Greenland fluctuates between gaining ice by precipitation and losing it by melting. But an increased ice mass presses down, pushing more ice outward to the ocean, so it is almost always the case that Greenland is either losing ice mass by melting, or by calving of icebergs. Either way, it's certainly cause for panic!
Journal Nature Refutes PIK’s Fantasy-Rich Science That A Warmer Arctic Causes Extreme Cold Snaps By P Gosselin on 9. February 2021 Share this... The polar vortex theory takes a beating: The claim a warm Arctic is behind the brutally cold winter conditions at the mid latitudes is shown by a Nature study to be scientifically baseless. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne. Now that Europe and North America are getting blasted by unusually severe winter weather, which climate alarmists predicted 20 years ago would be a thing of the past, the alarmists are desperate to find an explanation to escape embarrassment. PIK science suggests warmth begets cold They’ve come up with the polar vortex explanation: the bitter cold we are now experiencing at the middle latitudes is in fact due to the warmer Arctic, they say. And this wreaks havoc on the jet stream which in turn results in cold Arctic blasts dipping deep into the middle latitudes. Yes, cold winters are in fact exactly what we should expect in a rapidly warming world! Levermann and Rahmstorf For example the two media front men Anders Levermann and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Climate Institute (PIK) have been telling this to the ever gullible German media outlets, like Bild and Spiegel. Yet, many suspect it’s scientific fraud designed to fool the public and to hide the fact that their global warming predictions are in reality glaring failures. Journal Nature refutes fantasy-rich PIK explanation For example a recent paper appearing in Nature titled “Weakened evidence for mid-latitude impacts of Arctic warming“, authored by Blackport et al, refutes this highly fantasy-rich hypothesis pitched by the two PIK scientists. . . . .
Rapid ice retreat during last deglaciation parallels current melt rates Charles Rotter UIT THE ARCTIC UNIVERSITY OF NORWAY Research News 10,000 km2 of ice disappeared in a blink of an eye from an ice sheet in the Storfjorden Through offshore Svalbard, a…
Southeast Greenland Sea Surface Temperature 1° – 2°C Warmer In 1940 Than Today, New Study Shows By P Gosselin on 14. February 2021 Share this... Southeast Greenland sea surface temperature was warmer than today in the 1940s, scientists find. A team of Danish scientists led by David Wangner published a paper a year ago about the results of a Greenland sediment core from Skjoldungen Fjord, near the Thrym Glacier, which allowed sea surface temperatures to be reconstructed. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne. Map of the Skjoldungen area. The core location is indicated by a red star. Image: Wangner et al. The core covers the past 200 years (1796–2013). The scientists find that the SST record compares well with other alkenone‐based reconstructions from SE‐Greenland and thus features regional shelf water variability. Today some scientists like claiming the present is warmer than at any time in the past 1000 years and suggest the Greenland ice sheets are rapidly melting. But the results of the core reconstruction show that it was warmer in the past, some 80 years ago. . . .
This is an extraordinarily comprehensive review of the data. CO2 sensitivity: the polar solution Charles Rotter If our planet had been designed with comparative high-latitude studies in mind, it couldn’t have been better arranged than it is.
The author of the above ^^^ post. Alan Longhurst Alan Reece Longhurst is a British-born Canadian oceanographer who invented the Longhurst-Hardy Plankton Recorder,[1] and is widely known for his contributions to the primary scientific literature, together with his numerous monographs, most notably the "Ecological Geography of the Sea". He led an effort that produced the first estimate of global primary production in the oceans using satellite imagery,[2] and also quantified vertical carbon flux through the planktonic ecosystem[3] via the biological pump.[4] More recently, he has offered a number of critical reviews of several aspects of fishery management science and climate change science.
Major Blow To Polar Vortex Instability Claims: Rahmstorf Misinterprets Short Term Data As ‘Long Term’ By P Gosselin on 6. March 2021 Share this... Potsdam climatologist Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf is emerging as an outlier on the claimed polar vortex science behind this past winter’s extreme cold waves in the US and Europe. German climate site Die kalte Sonne presented its 19th video which looks at Potsdam Institute Professor Stefan Rahmstorf’s claim of polar vortex instability being due to manmade global warming and thus behind the recent cold waves. . . .
Professor Curry is skeptical. Canceling the AMO Posted on March 6, 2021 by curryja | 70 comments by Judith Curry Conclusion from Michael Mann’s new paper: “We conclude that there is no compelling evidence for internal multidecadal oscillations in the climate system.” Continue reading → ". . . Assuming that nature continues to behave as it has for the past 8 millennia, at some point (possibly in the next decade), we will see a shift to the cold phase of the AMO, with a slow down in Atlantic hurricane activity and Greenland mass loss. In closing, Mann’s quest to cancel the Medieval Warm Period and now the AMO, in the interests of showing that recent warming is 100% anthropogenic, is not at all convincing to scientists who understand anything about climate dynamics and global climate models."
