The Yin and Yang of Holocene Polar Regions

By Renee Hannon – Re-Blogged From WUWT

Introduction

The Arctic and Antarctic regions are different and yet similar in many ways. The Arctic has ocean surrounded by land and the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by water. Both are cold, glaciated and located at Earth’s poles some 11,000 miles apart. While sea ice has been retreating in the Arctic, it has been relatively stable in the Antarctic. This post examines surface temperature trends, solar insolation, and CO2 at the polar Arctic and Antarctic regions during the Holocene interglacial period.

Holocene Polar Temperature Trends are Out of Phase

Continue reading

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #229

The Week That Was: June 18, 2016  Brought to You by www.SEPP.org

By Ken Haapala, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project

Fear of CO2: Those promoting the fear of carbon dioxide (CO2), and other greenhouse gases, primarily use three possible threats: one, dangerous increased temperatures; two, change in ocean chemistry (called ocean acidification); and three, drastic sea level rise. John Christy’s February 2 testimony to the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology empirically demolishes the argument that increasing CO2 is causing significant global warming –major warming is simply not happening in the atmosphere, where the greenhouse effect takes place. The current increase in atmospheric temperatures is influenced by the El Niño warming the tropical Pacific Ocean, a natural occurrence, but the effect is short-lived. The question remains: what will happen to atmospheric temperatures as the influence of the El Niño diminishes and is possibly replaced by a La Niña? Will global temperatures return to a higher level, the same level, or a lower level?

By contrast, surface temperatures used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and its followers, are influenced by many other natural and human actions, particularly land use change. Unfortunately, the IPCC does not highlight the severe limitations of its reports, particularly in its summaries for policymakers, allowing many to incorrectly believe that weather and climate change stems from increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere from 3 parts per 10,000 to 4 parts per 10,000. Ascribing unusual weather events to increasing CO2 is similar to the beliefs in the 1950s of blaming unusual weather events, such as tornadoes in New England, on nuclear testing.

Continue reading