Growing sea ice
Despite all the alarmist claims of an Antarctic meltdown, it is well known that the trend for sea ice extent at the South Pole has been one of growing ice rather than shrinking ice over the past 4 decades.
Naturally many factors influence polar sea ice extent, such as weather patterns, winds, ocean currents and sea surface temperature cycles. One factor of course is also surface air temperature, which according to global warming theorists is rising globally.
Cooling at Showa station
Yet data show the warmer surface temperatures are refusing to happen in Antarctica! As you will read below, it was far warmer 100 years ago.
First we begin with the example of Showa Station, Antarctica, where it is cooling slightly even as CO2 levels have risen rapidly, Japanese climate blogger Kirye tweeted here, citing the Japanese Meteorological Agency (JMA):
Showa Antarctic station has seen slight cooling over the 30 years. Data source: JMA
No trend at Davis Antarctic station
In reply to Kirye, AndyOz tweeted that there also has been no warming at Australia’s Davis station over the past 50 years:
Chart: Bureau of Meteorology, Commonwealth of Australia.
Showa and Davis, however, are just two stations at the edge of a vast continent. We certainly don’t want to be cherry-picking.
Climate Trends site here looked at 13 stations across Antarctica that go back some 50 years or more: The site concludes: “that apart from at the three stations located on the Antarctic Peninsula, none of the records at the other ten stations show any consistent trend to either increase or decrease significantly over the past 50 years”.
Climate Trends notes that three stations located on the Antarctic Peninsula have increasing temperatures over the past 60-70 years and that it’s possible they are affected by changing wind patterns, ocean currents or volcanic activity.
South Pole contradicting global warming
The question remains: What’s happening to the temperature of the entire south pole, other than sea ice trending upwards? Last year Kenneth Richard posted here on this, presenting recent literature by Stenni et al which shows that the South Pole is indeed cooling:
Antarctica was much warmer 100 years ago
Kenneth also uncovered a recent publication (Fogt et al 2017), which wrote that measured Antarctic temperatures during exploratory expeditions in 1911 and 1912 were “much warmer” than they have been at any time since 1957. Kenneth added:
In fact, there have ‘never’ been temperatures exceeding the early 20th century warmth of the recorded South Pole daily mean temperatures in the last 60 years.”
Kenneth also noted that the 1911/12 temperature anomalies reached “greater than 10°C”.
Imagine the media hysteria if such warmth happened today. The many climate neurotics out there would be shrieking, demanding a state of emergency.
74 responses to “Antarctic Temperature Data Contradict Global Warming…”Much Warmer” 105 Years Ago!”
The Antarctic ice sheet is out of phase with Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles and hence cools when the other high latitude regions warms. Svensmark explains the mechanism in the attached paper.
The albedo of the Antarctic ice sheet is greater than that of clouds. That fact and the fact that the Antarctic ice sheet is isolated from the surrounding Southern Ocean by the polar vortex explains the phenomenon.
The Southern Ocean warms and cools in phase in with the D-O cycles.
The Greenland ice sheet (the Greenland Ice sheet is not isolated by a polar vortex) also warms and cools in phase with D-O cycles.
The out of phase temperature changes comparing the Greenland Ice sheet to the Antarctic Ice sheet is called the Polar See-Saw.
The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
Borehole temperatures in the ice sheets spanning the past 6000 years show Antarctica repeatedly warming when Greenland cooled, and vice versa (Fig. 1) [13, 14]. North-south oscillations of greater amplitude associated with Dansgaard-Oeschger events are evident in oxygenisotope data from the Wurm-Wisconsin glaciation. The phenomenon has been called the polar see-saw[15, 16], but that implies a north-south symmetry that is absent. Greenland is better coupled to global temperatures than Antarctica is, and the fulcrum of the temperature swings is near the Antarctic Circle. A more apt term for the effect is the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Attempts to account for it have included the hypothesis of a south-flowing warm ocean current crossing the Equator with a built-in time lag supposedly intended to match paleoclimatic data. That there is no significant delay in the Antarctic climate anomaly is already apparent at the high-frequency end of Fig. (1). While mechanisms involving ocean currents might help to intensify or reverse the effects of climate changes, they are too slow to explain the almost instantaneous operation of the Antarctic climate anomaly.
Figure (2a) also shows that the polar warming effect of clouds is not symmetrical, being most pronounced beyond 75◦S. In the Arctic it does no more than offset the cooling effect, despite the fact that the Arctic is much cloudier than the Antarctic (Fig. (2b)). The main reason for the difference seems to be the exceptionally high albedo of Antarctica in the absence of clouds.