Alfred Wegener Institute Sea Ice Extent: “Both Polar Regions At NORMAL LEVELS”…Siberia 6-8°C Colder By P Gosselin on 9. March 2021 Share this... Alfred Wegener Institute: Sea ice development in both polar regions at normal level Arctic On 31 January, 2021, the sea-ice extent in the Arctic was 14.29 million km², roughly the same level as in the previous two years. In terms of the long-term trend for the month, January 2021 comes in at 7th place with 13.63 million km²: Source: AWI, University of Bremen In January sea-ice grew at a rate of 47,518 km² per day. This represents a daily growth almost exactly the size of Lower Saxony (or Mississippi). . . .
Danish Institute Data: Greenland Ice Melt Has Slowed Down Significantly Over Past Decade By P Gosselin on 10. March 2021 Share this... The media and activists, among them a number of “Climate scientists”, have been declaring that Greenland ice melt has been accelerating. Today the German Klimaschau climate news video reports, however, that this has not been the case over the recent years. All the recent talk about accelerating Greenland ice loss over the past years is false. . . .
New Study: 75% Of Recent Arctic Sea Ice Decline Is ‘Accounted For’ By An Internal Variability Pattern (PNA) By Kenneth Richard on 18. March 2021 Share this... Scientists (Liu et al., 2021) have assessed the Pacific North American (PNA) pattern, “largely a mode of internal variability,” is “an important driver of western Arctic sea variability and trends”. The heat-redistributing PNA pattern recently shifted from a negative (1980s) to positive (1995-) phase. This internal shift “induced significant increases in poleward heat” transport, explaining 75% of the post-1979 warming and declining sea ice trend in the Western Arctic. It’s interesting to note that the temperature increase and sea ice decline induced by the positive trend in the PNA was largely observed from 1995 to 2007, but since then the overall trend for both temperature and sea ice changes seems to have plateaued and flattened. . . .
No Change In Arctic Sea Ice Over The Last Ten Years Posted on April 3, 2021 by tonyheller Arctic sea ice extent this winter is nearly identical to ten years ago, and higher than it was fifteen years ago. Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph | Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis
March Sea Ice: Arctic Stable 16 Years, Gains 504,000 Sq Km Since 2017! Antarctic Above Mean! By P Gosselin on 14. April 2021 Share this... Though it has dropped since its peak in 1979, Arctic sea ice extent in March has remained stable since 2005. There are two months that are of particular interest in the Arctic: September, when sea ice reaches its minimum, and March, when it reaches its maximum. Gains 504,000 sq km. Today we look at Arctic sea ice extent data for March ,2021, from the Alfred Wegener Institute, University of Bremen. The mean sea-ice extent for March, 2021, in the Arctic was 14.72 million square kilometer, placing it at about 504,000 square kilometers above the low from 2017. . . . .
Landmark study casts doubt on controversial theory linking melting Arctic to severe winter weather Every time severe winter weather strikes the United States or Europe, reporters are fond of saying that global warming may be to blame. The paradox goes like this: As Arctic…
Scientists Again Affirm Natural Warmings Of 5–16 °C In ‘A Few Decades’ Can Be ‘Entirely Unforced’ By Kenneth Richard on 20. May 2021 Share this... A new study asserts that when Greenland naturally warms by multiple degrees per decade, this “abrupt climate variability can result entirely from unforced or noise-induced oscillations of the coupled atmosphere-ice-ocean system.” This means the recent modest climate changes for Greenland may easily fall within the scope of an unforced natural variability pattern. In the last 100 years Greenland has not experienced any obvious net warming. In fact, not only was the “1919–32 warming trend […] 33% greater in magnitude than the 1994–2007 warming” (Box et al., 2009), but the Greenland ice sheet has not warmed (net) since the early 2000s. Now a new study (Capron et al., 2021) has shown Greenland only needs a few decades to warm up by anywhere from 5 to 16°C. These abrupt warmings have occurred rather routinely in the past – perhaps every few millennia. . . .
