New ‘Consensus’ Science: HALF Of 1979-Present Arctic Warming & Ice Loss Is Natural

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Climate Scientists Recant

Only 50% Of Recent Arctic Warming & Sea Ice Loss Is Human-Caused

Image Source: Climate4you

The Arctic region was the largest contributor to the positive slope in global temperatures in recent decades.

Consequently, the anomalously rapid warming in the Arctic region (that occurred prior to 2005) has been weighted more heavily in recent adjustments to instrumental temperature data (Cowtan and Way, 2013; Karl et al., 2015) so as to erase the 1998-2015 hiatus and instead produce a warming trend.

Meanwhile, other scientists have been busy determining that only about 50% of the warming and sea ice losses for the Arctic region are anthropogenic, or connected to the rise in CO2 concentrations.

The rest of the warming and ice declines can be attributed to unforced natural variability.

Based on a short review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, there appears to be widespread agreement that a “substantial portion” of post-1979 Arctic-wide climate changes are naturally driven.


Image: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-22854-0

 
Image: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html

Image: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2011GL048008

Image: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3241

Image: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/15/4570.full

Image: https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2748

Image: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2005GL023429

Graph

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

143 responses to “New ‘Consensus’ Science: HALF Of 1979-Present Arctic Warming & Ice Loss Is Natural”

  1. A C Osborn

    Nope, it is all Natural.

  2. SebastianH

    Consequently, the anomalously rapid warming in the Arctic region (that occurred prior to 2005) has been weighted more heavily in recent adjustments to instrumental temperature data (Cowtan and Way, 2013; Karl et al., 2015) so as to erase the 1998-2015 hiatus and instead produce a warming trend.

    I see what you did there. Nothing learned from past discussions about different baselines?

    This is the correct version to make those datasets comparable

    Notice something? You start at the height of an El Nino and satellites measured far higher temperatures than surface thermometers. Oh, and no hiatus visible.

  3. Lasse

    It was all natural in the beginning of 1900:
    https://archive.org/details/glaciervariation00ahlm

    And a bit more unknown.

    The state radio (Swedish Radio) visited Svalbard i a program sent this week where they claimed that 5 degrees of warming in Svalbard/Spetsbergen was unheard of before, and the reporter asked the oceanographer what to do to prevent this to continue and become a problem.
    I sent them a book from the 1950s!

  4. Curious George

    ever — “qualifier of superlatives to indicate things that haven’t happened since the Earth was first formed in 1970”.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/16/the-climate-dictionary/

  5. Bitter&twisted

    Yes it is tempting and such an easy target, but DNFTT.

  6. Philip Clarke

    RealClimate pointed out that the Arctic temperature – Solar correlation identified by Soon breaks down after 2000.

    But RC links are banned here and you’re not really interested in a balanced view of the evidence, are you?

    1. AndyG55

      Temperature in Arctic after 2000..

      Only the El Nino. Now all but dissipated.

      https://s19.postimg.cc/f9z7yyxdf/UAH_NoPol_2000-2018.png

      As Solar has been heading downwards, and there is a natural lag in the system of some 15-20 years, there is no way RC could come to that conclusion unless they are using erroneous data.

      1. Philip Clarke
        1. AndyG55

          the Berks.. A unit specifically set up for climate propaganda.

          They grab all the junkiest data they can find , churn it through their “regional expectation” AlGore-rythme and form whatever temperatures they want.

          It really is a case of MASSIVE GI.. even more GO. !!

          1. SebastianH

            I am curious AndyG55, what is that you do in your professional life? Is climate science a hobby for you or does it have something to do with your profession?

          2. AndyG55

            Obviously nothing scientific in it for you, seb

            Low end journalist pretending to be a climate activist ??

          3. SebastianH

            Care to actually answer a question for once?

          4. AndyG55

            Both.

            So you ARE a low end journalist.

            thanks for the admission.

            certainly NEVER anything to do with science.!!

            Care to provide some actual empirical scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming of anything ?????

            Care to actually answer the question for once, without mindless distractions?

