By Kenneth Richard on 7. July 2022
A new study (Gupta et al., 2022) indicates that from 2000-2019 73% of the 15 sites considered have been cooling and 67% have experienced a lengthening of sea ice duration.
Canada’s Hudson Bay extends into the Arctic Ocean and its coasts are teeming with polar bears.
Scientists report 11 of 15 Hudson Bay sites have been cooling since 2000. The average cooling for these 11 sites is -0.34°C per decade.
Image Source: Gupta et al., 2022
Cooling °C per decade, 2000-2019
Chesterfield Inlet: -0.25°C
Cape Tatnum: -0.3°C
Fort Severn: -0.5°C
Peawanuck: -0.5°C
Attawapiskat: -0.3°C
Chisasibi: -0.3°C
Sanikiluaq: -0.15°C
Inukjuak: -0.4°C
Akulivik: -0.4°C
Ivujivik: -0.45°C
Coral Harbor: -0.65°C
There are 4 sites that have been warming since 2000, averaging 0.24°C per decade combined.
Warming °C per decade, 2000-2019
Rankin Inlet: 0.2°C
Arviat: 0.4°C
Churchill: 0.15°C
Moosonee: 0.2°C
All 15 sites combined suggest an overall cooling trend of -0.183°C per decade, or -0.35°C, from 2000-2019 for this region.
Of the 11 cooling sites, 10 experienced an expansion of sea ice duration (earlier freeze-ups and/or later break-ups) over the 19-year period.
“The interannual trends in fast ice duration over the 2000–2019 period (Figure 2d) show that the fast-ice duration along the west coast of Hudson Bay has been decreasing at a rate of 1–6 days per decade. All other locations across Hudson Bay and James Bay, with the exception of Moosonee, have experienced increasing fast-ice duration. This increase has been particularly notable in Sanikiluaq and Chisasibi, where fast-ice duration increased at 9 and 6 days per decade, respectively.”
Must be just a one-off. We know that Arctic waters are now so warm that polar bears aren’t able to stay in them long enough to hunt. Starvation is inevitable.
Assuming sarcasm?
Duh…
On the plus side, those that DO stay in the water too long come out par boiled…
I fear you are right and they are almost certain to become extinct like they did the last time the Earth warmed up a little bit.
Greentards are wrong about everything.
Maybe that is really the reason BoJo resigned – suddenly realised that Carrie had been wrong all along. Great decision though!
If so, then he must have found a new squeeze: shocked, I tell you.
Not only cooling, but sea level is dropping there too. Who will stop the stampede of Green migrants to such an Eden?
Sea levels aren’t dropping, the land is rising.
Don’ tell Greta that…I doubt she understands that in her own backyard in northern Sweden, sea levels are ‘dropping’ as well.
And don’t tell her parents either!
Yes about !cm per year
Noone, PLEASE!
So what ?
A data mined short term local temperature trend.
Assuming this is true, how does this claim help refute
climate scaremongering and the Nut Zero project?
Author Kenneth Richard loves to focus on
very old local climate reconstructions.
This one is unusual only because it is recent, with
real time temperature data, rather than old proxies.
Meanwhile, we climate realists are losing the battle
against the Climate Howler’s propaganda,
and Nut Zero is proceeding to spend
a lot of money to deteriorate electric grids.
I guess we’ll fight those Climate Alarmists by telling them”
“Since 2000 The Arctic’s Hudson Bay
Has Cooled -0.35°C With 10 Of 15 Sites
Gaining Sea Ice”
That should shut them up.
Not.
I think people are starting to realise it’s all nonsense. Most people don’t watch the MSM anymore.
Maybe most people you know,
but not most people in the world.
No, they listen to Farcebook and Twatter
Only 11% trust TV news & 16% newspapers, in the States. The young like Tik Tok.
Frick, what could go wrong!
The Chicoms like Tik Tok, too.
hey, literally thousands watch CNN every day!
For headline purposes, this fact could be promoted as –
“1,230,000 Sq Kms Of The Arctic Has Cooled By -0.35 C Since 2000”
Global Warming is not global.
Global warming was never the same at all latitudes.
Antarctica temperatures would be a much better “poster child”
How are we supposed to fight them other than by showing data that contradicts their claims?