I don't know how you can answer arguments as ridiculous as @bringiton's. If an excess of carbon (& methane) in the upper atmosphere is creating a problemmatic effect, a reduction in carbon emissions, according to him, will not ameliorate the problem, unless the reduction comes from the same place as proceeded the excess-- I mean, even putting aside that humans clearly ARE the new, contributing element, here, the argument that all CO2 doesn't have the same effect in the atmosphere, that it varies, depending on its source, gives new meaning to the expression, "dumb as a post." But I must correct myself; bringiton was apparently not saying that the reason reducing CO2 from fossil fuels won't help, if that was not the source of the excess CO2, because he doesn't believe the carbon cycle is a primary influencer of Earth's climate: Since that assertion contradicts the well-established, fundamental precepts of climate science, not to mention the accepted truth of other scientists, as well, I wonder why bringiton would think that his merely stating something that so flies in the face of all science, would be sufficient-- without so much as an explanation as to why all the other scientists are wrong about this (the vast, VAST majority), or offering any supporting evidence, whatsoever. Clearly, he's not targeting his "arguments," to the thinking crowd.
He can't, and you can't either, precisely because they are far from ridiculous. That is kinda the point. Inevitably, I said no such thing. Contributing what? Which is presumably why you made it up. Oh, OK. Your retraction is accepted. Thank you for acknowledging your error. Such honesty is all too rare in the anti-fossil-fuel hysteria camp. No it doesn't, not even close. You are just makin' $#!+ up. Mere use of an expression like, "the accepted truth of other scientists" is conclusive proof that you are spewing nonscience. That claim is false and absurd. My statements are consistent with the established facts of climatology and the physics of radiative heat transfer. Nonsense. No one has ever asked all the other scientists. You are taking the word of a few dozen anti-CO2 activists as representative of all scientists. They aren't, and it's high time more real scientists spoke up and said so. I have offered plenty of evidence, and so have other posters, especially Jack and Tommy. But my specialty is explaining what the evidence means, and especially why it doesn't mean what the anti-CO2 hysteria mongers claim it means. I often use their own sources to prove them wrong. I'm targeting them ONLY to the thinking -- as opposed to the believing -- crowd.
Ever hear of NOAA? These are a large group of government scientists. https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/carbon-cycle How about NASA? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/CarbonCycle <SNIP> "Changes that put carbon gases into the atmosphere result in warmer temperatures on Earth." <END SNIP> Here's another scientific source: https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-system/biogeochemical-cycles <SNIP> Recently, people have been causing these biogeochemical cycles to change. When we cut down forests, make more factories, and drive more cars that burn fossil fuels, the way that carbon and nitrogen move around the Earth changes. These changes add more greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and this causes climate change. The Carbon Cycle ...Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and traps heat in the atmosphere. Without it and other greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen world. But since the start of the Industrial Revolution about 150 years ago humans have burned so much fuel and released so much carbon dioxide into the air that global climate has risen over one degree Fahrenheit. The atmosphere has not held this much carbon for at least 420,000 years according to data from ice cores. The recent increase in amounts of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide is having a significant impact on the warming of our planet. <END SNIP> So much for the truth about your claims regarding my facts. Now let's see you back up yours:
Both are in thrall to anti-CO2 scaremongers James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, and their little cabal. Ever hear of the dozens of veteran NASA scientists, astronauts and engineers who are appalled at the blatant ideological bias NASA has adopted, and its corrupting effect on climate science? https://www.livescience.com/19640-nasa-astronauts-global-warming-letter.html You incorrectly imagine that I have disputed that fact. I have not. The dispute is only over HOW MUCH warmer. Clear? But climate has been changing for over 4Gy, and it was never caused by people before. Why do you claim that the natural factors that caused all previous climate change have somehow now become inoperative? You incorrectly imagine that implies CO2 is the principal driver of global surface temperature. It does not. That is a blatant post hoc fallacy, not a scientific claim supported by empirical data. Yet somehow, life went on when there was an order of magnitude more CO2 in the atmosphere than there is today. The paleoclimate record shows that atmospheric CO2 is governed by temperature, not the other way around. One can say it is having an impact. Whether it is significant is a matter for scientific investigation, not hysterical scaremongering. Every statement I made about your claims was objectively correct, as are my statements above. Read my posts, and Jack's and Tommy's. I don't have the time or energy to recount and organize numerous lines of theoretical argument and their supporting empirical data for you. If you have a specific objection to a specific statement of mine, make it, and I will answer it.
