter to sea level rise (Frederiske et al., 2018). Are you concerned about Antarctica raising sea levels by a little over 3 millimeters in the last 60 years? Of course you are. That’s scary stuff.
How much of that 0.34 of a cm of sea level rise contribution is due to natural variability vs. humans?
Kenneth, perhaps you should open Excel and make yourself a little table how a 0.06 mm/y trend over 56 years looks like, when you have an acceleration of 0.007 mm/y² over the same timespan.
Maybe it would occur to you that the trend didn’t start at 0.06 mm/y in 1958 and didn’t end at 0.06 mm/y in 2014. It ended with close to 0.3 mm/y. The contribution between 1993 and 2010 was 0.46 cm according to the IPCC and now you can ask yourself how 56 year trend with an acceleration of 0.007 mm/y² can end up being only 0.06 mm/y on average. Any ideas? 😉
The current rate of Antarctica’s contribution makes up 8 to 9% of the total increase. Don’t act like that is nothing.
SebastianH, sea levels rose at a rate of 1.4 mm/yr between 1958 and 2014 (Frederiske et al., 2018). They rose at an overall average rate of about 2 mm/yr during the first half of the 20th century.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sea-Level-Rise-and-Rates-1900-2002-Jevrejeva-2008.jpg
Jevrejeva et al., 2008
“The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).”
In other words, there has been an overall deceleration in the rate of sea level rise when considering the longer-term (50+ years) trends. It’s only when we (you) cherry-pick slow starting points and high end points that we get an obvious acceleration. Otherwise, we get a “recent lack of any detectable acceleration in the rate of sea level rise.”
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Global-Sea-Level-Change-3-Inches-1958-to-2014-Frederiske-2018.jpg
They rose by 1.32 or 1.52 mm/y respectively. The reconstructed part from 1993 on is almost identical to altimetry measurements which are in the 2.8 mm/y range. A rather obvious acceleration.
Besides, we were talking about the contribution of Antarctica. Don’t you want to explain to us how a 0.06 mm/y trend can exist with a 0.007 mm/y² acceleration in the same timespan? Look at the Fredersike graph, maybe that clears it up for you.
What are you talking about? Even your graph makes a good job of showing the acceleration (2002 rate 3.4 mm/y).
How can anyone conclude from the available data that sea level rise would actually be slowing down? It really can not get wierder.
The selective perception is certainly strong with you.
In other words, there has been an overall deceleration in the rate of sea level rise when considering the longer-term (50+ years) trends.
Jevrejeva et al., 2008
“The fastest sea level rise, estimated from the time variable trend with decadal variability removed, during the past 300 years was observed between 1920– 1950 with maximum of 2.5 mm/yr.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006GL028492/abstract
“The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003).” [or 1.42 mm/yr for 1958-2014, Frederiske et al., 2018]
It’s decelerated relative to the first half of the 20th century, when rates reached 4 mm/yr for short stretches and the contribution to sea level rise from glacier melt was far greater….
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Holocene-Cooling-Global-Glacier-Melt-Contribution-To-Sea-Level-Rise-copy.jpg
seb, WRONG as always.
https://s19.postimg.cc/vbe9vvo4z/Sea_level_slows_Puls_1.jpg
You aren’t seriously using the mathematical nonsense of splicing a known corrupted and fabricated altimetry data onto tide data are you. “Adjustments” to the altimetry data started as far back as 2002.
https://s19.postimg.cc/p42wgwtir/comparison.jpg
That would be almost as inept as using polynomials to describe climate trends and thinking it means anything, or manically extrapolating a linear trend out far beyond the data.
Not even you would do something that mathematically inept… would you ????
No need to repeat what you already wrote. I won’t repeat what I wrote either …
Just look at the graph you posted above:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Sea-Level-Rise-and-Rates-1900-2002-Jevrejeva-2008.jpg
Notice the 3.4 mm/yr figure.
Did you post the wrong image to support your claim? Even the model based green line (derived from air temperature data) doesn’t touch 4 mm/yr “for short stretches”.
Since the other reconstructions in this paper don’t show such a high rate for the contribution of glaciers, but look similar to each other I’d say that’s what is probably closer to what really happened.
AndyG55, it’s a graph from a paper Kenneth quoted from. Tell him that Fredersiske 2018 has it wrong (if you think so), not me.
It’s decelerated relative to the first half of the 20th century, when rates reached 4 mm/yr for short stretches and the contribution to sea level rise from glacier melt was far greater….
It’s not based on an image, but this graph of 18-year sea level trends from AR5 shows the rates peaked at about 4 mm/yr in the early 1940s before the rapid post-1940s deceleration. Other analyses (below) indicate sea levels rose at 4.68 mm/yr in 1939.
Houston and Dean, 2011
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
From 1993–2010, these altimeters measured a global sea-level rise of 3.0 mm/y with the inverted barometer applied and the seasonal signal removed (University of Colorado, 2010). This rate is higher than the average 20th-century trend, but the trend fluctuated in the 20th century, and this rate is not uniquely high. Bindoff et al. (2007) note that sea-level trends similar to those measured by the altimeters have occurred in the past. Holgate (2007) calculated consecutive, overlapping 10-year-mean sea-level trends since 1910 for each of nine representative worldwide tide-gauge records. He found that the altimeters measured only the fourth highest of six peaks in rate since approximately 1910, with the highest rates of 5.31 mm/yr centered on 1980 and 4.68 mm/yr centered on 1939.
Church et al. (2004) report that from 1950 to 2000 there have been periods with sea-level trends greater than those measured by the satellite altimeters. Similarly, White, Church, and Gregory (2005) note that sea-level trends varied from 0–4 mm/yr from 1950–2000 with a maximum in the 1970s. Jevrejeva et al. (2006) analyzed 1023 gauge records over the 20th century and showed that the global sea-level trend measured by the satellite altimeters is similar to the trend from 1920–45.
Our first analysis determined the acceleration, a2, for each of the 57 records [1930-2010] … There is almost a balance with 30 gauge records showing deceleration and 27 showing acceleration, clustering around 0.0 mm/yr. The mean is a slight deceleration of -0.0014 mm/yr ±0.0161 mm/yr (95%).
We also analyzed the worldwide data of Church and White (2006) for the period 1930–2001 and obtained a deceleration of -0.0066 mm/yr . … We analyzed the new data set from 1930–2007 [Church and White, 2009] and obtained a deceleration of -0.0130 mm/yr. Therefore, the deceleration that we find in U.S. gauge records for 1930–2010 is consistent with worldwide-gauge data of Church and White (Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level, 2010b)
Furthermore, Holgate (2007) analyzed nine long worldwide tide-gauge records and found a decrease in the sea-level trend from the period 1904–53 to the period 1954–2003 that is equivalent to a deceleration of -0.012 mm/yr, the same that we obtained by extending Douglas’s analysis to the period 1905–2010. Holgate noted that the deceleration he obtained was consistent with ‘‘…a general deceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century’’(pp. 243–244) that he said was suggested in analyses by Woodworth (1990), Douglas (1992), and Jevrejeva et al. (2006). We repeated the reanalysis of data presented in Douglas (1992) for the period 1930–2010 and obtained a deceleration of -0.015 ±0.011 mm/yr (SD), which is somewhat greater than the deceleration from 1905–2010.
Conclusions: Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to + 0.28mm/yr accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74 C. It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.
Klige, 1990
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-009-0701-0_10#page-1
During the recent century the rate of sea-level rise has reached 1.5 mm per year. The most intensive rise at a rate of more than 3 mm per year occurred from 1924 to 1948 (Fig. 2). Now the sea level is falling at a rate of more than 2 mm per year on 4.7% of the world shoreline and up to 2 mm per year on 7.9%. It is relatively stable at 24% of stations and is rising on 48.2% at a rate of less than 2 mm per year. On 14.3% of the world shoreline it is rising at a rate of more than 2 mm per year.
Why are you so mathematically UNAWARE, seb???
Education lacking???
Sea level rise is DECELERATING, so long as you don’t do the splicing of specifically adjusted altimetry onto the tide data.
https://s19.postimg.cc/4wrz7pcmb/Sea_leve_slows_Puls_2.jpg
Again with the DENIAL of basic provable facts.
