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.
Nope, it is all Natural.
Considering it has previously (2014) been claimed to be 100% anthropogenic, even 110% anthropogenic…
…it’s a rather large shift in the right direction.
Well, where does the heat for “natural warming” come from? More heat transfered from the tropics might seem natural, but why is there more heat available to transport in the first place? The rising heat content and how that heat gets distributed is the key to understanding what is natural and what is caused by the high CO2 concentration.
It comes from the Sun and Oceans.
Almost all the heat ultimately comes from the Sun, captain obvious.
The oceans get 99% of the energy from the sun, as a temporary storage ballast, captain obvious.
Yes, that is still pretty obvious. The thing is, energy goes into the oceans and leaves the oceans. If those to streams are not in balance the heat content changes.
Is that obvious to you too?
If you went with captain obvious, seb, you wouldn’t be a manic believer in a failed religion.
Where did it come from when the Arctic was 18 degrees C warmer than now during the Pliocene — while CO2 values were lower than today’s?
Where did it come from when the Arctic warmed up by 10 to 15 degrees C in a matter of a few decades while CO2 concentrations remained constant about 2 dozen times during the last glacial?
Where did the heat come from when Greenland warmed up by 10 to 15 degrees C in a matter of decades about 14,700 years ago and again 11,700 years ago (Younger Dryas) while CO2 concentrations remained constant?
Where did it come from ~8,000 years ago, when the Arctic was sea ice free and temperatures were several degrees C warmer than now (while CO2 concentrations were in the 260s ppm)?
Where did the heat come from when the Vikings were farming in regions of Greenland during the Medieval Warm Period that are covered in permafrost today?
Where did it come from during the 1920s and 1930s, when the Arctic was just as warm or warmer than now while CO2 levels hovered around 300 ppm and human emissions were lower than today’s annual rates by a full order of magnitude?
If you can answer these questions, you’ll have your answer for where the heat’s coming from for the more recent Arctic oscillation (warm phase).
Well, to give Seb a hint, we can safely answer that it wasn’t mankind. And if it wasn’t mankind, then the chances aren’t bad that it was “natural”. We’ll see if Seb can do the rest. 🙂
More heat was available to be transferred to the Arctic from the tropics in recent decades because there was a reduction in the cloud cover albedo that prevents the Sun’s radiant energy from being absorbed by the oceans. Less cloud cover in the tropics = more absorbed solar heat for the globe. Here’s a visual for what that looks like:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Cooling-Warming-Temperature-Cloud-Page-17.jpg
Here’s a quantification of the surface solar radiation values (W m-2) associated with the cloud cover reduction during 1979-2011 and 1984-2000:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
“The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance [cloud cover] from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into … an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.”
Comment didn’t appear …
” then the chances aren’t bad that it was “natural”. “
But Pierre, suddenly all the “NATURAL” climate change that brought the HUGE variability in climate over millions and millions of years has just disappeared,
And we are left with ONLY human influence for the slight but highly beneficial warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
Aren’t human POWERFUL !!
Destroying NATURAL cause of climate variability, and supplanting Mother Nature as the prime controller of climate.
REMARKABLE !! 😉
So no rescue from the spam bin or whereever these comments go when they don’t appear in the moderation queue?
Arguing that past climate changes didn’t require CO2 concentration being higher than normal therefore the current change can’t be coming from CO2 is a deeply flawed argument.
The cloud reduction … what caused it? Is it a feedback? Less aerosols emitted by mankind? Or do you believe it has something to do with cosmic rays?
The heat content increase is caused by the increased GHE. That heat gets distributed in the current warming. That’s where the heat is coming from.
Arguing that the changes in temperature and sea ice extent loss/decline and glacier melt/advance and sea level rise/fall in the last 30 years can’t be connected to oceanic oscillations or cloud cover changes or the undulating recovery from the LIA or the Modern Grand Maximum or the lack of volcanic aerosols or natural ozone changes or geothermal heat flux…because the atmospheric gaseous concentration that is not carbon dioxide changed from 99.965% in 1988 to 99.960% today, and therefore that 0.005 of a percentage point caused 100% of the temperature and precipitation and glacier and sea ice net changes during the last 30 years…is a deeply flawed argument.
There is an ongoing scientific debate about the modulation of clouds by solar activity. There is no ongoing scientific debate about humans causing cloud cover increases or decreases.
Wilson and Sidorenkov, 2018
https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/a-lunisolar-connection-to-weather-and-climate-i-centennial-times-scales-2157-7617-1000446.pdf
“The fact that the periods of eight out of nine of the most prominent peaks in the lunar alignment spectrum (highlighted column 3 of Table 2) closely match those in the spectra of ϕm [solar modulation potentional] and Tm [maximum daily temperature], strongly supports the contention that all three of these phenomena are closely related to one another. … principal component analyses of the 10Be and 14C records show that, on multi-decadal to centennial time scales, the radionuclide production signal accounts for 76% of the total variance in the data [18,19]. This would imply that there is a causal link between Tm [maximum daily temperature] and near-Earth GCR flux, with a factor related to the latter driving the former. … An implicit assumption that is used by those who reject GCR [galactic cosmic rays]-cloud models is that the GCR flux hitting the Earth needs to produce changes in the total amount of cloud cover over the majority of the globe in order to significantly affect the world mean temperature. However, this assumption ignores the possibility that regional changes in the amount of cloud cover could influence the rate at which the Earth’s climate system warms or cools. Of course, for this to be true there would have to be observational evidence that shows that the GCR flux can affect the level of cloud cover on a regional scale. Support for this hypothesis is provided [23] who claim that existing multi-decadal ground-based datasets for clouds show that there is a weak but significant correlation between the amounts of regional cloud cover and the overall level of GCR fluxes. In addition, Larken et al. [2010] find that there is a strong and robust positive correlation between statistically significant variations in the short-term (daily) GCR ray flux and the most rapid decreases in cloud cover over the mid-latitudes (30° – 60° N/S). Moreover, Larken et al. [2010] find that there is a direct causal link between the observed cloud changes and changes in the sea level atmospheric temperature, over similar time periods.”
We’re going to need some real-world physical measurements that show how much water-body warming is caused by 0.000001 changes in atmospheric CO2 so we can assess the extent to which the ocean heat changes are caused by CO2 concentrations vs. other mechanisms that affect ocean heat content changes (i.e., cloud cover changes, volcanic aerosol changes, solar activity changes, etc.). If we don’t have these physical measurements (and we don’t), we cannot know how much of the water temperature changes are anthropogenic vs. natural. Saying it’s 100% anthropogenic because those other factors that affect ocean heat changes exerted no effect (0%) is not going to cut it. Those other factors have never been ruled out.
Do you believe the things you listed aren’t being considered? You still have a problem with attribution. So let’s take it to the extreme then.
Let’s say there is a natural variability that causes the NH to increase in temperature by 10°C, another natural variability causes the SH temperature to drop by 10°C. Now we install a heater and turn it on. What is the contribution of that heater to global warming if the NH and SH effect cancel each other out exactly? Why is that so hard to grasp for you?
Link doesn’t work, but I suspect junk science because of the wording in your quote. Correlation is not causation and we already know that the change of cosmic rays does cause only a few percents of the change in cloud cover. You know what else correlates with a reduction in cloud cover? Aerosols produced by humans.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/smoke_cloudcover.html
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0078323414500139
Do we have physical measurements of the other possible contributors you mentioned?
Do you actually need to measure the temperature in an oven when you know how much energy you put into it and the insulation parameters are known? Or do we trust that the laws of physics are correct and the energy we put into the oven doesn’t just magically disappear causing it not to reach the calculated temperature / heat content?
You still don’t get it (how attribution works). Of course, the other factors are having an effect. They didn’t just stop contributing. But the sum of those effects is 0 or slightly negative. Thus the human influence is around or above 100%.
The positive forcing from the reduction in cloud cover alone since the 1980s is not “zero or slightly negative”.
Here’s a quantification of the surface solar radiation values (W m-2) associated with the cloud cover reduction during 1979-2011 and 1984-2000:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/8505/2013/acp-13-8505-2013.html
“[T]here has been a global net decrease in 340 nm cloud plus aerosol reflectivity [1979-2011]. … Applying a 3.6% cloud reflectivity perturbation to the shortwave energy balance partitioning given by Trenberth et al. (2009) corresponds to an increase of 2.7 W m−2 of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface and an increase of 1.4% or 2.3 W m−2 absorbed by the surface.”
ftp://bbsoweb.bbso.njit.edu/pub/staff/pgoode/website/publications/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf
“The decrease in the Earth’s reflectance [cloud cover] from 1984 to 2000 suggested by Fig. 4, translates into … an additional global shortwave forcing of 6.8 Wm2. To put that in perspective, the latest IPCC report (IPCC, 2001) argues for a 2.4 Wm2 increase in CO2 longwave forcing since 1850. The temporal variations in the albedo are closely associated with changes in the cloud cover.”
Link works fine, but you call it junk science because you don’t agree with what the authors have to say.
The change in cloud cover is what determines how much or how little solar heat is absorbed by the oceans. We still have much that we don’t “know” about cloud seeding.
(press release) “The impact of changes in solar activity on Earth’s climate was up to seven times greater than climate models suggested according to new research published today in Nature Communications. Researchers have claimed a breakthrough in understanding how cosmic rays from supernovas react with the sun to form clouds, which impact the climate on Earth. The findings have been described as the “missing link” to help resolve a decades long controversy that has big implications for climate science.”
Please stop using analogies involving ovens and guns and bank accounts… I completely ignore them after reading the first line. They are invariably irrelevant. I’ll be deleting them from your posts in the future.
“But the sum of those effects is 0 or slightly negative. ”
RUBBISH.
You cannot know that.
It is all based on anti-science , zero-measurement ASSumptions and IGNORANCE of other major contributors.
Specifically IGNORING the major contributor of Sun and cloud variability, and lag times for solar energy in oceans.
The sun most CERTAINLY INCREASED it s contribution to world temperatures since the FREEZING cold of the LIA, and CERTAINLY in the 2nd half for last century. So saying the sum is zero or slightly negative is a TOTAL DENIAL of the facts.
Attribution science is a den of make-believe and ignorance.
There is ZERO mechanism and ZERO evidence for human CO2 affecting the atmospheric temperature,
… shows just how WOEFULLY INCOMPETENT the low-end attribution pseudo-scientists are.
And yet ANOTHER mindless irrelevant analogy, always your fall-back when you can’t cut it with REALITY. We haven’t “turned-on” a heater, in any way shape or form.
Stop your MINDLESS excursions into your hallucinogenic fantasy realm, seb, they are TOTALLY irrelevant to any discussion.
But it all you have, isn’t it.
Am I writing Chinese? The sum of ALL variables besides human emissions. For all it matter you could have giant volcanoe causing 2000 W/m² of forcing. When there is another effect cancelling out those 2000 W/m², then the sum is zero.
[snip]
Link didn’t work, it works now. It’s junk science because the authors feel compelled to write something like this:
“An implicit assumption that is used by those who reject GCR-cloud models is” and now that i’ve seen it’s a paper about how the Moon influences the Sun and how that might influence cloud cover, well …
Sure it does, but don’t forget the other half of the equation, like you do with SMB.
I see, do you have no interest in learning something in a simpler setting?
P.S.: “We still have much to learn” is not a very good argument either if it amounts to “there could be a huge unknown effect hidden somewhere that we don’t know about yet, but turns everything upside down”. Don’t you think the big influences are the first things we would get to know?
And you have no real-world evidence that every single time the net forcing from cloud cover variations goes positive, it’s “cancelled out” by something else (what?) so that the net change is zero.
Your analogies are not “learning something”. You’ll need to disabuse yourself of the notion that you are actually providing anything that even remotely resembles “instruction” here. You are not someone that anyone here “learns” from — especially when you use your analogies.
Ehm, firstly a cloud cover reduction causes more solar radiation to reach the surface, but it also causes less backradiation from clouds. Secondly, the influences on climate have been quantified by scientists. I don’t think that there is an obvious forcing that they missed.
And that’s the problem. You guys automatically shut down when someone outside of your bubble explains anything to you.
I don’t want to provide “instructions”, I simply want you to understand how attribution works, what the difference between a value and its derivative is and that SMB is not the net ice mass balance 😉
“You are not someone that anyone here “learns” from”
I have learnt something for seb’s analogies, K
I have just how poorly educated and totally UNAWARE the modern teenage AGW apostle really is.
Those mindless irrelevant analogies just reinforce that observation, taken from basically every post he makes. UNAWARE and NEGATIVELY-EDUCATED.
I am sure that the AGW stall-warts would find him a complete embarrassment with his gross incompetence at supporting even the most basic fallacy (ie CO2 warming) of their agenda drive religion.
“I don’t want to provide “instructions”, ”
ROFLMAO
No seb, you are INCAPABLE of providing instructions.
Your AWARENESS is totally limited to your brain-hose anti-science AGW mantra.
Your explanations are limited to MINDLESS analogies and erroneous anti-science NONSENSE fantasies.
Your total LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of science, maths, physics, and now attribution studies, leaves you being the one DESERATELY in need of basic instruction.
The IPCC is quoted
“another key element in attribution studies is the consideration of the physical consistency of multiple lines of evidence. Both detection and attribution require knowledge of the internal climate variability on the time scales considered, usually decades or longer.“
You have ZERO evidence, let alone any physically consistent lines of evidence.
And you are in continual DENIAL of internal natural climate variability at basically ALL time scales, but especially over the length of the current interglacial. Heck, even since the 1900s, DENIAL of the peak in the 1940s.
Your OWN WORDS and DENIAL of NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE shows that you haven’t got the REMOTEST CLUE about climate attribution studies.
“what is caused by the high CO2 concentration.”
1, Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are still LOW.
2. There is ZERO PROOF that CO2 causes any warming.
You are making blatantly UNSUPPORTABLE statements as always, seb.
There is “ZERO PROOF” for anything in physics/science. Proofs are a math thing.
“There is “ZERO PROOF”’
CERTAIN NONE FROM YOU.
Stop the mindless EMPTY evasion, seb
Just ADMIT you have NOTHING to back up your ludicrous, anti-science claims of CO2 warming.
Poor EMPTY seb
[snip] KNOWS he has no evidence..
… squirming and worming !!
You need a heat sink such as the oceans and an atmosphere with ideal pressure such as the earth’s. The sun by itself does nothing if the radiation cannot be absorbed.
The ultimate heat sink being space, do you think it makes a difference for the heat content how good an object is insulated against space given an almost constant energy input?
And thank goodness for that constant energy input from SUN and other sources.
Thank goodness for the atmosphere and its gravity based temperature gradient.
We see what happen where the atmosphere is thinner.. MIGHTY COLD.
But mostly, THANK GOODNESS for the tiny trace amount of atmospheric CO2 that FEEDS the whole planet. Much more is needed.
And really, seb, do you DENY that the oceans are a VAST energy storage for SUN sourced energy?
Or to you still IMAGINE in your FEEBLE FANTASIES that the pitiful mythical DWLWR from a tiny fraction of the atmospheric mass, in a TINY sliver of the low-energy radiation spectrum, can actually cause any ocean warming?
Particularly once any energy absorbed by that CO2 is passed to the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere before any re-emittance can take place.
Surly, not even your brain-hosed mind can rationalise that FANTASY !!
AndyG55, how do you think an oven works? Do the insulated walls heat the insides in addition to the heating element?
Neither does the downwelling longwave radiation represent an additional source of energy. It just causes the net radiation flux from the surface towards space to be lower than it would be without it. That’s all … it’s no “heating element” that warms the oceans. And no, evaporation doesn’t pick up all of the decrease (of the net radiation flux) and even overcompensates actually causing cooling (like you are claiming).
Do you ever read the papers Kenneth posts? Or do you just blend out those that don’t match your perception of reality?
https://notrickszone.com/2018/04/16/in-2015-climate-scientists-wrecked-their-own-co2-forced-polar-amplification-narrative/
Did you read that Schmithüsen paper the blog post was based on? Did you see the graphic of the globe and the CO2 forcing?
Still DUCKING and WEAVING and dodging and squirming in your mindless attempt to avoid posting what you KNOW you cannot produce.
So hilarious. 🙂
Yep the Schmithüsen showed there was ZERO to NNE, maybe even NEGATIVE CO2 warming in the Arctic and Antarctic.
It provided absolutely ZERO proof of warming anywhere else, just an UNPROVABLE tacit mention/ assumption.
You really don’t comprehend basic science and English much, do you seb.
It does NOT cause the flux to become lower. Flux to space has INCREASED as temperature has increased naturally.
You STILL are TOTALLY UNAWARE of the processes of thermalisation and convection controlled by the gravity /thermal gradient. (that’s been on your WILFULLY UNAWARE list for ages seb.. time to WAKE UP. !!)
PROVEN, MEASURED science, seb.
Not some FANTASY apparently immeasurable warming by a tiny trace gas.
And you really think the atmosphere works like an oven with metallic walls??
SERIOUSLY DELUDED. !!
And STILL denying that evaporation causes COOLING.. WOW !!!
Do you even consider just how much NONSENSE you are writing before you post it??
I shouldn’t reply to you, but this is gold. Thank you for being you, I guess. Your fellow skeptics friends should be embarrassed by what you write …
Says seb, who STILL can’t provide even one bit of evidence for CO2 warming anything
How embarrassing is that, seb !!!
It obviously hurts you deeply to be so INEPT.
Not one word to counter anything said, because you KNOW that you can’t. EMPTY.
Just keep your mindless chanting , seb.
Its all you have.
its all you are.
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.
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!
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/
Yes it is tempting and such an easy target, but DNFTT.
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?
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?
Do you also disagree with scientists publishing in Nature that there the “anthropogenic melt from the Greenland ice sheet is still too small to be detected“? Or do you think the addition of 1.5 cm of meltwater equivalent from the Greenland Ice sheet to sea level rise between 1900 and 2010 is harrowing and alarmingly outside the range of natural variability?
New Paper: Greenland Gained Ice Between 1940s-2000s, Added Just 1.5 cm To Sea Levels Since 1900
The Solar-Climate connection is not just about the variations in TSI. We also need to consider the accuracy of the temperature record due to the urbanization bias and tendencies to artificially cool the past and warm the present to fit the models.
Soon et al., 2015:
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Soon-Connolly-2015-NH-Temps-TSI.jpg
By the way, does the lack of a clear Arctic-wide warming signal after 2005…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Arctic-Temperatures-2000-2018-HadCRUT4-Climate4you.jpg
…correlate with the dramatic rise in human CO2 emissions after 2005?
You must know that the 110% figure doesn’t come from a blog. So why this question? And you also must be aware that it’s about the Sum of all influences. So even if one place would warm because of natural causes, the whole globe’s increase in heat content matches the imbalance caused by CO2 forcing, therefore the heat content wouldn’t have increased if the CO2 concentration had not increased. Simple as that. And yes, you can get greater than 100% this way.
Has it accelerated since then? It’s currently at 0.10 mm/y, smaller than the 0.27 mm/y from Antartica (despite larger ice mass loss: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/). And yes, Greenland has been incredibly stable … the ice sheet didn’t melt during any of the last 8 interglacials. “Farming” on Greenland was certainly not very widespread 😉
Kenneth, the argument can’t be “it’s not outside natural variability”. That’s just lazy. Lots of things aren’t outside of the range of previous variability, but the reasons for the variabilities to occur changes all the time.
Statements like these should disqualify anyone from being taken seriously. That is conspiracy territory …
P.S.: I would be very skeptical of anything that Soon puts out there.
P.P.S.: That climate4you Arctic graph is a fake graph. Try to get the data from elsewhere and you’ll see. It looks more like this: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/hadcrut4_70n.jpg and this: https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/nasa1y.jpg
No seb, the tamino graphs are based on wildly “adjusted” data.
They are NOT REAL.
https://s19.postimg.cc/chlq0r1cj/Arctic_Had_Crut_4.gif
Reality is that around 1940 was WARMER than now in the Arctic region.
ALL unadjusted, unmanipulated data shows that to be the case.
Even the IPCC agree
https://s19.postimg.cc/d3hrldzj7/Arctictemps.jpg
Remember that apart from the now-decayed El Nino transient, There has been no warming in the Arctic this century.
https://s19.postimg.cc/f9z7yyxdf/UAH_NoPol_2000-2018.png
You have yet to counter one single thing Dr. Soon has said with anything resembling actual science.
You have yet to produce one piece of actual scientific evidence of CO2 warming anything
Just chant the mantra, seb.. only thing you can do.
How about you provide some proof for anything you say and claim? Let’s see how long it takes you to realize that there can’t be proofs in science, only evidence that a theory is correct. And we have overwhelming evidence that the GHE is real and that an increase in CO2 concentration increases the effect.
Didn’t Soon write something about Mars ice melting and that it must be the Sun? That was easily disproved (that you can do in science). And wasn’t there a paper by this guy that caused staff to resign from a journal because it got accepted despite major flaws?
“And we have overwhelming evidence that the GHE is real and that an increase in CO2 concentration increases the effect.”
WHERE IS IT, THEN !!!!.
Its all in your brain-hosed FANTASY, seb
You are unable to produce ANYTHING.
Just the MINDLESS, CLUELESS, AGW mantra chanting.
Point a spectrometer at the sky, measure the incoming radiation and you are done.
“Point a spectrometer at the sky”
ROFLMAO..
Seb shows he has ZERO comprehension about basically EVERYTHING to do with the atmosphere.
Thinks a spectrometer reads warming, thinks he is measuring CO2 radiation.. (o.o4% of the atmosphere)
All you are reading is the natural radiation from a slightly warm atmosphere… Always been there, always will be.
Put that spectrometer 1mm below the water surface, see how much you measure.
…and you think its cause warming, when the sky is colder than the water or the ground..
Your grasp of basic physics is EXTREMELY LACKING.
And do you know what causes that warming in the atmosphere, seb, all parts of it??
The increase in temperature as you go lower in the atmosphere comes from static gravitational compression of that atmosphere, as predicted by the ideal gas law itself. The low altitude molecules have decreased mean free path, higher collision rate, thus increased temperature.
The energy is provided by the SUN, and the gravity/pressure gradient controls the cooling to space.
BASIC PHYSICS , seb.. Do try to learn some at least ONCE in your life. !!
Also, as you well know, the ONLY warming in the satellite era has come from ocean effects, and CO2 CAN NOT and DOES NOT cause oceans to warm.
You are still TOTALLY LACKING in any empirical scientific evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 does ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.
“…and you think its cause warming, when the sky is colder than the water or the ground..”
Another AndyG55-ism. You have no idea how that might work, do you? And you think you are qualified to discuss anything touching physics?
“You have no idea how that might work, do you?”
It might work by a seb FANTASY fairy-tale…
You obviously comprehend physics….
….. at a pre-junior high level
Seriously though, you don’t know how it works, right? You are not just pretending that it sounds wrong because you want to troll us/me, right?
I know how you THINK it works.
But as with most things regarding anything..
…. you are monumentally mal-informed.
“Statements like these should disqualify anyone from being taken seriously.”
DENIAL of the FACT that data has PROVABLY and DELIBERATELY been tampered with to conform to the AGW meme, ABSOLUTELY DISQUALIFIES that person from being taken seriously.
You do realise you are taken as a bit of a JOKE here, don’t you, seb.
Certainly no-one, except yourself, takes anything you say remotely seriously.
Its all really quite anti-science ZERO-fact nonsense that you put forward, seb.
And I’m pretty sure you KNOW that, and are just in to for the attention seeking.
Honest question, do you think anyone takes you seriously?
Poor little seb,
Stop your plaintive, pathetic, BEGGING for attention.
Where is that empirical EVIDENCE of CO2 warming seb..
SERIOUSLY.
WHERE IS IT !!!
It comes from Gavin on the RealClimate blog, responding to a Judith Curry comment from her blog.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/
“The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%.”
Why do you disagree with the scientists publishing papers in Nature and GRL and PNAS that 50% of Arctic climate changes in the last few decades are natural? Why are they wrong…since you believe it’s 100% anthropogenic?
Since when? Greenland cooled between the 1940s and the early 1990s. That’s 50 years of cooling just as CO2 emissions were dramatically rising. Then, from the mid-1990s to the mid-2000s, Greenland warmed (in phase with natural oceanic oscillations). The warming was smaller in magnitude than the 1920s-1930s warming…
Box et al., 2009
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2009JCLI2816.1
“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
Not only that, but the rate of contribution to sea level rise from the Greenland ice sheet between 1993-2010 was, in total, 0.39 of a centimeter…
Since 1993, Greenland’s Ice Sheet Melt Has Added Just 0.39 Of A Centimeter To Global Sea Levels
…with a “null contribution from the 1940s to 2000s”…
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/1015/2017/tc-11-1015-2017.pdf
“SMB [surface mass balance, Greenland Ice Sheet] during the 1920–1930 warm period over Greenland was comparable to the SMB of the 2000s, due to both higher melt and lower precipitation than normal. … Finally, with respect to the 1961–1990 period, the integrated contribution of the GrIS SMB [Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Balance] anomalies over 1900–2010 is a sea level rise of about 15 ± 5 mm [1.5 centimeters], with a null contribution from the 1940s to the 2000s“
So if Greenland contributed 1.5 cm between 1900 and 2010, and 0.39 of a cm between the 1940s and 2010, that means that Greenland contributed 1.1 cm to sea level rise between 1900 and 1940, and it decelerated to 0.4 cm total during the next 70 years. So, in a long answer to your question, no.
Nothing unusual is happening in Greenland. It was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s. As even JoNova notes on her blog (picking it up from here), it’s no warmer today than in 1880. For you to claim that CO2 is exerting an effect, we’d have to see something abnormal happening. We don’t.
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/04/greenland-same-temperature-now-as-1880/
Climate change means Greenland is the same temperature now as 1880
It’s the HadCRUT4 instrumental data, SebastianH! It uses the same HadCRUT data as shown for the instrumental (red) trend in Hanhijarvi et al. (2013)…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Arctic-Air.jpg
So even the instrumental record for the Arctic is fake if it doesn’t show more warming in recent years? And you talk about “conspiracies” because we don’t buy into your blogscience graphs (tamino?!)?
They aren’t wrong. You are mixing up stuff creating a straw man to argue against.
When you look at just a region an conclude that the change in climate in that region comes from elsewhere (e.g. more heat transported from the tropics), you can call that natural. But if the overall heat content change of the planet matches the imbalance caused by an increased GHE, then that’s a 100% attribution to the anthropogenic cause. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the heat transported towards the poles (which was called a natural variation) comes from the increased GHE.
Do you understand how this attribution thing works? A + B + C = D … with A = B = D = 100 and C = -100 you can attribute 100% of D to either A or B. So if A is the human influence and B+C are natural variability, you get?
Repeat after me: SMB is not the net ice mass change (and also not the net contribution to sea level change of a region). You can easily check on that when you actually look at those MAR model values. Are they ever negative or do they move between 200 and 600 Gt/y? What Gt/y value is the limit for sea level to rise or fall?
Also, since when do you base your arguments on model results?
No, we are seeing something abnormal happening. But you are looking at the wrong data. If you’d only look at your bank account balance you wouldn’t know why the value changes either. It goes up and down and you would call it normal. But then someone comes along and notices that you had no income from a job for a while, but won the lottery and chose to let them pay you the sum via a monthly “salary”. The abnormal thing is what causes the change in your bank account, not the amount by which your account changes. Got it?
Then go ahead and retrieve the data from a different source than the climate disinformer for you website.
If a graph posted on a blog suddenly loses value, then what are you doing posting your own graphs here? What you do is “blogscience”, right? Why do you expect anyone should “buy” into your graphs and stories?
Regarding Hadcrut4 and the Arctic:
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297
What is unusual about what’s happened in, say, Greenland?
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Greenland.jpg
It’s the HadCRUT4 instrumental data, SebastianH!
I did. The same Arctic trend for the last 90 years from the instrumental data used in Climate4you graphs shows up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, Hanhijarvi et al. (2013):
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Arctic-Air.jpg
See the red trend line there? That’s HadCRUT. And like the Climate4you data that you claim is “fake”, it shows 1920s-1930s temperatures were just as warm or warmer as the 1995-2005 temperatures. But please do identify why you believe this graph of the Arctic temperatures is made up of “fake” HadCRUT data. Why are you name-calling (“climate disinformer”), anyway?
But…tamino to the rescue. Perhaps SkepticalScience can make up some graphs. Oh, look…
https://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/bau_future_warming_med.jpg
I provided you with a link at the end of my last comment in this thread.
Hey what does Tony Heller have to say about this? Or Anthony Watts? Or Delingpole? Maybe we should consult them about “blogscience”? 🙂
Poor seb.. DEVOID of anything constructive to say, yet again.
Unable to argue the science, so distracts.
Arctic temperatures, even in HadCrad4, were WARMER in the 1940s
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Arctic-Temperatures-1920-2017-HadCRUT4.jpg
GET OVER IT , and FACE FACTS, seb.
An seb,
Please tell us al what SCIENTIFICALLY PROVABLE effect we could possibly be having on the Arctic sea ice.
Can’t be artificially adjusted temperatures,
Can’t be CO2,ZERO proof it warms anything
About the only human effect I can think of is all the massive ice-breakers they are using up there.
We are WAITING for you informed response, but I very much doubt we will get anything except mindless AGW mantra.
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.
Try Berkeley Earth
http://berkeleyearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Arctic2017.png
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. !!
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?
Obviously nothing scientific in it for you, seb
Low end journalist pretending to be a climate activist ??
Care to actually answer a question for once?
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?
“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.
The papers say that 50% of Arctic warming and sea ice declines are natural. So if a blog states that 110% of the warming across the globe since 1950 is anthropogenic, then, since the Arctic is a region of the globe, that would mean that the blog is in disagreement with the papers that say that warming in the Arctic is 50% natural. So which do you believe, Philip? Do you believe the Arctic warmth is 110% caused by humans, or 50% caused by humans?
And since Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have not been warming since the 1970s and the sea ice has been advancing around Antarctica since the 1970s, do you believe those non-warming trends are 50% anthropogenic or 110% anthropogenic…or something else? It looks as though scientists agree that what’s happening in the Antarctic isn’t unusual either. Do you agree or disagree? If the latter, explain why.
—
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n10/full/nclimate3103.html
“Most observed trends [over the 36-year satellite data] are not unusual when compared with Antarctic palaeoclimate records of the past two centuries. … [C]limate 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“
—
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2017-40/cp-2017-40.pdf
“A recent effort to characterize Antarctic and sub-Antarctic climate variability during the last 200 years also concluded that most of the trends observed since satellite climate monitoring began in 1979 CE cannot yet be distinguished from natural (unforced) climate variability , and are of the opposite sign [cooling] to those produced by most forced climate model simulations over the same post-1979 CE interval.”
—
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-016-3230-4
“[We] conclude that there is little evidence of anthropogenic SAM-induced driving of the recent temperature trends … compelling evidence pointing to natural climate variability as a key contributor to the recent warming of West Antarctica and of the Peninsula“
Two things:
1) you do realize that you are posting on a blog too, right?
2) you still don’t have a clue how attribution works.
Let’s say you have a cake and AndyG55 eats half of the cake, but then feels bad and bakes you another cake. Along comes Pierre and eats all the cake you had (one and a half cakes). What is the contribution of AndyG55 to your cake balance and what is Pierre’s contribution?
Please, SebastianH. Your analogies are so devoid of substance that I just roll my eyes after the first sentence. There is no one here who considers your analogies substantive or even worth considering. Just stop.
It’s not an analogy. Apparently, you don’t know how attribution works and I am trying to visualize it for you with an easy example.
Less eye rolling, more understanding. I’ll stop once you stopped viewing a 110% contribution as impossible magic and feel the need to call it blogscience.
Supercilious and pedantic language like this, repeated over and over and over and over and over again, is not helping you here. Please try to upgrade your comments by not repeating these same baseless attempts at insults.
Sigh.
Attribution works through FANTASY if your baseless analogy is anything to go by.
Attribution is finding a tiny imaginary link that you think you can make meaningful mileage out of.
Mostly, it is a statistical load of garbage.
But I’m pretty sure you don’t know how attribution is actually MEANT to work, seb.
Just how it is used in anti-science AGW propaganda.
Why do you ALWAYS descend even further than usual, to mindless, meaningless analogies when you have absolutely NOTHING ELSE to back up your anti-science ramblings??
It’s not an analogy.
“It’s not an analogy.”
It is an analogy.
A meaningless, irrelevant FAILED analogy.
Certainly nothing to do with atmospheric CO2.
Stick to REALITY, if you capable of doing that, seb.
It certainly is not an analogy. And why should it have anything to do with CO2? This sub-thread was about attribution math, something I feel you guys are having problems with.
It certainly IS an analogy.
It is not directly about the topic.
Its a distraction using unnecessary, pointless irrelevant cake in a failed attempt to make a point about something you obviously know very little about.
From the IPCC “another key element in attribution studies is the consideration of the physical consistency of multiple lines of evidence. Both detection and attribution require knowledge of the internal climate variability on the time scales considered, usually decades or longer.“
You have ZERO evidence, let alone any physically consistent lines of evidence.
And you are in continual DENIAL of internal natural climate variability at basically ALL time scales, but especially over the length of the current interglacial. Heck, even since the 1900s, DENIAL of the peak in the 1940s.
Your OWN WORDS and DENIAL of NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE shows that you haven’t got the REMOTEST CLUE about climate attribution studies.
No wonder you think cake is a rational crutch to use to cover for your lack of AWARENESS on the topic.
So that’s the problem! SebH doesn’t know what an analogy is.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/analogy
Seb…
You still don’t have a clue how SCIENCE actually works.
Or Physics,
Or Maths,
Or Structures,
or Natural variability
Or .. basically ANYTHING. !
” So if a blog states that 110% of the warming across the globe since 1950 is anthropogenic, then, since the Arctic is a region of the globe, that would mean that the blog is in disagreement with the papers that say that warming in the Arctic is 50% natural. ”
No, you cannot just take the global figure and assume it applies uniformly in all regions. I would have thought that was obvious.
Do you agree that Willie Soon’s (already implausible) correlation between solar activity and Arctic temperatures breaks down after around 2000? (Details at RC). Will you be removing (or updating) the graphs?
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. The problem, of course, is that scientists do not agree that 100% of the warming in the Arctic is human caused. They think it’s about half that. Do you agree with these scientists that 50% of the warming and 50% of the sea ice decline in the Arctic is natural? Yes or no? Will you be continuing to dodge this question?
Likewise, since sea ice has been increasing for the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica has been cooling, and the surrounding Southern Ocean has been cooling since the 1970s, would you say that this cooling and sea ice growth is 100% anthropogenic in its attribution or 50% anthropogenic in its attribution? If neither, what percentage of the cooling and sea ice growth for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean is human-caused? Will you be answering this question, Philip?
Do you agree that there is no obvious correlation between the Arctic/Greenland climate changes and anthropogenic CO2 emissions?
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
–
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CO2-Emissions-and-Greenland-Ice-Sheet.jpg
Especially since scientists have noted that Greenland has begun cooling since 2001/2005…
Westergaard and Nielson, 2018
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-01451-7/figures/1
“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”
And, of course, the Arctic hasn’t warmed since 2005.
Well, since the Arctic and Greenland warming has paused/cooled since the early 2000s (as shown above), and the high Arctic generally lags the trends in the North Atlantic, which has cooled abruptly since 2005, it looks like the correlation is still intact. It’s far more correlative than the anthropogenic emissions linear trend. Would you agree with that?
Arctic Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Arctic-Yamanouchi-2011.jpg
Greenland Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Greenland-Box-2009.jpg
Northern Hemisphere Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Northern-Hemisphere-Christiansen-Ljungqvist-2012.jpg
Northern Hemisphere Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Northern-Hemisphere-Schneider-2015.jpg
Antarctica Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Antarctica-Schneider-2006.jpg
Patagonia Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-South-America-Patagonia-Elbert-2013.jpg
South America Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Andes-De-Jong-2016.jpg
Chile Correlation with TSI
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TSI-20th-Century-Chile-de-Jong-2013.jpg
That assumption is wrong, Kenneth. Logic doesn’t work this way …
The problem is you assuming things, sorry to say it this harsh.
Has it? Currently at a 3.3°C anomaly. I’d say it is pretty “warm” down there.
The connection is pretty obvious, just look at the right data and don’t use made up graphs. TSI was 2 W/m² smaller 1960? Are you sure? 😉
Arctic has warmed since 1950. RealClimate says the 100% of the warming since 1950 is human-caused. Therefore, it is consistent to say that RealClimate claims or would claim that 100% of the warming in the Arctic is human-caused. This conclusion contrasts with scientists publishing in Nature, PNAS, GRL, etc., who say that 50% of Arctic warming and sea ice decline is anthropogenic. So I have asked Philip which one he agrees with: 50% or 100% attribution for the Arctic since 1950. We already know you believe the 100% value. I wondered which one Philip believes in. He hasn’t answered.
How much of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean cooling and sea ice growth is human-caused, SebastianH? 100%? 50%? What?
Antarctica has been cooling
I assume you understand the difference between a one-day anomaly and a decades-long trend.
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Antarctica-Cooling-Since-1970s-Climate4you-Miles-2013-Turner-2016.jpg
Each of those graphs come from peer-reviewed scientific papers; the Arctic graph (Hanhijarvi et al., 2013) shows the instrumental record. I know you prefer graphs from tamino, though.
“The connection is pretty obvious, just look at the right data and don’t use made up graphs’
ROFLMAO..
ie look at fabricated data and JUST MAKE UP THE REST !!
COOLING in the Antarctic.
https://s19.postimg.cc/yubej7oyr/ant-ta-monthly-1979-2016-11-01.gif
No warming in the Arctic this century except the recently dissipated El Nino.
https://s19.postimg.cc/f9z7yyxdf/UAH_NoPol_2000-2018.png
Arctic real temperature greater in the 1940s
https://s19.postimg.cc/vws4z68s3/arctic_temp.png
ZERO CORRELATION with atmospheric CO2.
ZERO mechanism for CO2 influence, since any warming of oceans is SOLAR only. (maybe some volcanic)
Certainly NOT CO2.
Certainly no CO2 warming at the poles, even you agreed to that.
So where you get you fantasy of any CO2 influence from, must be purely in your brain-hosed imagination.
“Logic doesn’t work this way …”
You have NEVER shown any indication that you have the remotest CLUE how logic works, seb.
Is it by meaningless, irrelevant analogies, perhaps ???
“I’d say it is pretty “warm” down there.”
Off you trot on a summer holiday then, seb !!
I believe there are even some CO2 heated pools down there that you can actually swim in. !!
Get yourself a tan and all that.
Not at all consistent, one doesn’t follow the other.
I give you an example to make it clear to you (NOT an analogy and neither baseless nor irrelevant). When a company happens to make multiple products and its global profits match the profits of just one of their products (A). Then you could say the company is not making any profits from its other products (B), right? But when you look at the regions the company is operating in, you would discover that in one region product A may only accounting for 50% of the profits while product B was successful too. At the same time, this product B failed miserably in another region.
Long story short, let’s assume 50% of the warming in the Arctic is natural. That could be canceled out by natural cooling in other regions and still give 100% human cause for warming on the global level. Do you agree or disagree?
“let’s assume 50% of the warming in the Arctic is natural. “
You can if you like. GULLIBLE….
But the rest of us see no scientific reason to think it is anything less than 100% NATURAL.
You certainly have never provided any evidence that humans can change the temperature in the Arctic in any way what-so-ever.
And still trying to explain one thing you don’t comprehend, with yet another a mindless irrelevant fantasy analogy.
All you are doing is showing just how CONFUSED and EMPTY your thoughts are.
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.
North Atlantic sea temps are starting to drop already.
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!
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%.
RealClimate.org: “The best estimate of the warming due to anthropogenic forcings (ANT) is the orange bar (noting the 1𝛔 uncertainties). Reading off the graph, it is 0.7±0.2ºC (5-95%) with the observed warming 0.65±0.06 (5-95%). The attribution then follows as having a mean of ~110%, with a 5-95% range of 80–130%. This easily justifies the IPCC claims of having a mean near 100%, and a very low likelihood of the attribution being less than 50% (p < 0.0001!).”
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!
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?
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.
Yet another meaningless and totally irrelevant attempted analogy.
Stick to REALITY for once in you rants, seb.
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.
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.
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 🙂
AMAZING how ICE-FREE the Arctic region is now.. 😉
https://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/arctic-ice-2018.jpg
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 …
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.
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. !!
Your assuming a linear trend. Assuming a linear trend for the stock market can also produce the future result one seeks.
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.
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??
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
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.
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” 😉
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!
Oh look, it’s a one-day trend. Climate!
Never mind that Antarctica hasn’t warmed in the last century (Stenni et al., 2017) and the Arctic hasn’t had any net warming since the 1920s and 1930s (Hanhijarvi et al., 2013). We’ve got a colorized one-day chart.
Here’s the data those temperatures are derived from…
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1103_shadow.png
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Image1104_shadow.png
At the bottom of the page you’ll find a box called “Data Source”:
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
It’s a normal weather forecast model. Do you think those are inaccurate too?
Also, your assumption is wrong again. I didn’t post a “trend” nor did I write that Antartica is warming. I simply replied to AndyG55 that the world outside North America is currently pretty warm.
So please stop the sarcasm and stop making up straw mans that you can argue against. Thank you.
“world outside North America is currently pretty warm.”
No its not.
Lets see, Europe 25C max GORGEOUS. !!
Australia, was absolutely GORGEOUS today, too.
The anomaly is based on a particularly COLD period near the bottom of the 1970s trough in the AMO, and ignores the reality that 1940s was similarly warm
If a reasonable length of say 60 years of REAL UNADJUSTED data was used, there would be far more blue than red..
I will agree, it is somewhat warmer than the massive COLD anomaly of the Little Ice Age.
THANK GOODNESS.., hey seb. !!
Oh and enjoy the cold wet next week, seb.
Keep that fossil fuel powered heater running. 🙂
“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 !!
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
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.
“they” didn’t … CO2 causes cooling is your fairy-tale, don’t you remember?
Why?
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 😉
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 …
“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 !!
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
*sigh* … AndyG55, just go surfing or whatever it is that you do …
Again, seb has NOTHING to counter anything..
Poor little ZERO-SCIENCE seb.
Just RUN and HIDE, little one. !!
Perpetually UNAWARE of basic REALITY.
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
[…] 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. […]
“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.
KR: “So if a blog states that 110% of the warming across the globe since 1950 is anthropogenic…”
PC: “No, you cannot just take the global figure and assume it applies uniformly in all regions.”
KR: “No, I didn’t assume uniform warming.”
PC: “Non seqiteur. I did not mention uniform warming, but uniform forcing.”
No, you didn’t mention the word “forcing” at all. I wrote “warming across the globe,” and, in reply, you wrote “the global figure”. So you’re now trying to claim that you mentioned global forcing when you used the word “figure”?
—————————————–
It is rather amusing that (a) you refuse to answer the question (despite asking 3 times now) as to whether humans caused 50% or 110% of the Arctic warming and SIE decline and 50% or 110% of the Antarctic/Southern Ocean cooling and SIE growth, but also (b) that you seem to think the HadCRUT temperature data are anomalous in some way. Philip, the instrumental trends according to HadCRUT look exactly like the documented trends for the Arctic as a whole (Yamanouchi et al., 2011), Greenland, Iceland, Arctic Canada, the subarctic Atlantic, Northern Scandinavia (see below)…according to both thermometer and proxy evidence. For example, Greenland was 33% warmer during 1919-’33 as it was during 1995-2007.
—
Box et al., 2009
“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
—
The Arctic was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (Werner et al., 2017), and much warmer a few thousand years ago…
Spolaor et al., 2016
“Researchers have found that 8000 years ago the Arctic climate was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than now, and that there was also less summertime Arctic sea ice than today.”
—
The Arctic Ocean’s Fram Strait was at least 2 degrees C warmer than now earlier in the Holocene (Bonnet et al., 2010).
“Sea-surface temperature (SST) estimates suggest warmer conditions than present (anomaly∼+2 °C) averaging at 7 °C in summer until 300 cal. years BP, although cooling pulses are recorded around 1700, 1500, 1200 and 800 cal. years BP. … The record of sea-surface conditions from core JM04 indicates warmer winter SSTs during the last 2500 years than the modern average. The only exception is the interval spanning from 250 to 50 years BP, which is characterized by particularly low temperatures both in winter and summer.”
—
The Atlantic Arctic region shows the modern peak warmth occurred in the 1940s, with stark cooling thereafter (Hanhijarvi et al., 2013).
—
Greenland trends showing as-warm or warmer-than-now temperatures during the 1920s-1940s (matching HadCRUT4):
Hanna et al., 2011
—
Zhao et al., 2016
—
Mikkelson et al., 2018
—
East Greenland is multiple degrees colder today than a few thousand years ago (Krawczyk et al., 2017)
—
Lusas et al., 2017 (East Greenland)
“Air temperatures in Milne Land, west of our study area, based on preliminary estimates from chironomids, may have been 3–6°C warmer than at present (Axford et al. 2013)”
—
The Greenland ice sheet as a whole was “2.9 ± 1.4 °C warmer than the recent decades” a few thousand years ago (Kobashi et al., 2017).
—
Southwest Greenland was warmer than 2010 during the late 19th century (Kryk et al., 2017).
—
Southeast Greenland was just as warm as today during the 1930s (Hasholt et al., 2016)
—
West and South Greenland (Ogi et al., 2016)
—
van As et al., 2016
“JJA [summer] temperatures were higher in 1928 and 1929 than in any other year of the Qaqortoq record, both attaining values of 9.2°C. This suggests that ablation in those years may have exceeded the largest net ablation measured on the Greenland ice sheet (2010).”
—
Greenland has been cooling slightly since 2005 (Kobashi et al., 2017).
—
Greenland has been cooling slightly since 2001 (Westergaard-Nielson et al., 2018)
—
The Canadian Arctic has been cooling since 1997 (Mallory et al., 2018).
—
The Canadian Arctic hasn’t warmed in the last 150 years (and it’s 3°C cooler than the Middle Holocene) (Fortin and Gajewski, 2016).
“…in the last 150 yr, the reconstructed temperatures do not indicate a warming during this time. … Modern inferred temperatures based on both pollen and chironomids are up to 3°C cooler than those inferred for the mid-Holocene.”
—
Eastern Canada is no warmer now than in the 1940s (Gennaretti et al., 2018).
—
Arctic Alaska is several degrees colder now than a few thousand years ago (Boldt et al., 2015)
—
The Gulf of Alaska is cooler now than in the 1930s (Wilson et al., 2017).
—
The subarctic North Atlantic has been cooling since the 1940s (Nicolle et al., 2018).
—
Alaska has been cooling since the late 1950s (Nicolle et al., 2018)
—
North Iceland was just as warm or warmer in the 1930s (Fernández-Fernández et al., 2017).
—
North Icelandic Shelf (Ran et al., 2010)
—
South Iceland was just as warm or warmer in the 1930s (Chandler et al., 2016).
—
Northern Scandinavia was warmer than the 2000s during the 1930s, 1940s (Esper et al., 2012).
—
Subarctic lakes in Finland show modern temperatures are several degrees colder now than a few thousand years ago (Luoto et al., 2014).
——————————————————-
If I used the PAGES 2k reconstruction, we’d also find that the 1971-2000 period was only the 3rd warmest tricade in the last 2,000 years, with a warmer 1941-’70 period.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2566
“Following these corrections, the period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period in the Arctic record, and 1971–2000 the third warmest, rather than the first and second warmest as reported in the original version. The ranked order of the best estimate of temperature indicates that the warmest 30-year period is centred on AD 395.”
“but uniform forcing.””
Ok, it has been established that there is ZERO forcing from CO2 over the poles.
ZERO, maybe slight cooling…. (ask seb)
So yes, we can all agree that the CO2 forcing is actually uniform.
What is amusing is you still repeating this despite other taking note of your flawed logic. Kenneth, you are assuming that a 100% cause for something global means every regional change in the same direction must also be 100% caused by the same thing. That’s just nonsense and needs to be called nonsense no matter how much you dislike that word.
You don’t read links your oppenents provide to you, do you?
Instead you come up with quotes that you think might help your argument. Hey, do you agree with the rest of what a papers says when you quote just one sentence of of them? Can we assume that you completely agree with the conclusion of that Box 2009 paper? Can we assume that you completely agree that we (by far) surpased the NH temperature high of the 1940s? Can we assume that you completely agree with their finding that Greenland warming is in phase with NH warming and that a dramatic warming of Greenland of further 1.6°C would be expected if that is correct?
http://polarmet.osu.edu/PolarMet/PMGFulldocs/box_yang_jc_2009.pdf
Keep picking one-liners from papers that completely contradict the rest of what you continuously claim …
“Philip, the instrumental trends according to HadCRUT look exactly like the documented trends for the Arctic as a whole”
Simply not the case. HADCRUT has a lower trend than any other dataset. The Arctic is basically an ocean surrounded by land. All your ‘documented’ examples are from the land based readings around the edge of Arctic Ocean. The reason HADCRUT is the worst dataset to use is the poor coverage of the central sea areas, some are *simply not covered*, especially in the early 20th century, as described in the Way paper I linked. Other datasets also suffer from this issue but deal with it differently. Since 1979 we have had satellite readings which certainly do not show ‘cooling since 2005’. Quite the opposite.
I’ve no idea if the figure of 50-60% for manmade influence on the Arctic is accurate. You’ve presented evidence for that case, but given the record of this site there may well be other papers you have omitted that contradict this, or more detail in the papers cited that give a more detailed description. I may dig a little deeper, it is interesting.
The point is, 50% attribution to anthropogenic forcings in one region does not rule out a higher number for the globe as a whole, and certainly does not mean we do not have a problem. It is not even inconsistent with the IPCC attribution statement (AR5 SPM):
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”
So, nobody has actually recanted anything.
Another evidence point…
“Arctic-average surface warming from 1970–2005 was dominated by GHG warming with a smaller contribution from the transition of the AMO to its positive phase. ”
– One hundred years of Arctic surface temperature variation due to anthropogenic influence
Fyfe et al 2013
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3770965/
Isn’t it interesting, then, that the “domination” of the human influence during 1970-’05 was matched/exceeded by the natural (CO2 emissions were flat and negligible throughout) warming and glacier melt that occurred during the 1920s and 1930s. And if the Arctic can melt down as rapidly as profoundly as it did during the 1920s and 1930s, with the glacier-melt contribution to sea level rise completely overwhelming anything that happened after the 1950s…
Glacier-melt contribution to sea level rise (Gregory et al., 2013)
…then that calls into question why it is that CO2 emissions are thought to drive the more recent warming period/melt.
So why do you think it is that Greenland was much warmer during the 1920s and 1930s than during the most recent decades, Philip? What caused that warmth, since CO2 emissions were but a tiny fraction of what they were after 1945?
And considering Antarctica and the Southern Ocean have been not warming/cooling and the sea ice extent has grown there, what percentage of these non-warming/cooling/sea-ice-growth trends are caused by human CO2 emissions? If it’s 50% to 100% for the Arctic, is it also 50% to 100% for Antarctica/Southern Ocean? Is CO2 causing cooling there, Philip?
So explain why Greenland and the Arctic as a whole cooled down for 40-50 years immediately after CO2 emissions began rising in the mid-1940s. The cool-down is evident in each of the graphs of Greenland and the Arctic below. And these are but a tiny portion of what’s available.
—
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C4045%3ATETWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“The warming event in the first part of the twentieth century, considered at the time by some as the first sign of climate warming caused by increasing CO2 (Callendar 1938), had its largest amplitude in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. The largest warming occurred in the Arctic (60°–90°N) (Johannessen et al. 2004) averaged for the 1940s with some 1.7°C (2.2°C for the winter half of the year) relative to the 1910s. … Nevertheless, the total anthropogenic forcing was larger in the 1940–60 period, when cooling occurred, than in the 1920–40 warming period, thereby rejecting the idea that anthropogenic forcing caused the 1920–40 warming.”
—
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/11/2341/2015/cpd-11-2341-2015.pdf
“Between 1920 and 1940 AD, there was a major warming period in the Arctic, known as ETCW [Early Twentieth Century Warming] and observed in all shown records here. Chylek et al. (2006) determined from meteorological data that the 1920–1930 warming was stronger than the 1995–2005 warming. For the NG-stack and Akademii Nauk record, the ETCW was warmer than the second half of the 20th century … In general, higher solar activity causes higher temperatures (as during the MCA [Medieval Climate Anomaly) whereas cold periods (e.g. LIA [Little Ice Age]) are dominated by lower solar activity (Ammann 15 et al., 2007). … Fischer et al. (1998c) explained most of the long-term variation in northern Greenland by changes in solar activity. Conclusion: The solar activity and internal Arctic climate dynamics are likely the main factors influencing the temperature in northern Greenland.”
—
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222661107_The_regime_shift_of_the_1920s_and_1930s_in_the_North_Atlantic
“In the North Atlantic (Fig. 1), air temperatures through the latter part of the 19th century and the early 20th century were relatively cool compared to years since then. During the 1920s, and especially after 1925, average air temperatures began to rise rapidly and continued to do so through the 1930s (Fig. 2 a–f). Mean annual air temperatures increased by approximately 0.5–1°C and the cumulative sums of anomalies varied from 1.5 to 6°C between 1920 and 1940 with the higher values occurring in West Greenland and Iceland. … Through the 1940s and 1950s air temperatures in the northern most regions varied but generally remained relatively high (e.g. at Nuuk in West Greenland, Fig. 3). Thereafter, there was a rapid cooling trend with the exact timing of the decline varying spatially. In the Northwest Atlantic, warm conditions remained through most of the 1960s whereas in the Northeast Atlantic they began declining slightly earlier. The high temperatures recorded during the warm period from 1930–1960 match, and in some cases exceed, the present day warming (Johannessen et al., 2004).”
—
Lessen and Thejll, 2005
http://www.dmi.dk/fileadmin/Rapporter/SR/sr05-02.pdf
Multi-decadal variation of the East Greenland Sea-Ice Extent: AD 1500-2000
“[W]e find that the recently reported retreat of the ice in the Greenland Sea may be related to the termination of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early twentieth century. We also look at the approximately 80 year variability of the Koch [sea ice] index and compare it to the similar periodicity found in the solar cycle length, which is a measure of solar activity. A close correlation (R=0.67) of high significance (0.5 % probability of a chance occurrence) is found between the two patterns, suggesting a link from solar activity to the Arctic Ocean climate. … The ‘low frequency oscillation’ that dominated the ice export through the Fram Strait as well as the extension of the sea-ice in the Greenland Sea and Davis Strait in the twentieth century may therefore be regarded as part of a pattern that has existed through at least four centuries. The pattern is a natural feature, related to varying solar activity. The considerations of the impact of natural sources of variability on arctic ice extent are of relevance for concerns that the current withdrawal of ice may entirely be due to human activity. Apparently, a considerable fraction of the current withdrawal could be a natural occurrence.”
—
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/6A_SpecialEdition_1/_pdf
“Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.”
—
http://eae.sagepub.com/content/22/8/1069.abstract
Arctic Warming is Not Greenhouse Warming
“After two thousand years of slow cooling Arctic, warming suddenly began more than a century ago. It has continued, with a break in the middle, until this day. The rapid start of this warming rules out the greenhouse effect as its cause. Apparently the time scale of the accumulation of CO2 in the air and the Arctic warming does not match. It is likely that the cause of this warming was a relatively sudden rearrangement of the North Atlantic current system at the turn of the century that directed warm currents into the Arctic Ocean. All observations of Arctic warming can be accounted for as consequences of these flows of warm water to the Arctic. This explains why all attempts to model Arctic warming have failed: Models set up for greenhouse warming are the wrong models for non-greenhouse warming.”
—
Box et al., 2009
“The annual whole ice sheet 1919–32 warming trend is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.”
—
The Arctic was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period (Werner et al., 2017), and much warmer a few thousand years ago…
Spolaor et al., 2016
“Researchers have found that 8000 years ago the Arctic climate was 2 to 3 degrees warmer than now, and that there was also less summertime Arctic sea ice than today.”
—
The Arctic Ocean’s Fram Strait was at least 2 degrees C warmer than now earlier in the Holocene (Bonnet et al., 2010).
“Sea-surface temperature (SST) estimates suggest warmer conditions than present (anomaly∼+2 °C) averaging at 7 °C in summer until 300 cal. years BP, although cooling pulses are recorded around 1700, 1500, 1200 and 800 cal. years BP. … The record of sea-surface conditions from core JM04 indicates warmer winter SSTs during the last 2500 years than the modern average. The only exception is the interval spanning from 250 to 50 years BP, which is characterized by particularly low temperatures both in winter and summer.”
—
The Atlantic Arctic region shows the modern peak warmth occurred in the 1940s, with stark cooling thereafter (Hanhijarvi et al., 2013).
—
Greenland trends showing as-warm or warmer-than-now temperatures during the 1920s-1940s (matching HadCRUT4):
—
Hanna et al., 2011
—
Zhao et al., 2016
—
Mikkelson et al., 2018
Simple, because the same forcings aren’t at play today.
For all that matters Greenland could have been 100°C warmer in the past. That doesn’t change what is currently influencing the climate and causing the heat content to increase.
Quick quiz: what possible mechanism could make sea ice extent grow, but total ice mass decrease in Antarctica? Any idea?
Except for the few times a year where the effect becomes negative, no it is not. CO2 causes an increase in heat content. That increase gets distributed unevenly. Some regions might even cool because distribution patterns change. Is that so hard to understand?
Global dimming … mentioned nearly everywhere, also in papers you quote from, so I assumed you would know about it, but then again … cherries.
The “same forcings” thought to be driving the northern polar trends in temperature and sea ice are in place for the southern polar trends, and the Antarctica region has been not warming/cooling and the sea ice has been growing. So the forcings that allegedly cause warming and sea ice declines in one region do not work in another region. And neither Antarctica nor the Arctic are any warmer today than they were in the decades before the 1950s…despite an explosion in CO2 emissions since then.
I am not surprised to see that you are apparently a believer in this…
—
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2680519/Global-warming-creating-MORE-glaciers-Antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-climate-change-scientists-claim.html
“Global warming is creating MORE ice: Antarctic levels reach a record high because of climate change, scientists claim … Claim was made by Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre … Shift is caused by water melting from beneath the Antarctic ice shelves … Scientists claim it is then re-frozen back on surface, increasing sea ice“
—
Pauling et al. (2016) find that internal dynamics could explain the cooling and increase in sea ice extent in recent decades, and that an enhancement of the “freshwater input by an amount within the range of estimates of the Antarctic mass imbalance did not have any significant effect on either sea ice area magnitude or trend” — even if one assumes that anthropogenic forcing causes a decline in sea ice to offset the hypothetical growth trend due to enhanced “freshwater input”.
—
Pauling et al., 2016
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0501.1
“The possibility that recent Antarctic sea ice expansion resulted from an increase in freshwater reaching the Southern Ocean is investigated here. … Two sets of experiments were conducted from 1980 to 2013 in CESM1(CAM5), one of the CMIP5 models, artificially distributing freshwater either at the ocean surface to mimic iceberg melt or at the ice shelf fronts at depth. An anomalous reduction in vertical advection of heat into the surface mixed layer resulted in sea surface cooling at high southern latitudes and an associated increase in sea ice area. Enhancing the freshwater input by an amount within the range of estimates of the Antarctic mass imbalance did not have any significant effect on either sea ice area magnitude or trend.”
—
The sea ice advancement is instead consistent with Southern Ocean cooling.
—
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/cdeser/docs/fan.antarctic_seaice_trends.grl14.pdf
“[A]ll of these studies reported a close relationship between [sea ice extent] and sea surface temperature (SST) whereby sea ice gain is associated with lower SSTs and vice versa. … Cooling is evident over most of the Southern Ocean in all seasons and the annual mean, with magnitudes approximately –0.2–0.4°C per decade or -0.7–1.3°C over the 33 year period [1979-2011].”
—
Miles et al., 2013
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v500/n7464/abs/nature12382.html
“Despite large fluctuations between glaciers—linked to their size—three epochal patterns emerged: 63 per cent of glaciers retreated from 1974 to 1990, 72 per cent advanced from 1990 to 2000, and 58 per cent advanced from 2000 to 2010. … Indeed, several studies report increasing sea-ice concentrations in the study region from approximately 1980 to 2010, which is consistent with the predominance of glacier advance since 1990, when above-average sea-ice and fast-ice concentrations could have suppressed calving by increasing back-pressure on glacier termini. In contrast, reduced sea ice concentrations from the 1950s to the mid 1970s are consistent with glacier retreat during the 1960s and 1970s, when air temperatures were also increasing along the Pacific coast.”
Do you think the figure of 50% manmade influence for the Antarctic climate changes are accurate…since Antarctica hasn’t warmed in the last 35 years and the sea ice has been advancing there? If you believe in 50% attribution for that polar region, is the contribution warming or cooling?
But when you talk about “the globe as a whole” as warming, this seems to gloss over the observation that large regions of the Earth have been cooling in recent decades. Up to 1/3rd of the NH cooled during 1990-2015…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Northern-Hemisphere-1990-2015-Cooling-and-Warming-Kretschmer-2017.jpg
…and the Southern Ocean — representing 14% of the Earth’s surface area — has been cooling since 1979…
https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Southern-Ocean-Cooling-1979-to-2013-Purich-2018.jpg
Once the Arctic fully resumes cooling in the next decade or so, it should be rather difficult for those of you who believe in 100% human attribution to defend your beliefs while the Arctic’s temperatures descend (in line with natural AMO and AO trajectories). Then again, people like you defend “polar amplification” as human-caused now, even as the southern polar region has failed to cooperate.
“Why do you think it is that Greenland was much warmer during the 1920s and 1930s than during the most recent decades, Philip? What caused that warmth, since CO2 emissions were but a tiny fraction of what they were after 1945?”
Greenland is only a part of the Arctic; the area covered by the paper I cited – Fyfe et al. According to that study…
“the observed Arctic-average surface warming from 1900 to 1939 was likely the combined surface response to rising black carbon aerosol emissions, recovery from the eruption of Santa Maria (1902) at the beginning of the period, and transition of the AMO to its positive phase. ”
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep02645
Seems reasonable.
“So explain why Greenland and the Arctic as a whole cooled down for 40-50 years immediately after CO2 emissions began rising in the mid-1940s.”
Same paper …
“We have also argued that observed Arctic-average surface cooling from 1939–1970 was due to anthropogenic sulphate aerosol cooling, the eruption of Agung (1963) towards the end of the period and the transition of the AMO to its negative phase – a combined cooling effect that overwhelmed a significant GHG warming impact during this period. Arctic-average surface warming from 1970–2005 was dominated by GHG warming with a smaller contribution from the transition of the AMO to its positive phase. ”
“But when you talk about “the globe as a whole” as warming, this seems to gloss over the observation that large regions of the Earth have been cooling in recent decades. Up to 1/3rd of the NH cooled during 1990-2015…”
Love the weasel words ‘up to’. Every dataset of Northern Hemisphere, Southern Hemisphere and the globe shows warming over the period. Here’s the NASA data
In other words, it wasn’t anthropogenic.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C4045%3ATETWIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“[T]he total anthropogenic forcing was larger in the 1940–60 period, when cooling occurred, than in the 1920–40 warming period, thereby rejecting the idea that anthropogenic forcing caused the 1920–40 warming.”
Back in 1993, when the Arctic had been cooling for 40 years, scientists suggested that they didn’t know what caused Arctic warming…since the greenhouse effect explanation wasn’t working.
https://www.nature.com/articles/361335a0
Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years
“In particular, we do not observe the large surface warming trends predicted by models; indeed, we detect significant surface cooling trends over the western Arctic Ocean during winter and autumn. This discrepancy suggests that present climate models do not adequately incorporate the physical processes that affect the polar regions. … The lack of widespread significant warming trends lead us to conclude that there is no strong evidence to support model simulations of greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean for the period 1950-1990.”
So we’ve now agreed that the early 20th century Arctic warming — which was as large or larger than recent decades — wasn’t anthropogenic, that the Arctic not only cooled but failed to show evidence of any CO2 warming during 1950-1990, and you’ve acknowledged at least some agreement that 50% of the recent Arctic warming and sea ice declines are natural. Next thing you know you’ll agree with scientists that an anthropogenic signal can’t even be detected in the Greenland ice melt trends.
Now all we need to do is figure out how much of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean cooling and sea ice extent increases since the 1970s were human caused. Is it 50% human-caused cooling and sea ice advance? 100%? Or what percentage of the cooling do you believe was caused by human emissions, Philip?
And considering you seem to be fond of Dr. Fyfe, can we assume you also agree with him that 115 of 117 climate models failed to simulate the temperature trends during 1993-2012, and that the pause in warming is both real and problematic for believers that CO2 drives temperatures?
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n3/full/nclimate2111.html
Fyfe et al. showed that global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models participating in Phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5). This might be due to some combination of errors in external forcing, model response and simulated internal variability. … As pointed out by Fyfe and colleagues, the observed rate of global warming over this period is less than that simulated in all but two of 117 CMIP5 simulations. Figure 1 shows an even more pronounced discrepancy over the eastern tropical Pacific, with the observed cooling trend being substantially more negative than that in any of the 117 CMIP5 simulations. … Figure 2b shows that for about 21% of grid cells with sufficient observational coverage the observed trends over this period lie outside the 5–95% range of simulated trends, or in other words, they are inconsistent with the simulated combination of internal variability and response to natural and anthropogenic forcings. … Kosaka and Xie concluded that the current hiatus is part of internal climate variability tied to La Niña-like decadal cooling, but we point out that internal climate variability alone does not readily explain the difference between simulated and observed trends over this period, given that none of the 117 CMIP5 simulations captured the current eastern tropical Pacific cooling trend. … [B]ased on the CMIP5 ensemble of climate simulations, the probability of simulating the recently observed eastern tropical Pacific cooling with a freely running climate model under the CMIP5 radiative forcing protocol is very low, and hence so too is the probability of simulating the observed global temperature change over the past 20 years.”
—
Fyfe et al., 2016
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html
“It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown or hiatus, characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims.”
http://www.nature.com/news/global-warming-hiatus-debate-flares-up-again-1.19414 (press release)
“There is this mismatch between what the climate models are producing and what the observations are showing,” says lead author John Fyfe, a climate modeller at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, British Columbia. “We can’t ignore it.” … Susan Solomon, a climatologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, says that Fyfe’s framework helps to put twenty-first-century trends into perspective, and clearly indicates that the rate of warming slowed down at a time when greenhouse-gas emissions were rising dramatically.“
Sorry – truncated the link, here it is
https://goo.gl/images/Ca4g8n
Only warming from 1980-2015 was from the 1998 El Nino, (or from data “adjustments” in the surface data controlled by AGW stall-warts.)
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
That means there was no human influence of real global temperatures in 40 years of the satellite data. At a time of the largest increase in atmospheric plant food.
“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. 😉
[…] K. Richard, April 19, 2018 in […]
[…] days ago Kenneth Richard posted on a number of papers that do show that man’s attributed share to Arctic warming has indeed been […]