As described the D-O cycle is a naturally occurring event which like all other naturally occurring climate cycles would now of course be overwhelmed by human CO2 emissions forcing, particularly as the Antarctic Continent is where any enhanced greenhouse effect due to CO2 should be most apparent.
Correct. Unlike the tropics, where water vapor concentrations reach 40,000 ppm, there’s little to no competition with water vapor concentrations at the poles…which is why “polar amplification” commentaries appeared in the literature in the 1990s. Now they’ve changed it to “Arctic amplification” instead (due to Antarctica not cooperating)…even though the Arctic cooled down by a degree or two between the 1940s and 1980s.
Here’s an interesting trend.
UAH NoPol shows cooling before the 1998 El Nino
Also shows that the large effect from the recent El Nino has all but dissipated.
Note the lack of warming leading up to that El nino.
That’s called science, you know. Ever changing theories and understanding how stuff works. Very different from how skeptics operate, no understanding and always the same opinion of how stuff ought to work.
Also that “they” up there … and you don’t want to be called conspiracy theorist? You clearly are. Everyone seems to be against you and nobody understands why your truth is the correct one? And it’s “them” who are responsible for all this. Feels familiar?
“Kenneth also noted that the 1911/12 temperature anomalies reached “greater than 10°C”.
Imagine the media hysteria if such warmth happened today. the many climate neurotics out there would be shrieking for a state of emergency.”
+35C in Siberia this February this year. +20 in the Arctic.
The coldest temperatures ever recorded for Antarctica occurred in 2010 and 2013 (-93°C), breaking the 1983 record by several degrees C.
One-day or one month or one year anomalies are not climate, though, of course.
Siberia used to be covered in forests all the way up to the Arctic Ocean coastline. Summer temperatures were up to 7°C warmer than now during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, when CO2 levels were in the 260 ppm range.
Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of northern Russia. During the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to 7.0°C warmer than modern.
Arctic temperature rise has paused in the last 12 years…
And there has been no net warming trend in the Arctic in the last 80-90 years…
…despite CO2 levels rising by +100 ppm during this time.
All the warming in the Arctic (and Greenland) since the Little Ice Age took place prior to 1940, when CO2 emissions were negligible.
Hanhijärvi et al., 2013
Box et al., 2009
1919–32 warming trend [Greenland Ice Sheet] is 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming.
I think you mean 35F not 35C
Wow, 35ºF….. scorching !!! 🙂
“An alarming heatwave in the sunless winter Arctic is causing blizzards in Europe and forcing scientists to reconsider even their most pessimistic forecasts of climate change.
Although it could yet prove to be a freak event, the primary concern is that global warming is eroding the polar vortex, the powerful winds that once insulated the frozen north.
The north pole gets no sunlight until March, but an influx of warm air has pushed temperatures in Siberia up by as much as 35C above historical averages this month. Greenland has already experienced 61 hours above freezing in 2018 – more than three times as many hours as in any previous year.”
And the Arctic has up to 20C above normal for all of 2018
Just weather of course, but then the unusually high Antarctic temperatures in the post above, recorded by the Scott and Amundsen expeditions were followed by severe cold, as Scott wrote in his journal, “no one in the world would have expected the temperatures and surfaces which we encountered at this time of year” and which likely played a part in the demise of Scott’s party.
“..the cold spell experienced by Scott in late February and March 1912 has been discussed as an element that led to the weakening of several members of the Scott polar party and played a role in their fate.”
Fair and Balanced as ever.
Oh please! Weather is suddenly, in special cases, climate? This is like me saying last month in Germany it was up to 20°C colder the whole month. Such stupid comments are only possible if you refuse to understand how vast and complex climate system really is. Start here: https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/30/snow-cover-ice-volume-growth-show-global-climate-is-a-lot-more-than-just-surface-temperature/#sthash.odGH9GLz.dpbs
Just watch your fans when they celebrate another cold day somewhere on the planet as a sign of the coming ice age and AGW being wrong.
now look at 1976, phlop !!
You seem to have an ABJECT IGNORANCE about the effect of NATURAL El Ninos, and NATURAL Jet Stream variability.
Arctic sea ice is STILL in the top 10% of the last 10,000 years.
A small RECOVERY from the extreme extents of the LIA and late 1970’s.
STOP DENYING NATURAL CLIMATE CHANGE, phlop.
It makes you look like the other very ignorant brain-hosed AGW religious FANATIC.
“AGW being wrong”
It certainly is an UNPROVEN load of anti-science nonsense.
When you have some actual empirical scientific evidence of human CO2 causing anything other than enhanced plant growth, maybe people will start taking more notice of your mindless yapping of AGW mantra.
