Another Warming ‘Hole’? Observations Show The North Atlantic COOLED By -0.8°C/Century Since 1800s

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
41Email this to someone
email

In a new paper, scientists document another long-term cooling trend, this time in the North Atlantic’s sea surface temperatures.  Characterized as yet another stubborn “warming hole” in the anthropogenic “global” warming (AGW) narrative, the cooling trend amounts to “0.8 K century-1” and does not follow expectations outlined in models of  global-scale warming.


The portrayal of a globally-synchronous warming of the Earth with only small pockets of “warming hole” anomalies  is not supported by local and regional data reported in scientific papers.

In the Northern Hemisphere, for example, scientists (Kretschmer et al., 2018) have identified other “warming holes” in the temperature data for the 1990-2015 period.  About 80% of the contiguous U.S., Europe and much of Asia, including parts of the Arctic (Eastern Siberia), cooled during the 1990-2015 period, as shown here.

In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctica has not warmed in the last 38 years.   And according to Purich et al., 2018, most of the Southern Ocean has been cooling since the late 1970s as well (as shown here).

There are not tiny, isolated holes of cooling in an otherwise uniformly-warming world.  These are gaping expanses of cooling…or non-warming.

Yes, some regions of the globe have been warming.  Some regions have been cooling.  And some regions remain trendless.

But in recent decades, the warming has not been global in scope.


Gervais et al., 2018

Mechanisms Governing the Development of the North Atlantic

Warming Hole in the CESM-LE Future Climate Simulations

“Recent studies have documented the development of a warming deficit in North Atlantic sea surface temperatures (SST) both in observations of the current climate (Rahmstorf et al. 2015; Drijfhout et al. 2012) and in future climate simulations (Drijfhout et al. 2012; Marshall et al. 2015; Woollings et al. 2012). This ‘North Atlantic warming hole’ (NAWH) is characterized in the observed record as a region south of Greenland with negative trends in SSTs of 0.8 K century-1 (Rahmstorf et al. 2015). In fully coupled global climate model (GCM) future simulations, the NAWH is seen as a significant deficit in warming within the North Atlantic subpolar gyre (Marshall et al. 2015; Winton et al. 2013; Gervais et al. 2016).  This local reduction in future warming is communicated to the overlying atmosphere and may impact atmospheric circulation (Gervais et al. 2016), including the North Atlantic storm track (Woollings et al. 2012).”

5 Other New Papers Also Document A Warming “Hole” In the North Atlantic

  1. Grieman et al., 2018

2. Nicolle et al., 2018

3.  Thornalley et al., 2018

4. Smeed et al., 2018

5. Piecuch et al., 2017

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
0Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
41Email this to someone
email

32 responses to “Another Warming ‘Hole’? Observations Show The North Atlantic COOLED By -0.8°C/Century Since 1800s”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    A preemptive DNFTT for this one.

    1. SebastianH

      Don’t you worry, I’ll not reply to the troll attempts by your fellow pseudoskeptics.

      But perhaps Kenneth should have read that 2015 Hansen paper more closely … lots of warming holes in there too.

      https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

      1. Josh

        Our troll attempts? Lol! It’s you who continues to push the CAGW fraud despite having the many errors in your thinking and commentary drawn to your attention. That is the sure mark of a troll.

        1. SebastianH

          troll noun (Computing):
          someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble

          troll in urban dictionary:
          One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

          I am fully aware that you see me as someone who leaves provocative (or annoying) messages. That makes it all the funnier… a group of climate trolls perceiving opposition as trolling. You can’t imagine up something like that, but here we are.

          P.S.: Your whole comment is a troll attempt. Take a step back and try to look at this as an outsider. Or ask a friend not so engaged in this climate science stuff.

          1. AndyG55

            “someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble”

            A definitive description of yourself, seb

            You have ZERO purpose here apart from trolling and ATTENTION-SEEKING

            Everyone here knows that, except you.

            You present ZERO opposition, just mindless AGW pap regurgitation.

            You have been an utter failure at presenting any actual science to back up any of your mindless yapping.

            and your all round ineptitude has probably shown many people just how non-thinking, puerile, childish, and brain-washed the below average AGW troll really is.

            Nobody wants to be like that, seb, so they start engaging their brain, and you get another convert to the side of reality, as opposed AGW fabrication and fantasies.

            Whatever other purpose you think you have here , apart from your mindless trolling, HAS FAILED MISERABLY.

            I bet you can’t even say what your purpose is here. I doubt you would even admit it to yourself.

      2. AndyG55

        LOTS of holes in all of Hanson’s papers.

        They are basically anti-science suppository garbage sprinkled with loony AGW advocacy.

        Most would NEVER have been published if peer-review actually worked.

        1. SebastianH

          If only there were a wordpress plugin with some kind of A.I. classifier for comments. It would totally prove my point with your replies alone 😉

          1. AndyG55

            Poor seb

            he’s now working in auto-troll mode.

            .. like he has been for the last 2-3 years.

            ZERO CONTENT as always.

            Totally POINTLESS as always.

            He KNOWS his soulless intent/purpose here is mindless trolling.

            But this is his choice for life.

            So sad.. so insignificant.. so INEPT.. so seb..

    2. SebastianH

      And in case it isn’t obvious, a cooler surface without other variables like albedo changing means that more energy from the sun builds up in the form of heat, e.g. the imbalance increases.

