Climate Scientists Wrong: Arctic Warming Faster Than Predicted.

[para bellum]

"The AA did not change in a continuous fashion but rather in two sharp increases around 1986 and 1999. During those steps the mean global surface air temperature trend remained almost constant, while the Arctic trend increased. Although the “best” CMIP6 models reproduce the increasing trend of the AA in 1980s they do not capture the sharply increasing trend of the AA after 1999 including its rapid step-like increase. We propose that the first sharp AA increase around 1986 is due to external forcing, while the second step close to 1999 is due to internal climate variability, which models cannot reproduce in the observed time."

IOW, we're guessing....

Arctic sea ice at 12 year high...

Doomsday Climate Predictions Meltdown: Arctic Sea Ice Extent Reaches 12-Year Mid-August High

Snowfan here zooms in on the chart for greater detail and reports that for this date, ice extent in the Arctic stands at a 12-year high:

wattsupwiththat.com

 

[odanny]

I love it when people source Wattsupwiththat, they can easily be dismissed and no longer bother with their opinions.

 

[JohnDB]

Ummmmm
So why are they not comparing this period of Polar ice melting with the previous periods of Polar ice melting?

It's not like this hasn't happened before.

It's not going to cause "Waterworld " either....
Just because the ice in my drink melts doesn't mean that my cup will overflow.

Just saying....

 

[para bellum]

I love it when people source Wattsupwiththat, they can easily be dismissed and no longer bother with their opinions.

Yes, but you AGW alarmists can never refute the facts, can you? So you glibly dismiss them without explanation or counter-argument. Very typical of agenda driven fools.

The post used US Gov't data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center. Did you miss that part?

Anthony Watts, Judith Curry, et al argue the science- something you are obviously not equipped to do. They do not offer "opinion".

The models are abysmal failures because they all begin with a false assumption of climate hyper-sensitivity to CO2. When the data disproves the model, they invent reasons that have no empirical basis, like the one in your "study". You have 2 closely spaced anomalies, one of which is attributed to CO2 forcing and one which is attributed to natural variation.

Hello? Zero evidence to support such an obviously problematic conclusion, but that doesn't matter, does it? Because it's not science, it's ideology.

I was a chemistry major and I recognize the scientific method when I see it. It's totally absent in Climate Scientology.

NOAA baked in an error in the ARGO data because there is no explanation for the 18-year pause according to the AGW warming theory. The models do not permit such a pause when CO2 is rising. But the best empirical data (UAH satellite data) does not conform with NOAA's "adjustment". The stratospheric cooling that must accompany surface warming is not there.

NOAA refused to publish their math- no surprise there because it would be ripped to shreds before the ink was dry.

 

[odanny]

You do realize that you are using Anthony Watts as your source, right?

Let me repeat that, so that it will sink in: You are using Anthony Watts as your source.

This is called "alternate reality", which, since 2016, has been mainstream in politics, but in regards to climate change, it has been mainstream for decades, and Anthony Watts might be the man most responsible for this, thanks to his climate change denial blog.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do realize that you are using Anthony Watts as your source, right?

Let me repeat that, so that it will sink in: You are using Anthony Watts as your source.

This is called "alternate reality", which, since 2016, has been mainstream in politics, but in regards to climate change, it has been mainstream for decades, and Anthony Watts might be the man most responsible for this, thanks to his climate change denial blog.

Exactly!
He didn't win the Nobel Prize, eh?
Not like Nobel Prize winner Michael Mann.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Global Warming is REALITY.
You just have to be patient. About 5 billion years worth of patient....... when the Sun begins to exhaust it's Helium and Hydrogen.

Ya know, I think I'll lose sleep over it for the rest of my 30 years give or take.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I've often said, people don't feel the real effects of climate change (okay, they do, but they just ignore them as 'weather') but at the ends of of the earth, the rate is now 4 times worse than at the equatorial region.


A definitive sign of climate change, the rapid warming of the Arctic, is occurring even faster than previously described, researchers in Finland said Thursday.

Over the past four decades the region has been heating up four times faster than the global average, not the commonly reported two to three times. And some parts of the region, notably the Barents Sea north of Norway and Russia, are warming up to seven times faster, they said.