“Oh please! Weather is suddenly, in special cases, climate?”
Um, your headline was
“Antarctic Temperature Data Contradict Global Warming…”Much Warmer” 105 Years Ago!”
And the ‘much warmer’ was from the paper describing the unusual but short-lived warm spell during the Scott/Amundsen expeditions.
” Amundsen’s sledging temperature measurements during this time are much warmer than the hourly and daily mean observations collected at the South Pole station since 1957,”
Even the paper’s title ‘An Exceptional Summer during the South Pole Race of 1911/12’ tells us this is a weather event.
So if anyone is guilty of confusing a warm summer – weather – with global-warming – climate, it is you.
Didn’t you insist that the SH sea ice wasn’t advancing over the last 37 years because of 2 years of anomalies just a few days ago?
Nope … steadily losing ice mass at 127 Gt per year.
Ahh, based on the erratic Grace Satellite results.
Uh, the original comment was that the South Pole is contradicting global-scale warming. Ice mass can advance and retreat independent of air temperature changes. Geothermal heat flux can account for a significant portion of the ice mass changes, as East Antarctica has been growing in mass while portions of West Antarctica have been decreasing – in accord with geothermal activity:
And then from the other side of NASA’s mouth”
Looks like “The Ship of Fools” chose the wrong century to discover warming.
It would be helpful when showing such data to others such as e.g., congressmen, to have clearer references for the various charts.
OT, but great news for the world’s plant life. 🙂
the mental gymnastics and modelling obfuscation required to explain this away leave me with a sense of despair. The alarmists will argue black is white right up until they freeze to death in the next mini ice age, which will (correctly) be due to raised CO2 as well.
“Since 1900 CE, significant warming trends are identified for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, the Dronning Maud Land coast and the Antarctic Peninsula regions, and these trends are robust across the distribution of records that contribute to the unweighted isotopic composites and also significant in the weighted temperature reconstructions.”
Stenni et al 2017
Maybe a TINY amount of RECOVERY from the COLDEST period in thousands of years, after PROTRACTED long term COOLING..
You’re cherry-picking again, Philip.
For the West Antarctic Ice Sheet as a whole, the 1900-2000 trend didn’t reverse the overall cooling…
Stenni et al., 2017
“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 (Jones et al., 2016), and are of the opposite sign [cooling] to those produced by most forced climate model simulations over the same post-1979 CE interval.”
“No continent-scale warming of Antarctic temperature is evident in the last century.”
“Only for the Antarctic Peninsula is this most recent century-scale trend unusual in the context of natural variability over the last 2000-years.”
So only one small part of Antarctica — the Peninsula – had a century-scale warming trend that fell outside the context of natural variability through the year 2000. But since 2000, even the Peninsula has been cooling dramatically – erasing all the warming.
Oliva et al., 2017
“…the regionally stacked temperature record for the last three decades has shifted from a warming trend of 0.32°C/decade during 1979-1997 to a cooling trend of -0.47°C/decade during 1999-2014.”
And the pre-2000s warming on the AP itself was natural anyway, with “little evidence” it was related to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Polvani et al., 2016
“[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“
In other words, nothing unusual has been happening in and around Antarctica that falls outside the range of natural variability.
“In other words, nothing unusual has been happening in and around Antarctica that falls outside the range of natural variability.”
Nothing unusual has been happening ANYWHERE that falls outside the range of natural variability
(except perhaps in very UHI prone areas)
Correct. Humans do influence surface temperatures…by adding buildings, asphalt, roofs, machinery to absorb heat. In other words, non-climatically.
On a yearly average, urban areas are substantially warmer than the non-urban fringe by 2.9 °C
The results indicate that urban heating is attributable to a large excess in heat from the rapidly heating urban surfaces consisting of buildings, asphalt, bare-soil and short grasses. In summer, the symptoms of diurnal heating begin to appear by mid-morning and can be about 10°C warmer than nearby woodlands.
[E]xtraneous (nonclimatic) signals contaminate gridded climate data. …[T]he data contamination likely leads to an overstatement of actual trends over land. Using the regression model to filter the extraneous, nonclimatic effects reduces the estimated 1980–2002 global average temperature trend over land by about half.
[I]n the climate of Poland the occurrence of the UHI (urban heat island) is the most important feature of urbanized areas. Over 80% of nights are characterized by surplus heat in towns, amounting to 2–4°C [above non-urban areas], and sporadically to 8°C and more.
The long-term mean annual temperature record (1885 –1993) shows warming over the past century, with much of the warming occurring in the most recent three decades. However, our analyses show that half or more of this recent warming may be related to urban growth, and not to any widespread regional temperature increase.