Here's one more nail for the coffin of your ridiculous claim (and that's all it is) that my statements are not backed up by the near unanimity (as close as anything comes, in the scientific realm) of the scientific community. My now citing a source which is available for ALL to contribute, including to those who disagree with prevailing views (provided they can cite evidence for their contentions), wikipedia, puts your own claims of scientific validity into a, thus far, empty box. What scientific heavyweights are you going to use as a counterweight to NOAA, NASA, and education websites? Any who aren't funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry, or patrons of Putin & the oligarchs? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle#:~:text=The carbon cycle is the,many minerals such as limestone. <SNIP> Carbon is the main component of biological compounds as well as a major component of many minerals such as limestone. Along with the nitrogen cycle and the water cycle, the carbon cycle comprises a sequence of events that are key to make Earth capable of sustaining life. It describes the movement of carbon as it is recycled and reused throughout the biosphere, as well as long-term processes of carbon sequestration to and release from carbon sinks. Carbon sinks in the land and the ocean each currently take up about one-quarter of anthropogenic carbon emissions each year. Fast carbon cycle showing the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, and oceans of carbon between land, atmosphere, and ocean in billions of tons (gigatons) per year. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are human contributions, white are stored carbon. The effects of the slow carbon cycle, such as volcanic and tectonic activity are not included.[1] Humans have disturbed the biological carbon cycle for many centuries by modifying land use, and moreover with the recent industrial-scale mining of fossil carbon (coal, petroleum and gas extraction, and cement manufacture) from the geosphere.[1][2] Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had increased nearly 52% over pre-industrial levels in 2020, forcing greater atmospheric and Earth surface heating by the Sun.[3][4] The increased carbon dioxide has also increased the ACIDITY OF THE OCEAN surface by about 30% due to dissolved carbon, carbonic acid and other compounds, and is fundamentally altering marine chemistry. [5][6] The majority of fossil carbon has been EXTRACTED over JUST THE PAST HALF CENTURY, and rates continue to rise rapidly, contributing to human-caused climate change.[7][8] The largest consequences to the carbon cycle, and to the biosphere which critically enables human civilization, are still set to unfold due to the vast yet limited inertia of the Earth system.[1][9][10] Restoring balance to this natural system is an international priority, described in both the Paris Climate Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 13.
For starters, I'll say sorry, since I didn't see the response you posted while I was still playing with the icons for my post, which immediately follows. Had I seen it, I would have realized your answer will merely be that the work of climate scientists all around the world can be dismissed, as being the result of them all being in the extraordinary thrall of Gavin, James, and their, "little cabal." What fiends-- and yet so impressively powerful! Your single citation, from livescience, does not refute a single one of my arguments. <BEGIN SNIP> In its four paragraphs, the letter deliberately avoids delving into its signatories' reasons for doubting climate-change science, Cunningham told LiveScience. "It's really trying to get NASA to back off from taking political positions on science." Human-caused global warming is "a very open issue right now," he said. However, that is not how the scientific establishment sees it. NASA Chief Scientist Waleed Abdalati responded to the letter to say that if the work of NASA scientists — who may use the agency's space-based observation tools to study climate change — withstands the scrutiny of other scientists through peer review, then it encourages them to share their results with the public. "If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse," Abdalati said in the statement... Like Happer, Cunningham (the signer who did the interview) has a background in physics, he is not a climate scientist. ...Of the 46 signatories who listed their positions, eight are astronauts and others identify themselves as having worked in a variety of positions, including within NASA's science or engineering directorates. <END SNIP> Why should anyone give the opinion of these 46 guys, who do not even lay out a case as to what they think is wrong with the prevailing view, more credence than the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, when few, if any of the 46, even are climate scientists? But I guess we can't expect you to defend your own, "supporting link," since I see you are taking your cue from these NASA employees: So does that mean that you won't be continuing to participate in this thread? Or do you have the time & energy to trash other posters' recounting of scientific orthodoxy, all the while, yourself, bereft of explanations, evidence, or substantial scientific endorsement?
When did I do that? I, and practically every climate scientist on the planet, say that human activity ADDS to the natural factors. As into decrying the falseness of global warming theory as you obviously are, one would think you would have gleaned at least that much, about the thesis you've been badmouthing. Says you. How about something to back up that claim? How about explaining that? What-- no time? According to you, only-- but for what more proof could anyone ask, right? Oh really? Well I guess we'll see. My specific objection to your two heterodox statements about CO2, above, is that you give no explanation as to how you know them to be true (or why you even think they might be). But you can start with this next assertion, about the claim that, over the last 150 years, global temperature has risen more than 1 degree Fahrenheit. You are aware that the modern thermometer was invented in 1709? (Though actually, Galileo had made one in 1592). And people have been recording temperatures, for some time. It was rather helpful that this was an English invention, and England had a global empire. So, how can you claim the empirical data does not exist for adequate comparisons to have been made to come to that determination?
Let's hear from Professor Nir Shaviv, the Chairman of the Racah Center for Physics at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and IBM Einstein Fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study. How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted