The North Pole just surged above freezing in the dead of winter, stunning scientists

The alleged current warming is not much faster, it is just slightly faster. And it is yet to be discovered how long it will last.

I know a lot about graphs. And when I first noticed they used a graph representing an extremely tiny change, but on the graph it looked extr54emely huge, my antenna sprang to attention. The hockey stick represents a snail pace of increase yet manages to make it seem alarming. Folks, 2 tenths of a degree will not fry you.

Daily you go through huge changes. Are you fried yet? This is a political scheme to alarm you.

If you ask scientists over a hundred year span,1 or 2 degrees does not alarm them at all. Many experts say stop alarming the people. This alarm is nonsense.

Who is yanking our chains? Not the scientists save a couple, it is your politicians. Whom in general are lawyers.

Figure 106. Holocene treeline changes in the Alps. The approximate Holocene timberline and treeline elevation (m above sea level) in the Swiss central Alps based on radiocarbon-dated macrofossil and pollen sequences. Source: M.A. Reasoner & W. Tinner. 2009. Encyclopedia of Paleoclimatology and Ancient Environments (pp. 442-446).

We must take into account that present elevated CO2 levels might give current trees an advantage over Early Holocene trees. The difference in treeline altitude between now and the Early Holocene imply that MGW is not unusual enough to have returned us to Holocene Climatic Optimum conditions. Therefore, present global warming is within Holocene variability. Reasoner and Tinner (2009) quantify the summer temperature difference in the Alps between now and the Holocene Optimum as: “Assuming constant lapse rates of 0.7° C / 100 m, it is possible to estimate the range of Holocene temperature oscillations in the Alps to 0.8–1.2° C between 10,500 and 4,000 cal. yBP, when average (summer) temperatures were about 0.8–1.2° C higher than today.”

The cryosphere confirms that present conditions are within Holocene variability, as globally glaciers reached their shortest extent at times between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, when many glaciers that now exist were absent (Solomina et al., 2015). Arctic sea ice was also very much reduced during the Holocene Climatic Optimum compared to present day, and perhaps ice free (less than 1 million km2) during the summers at some periods (Jakobsson et al., 2010; Stein et al., 2017).

MGW is not unusual by Holocene standards in its amplitude, duration, and timing. We cannot rule out that the magnitude of the warming, while not unusual for the Holocene, is unusual for the Neoglacial period that, after all, is characterized by a multi-millennial downward trend in temperatures. If that is the case however it is very difficult to demonstrate because of the mentioned problems of comparing present and past temperatures. Circumstantial evidence supports that the RWP was warmer than present (Holzhauser et al., 2005), but the RWP was extraordinarily long, a millennium, so some of its effects might be because of the long time spent in a warm state not necessarily warmer than the present.

Modern Global Warming displays an unusual cryosphere response

If MGW is not unusual by Holocene standards, it becomes important to inquire about the climatic response to the increased atmospheric CO2 levels. Is there anything unusual about MGW? The answer is a clear yes. The cryosphere (with the exception of Antarctica) is showing a very unusual response to MGW. For the last two decades glaciologists have recognized that global glacier changes over the past 170 years are not cyclical and greatly exceed the range of the previously known periodic variations of glaciers (Solomina et al., 2008; figure 107). Koch et al. (2014), attest that the global scope and magnitude of glacier retreat likely exceed the natural variability of the climate system and cannot be explained by natural forcing alone. Goehring (2012) states that after 5 kyr BP, the Rhône Glacier was larger than today, and its present extent therefore likely represents its smallest since the middle Holocene. Solomina et al. (200 defend that Alpine glacier volumes have become smaller now than during at least the past ~ 5000 years. And Bakke et al. (2008; figure 107 d) have measured a retreat of maritime glaciers along western Scandinavia over the last century that is unprecedented in the entire Neoglacial period spanning the last 5200 years. Solomina et al. (2016) resume the global glacier situation:

“The current globally widespread glacier retreat is unusual in the context of the past two millennia and, indeed, for the whole Holocene. Contemporary glacier retreat breaks a long-term trend of increased glacier activity that dominated the past several millennia. The trend of glacier retreat is global, and the rate of this retreat has increased in the past few decades. The observed widespread glacial retreat in the past 100–150 years requires additional forcing outside the realm of natural changes for their explanation.”

 

The left posts opinion and I busy myself posting scientific facts.

 

"May have?"

You'll have to do better than that.

 

Mr T, I believe, claims it got hotter at the North Pole. Perhaps he can explain then why this site says it is below zero 19 degrees and a 14 day span takes it down to 28 below zero?

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/14-day-weather-trend/nunavut/the-north-pole

 

How much of your income are you willing to give up in the name of Global warming? 5%, 10%, 20%, 35%, 50% or 65%?

 

The left makes up facts as they go along.