You also omitted this comment from Dr Thomas
“Put another way, “the increased snowfall in Antarctica approximately offsets the contribution to sea level caused by the melting Patagonian ice fields in the past 200 years,” Thomas said.”
https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/world/antarctica-snowfall-increase-wxc/index.html
Jack Dale
I did not get my quotes from there so never saw that line.
But I have seen plenty of other quotes she made that I left out.
When picking cherries I prefer the big sweet juicy ones.
Enjoy.
So what was your source? I posted two.
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
Keep digging, that’s not it, hopefully you’re reading them all and getting educated!
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
Do you agree with Thomas et al.(2017) that the mass changes for all of Antarctica (including shelves) have led to a net reduction in sea levels since 1800?
Thomas et al., 2017
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1491/2017/cp-13-1491-2017.pdf
“Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼ 75 %) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123 ± 44 Gt yr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century.”
Did you decide to omit this finding for the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole in favor of your selections of quotes about the meltwater equivalent contribution to sea level rise for some regions of West Antarctica? If so, how would you characterize this selection of quotes in light of your accusation above?
Reply in the spam bin?
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
They haven’t … read the introduction of that very paper.
No, he actually understood what the paper is about. You didn’t. You use it anyway to claim that Antartica somehow is not losing ice mass … that claim is wrong and it has been explained several times now.
This is about sea level rise/fall. The Antarctic continent contribution to sea levels since 1800 was negative, a net sea level reduction.
You really do not understand what the authors of that paper are writing there, od you?
How can anyone conclude that the contribution to sea level is negative from the following paragraph?
The authors are specifically writing about the SMB and it’s contribution. That is NOT the net ice mass change of Antartica.
You are ignoring half of the story … the important part. And yes, the increase in SMB is even expected in a warming world.
…to sea level reduction. Again, the Antarctica-wide SMB changes have contributed to a reduction in sea levels since 1800. Since 1958, the Antarctic continent mass “losses” have contributed a whopping total of 0.34 of a centimeter to sea levels. In other words, there has effectively been no change in the Antarctic ice sheet and its contribution to sea levels that could be considered even close to significant. Nothing unusual is happening here, SebastianH. It’s not even close to being outside the range of natural variability. Antarctica is still colder today than it was for most of the last 2,000 years.
PAGES 2k: “Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971–2000 for a time period as recent as A.D. 1671–1700, and the entire period from 141–1250 was warmer than 1971–2000.”
Where is the CO2 signal?
No, they didn’t. The SMB increase contributed to a reduction of the total sea level increase contribution of Antarctica. If we stick with your 0.06 mm per year trend of the past and not the 0.27 mm per year current trend, then this trend would have been 0.02 mm higher without the SMB increase. As figure 9 of that paper also clearly shows, the SMB began to significantly increase in the 1960s and was pretty stable before. Wouldn’t you agree?
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
Why not 10000 years? A million years? A billion years?
The warming and ice loss is there. CO2 causes the heat content in lower latitudes to increase and this heat is partly transported poleward. Too obvious of a mechanism? Are you still arguing that the weak GHE at the poles can’t cause warming there while completely ignoring that basically all ocean and wind currents transport heat towards the poles?
Analogy time: it’s basically like saying it can’t be the gas heater/burner that is causing the living room to warm up, because there is not heater/burner in that room while ignoring the (water) pipes coming from the heater/burner into your radiators.
Nothing unusual is happening here, SebastianH.
OK, go ahead and continue to believe that a sea level rise contribution from the Antarctic ice sheet of 0.34 of a centimeter in the 56 years between 1958 and 2014 is highly unusual.
Jones et al., 2016
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
“Understanding the causes of recent climatic trends and variability in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere is hampered by a short instrumental record. Here, we analyse recent atmosphere, surface ocean and sea-ice observations in this region and assess their trends in the context of palaeoclimate records and climate model simulations. Over the 36-year satellite era, significant linear trends in annual mean sea-ice extent, surface temperature and sea-level pressure are superimposed on large interannual to decadal variability. Most observed trends, however, are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. With the exception of the positive trend in the Southern Annular Mode, climate model simulations that include anthropogenic forcing are not compatible with the observed trends. This suggests that natural variability overwhelms the forced response in the observations, but the models may not fully represent this natural variability or may overestimate the magnitude of the forced response.”