The trend of surface air temperature (SAT) is a critical indicator to climate change in varied spatial scales. Due to urbanization effects, however, the current SAT records of many urban stations can hardly meet the demands of the studies. Evaluation and adjustment of the urbanization effects on the SAT trends are needed, which requires an objective selection of reference (rural) stations. … The results showed a highly significant urbanization effect of 0.074°C/10yr and urbanization contribution of 24.9% for the national stations of mainland China for the time period 1961-2004
•The seasonal and temporal variability and trends of UHI in Athens was studied.
•UHI [the Urban Heat Island effect] accounts for almost half of Athens’ warming.
The study explores the interdecadal and seasonal variability of the urban heat island (UHI) intensity in the city of Athens. Daily air temperature data from a set of urban and surrounding non urban stations over the period 1970–2004 were used. Nighttime and daytime heat island revealed different characteristics as regards the mean amplitude, seasonal variability and temporal variation and trends. The difference of the annual mean air temperature between urban and rural stations exhibited a progressive statistically significant increase over the studied period, with rates equal to + 0.2 °C/decade. A gradual and constant increase of the daytime UHI intensity was detected, in contrast to the nighttime UHI intensity which increases only in summer, after the mid 1980s.
[R]apid urbanization has a significant influence on surface warming over east China. Overall, UHI effects contribute 24.2% to regional average warming trends. The strongest effect of urbanization on annual mean surface air temperature trends occurs over the metropolis and large city stations, with corresponding contributions of about 44% and 35% to total warming, respectively. The UHI trends are 0.398°C and 0.26°C decade. The most substantial UHI effect occurred after the early 2000s, implying a significant effect of rapid urbanization on surface air temperature change during this period.
Daily minimum temperature (Tmin) and maximum temperature (Tmax) data of Huairou station in Beijing from 1960 to 2008 are examined and adjusted for inhomogeneities by applying the data of two nearby reference stations. Results show that relocations of station cause obvious discontinuities in the data series, and one of the discontinuities for Tmin are highly significant when the station was moved from downtown to suburb in 1996. The daily Tmin and Tmax data are adjusted for the inhomogeneities. The mean annual Tmin [temperature minimum] and Tmax [temperature maximum] at Huairou station drop by 1.377°C and 0.271°C respectively after homogenization [relocation from the city to the suburbs].
The heating effect due to urbanization was found to penetrate about 600–800 m height in the atmosphere over the city, and the two surface heat island cells were found to combine aloft.
And when you use thermometers in these UHI areas, which in reality comprise a very tiny fraction of land area, as any sort of metric of “global” anything, then smear those UHI reading to everywhere else, you are bound to come up with temperature trends totally divorce from any actual reality.
Especially if you then “in-fill”, and “adjust” any reasonable data as well ! 🙂
Basically take your pick what you want the temperature to be. And they do.
Cool. The people getting shot in mass shootings are nothing unsual too then? People die all the time and have been dying sooner in the past. So nothing to see here, right?
Oh, that change you accept? Probably also the change to climate caused by agriculture? Why not the change caused by emissions? Because you still can’t make yourself understand the physics behind the greenhouse effect? Still holes in it because Venus?
Could you clearly identify the unusual change in the climate of Antarctica (no urbanization) that has been caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions and not by geothermal heat flux and/or natural variability?
According to a new paper, Antarctica has contributed a total of 0.37 of a centimeter to sea levels during the course of 1958-2014. Do you find that significant and unusual? If not, when will the catastrophic contribution finally begin that will cause 10 feet of sea level rise by 2065?
That is probably the most MINDLESS, incoherent rant you have ever come out with, seb. !!
The so-called physics behind the so-called greenhouse effect is a load of unproven nonsense.
You have yet to produce one single piece of evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 leads to anything but enhanced plant growth.
Your understanding of physics is SO POOR that you cannot even comprehend the measured, proven, effect of the gravity thermal gradient. You just DENY that it even exists.
AGW is the FANTASY.. and it all you have. seb.
Poor seb, you also don’t seem to be able to differentiate between local micro-climate and so-called global climate.
Local climate are, guess what.. local.
They have ZERO effect on the global climate except when they are used in statistical fabrication.
Could you please get back to the global picture and not focus on individual regions? It’s like you pointing out that the leg is fine, nothing to see here while the arm is hanging on threads and the doctor is trying to tell you that you are hurt.
I find it remarkable that you can get behind anything if it suits your current mood. Weren’t you just claiming last week that Anartica actually caused sea level reduction?