While scientists have long known that the Arctic is warming rapidly the rate has been a source of some confusion, described in scientific reports and news accounts as anywhere from two to three times faster than the global average.

Mika Rantanen, a researcher at the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki, said he and his colleagues decided to look at the issue in the summer of 2020, when intense heat waves in the Siberian Arctic drew a lot of media attention.

“We were frustrated by the fact that there’s this saying that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the globe,” Dr. Rantanen said. “But when you look at the data, you can easily see that it is close to four.”

Arctic Warming Is Happening Faster Than Described, Analysis Shows (Published 2022)

The warming at the top of the globe, a sign of climate change, is happening much faster than previously described compared with the global average, scientists said Thursday.

www.nytimes.com

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2022GL099371?af=R

Not anymore... The last 9 years has seen a drop of about 1.7 deg C in the arctic and Antarctic regions. Funny how this paper stops right before the rapid decline in temp started.

 

[Crick]

Not anymore... The last 9 years has seen a drop of about 1.7 deg C in the arctic and Antarctic regions. Funny how this paper stops right before the rapid decline in temp started.

I see the problem Billy Boy. You don't know how to read a graph.

South Pole: The year 2021 was the 3rd coldest in history! – mkweather

mkweather.com

One moment, please...

www.severe-weather.eu

Perhaps you were looking at sea ice extents...

 

[ding]

So you are saying the polar regions shouldn’t be warming during an interglacial cycle?

 

[Crick]

So you are saying the polar regions shouldn’t be warming during an interglacial cycle?

To whom are you speaking?

 

[ding]

To whom are you speaking?

Idiots.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I see the problem Billy Boy. You don't know how to read a graph.

View attachment 687221

South Pole: The year 2021 was the 3rd coldest in history! – mkweather

mkweather.com

View attachment 687222

One moment, please...

www.severe-weather.eu

Perhaps you were looking at sea ice extents...

And yet you cannot explain the reason for the increase being the change in atmospheric flow cause by our oceans. Correlation does not imply causation. Those temps have decreased significantly this year, but your graph fails to show it. Why did you stop the graphing before the temperatures cooled? Nothing you post is on the up and up. It is all propoganda with you..

Your NOAA Graph is an outright lie.

Source

 

[Billy_Bob]

It is interesting that Crick would pick one of 6 regions and the only warm one to focus on. Why would he be so deceptive? The arctic, as a whole, is nowhere near the warming he spouts. Here are all six regions;

Source

 

[Paracetamol63]

And yet you cannot explain the reason for the increase being the change in atmospheric flow cause by our oceans. Correlation does not imply causation. Those temps have decreased significantly this year, but your graph fails to show it. Why did you stop the graphing before the temperatures cooled? Nothing you post is on the up and up. It is all propoganda with you..

View attachment 695718

Your NOAA Graph is an outright lie.

Source

Are you unable to use standard scientific references? Why do you go to blogs? You are an atmospheric physicist.

 

[abu afak]

Sweet! Maybe all that ice will go away, and we will have new tourist destinations!
A & E might lose a few shows but it will be worth it.
I love natural Earth evolution

If "all that ice goes away".. Sea Level goes up 230 feet.
And our, and the rest of the planet's coasts/cities/countries/states go under.
Perhaps Half or more of the current tourist destinations on the planet would vanish.

`

 

[Billy_Bob]

Are you unable to use standard scientific references? Why do you go to blogs? You are an atmospheric physicist.

Nice attempt to attack... but once again an epic failure.... You failed to even understand the post or why it was posted.

 

[TNHarley]

If "all that ice goes away".. sea Level goes up 250 feet.
And our, and the rest of the planet's coasts/cities/countries/states go under.

`

I have found a few seashells in TN. Weird how that works.
Either adapt or die. The earth owes you nothing.

 

[Paracetamol63]

Nice attempt to attack... but once again an epic failure....

I am genuinely curious why a professional physicist would feel the need to reference a blog by someone. Why not go to the actual data?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If "all that ice goes away".. sea Level goes up 250 feet.
And our, and the rest of the planet's coasts/cities/countries/states go under.
Perhaps Half or more of the current touristy destinations on the planet would vanish.

`

"IF"

What mechanism is capable of that melt? Oh, and by the way, if the ice is floating, there is no rise in sea level.