—
Previdi and Polvani, 2016
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/9/094001
“Global and regional climate models robustly simulate increases in Antarctic surface mass balance (SMB) during the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in response to anthropogenic global warming. Despite these robust model projections, however, observations indicate that there has been no significant change in Antarctic SMB [surface mass balance] in recent decades. We show that this apparent discrepancy between models and observations can be explained by the fact that the anthropogenic climate change signal during the second half of the twentieth century is small compared to the noise associated with natural climate variability. Using an ensemble of 35 global coupled climate models to separate signal and noise, we find that the forced SMB increase due to global warming in recent decades is unlikely to be detectable as a result of large natural SMB variability.”
Where is the CO2 signal?
Except in the places where it is cooling (East Antarctica, Antarctic Peninsula, Southern Ocean) and the sea ice is growing.
Then explain the mechanism that has been causing the Antarctic Peninsula to cool down dramatically since 1999…
Oliva et al., 2017
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969716327152
“However, a recent analysis (Turner et al., 2016) has shown that the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32 °C/decade during 1979–1997 to a cooling trend of − 0.47 °C/decade during 1999–2014. … This recent cooling has already impacted the cryosphere in the northern AP [Antarctic Peninsula], including slow-down of glacier recession, a shift to surface mass gains of the peripheral glacier and layer of permafrost in northern AP islands.”
…or the East Antarctic ice sheet (two-thirds of the continent) to gain mass and to have undergone ubiquitous cooling since the 1970s…
Clem et al., 2018
“This study finds recent (post-1979) surface cooling of East Antarctica during austral autumn to also be tied to tropical forcing, namely, an increase in La Niña events. … The South Atlantic anticyclone is associated with cold air advection, weakened northerlies, and increased sea ice concentrations across the western East Antarctic coast, which has increased the rate of cooling at Novolazarevskaya and Syowa stations after 1979. This enhanced cooling over western East Antarctica is tied more broadly to a zonally asymmetric temperature trend pattern across East Antarctica during autumn that is consistent with a tropically forced Rossby wave rather than a SAM pattern; the positive SAM pattern is associated with ubiquitous cooling across East Antarctica.”
No, I don’t write like that. I don’t use the words “can’t cause warming” because that would imply I have ruled something out, which I haven’t. I just don’t see any evidence that there is a change that is connected to a CO2 signal, especially with all the non-warming occurring there.
So if CO2 is what’s causing climate change for Antarctica, why has most of Antarctica been cooling as the CO2 levels rise? Please answer this question specifically.
” CO2 causes the heat content in lower latitudes to increase “
OMG, still with the interminable UNPROVABLE AGW mantra.
Prove it empirically…
…. or GIVE IT UP. !!
There is absolutely ZERO way in which atmospheric CO2 can cause oceans to warm.
It DOES NOT stop convective cooling.
Supposed DWLWR cannot penetrate the surface, does NOT cause warming, causes evaporation.
Evaporation causes COOLING of the surface.
KNOWN, MEASUREABLE FACTS, seb..
….. not mindless AGW mantra rhetoric. !
<[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
Because with all the references you’ve given it quite unnecessary.
Thomas et al., 2017
https://www.clim-past.net/13/1491/2017/cp-13-1491-2017.pdf
“Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD. The largest contribution is from the Antarctic Peninsula (∼ 75 %) where the annual average SMB during the most recent decade (2001–2010) is 123 ± 44 Gt yr−1 higher than the annual average during the first decade of the 19th century.”
According to Frederiske et al. (2018), the meltwater equivalent from the Antarctic ice sheet has contributed a total of 0.37 of a centimeter to sea level rise since 1958.
That the part I left out, (for later use 😉 )
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
Indeed Jack,
In other regions the glaciers are advancing.
So what…
That’s because climate and it’s effects are regional not global.
CO2 Global Warming is a con.
The melting of the Patagonia ice fields during the last 200 years occurred primarily as a consequence of the warming that occurred prior to the 1940s. There has been no net warming in the region since then (Elbert et al., 2013).
And Patagonia is multiple degrees cooler now than it was a few thousand years ago.