It already has …
I wonder what your opinion is towards other slow mechansisms. Do you believe that it is true that the Moon is increasing its distance to Earth? Do you believe that it is true that the Sun will end as a giant fireball swollowing Earth? Do you believe Earth’s rotation is slowing down?
Or are you a skeptic towards those too?
According to an estimate of global sea surface temperature (SST) changes during the last 2,000 years (“Robust global ocean cooling trend for the pre-industrial Common Era”), the addition of the last 2 centuries (1800 to 2000 C.E.) of relatively modest SST warming only changes the overall per-millennium global cooling trend (~0.4°C) by one tenth of one degree. In other words, using a long-term perspective, the Holocene cooling trend has continued uninterrupted during the last two centuries.
McGregor et al., 2015
“Our best estimate of the SST cooling trend, scaled to temperature units using the average anomaly method (method 1), for the periods 1–2000 CE is –0.3°C/kyr to –0.4°C/kyr, and for 801–1800 CE is –0.4°C/kyr to –0.5°C/kyr“
Here is a global picture of the Holocene through the year 2000:
A closeup: https://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Holocene-Cooling-Global-Temps-1940-1970-2000-Gerhard-04-copy.jpg
Northern High Latitudes
Which area of the globe has experienced unprecedented, unusual warmth, SebastianH?
Yes, over the course of the 1800 or 1900 to present span.
Thomas et al., 2017
“Our results show that SMB [surface mass balance] for the total Antarctic Ice Sheet (including ice shelves) has increased at a rate of 7 ± 0.13 Gt decade−1 since 1800 AD representing a net reduction in sea level of ∼ 0.02 mm decade−1 since 1800 and ∼ 0.04 mm decade−1 since 1900 AD.”
Since 1958, there’s been a net positive contribution of one-third of a centimeter.
when will the catastrophic contribution finally begin that will cause 10 feet of sea level rise by 2065?
Of course! 1/3rd of a centimeter of sea level rise contribution in the last 56 years is well on the way towards contributing 10 feet by 2065.
Impressive that you are capable of making such a observation if it fits your belief system. When we discuss the Artic ice extent you always ignore the overall trend and instead claim it’s stable since 2005-ish or so 😉
Whatever … you pick what you like and regurgitate it here as “proof” that climate science has it all wrong and everyone is out to get you or something.
“get back to the global picture and not focus on individual regions”
The global picture is that the ONLY regions experiencing warming are those directly affected by the NATURAL release of energy via El Nino and ocean currents.
There is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence of any sort of CO2 forced warming, ANYWHERE !!
That is the REAL global picture.
And changes in the moons cycles etc have been MEASURED.
CO2 warming.. NEVER HAS.
Its a MINDLESS anti-science suppository !
Because IT DOES NOT EXIST except in rabid AGW fantasies.
If you think you have provable empirical scientific evidence of CO2 warming.. ANYWHERE…
…then stop being a monumental COWARD..
…and PRODUCE IT !!
And yet another irrelevant mindless analogy…
… you have GOT to be joking, seb !!!
“In other words, using a long-term perspective, the Holocene cooling trend has continued uninterrupted during the last two centuries.”
Not what the paper actually says (naturally).
“In contrast, for the transition to the 1801–2000 CE bin, the most recent 200-year interval, there is instead a statistically significant warming trend of +0.08 s.d. units/100yrs.”
-McGregor et al 2015
And as AGW only became significant after around 1950, an average of 1800-2000 is hardly going to show it.
I’ve presented the evidence to you countless times now and explained to you that there are no proofs in physics even more often. You don’t accept new information, you just stubbornly believe in your fantasy thing.
122 years ago, there was this paper: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
The author got a Nobel Prize later on, so there is that.
And there were these scientists who actually measured the downward radiation caused by various greenhouse gases and how the flux increased (especially for CO2):
Instead of measuring from the ground these scientists measured the outgoing infrared radiation and “found” the greenhouse effect and how it changed for various GHGs:
You’ll probably ignore this again, so what is the point in even trying to explain to you that the GHE of CO2 is real? Feel free to continue your “no evidence” thing if you want to continue to look like a troll … I am sure this “helps” the “skeptic cause”, right?
In 1949, the Portuguese neurologist António Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for his development of the prefrontal lobotomy — a procedure in which the connection is cut to a part of the brain called the prefrontal cortex in mentally ill, depressed or learning disabled people. As the procedure can send patients into a vegetative state, lobotomies are now believed to be wildly unethical.
Schmithusen et al. (2015) graph of CO2 forcing for the globe
According to Schmithusen et al., 2015, the measured radiative forcing for CO2 is less than 1 W m-2 for Antarctica and it’s “comparatively weak” for the NH polar extremes too (Greenland, Siberia). (See quotes from the graph above.) So why do you believe that polar ice mass and sea ice losses are driven by CO2 concentrations? Where does the “polar amplification” conceptualization arise if there is so weak a CO2 radiative effect on polar climes?