  7. Philip Clarke

    “The RealClimate blog points out that 110% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans. Scientists publishing in journals like Nature and Geophysical Research Letters conclude that about 50% of the warming and sea ice changes since 1979 are natural. Which one do you believe in, Philip — the blog or the papers cited herein?”

    Which of these papers conclude that 50% of global warming is natural?

    The one you are citing are about the Arctic, not the globe. Apples, Oranges. Oh and cherries.

  8. Bruce of Newcastle

    The AMO is still near its top. When it flips down watch Arctic sea ice extent increase rapidly.

    The AMO is derived from northern Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The geoconnection between the Atlantic and the Arctic is large, so no surprise that Arctic sea ice correlates closely with the AMO.

    So yes, natural influences are what mainly drive Arctic sea ice.

    1. AndyG55

      North Atlantic sea temps are starting to drop already.

  9. Ed Caryl

    110% of the warming??? Where does that extra 10% come from
    I love the dueling blogs. Blogs are not to be trusted unless they are OUR blogs!

    1. SebastianH

      110% of the warming??? Where does that extra 10% come from

      You have $100 and spend $10 on something. I give you $110 so you now have $200. What is the percentage of the increase I caused? 110% despite you having only 100% more money now. Magic!

      I love the dueling blogs. Blogs are not to be trusted unless they are OUR blogs!

      This exactly. Somehow Kenneth thinks he is not blogscience. And how often do the other guys here post blog links or even links to some youtubers?

      Gavin Schmidt, NASA, has decided that humans have caused cooling (aerosol particulates) in addition to the warming, and because of all that cooling that humans caused, the warming had to overcompensate at a value that ranged between 80% and 130%, centering on 110%.

      Umm, no. That is not how it works. It looks like you still can’t grasp how a greater than 100% value can even exist … see the money example above.

      1. AndyG55

        Yet another meaningless and totally irrelevant attempted analogy.

        Stick to REALITY for once in you rants, seb.

        1. SebastianH

          Again, not an analogy and certainly not an irrelevant example to demonstrate the silliness of that “how can something be more than 100% responsible for something” argument.

          1. AndyG55

            It is an analogy.

            Its a made up piece of irrelevant junk blathering, meant to convey something it doesn’t convey.

            Its what you do when you don’t have anything worthwhile to say.

            Which is basically every post.

      2. AndyG55

        I for one am REALLY REALLY pleased that you think humans are responsible for 100% + of the rise in essential atmospheric CO2.

        With 1600 or so new coal power stations planned or being built around the world, with an INCREASE in CO2 emissions of some 43%, you can look forward to ever increasing atmospheric CO2 for the rest of your life. 🙂

        And guess what.. there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you and your AGW petulants can do about it. 🙂

        How does that make you feel, seb 🙂

  10. AndyG55

    AMAZING how ICE-FREE the Arctic region is now.. 😉

    https://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/arctic-ice-2018.jpg

    1. SebastianH

      Let’s see how it will look like in this summer and the next and the one after that, etc …

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrI1bkLW8AQ_uZz.jpg

      Amazing, the Arctic is not “ice free” in winter. Who would have thought that …

      1. Christopher Hanley

        The minimum Arctic ice extent has dropped from ~ 7.5 million km^2 to ~5 million km^2 in the past 40 years so if the current rate continues the Arctic should be ice free for a week or so around the year 2100.
        I have my doubts that SebastianH will be around to celebrate.

        1. AndyG55

          Especially as it start to cycle back up over then several years. 🙂

          The AMO cycle is even visible in the Icelandic sea ice record going back through the LIA deep freeze.

          https://s19.postimg.cc/yc38073hv/Icelandic_sea_ice_index_3.png

          Why would ANYONE with even a fraction of a working mind think its not going to continue. !!

        2. P Gosselin

          Your assuming a linear trend. Assuming a linear trend for the stock market can also produce the future result one seeks.

          1. SebastianH

            Except the stock market is more like gambling. If we’d knew that all companies will grow for some time, then you could predict the stock market pretty well. We know that the heat content of this planet is increasing, that leads to a warmer surface and ice melting.

          2. AndyG55

            Only from the SUN’s influence on the oceans, seb.

            ZERO proof that the slight and highly beneficial warming out of the FREEZING COLD ANOMALY of the Little Ice Age has ANYTHING to do with human anything.

            You already KNOW that the 1940s were as warm or warmer than now at least in the NH.

            You already KNOW that the current Arctic sea ice is very much at an anomalous high, in the TOP 10% of Holocene extents

            You already KNOW that the only warming in the last 40 years has come from ocean discharges of pent-up solar energy.

            You already KNOW that CO2 cannot cause any warming of oceans.

            You already KNOW that the Arctic sea ice is at the bottom of a 60-80 year cycle.

            So tell us, seb, what SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE influence have humans had on the REAL temperature of the planet??

      2. AndyG55

        Oh dear.. seb drags out his crystal balls again.

        Put them away, and stop playing with them.

        ONE HECK OF A LOT OF ICE and SNOW UP THERE.

        Wouldn’t you agree, seb

  11. Bitter&twisted

    This new “consensus” of 50% natural factors is a significant change.
    I believe it is a reflection of the alarmist “scientists” realising that they can’t keep fiddling the data with impunity.
    They are attempting to move to a position of “plausible deniability” before the whole rotten edifice collapses.

  12. AndyG55

    Meanwhile, In Minnesota, typically southern lakes lose their ice cover at the end of March and NE MN lakes lose their ice at the very end of April.

    So far this year, NO lakes have lost their ice cover.

    This is “unprecedented” 😉

    1. SebastianH

      http://pamola.um.maine.edu/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_world-ced_t2anom_1-day.png

      Yep, large parts of NA are cooler than normal. But take a look at almost anywhere else … Antarctica +3.3°C, Artic +2.1°C

      Central Europe! We are having summer temperatures in April!

      1. AndyG55

        “Central Europe! We are having summer temperatures in April!”

        WOW, must be GORGEOUS WEATHER then

        …or are you SCARED of a little sunshine.??

        …maybe get out of your basement occasionally and actually ENJOY it, it will be raining and cold next week.

        ie, Turn your heater off, go outside, and breathe some fresh air for once in your life !!

      2. AndyG55

        See that anomaly period,

        Now look at it on the AMO cycle, (green shaded section) I suppose if they had chosen 5 years earlier, they could have selected a COLDER period as their reference.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/mkff8zkkz/Amolowmean.jpg

        Anomalies against nearly the COLDEST period since 1900 are MEANINGLESS in the REALITY of things.

        This “30 years is climate meme” is going to come back to bite them hard in a 60 year cycle 😉

        But they will have changed their fairy-tale story to “CO2 causes Global Cooling” by then !!

        You know, like in the 1970s

        1. SebastianH

          https://s19.postimg.cc/mkff8zkkz/Amolowmean.jpg

          AMO in °C? What sorcery is this? And why does it matter what period is chosen as baseline? A different period only changes the offset, the relative temperature differences don’t change.

          But they will have changed their fairy-tale story to “CO2 causes Global Cooling” by then !!

          You know, like in the 1970s

          “they” didn’t … CO2 causes cooling is your fairy-tale, don’t you remember?

          …or are you SCARED of a little sunshine.??

          Why?

          …maybe get out of your basement occasionally and actually ENJOY it, it will be raining and cold next week.

          This fixation on that “basement scenario” … are you trying to distract from your own living situation? It won’t get “cold” next week. The forecast still says 20°C 😉

          ie, Turn your heater off, go outside, and breathe some fresh air for once in your life !!

          We turned the heat off over a week ago and I am outside breathing fresh air for hours each day. Thank you for your concerns. I hope you are breathing fresh air too, doesn’t sound like you do most of the time …

          1. AndyG55

            “CO2 causes cooling is your fairy-tale”

            DENIAL of actually words in print from your priests now, hey seb.

            “We turned the heat off over a week ago”

            So you ADMIIT that you like it WARM.

            Fossil fuel powered, of course.. 😉

            ….. tiny steps , seb

            So you would have no problems if someone used the period around 1940 as a reference.
            …. and everything was shaded blue on the map.