Bertrand et al., 2017
https://biblio.ugent.be/publication/8536366/file/8536367
“During the last 4000 years, particularly low [sea surface temperature] values occur at 3500-3300 cal yr BP and during the most recent decades, and high values persisted between 2400 and 1600 cal yr BP. … [I]t is likely that the abrupt increases in SST around 3300-3200 and 2400-2200 cal yr BP participated in triggering the meltwater events at 3250-2700 and 2000-1200 cal yr BP, respectively. … [T]he marked cooling of the last ~800 years may have very little to do with meltwater input and may rather represent the regional decrease in ocean temperatures during the last ~900 years (Caniupan et al., 2014).”
Yes Jack and looking at the temperature record from areas in the region, it was just as warm there in 1800 (when CO2 should not be an issue) as currently.
Oh, dear how inconvenient. You could look at one of the better papers I’ve read for yourself at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618215000105
From the conclusion —
In other word the temperature pattern for the region in question broadly follows what the rest of the world did but with specific (local) timing and intensity deviations.
Please be aware I am notorious for cherry picking my quotes 😀
[-snip. This reader has been permanently banned due to violating rules of conduct]
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Holocene-Cooling-Northern-Patagonia-Chile-Elbert-2015.jpg
Here’s the reconstruction for Elbert et al., 2015. Notice that temperatures were much warmer in the 1800s than they are in 2000.
Jack Dale,
No, as I keep saying and you keep missing the global warming hype is a fiction, however I will selectively quote from scientific research those parts that show this.
I am a notorious cherry picker
[-snip, reader permanently banned. -PG]
And why exactly do you miss —
“Although the need for regional spatially-explicit comprehensive reconstructions is widely recognized, the proxy data sources are still scarce, particularly for the Southern Hemisphere and especially for South America.”
Or don’t want to read all of the paper. Too lazy or what?
Jack Dale
“You expound “In other regions the glaciers are advancing.”
There very few advancing glaciers.”
if that’s the paper you rely on then your a little out of date, son.
And no I don’t ferret out other paper because of your laziness.
Get some fresh ammunition son.
Poor jock.
Are you DENYING that only a short few decades ago, the world was in the COLDEST period in 10,000 years?
Are you DENYING that the slight warming from the LIA has been TOTALLY BENEFICIAL
Please produce a paper with empirical proof that human CO2 causes anything but enhanced plant growth
There are words for [snip – no name-calling]……..
WILFULLY and CHRONICALLY GULLIBLE.
You
Jack Dale
““Pinocchio”; Rick is your Geppetto.”
Hahaha…
Says the AGW puppet that can not understand that the sun rules the climate and that nature runs the effects it has on the planet. CO2 is nowhere in the running. A minor bit part player at the most.
Where’s any scientific observation of CO2 warming this planet’s lower atmosphere (Troposphere)? Where the direct evidence? You have none.
Since the LIA the planet has quite naturally been warming, quite naturally melting the ice. And long may it continue, fortunately it is neither swift nor does it happen everywhere at the same time (climate and it’s effects are regional).
Maybe you would like all the melting ice to stop.
When it does we will already be back to another LIA.
[snip, childish name-calling and trolling (and trolls) are banned here]
[-snip…Mr Dale, we’ve been informed that you are a dedicated troll, and so you are not welcome at this site.]
@Jack Dale 17. April 2018
What’s the matter little one? Can not get your head around the fact the world has come out of the LIA and has warmed up quite naturally?
Or that melting ice is a good thing because on this ever changing planet, if it all starts to refreeze that means we’re entering, or are in an ice age.
Or may be you’re just hooked on the UN-IPCC mantra, and can not face the idea of thinking for yourself?
Just remember there is no direct scientific observation of CO2 warming this planet’s lower troposphere. And that blows the supposition about CO2 + H2O enhanced IR effects away.
No evidence see — oh dear.
Jack.. WAKE UP !!
Not that long ago, the world was in the grips of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
What happens when you take a block of ice out of the freezer and put it in the refrigerator section?
The current world temperature is only just a bit above that COLDEST of periods.
Very probably still below the MWP,
CERTAINLY below the RWP and most of the first 9000 years of the current interglacial.
Iceland sea ice data shows that the late 1970s was a particularly COLD period as well in the Arctic, with sea ice levels comparable to the LIA.
https://s19.postimg.cc/bkgbf2prn/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_2.png
I repeat…. what happens when you take a block of ice out of the freezer and put it in the refrigerator section.
There is ZERO evidence that the real warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years is ANYTHING but totally beneficial and totally natural.
Jack Dale,
Your quote “BTW – “We conclude that winters in which the Thames froze are not at all good indicators of the hemispheric or global mean temperatures, although well-correlated with the lowest temperatures in the local observational record, the CET. etc., etc.,”
Is complete baloney put together by people who understand nothing about the local, and even less about it’s history and probably as much about climate.
The modern Thames is very unlikely to EVER freeze again as the old bridges are gone, the river has been deepened and in places the course was altered with the shallower barge ports removed, tributaries feeding in have been contained within manmade brick/concrete revetments. Consequently the river is deeper, with a managed flow rate, and less prone to low tidal navigation problems due to insufficient water depth. Thames depth is maintained with the assistance of the Thames Barrier Dam.
The main reason it could ice over was because it was slow running with many shallows for small boat mooring and for bathing along it’s banks. The Thames still has bathing areas — North Bank Thames Beach (built 1815) and South Bank Thames Beach (installed 1934), previously there many (at least 80 counted in central London in 1770) such locations along the banks of the Thames.
Unbelievable …
From a guy who acted offended when being asked what drugs he is on…
Yes seb but you used to be civil and then you changed — became personally abusive, and now reiterated it.
Let me ask you something seb, how many people, friends and relation, do you know that have died because of being entangle in drugs?
DON’T EVER ACCUSE ME OF USING DRUGS!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I did not see why I have to feed anyone information when they come here acting like the ‘big I am, font of all knowledge’.
No sunshine ever do that and you get off you high horse and ask in a civil manner or, I’ll give at least as good as I get!
Really seb??
What is wrong with the stuff in the block quote.
Its not as if someone is asking for empirical proof of CO2 warming anything, is it. !!
You can tell an activist Leftist troll by how they respond. Everything they write/say is designed to obfuscate, mislead and antagonize. Like all Leftists, their goal is not to build, but to destroy. Their goal is not to help construct a better future, but to constrain those who do. They are parasites. Always have been, always will be.
Yonason, please be so kind and tell us what exactly was constructive about tomOmason’s comments, AndyG55’s comment and now your comment?
If anyone is pessimistic towards the future or any change whatsoever, it’s you skeptics. Somehow you want to preserve a status quo that never really existed, because … you know … everything was better in the past, right? Maga! 😉
Seb, please tell us what is in any way constructive about ANY of your posts.
Mindless AGW mantra does not count as constructive.
What would be constructive would be if you could produce one single iota of empirical proof for CO2 warming.
You seem to think the LIA with its COLD and pestilence is where the temperature should be, not up with the much more beneficial MWP or RWP.
It is YOU that is stuck in the past, with your erroneous anti-science AGW mantra that you don’t have the scientific knowledge to break away from… EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO.
Sorry that you don’t like being to provide actual EVIDENCE to back up your BS!!
typo fix….
Sorry that you don’t like being EXPECTED or even ASKED to provide actual EVIDENCE to back up your BS!!
Well, DNFTT AndyG55. So only a short reply for you. I can’t remember that you ever brought up any evidence for your claims. It’s always insults and the repetition of the same old phrases. Why do you ask others for what you yourself can’t provide? And why do you completely ignore what others provide (that includes immediately classifying everything as junk/fake that doesn’t suit you)?
Some day you might realize, that there are no proofs in physics. So please continue to ask for proof if you think it makes you look smarter.
About the constructiveness of posts. Set an example, all of you. Become what you want others to be! If you can’t set the bar as high as wish it to be yourself, why do expect others to do it for you?
Poor seb, broken down to mindless ranting yet again.
ZERO EVIDENCE OF CO2 WARMING, seb
GET OVER IT !!!
Your feeble attempts at avoidance are quite comical. It makes you look DUMBER and DUMBER.
Yes, do try to make a constructive post, seb .. would be your first in what 2, 3 years,
..instead of the mindless AGW mantra claptrap which all you ever produce.. !!