Seb, That is NOT proof of atmospheric CO2 warming ANYTHING.
The atmosphere IS NOT a glass bottle, no matter how you want to live your life. !!
The radiative absorption and emission of CO2 are well known, but that makes CO2 just another conduit for cooling. Its collisional thermalisation is magnitudes faster (why are you unable to grasp this fact?)
The so-called greenhouse gases do not “trap” heat any more than any other gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. In fact, the non-greenhouse gases will tend to hold onto heat energy longer than the so called greenhouse gases because the non-greenhouse gases are such poor LWIR radiators to space.
When CO2 near the earth’s surface absorbs back radiation, the lifetime of the excited state caused by the absorption of the photon is magnitudes longer than the mean free time between molecular collisions between the CO2 molecule and other molecules in the surrounding gas. That means that the radiative energy absorbed by the molecule is almost never resonantly re-emitted, it is transferred to the surrounding gas, warming not just the CO2 but the oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, argon etc.
The Earth’s atmosphere is controlled by the gravity thermal mechanism, so any slight change in low-level radiative effect is IMMEDIATELY balanced out by convective effects.
A real greenhouse does not stay warm because of the action of IR absorbing greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse stays warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm. There is no radiant greenhouse effect that keeps a real greenhouse warm.
So too with the Earth’s climate system. Gravity along with the heat capacity of the atmosphere and the depth of the troposphere provide a convective greenhouse effect. Derived from first principals, the Earth’s convective greenhouse effect keeps the Earth’s surface on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the amount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been measured. There is no additional warming caused by a radiative greenhouse effect.
CO2 does not re-radiate below about 11km.
A radiative greenhouse effect has not been observed on Earth or anywhere else in the solar system for that matter. The radiative greenhouse effect is science fiction. Hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction. This is all a matter of science. Therefore beyond you.
There is NO CAUSAL LINK between atmospheric CO2 level and temperature anywhere. (There is a causal link between temperature and atmospheric CO2)
There is NO CO2 warming signature in the satellite data record, just ocean warming from solar, physics shows that ocean temperatures ARE NOT affected by atmospheric CO2 so-called back radiation. It is the wrong frequency. (again, you have proven yourself to be incapable of comprehending that physics)
You have FAILED UTTERLY provide ONE IOTA of empirical scientific evidence that enhanced atmospheric CO2 has any warming effect on the atmosphere or on anything.
BECAUSE IT DOESN’T.
I doubt you even have a clue what “scientific evidence” is. !!
“so what is the point in even trying to explain to you that the GHE of CO2 is real”
You could try providing ACTUAL EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF WARMING by enhanced atmospheric CO2
Massive FAIL so far.
“You don’t accept new information”
roflmao,. says seb citing a 122 year old experiment.
hilarious. ! 🙂
Why can’t you accept “new information” on thermalisation, based on actual physics and measurements.
You are stuck with your brain-hosed religious mantra, and no amount of actual science can penetrate through that manic green sludge.
And do you know why that is the case? Understanding this is the first step towards understanding how the greenhouse effect works.
Do you think the polar regions are somehow shielded from the rest of the planet? Or is there maybe a mechanism that transfers tropical heat towards the poles?
@AndyG55: thanks for trying to be a normal guy for the first few paragraphs. You seem to know something about the mechanisms involved, but I don’t get why you a drawing the conclusion that “CO2 [is] just another conduit for cooling” and despite the measurements still claim that because of thermalization CO2 does nothing. Not here and not on other planets.
That is very weird and I can only assume that you are spreading this disinformation on purpose to troll people.
So while you comment started ok, it drifted away into the nutty denialist area (quoted here) pretty quickly and your two follow-ups don’t help to draw a different picture of the state of your mind either.
“nothing unusual happening anywhere” – Andy
Oh, but the modern warming IS unusual, Andy! …unusually WEAK, by the looks of it.
Bottom line – nothing to see there, despite all the chatbot whining and tantrum throwing.
The current global climate is particularly BENIGN compared to climate during the COLD ANOMALY of the LIA.
By all historic records The LIA was a time of very spiteful weather even more spiteful than a mindless AGW aco-lite. !
Ah, so it is warming and cooling simultaneously. Thanks for clearing that up.
“so it is warming and cooling simultaneously”
The very definition of “climate change™”, hey phlop !!
Now take your foot out of your mouth… again. !!
Stop sucking on your big toe.
Oh, the “high standard” of making conversation the moderators are looking for …
But Kenneth, the models say it’s warming.
Why do you so stubbornly insist on paying attention to reality? /s/
[…] P. Gosselin, April 3 , 2018 in […]
OT, but maybe we’ll have to add Saudi Arabia to the global snow amount this year 😃 …
I note 😄 that Saudi Arabia got some more snow…
☺️ 😁I welcome them to a global warming ‘hole’. 😄 ☺️
At least they are planning to build 200 GW of photovoltaics in the next years 😉
Don’t confuse weather with climate.
I sure they have plenty of slave labour to keep the sand off the panels.
Green jobs 😉
And plenty of Chinese solar panels ..
All that extra CO2 from manufacturing
The plant world LUVS CO2.
[…] CO2’s mechanism is to warm the atmosphere. There has been no atmospheric warming in Antarctica in over 100 years. Isolating the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperature reveals no warming at all […]
There is an explanation for Antarctic cooling.
The Antarctic Circumpolar Vortex is keeping CO2 out. Because of the “bend” in the CO2 molecule it is sensitive to centripetal force.
That nothing grows there, provides confimation. Except for some algae and bacteria under the ice.
No CO2 –no photosynthesis–no life.
I’m sure you will like this reasoning–no need for applause–
“Here is a global picture of the Holocene through the year 2000:
Is Gerhard 2004 published in Science, or perhaps Nature, or maybe GRL? Nope, it is from ‘Geohorizons’, house journal of um, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.
I assume the red line overlaid on the ‘years before present (BP)’ plot is Kenneth’s work. Perhaps he could explain how he can show temperatures up to 2000AD, when 0 BP is 1950?
“Before Present (BP) years is a time scale used mainly in geology and other scientific disciplines to specify when events occurred in the past. Because the “present” time changes, standard practice is to use 1 January 1950 as the commencement date of the age scale, reflecting the origin of practical radiocarbon dating in the 1950s”
The Jiang 2015 dataset ends in 1875, missing circa 1C of SST rise.
“This graph shows recent temperatures in N Spain.
From Abrantes 2017, which has a large number of graphs. Kenneth likes Fig 4C – ‘northern Spain atmospheric temperature anomaly (Martín-Chivelet et al., 2011).’
Following the breadcrumbs, the abstract of MC et al 2011 tells us
“Remarkably, the presented records allow direct comparison of recent warming with former warm intervals such as the Roman or the Medieval periods. That comparison reveals the 20th century as the time with highest surface temperatures of the last 4000 years for the studied area. ”
So one answer to the question “Which area of the globe has experienced unprecedented, unusual warmth” would seem to be – Spain!
“(3) Cooling since the start of the Christian era, 2,000 yr B.P.”
So is it your contention that the beginning of the Christian era is actually 50 B.C. and not 0 A.D.? Because 2,000 years before 1950 is 50 B.C. For that matter, both (4) and (5) have their trend lines match up directly with 700 A.D. and 1900 A.D., respectively, and they are both listed as 700 yr B.P. and 100 yr B.P. Sorry, Philip, but the “Present” in the Gerhard graph is the year 2000, not 1950.
Before Present is sometimes used to denote 1950, and other times it is literally used to denote the present, or the year 2000, or “the most recent decades”, or whatever is specified in the text.
The warming-cooling-warming 20th century trajectory (annotated in red on the graph as 1940, 1970, and 2000 data points) match up quite well with graphs of Northern Hemisphere temperature (for example, see here, here, here, and here), as well as hemispheric and global instrumental data (when uncompromised by urbanization and ocean-air effects).
The Abrantes et al. (2017) graph does not match up to that conclusion:
Nor does the Iberian Peninsula for that matter:
Spanish Pyrenees (no warming since 1950)
Iberian Peninsula (no warming since 1950)
Mediterranean (no warmer now than in the 1940s)
Western Mediterranean (S. Spain) (much warmer during Medieval times)
France-Spain (no net warming since 1850)
Bañuls-Cardona et al., 2017 (Spain)
“During the Middle Holocene we detect important climatic events. From 7000 to 6800 [years before present] (MIR 23 and MIR22), we register climatic characteristics that could be related to the end of the African Humid Period, namely an increase in temperatures and a progressive reduction in arboreal cover as a result of a decrease in precipitation. The temperatures exceeded current levels by 1°C, especially in MIR23, where the most highly represented taxon is a thermo-Mediterranean species, M. (T.) duodecimcostatus.”
“The Abrantes et al. (2017) graph does not match up to that conclusion:”
The data plotted comes from a different paper, which has the conclusion I posted above. As for Abrantes….
“As anyone well informed certainly knows, an average climate warming does not at all mean that every region in the world will warm at the same rate. In fact the impact of such warmth on the atmosphere and in the surface ocean waters causes changes in the atmospheric and oceanic circulation which will have different impacts on different regions. The article on Breibart.com [based on a NTZ article] is so bad that the author did not even realize that the figure extracted from my paper is not my new data record but the record of the northern Spain atmospheric temperature anomaly, produced by Martín-Chivelet et al., (2011) that I have used for comparison. Indeed, my paper proves that while in the NW Iberian margin Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) during the 20th century were similar to the Medieval Warm Period ones, in the Algarve region SST shows a general increase of about 2 ºC in the last 50 years. Such results agree with both the global and regional projections that indicate this region of Europe with highest potential vulnerability in regard to current global warming (Climate, 2011).”
– Fatima Abrantes, Portuguese Institute for Sea and Atmosphere
From Climate Feedback.
So, once again Kenneth believes he and his cherry-picked chart knows what a study shows better than the author herself.
An increase from the COLDEST ANOMALY in 10,000 years.
That is GREAT NEWS in itself. !!
Climatefeedback is a low-level propaganda pap site (as in the bottom of the sewer), especially set up to convince small-minded people like you, phlop.
And because of your base-level brain-hosing, and scientific ignorance, you have no way of resisting blatant propaganda.
….does NOT portray the LIES that climatefeedtrough is trying to sell you.
All that was done here, Philip, was to present a graph as shown in the Abrantes paper that definitely does not support the contention that modern warming is unusual or that Medieval warming was lower than now.
I have no idea what it is you believe I am claiming to know more about than the author, as there is nothing I have said about it other than to present it as another of hundreds of examples that do not show an unusual warmth in modern times — a non-Hockey Stick. But it’s good to see that the author endorses a non-Hockey Stick for that region: “my paper proves that while in the NW Iberian margin Sea Surface Temperatures (SST) during the 20th century were similar to the Medieval Warm Period“.
The very unfortunate claim made by Breitbart at the time in taking our list and featuring it (45,000 shares) last May (when it was only at 80 graphs) was that our collection of graphs proved “global warming is a myth.” This was not our word choice, but Breitbart‘s. The authors were responding to the claim that their papers proved that “global warming is a myth” even though that was not what we wrote that our graph and paper collections “proved”.
Keep trying, though, Philip. I see this has become an obsession for you to insist that we live in quite unusual times climatically. The scientific evidence is stacked against this claim, but obviously you are not going to ever concede or relent. Hence your cherry-picking of a few graphs here and there out of the 200+ in the last 15 months in an attempt to support the contention that we live in “unprecedented” times with a clear anthropogenic footprint. We’re already at 64 non-Hockey Sticks for this year, well ahead of last year’s pace when we had 150 for the full year. Again, the Abrantes graph above does not support your claim that Spain has experienced unusual warmth.
Well Kenneth, I think he noticed way faster than I that you tend to extract things from papers that seem to support your view while neither the complete paper nor the author support your view. That doesn’t stop you from listing that “evidence” or quoting from those papers.
Often that works because why would anyone even check the sources you cite, right? Just having a source is convincing enough for most people to trust someone. That’s why fact checking websites/services need to exist in this age of disinformation. You can’t trust anyone to write the truth anymore, not even if they list their sources.
Both sides do that. And the renowned journals have a long history of blunders. Your advice needs to be applied also on the journals that you unconditionally agree with.
Again your problem is the “we’re-right, you’re wrong, so-discussion-is-over attitude”.
Everyone does this. It’s the weight of the evidence on one side or the other and which ever one is most convincing wins. Up until the Climategate e-mail fiasco, I tilted towards your side. Now I tilt the other way.
“Fact checking” websites are no more than agenda-driven bloggers who have a presupposition that anyone who writes something they disagree with is wrong, so therefore it is. It’s merely a confirmation-bias exercise.
I agree. Both sides are guilty of doing this. Some intentionally, some unintentionally.
Seb H writes
Do you believe that it is true that the Moon is increasing its distance to Earth? Do you believe that it is true that the Sun will end as a giant fireball swollowing [sic] Earth? Do you believe Earth’s rotation is slowing down?
All good indications that the “consensus science ” has the age of the universe out by a pretty big margin.
Pole watchers need to get their act together.
[…] Antarctic Temperature Data Contradict Global Warming…”Much Warmer” 105 Years Ago! […]
[…] cooling trend, even as atmospheric CO2 levels rose sharply from 1985 until 2017, according to Japanese climate blogger Kirye. But lest you think this is some sort of Japanese climate denial scheme, there are other […]