            So funny that you can’t even figure out when you are having propaganda shoved in your face. 🙂

            Thanks for the admission you live in granny’s basement. Touched a sore point , I see.

            Some fresh air after all that CO2 you have been breathing in that basement.. don’t go all giddy !!

          2. AndyG55

            So sad that you don’t understand that the AMO drives the cycles in Arctic temperatures.

            UNAWARE yet again, hey.

            Perhaps a plot showing how closely Arctic temperatures track the AMO will help to make you less UNAWARE.

            Although I doubt, it given your DESPERATION to remain UNAWARE.

            https://s19.postimg.cc/yavxs1i7n/amoreyk.jpg

          3. SebastianH

            *sigh* … AndyG55, just go surfing or whatever it is that you do …

          4. AndyG55

            Again, seb has NOTHING to counter anything..

            Poor little ZERO-SCIENCE seb.

            Just RUN and HIDE, little one. !!

            Perpetually UNAWARE of basic REALITY.

  13. A C Osborn

    How can 50% of the warming possibly be Man made when 60% is due to “Adjustments” as declared by NOAA themselves.
    So that only leaves 40% to be either natural or due to CO2 increases.
    We already know that the majority of the warming was from reduced cloud cover.
    See

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif

  14. Arctic Climate--Recent Past | Pearltrees

    […] New ‘Consensus’ Science: HALF Of 1979-Present Arctic Warming & Ice Loss Is Natural. By Kenneth Richard on 19. April 2018 Only 50% Of Recent Arctic Warming & Sea Ice Loss Is Human-Caused Image Source: Climate4you The Arctic region was the largest contributor to the positive slope in global temperatures in recent decades. […]

  15. Philip Clarke

    “No, I didn’t assume uniform warming. Many regions of the Earth have been cooling for the last several decades. Instead, I assumed that if the claim is that humans have caused 100% of the overall net warming since a selected starting point (usually 1950), and if there has been warming in a region since 1950, then 100% of the warming in that region would necessarily be human-caused. ”

    Non seqiteur. I did not mention uniform warming, but uniform forcing. The attribution figure is an average for the globe, it is not inconsistent with some regions having lower than 100% manmade forcing.

    HADCRUT is the worst possible dataset for examining the Arctic.

    “Note that GISTEMP, UAH and NCEP/NCAR all show faster warming in the Arctic than over the planet as a whole and GISTEMP and NCEP/NCAR also show faster warming in the Antarctic. Both of these regions are largely missing in the HadCRUT4 data. If the other datasets are right, this should lead to a cool bias due to coverage in the HadCRUT4 temperature series.”

    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297

    Even the not particularly reliable Climate4You site shows the plots of UAH and RSS, each with more warming, and no sign of a cooling since 2005, eg here’s RSS

    http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

    Re: Hanhijarvi et al., 2013. Why on earth would you use a graph from a 2,000 year reconstruction? Both the proxy and instrumental data have had decadal-scale smoothing applied, greatly reducing the variance or the appearance of a modern trend.

    Ah…. I see.

    1. AndyG55

      “if the claim is that humans have caused 100%

      Which is an unprovable NONSENSE claim.

      There is no mechanism for humans to somehow “warm” the climate.

      ” the plots of UAH “

      UAH shows NO WARMING apart from the now dissipated EL Nino spike since 2000

      https://s19.postimg.cc/f9z7yyxdf/UAH_NoPol_2000-2018.png

      And we all know that humans CANNOT be held accountable for El Ninos.

      So.. NO SIGNAL of human warming in the Arctic this century.

      Could it be that the AMO levelled off, and will shortly start to drop. 😉

  16. Climate Scientists Recant | Un hobby...

    […] K. Richard, April 19, 2018 in […]

  17. Slew Of Recent Published Findings Show Man’s Share Of Arctic Ice Melt Grossly Exaggerated, And Uncertain!

    […] days ago Kenneth Richard posted on a number of papers that do show that man’s attributed share to Arctic warming has indeed been […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close