Massive failure so far, seb.
And if you keep posting nonsense that is provably junk, expect to be called on it,
… why do you think you are entitled to a free ride.. ARROGANCE, perhaps??
And you have YET TO PROVIDE one iota of empirical proof that CO2 causes warming….
… and you KNOW that you can’t, that is what is so hilarious. 🙂
And seriously, pretending that I am the troll?
… when you KNOW that mindless AGW TROLLING is your ONLY PURPOSE for being here.
LAUGHABLE. !!
AMO and Arctic warming happens when the solar wind is weaker. It’s a negative feedback.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/association-between-sunspot-cycles-amo-ulric-lyons
Yes Ulric Lyons,
And I wonder if anyone realizes the attraction the poles have for solar effects 😀
When discussing the Antarctic, there are far more important factors than temperature in the moisture balance.
ftp://ftp.cira.colostate.edu/ftp/Liston/papers/first_author/2004.liston.NH.pdf
Blaming ice loss on “warming,” when temperatures are below freezing, really should be a non-starter.
Indeed yonason (from my cell phone),
Yonason, the ground lines aren’t retreating because the water is “below freezing”. Do you agree or disagree?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0082-z
So seb, you admit its ocean warming, NOT atmospheric warming
So certainly NOT anything to do with CO2.
CO2 doesn’t warm Antarctic air, or ocean water.
Must be another source, like the SUN or Volcanic activity.
Wouldn’t you agree, seb !!
@Andy
A little sanity for thoughtful readers, which sadly will doubtless not be appreciated by hysterical warmists.
http://blog.heartland.org/2014/05/glaciers-and-global-warming/
http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_4CE_Glaciers.htm
Avoid the rush. Plan your Antarctic vacation now.
https://seatemperature.info/april/antarctica-water-temperature.html
PS – what our activist warmist friend doesn’t seem to understand is the basic physical science, that if sea water were to fall even a bit below zero*, then it would freeze. And it cannot rise above zero until all the ice has melted.
As we can verify here, seawater temperature is always 32 deg C.
https://seatemperature.info/antarctica-water-temperature.html
*salt water freezes at a slightly lower temp, but the principle is the same as for fresh.
That’s 32°F/0°C. Not 32 deg C. Sorry ’bout that,
I got to quadrupling.
This means to make four times as great or as many .
Say we start at 150 (dangerously low), we would get to 600.
If we start at 280, we get to 1120.
There is no reason to believe that 1120 ppm, or double that, will be dangerous to Earth systems.
I think there is a lot of arm waving about CO2 and as more is learned the intensity of arm movement increases.
[-snip. Jack has been booted from NTZ. All his comments will be directed to the dustbin from today on.]
The nutritional change in the quality of food crops is worth less than an additional half handful of lentils.
[-snip, This reader is permanently banned due to trolling]
Poor Jack, you do know you breathe out 40,000ppm, and at night a closed bedroom often reaches 2000+ ppm.
PANIC, little one. !!
Both the first papers were proven to be erroneous results based on bad scientific practice.
There are literally thousands of papers showing that enhanced CO2 enhanced both nutrients and plant growth if the grower know what they are doing.
Actual greenhouse produce is grown in 1000 +ppm, giving some of the best and nutritious produce available.
You have obviously been in levels of CO2 over 10,000 ppm regularly, because your cognition is irreparably affected.
Cheers AndyG55 I was finding this troll more tiresome than the usual one.
[-snip, sorry but your behavior is the level of children, and so better to take it to the local playground]
I may change my avatar to Pinocchio just for you dear Jack. You are a hoot!
Jack, you clearly have an enquiringly mind.
Why not try enquiring into those publications that support the AGW position?
I’ll bet you’ll find some “inconsistencies” in that body of literature.
In short the “science is not settled”.
I wonder how the American glaciers are doing the today?
A little weather report from NOAA http://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/discussions/nfdscc3.html
🙂
WOW, everything is really DARK !
LOTSA BOLD !!
Interesting we hear claims of polar amplification and “bigger and stronger” mid latitude cyclones (like the recent blitz of nor-easters. I don’t understand how you can get both considering baroclinicity. Pick one and stick with it.
[…] h/t NoTricksZone […]