 

Even in college they make up things. When one gets facts, it normally shuts them up until they repeat and rinse the other story over and over.

 

No matter what I post you're going to post some agenda driven drivel in an attempt to dismiss it. This is coming from the National Geographic, bub.

So Don't you Al Gore types be driving around in limos as you leave your mansion to head to your private jet which will take you to your 200 foot yacht and then tell me to make sacrifices for the good of the planet. Your own hypocrisy of living large while telling me to live small has me tuned out and turned off. Find some other sap that will let you set his hair on fire.

 

and that can also true in reverse there for it isn't settled science

 

but because cancer did happen before cigarettes you cant then claim all cancer is caused by cigarettes
if a smoker comes down with cancer you cant be 100% sure it was caused by him smoking it could have been caused by what ever caused cancer before the invention of cigarettes

 

Page 2 of that article refutes Abdussamatov's claim. By the way Abdussamatov says solar irradiance began dropping in the 1990's. That's wrong. It's been in a secular decline since 1960. Abdussamatov also claims that we'll start seeing "steep" cooling by 2022-2027. At least it's a succinct prediction that's testable, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Afterall, all of the other solar-only theories have failed so why would this one be any different?

 

They are what climate models have been predicting for decades.

 

All their numbers were way way way off compared to actual measurements. And like I said, it's not the issue. All their doomsday predictions have failed to materialize so for all we know this global warming thing may be a good, thing, not Armageddon.

 

First, the north pole (as in 0 latitude) got above freezing on Sunday. Second, that's actually showing you the forecast for Alert, Nunavut. It's the northernmost permanently inhabited location and is 500 miles away from 0 latitude.

 

Does this look way off to you?

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc

 

When they are constantly off by 50 - 500% on every measurement they predict, no amount of patting themselves on the back will change the fact that it's BS, not science.

18 spectacularly wrong predictions
http://www.aei.org/publication/18-s...irst-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/

Failed Climate Predictions
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/30/some-failed-climate-predictions/

Climate alarmists have been wrong about virtually everything
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...ts-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

Here is how wrong past environmental predictions have been.
http://dailysignal.com/2017/04/26/heres-how-wrong-past-environmental-predictions-have-been/

 

Satellites

True, but that doesn't effect how we measure the atmosphere.

Side note, most people don't understand why atmospheric scientists have to consider the Coriolis Effect. Afterall, it's not a real force. The reason is because scientists do not use an inertial reference frame. The reference frames most commonly used are either Earth following or parcel following. The Earth following frame is the most common and most intuitive. It is a coordinate system based on latitude and longitude. So as Earth moves and rotates so does the reference frame. This frame is in a perpetual state of acceleration since it is rotating. Rotating things are accelerating with respect to spacetime because the velocities in each of the 3 spatial dimensions are constantly changing as the frame transfers more of its speed from one dimension to another continuously.

 

I'll just park this here

 

This isn't what the left was saying when global warming was all the rage with Al Gore.

"OH MY GOD", "All the ice is gonna melt".....guess you change your "science" based on what's actually happening huh?

Wonder what your "science" will be in five years or did you actually get it right this time?

 

I already knew that.

But the climate change bigots refuse to acknowledge it.

They are still blaming cow farts and cigarette smokers.

 

Maybe I missed something, but of the 18 only 1 was related to a climate prediction. The prediction was that the Earth would cool. Obviously that was wrong.

Most of these were taken out of context, but of those that weren't the WUWT guy cherry picked fringe research that the academic community largely dismissed. The section on Arctic sea ice is great example. WUWT paints a false narrative that the Arctic should have been ice free by now which isn't even remotely close to what scientists actually think. Again, 2050 is and has been the consensus for decades. And FWIW, I think they're going to wrong. We aren't going to make it to 2050.

More misinformation. Let me give you an example. The article states and I quote "Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996". This is completely 100% wrong. Seeing that this article was published in June 2017 (the second warmest year on record behind 2016) I'm going to call it what it is. It's an outright lie.

Most of this stuff is about the predictions for an ice in the 70's. Keep in mind that those predicting cooling in the 70's were a minority. Those predicting warming outnumber those predicting cooling by 5-to-1. https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

 

A storm happened. That’s called weather aka climate variability.

 

Scientists predict that the first ice free Arctic year will be around 2050. That prediction hasn't changed much (or at all) over last 2 decades. But, stay tuned for the next IPCC report. They will likely lower it closer to 2040 IMHO.

 

I agree. It's a weather event. It is not, by itself, indicative of longterm climate change. However, I was right about one thing. Several posters in here are denying that it even happened.

 

But you all said 7 years with Gore...you claimed it was settled science...you had the reports and scientists and all this data and everything.

Are you saying you guys were wrong, even with all that evidence?

The same evidence you are claiming to have to back up this new theory of yours?