      1. AndyG55

        So, a cooling North Atlantic means that more energy is building up…

        Really seb ??

        Whatever you say, seb

        https://i.ytimg.com/vi/p3s8IYUeceA/hqdefault.jpg

        1. Josh

          SebH shows again that he doesn’t know what he is talking about.

        2. Josh

          Supertroll will believe what he wants. Evidence be damned.jo

        3. SebastianH

          Oh come on, that should be pretty basic knowledge amongst anyone. You go on and on that convection and evaporation transport energy from the surface towards the atmosphere and ultimately space. Well, there is also radiation, but let’s focus on those two. What happens when the surface temperature decreases? Do they stay the same? Certainly not. With roughly the same amount of Sun shining on that same surface and the surface not changing its albedo, what do you think happens then? The input stays the same, but the output decreases? What do you call something like that?

          Have a nice day in fantasy physics land where everything the opposite of what can be observed in the real world 😉

          1. AndyG55

            Seb fantasy fizzics, where cooling means more energy.

            Yet it keeps getting colder.

            Obviously then, as water warms up, it retains less energy.. right seb. 😉

            What A BIZARRE, TWISTED new imaginary planet seb’s mind inhabits

            So sad, so seb.. immune to reality.

  2. AndyG55

    Unfortunately, the AMO has started to turn.

    The natural NH warming is over.

    Nothing to stop it cooling back down as part of the natural AMO cycle.

    Let’s hope sea ice doesn’t climb right back up to the extreme high levels of the late 1970.

    That would make it really tough for all the people trying to live up there.

    At least the Russians have been sensible enough to invest heavily in new super icebreakers.

    1. SebastianH

      Let’s hope sea ice doesn’t climb right back up to the extreme high levels of the late 1970.

      In what timeframe do you expect this to happen? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? More?

      At least the Russians have been sensible enough to invest heavily in new super icebreakers.

      They are certainly not investing in equipment for the Arctic because they think it is going to freeze over again #facepalm 😉

      1. AndyG55

        Seems you are UNAWARE of the AMO cycles.

        But we knew that.

        You really think they would be investing in huge nuclear powered icebreakers for open waters ??

        You really should stop the facepalms , seb

        You have enough BS splattered all over your face already.

        1. SebastianH

          Stop trolling …

          You really think they would be investing in huge nuclear powered icebreakers for open waters ??

          Open waters? Is that what you think is going to happen according to climate science (the opposing AGW part that is)?

          1. AndyG55

            Poor seb. stuck in his own little troll existence.. Can’t help himself.

            Now he’s saying that there isn’t going to be an “ice free” Arctic.

            Be careful seb, you will be excommunicated from the AGW-cult for blasphemy !

    2. tom0mason

      Indeed Andy55,

      Why should anyone be worried about a few 1/10°C warming, and a very, very slight CO2 increase, all it does is ensures there are all round associated benefits — increase plant life and all diverse life.
      Conversely when a few 1/10°C cooling could mean animals, plants and people not surviving winter in their locality, stressing the biosphere, with probable reductions the bio-diversity.

      Only those against life, all life, are against a warmer climate, against CO2 levels rising and life proliferating — they are the faux futurists and dangerous misanthropes and wannabe eugenicists.

  3. AndyG55

    OT, a site for laughing eyes.

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/image_thumb25.png

    CO2 emissions continue to climb EVERYWHERE apart from the US (due to the gas revolution)

    PLENTY of new atmospheric Co2 for the world’s plant life.

    Maybe even a bit of extra beneficial warming 😉 ;-)(sarc)

    1. Josh

      Indeed. In year 7 science we were taught that CO2 is vital to life and of benefit to the environment. Now we’re supposed to believe that extra CO2 is a bad thing.

      1. SebastianH

        It was always a bad thing. Try to sit in a submarine or space station without CO2 scrubbers …

        1. AndyG55

          We are talking about atmospheric CO2.

          There is ZERO EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 will ever cause ANY problems at ANY level it could possible reach on this planet.

          The REAL problem would come if the level starts to drop down below 300ppm. World food supplies would be severely diminished.

          Try living without CO2, seb.

          1. SebastianH

            Trick question for you: what would it take to get back down to 300 ppm? What mechanism could do that?

          2. AndyG55

            Certainly not the IDIOCY of the totally ineffectual anti-CO2 agenda.

            A protracted cooling spell could have the undesired effect.

            It is noted that you squirmed around the main issue, yet again.

            There is ZERO EVIDENCE that atmospheric CO2 will ever cause ANY problems at ANY increased level it could possible reach on this planet.

  4. AndyG55

    darn typos… CO2, not Co2

  5. AndyG55

    Primary energy use absolutely dominated by fossil fuels

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/image_thumb29.png

    wind/solar still only account for a tiny 3%

    1. SebastianH

      Uha, that’s a blow towards Kenneth’s conviction that it will never be above 1% … now wind and solar are at 3%? Wow! Exponential growth at work!

      1. AndyG55

        Force subsidy growth.

        Subsidies cannot be exponential.

  6. SebastianH

    Another trick question for you:
    What is bigger, the amount of subsidies for solar panels that have been installed in the last 3 years or the amount of subsidies for all solar panels that have been installed before?

    1. AndyG55

      Trick question.. why do you think the German solar manufacturing industry is kaput !!

Leave a Reply

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

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

Close