Actually, I m impressed that The Dark Side hasn’t “homogenized” these temperatures out of existence. Maybe the Inuit names fooled them. Anyway, consensus climate science is a Whack-a-Moley exercise as everyone knows. When data arises that doesn’t support Armageddon Climate, it’s whacked.
The 19 years studied is local weather, not global climate.
Climate change consists of always wrong predictions of a coming global warming crisis that never shows up. It’s always “coming”.
We have 50+ years of 100% wrong predictions of environmental doom, since the 1960s.
Climate change is a prediction.
All prior predictions have been wrong.
That zero “batting average” for past scary predictions
is the key to refuting current climate change predictions.
Not a local weather trend from 2000 to 2019
“That zero “batting average” for past scary predictions
is the key to refuting current climate change predictions.”
I agree.
And a little global cooling (UAH) helps, too. Alarmists can’t explain why CO2 is increasing, yet the global temperature is cooling.
I would post the UAH satellite chart to show the cooling, but there appears to be something wrong with Roy’s website chart page.
Not so loud !
Significant global cooling from 1940 to 1975 disappeared when it was viewed as inconvenient data.
From the warmest month to the coldest month within that period (I know that’s data mining), NCAR reported over -0.5 degrees C. of GLOBAL cooling in 1975.
That cooling has disappeared since then.
Thomas Sowell- It is usually futile to talk facts and analysis to people who are enjoying
a sense of moral superiority in their ignorance.
These articles are mostly used to contradict the lies so a third party may get the truth.
Climate Howlers never claimed every area of Earth warmed by the same amount. These articles really don’t refute much of anything.
Climate Howlers feature one global average temperature,
that has increased in the past 50 years. They spin that harmless reality into wild guess predictions of global warming doom.
“This [article] is recent, with real time temperature data… .”
So, according to you, it is solid evidence against AGW.
And that evidence, small as it is, is effective.
All the darkness in the world
cannot extinguish the light
of a single candle.
St. Francis of Assisi
It’s minimal evidence.
Just a local weather trend.
Perhaps the starting year choice was biased?\
It does not refute AGW.
Not even close.
I believe it would be impossible
to refute AGW with data available today.
AGW is not very important
CAGW is the scam, not AGW.
UAH shows lower air over Australia has a linear fit cooling trend for 10 years now. How big and for how many years does absence of warming have to be before it dodges cherry picking derisive dismissal?
Questions: what physical mechanism explains how large regions can cool for decades while others warm? Would we not expect greater pervasive uniformity? Where is the tropical hot spot that is an essential part of global warming theory? Geoff S
Climate is defined as 30+ years of global average temperature
Not 10 years, only for Australia.
UAH has a significant rising trend since 1979.
Along with every other global compilation.
No honest reason to truncate data before 2012.
The hotspot is yet another wrong theory.
CO2 should be most effective as a greenhouse gas where it has less competition from water vapor, such as at both poles. That’s true of the North Pole (N.H.) but not true of the South Pole (S.H.)/
Conclusion: Climate science is far from being settled.
And do you know why they started with 1979? A 30 year cool trend that ended in late 1979 https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html
Then, of course, the temperature rises again as it did from the little ice age (1550-1850) Even South Africa was 1 – 1,4 degrees colder than today
Good conclusion by the way:)
“The Arctic’s Hudson Bay”? Nearly all of Hudson Bay is below the current Arctic Circle, well out of the Arctic.
Wikipedia
Wait for Nick S to pitch up and tell us this cooling and ice accumulation fits exactly into the global warming hypothesis (like he tried to do when WUWT reported on a recent record low temp recorded in Antarctica)
When they come up with a model that correctly “predicts” the weather/climate we’ve HAD for the last three decades then I might then be inclined to look at what the model says about the future.
Right . . . Al Gore, a shining proponent of the science-is-settled crowd, in 2009 at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP 15), promulgated the meme that there was a 75% probability that the entire Arctic ice cap would be completely gone during some summer months “within the next five to seven years” . . . that is, by 2014 to 2016.
Hear his direct words at the 2m5s point into the video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
Oh well, sic transit gloria.
I hear that Gore still has some ardent followers . . . go figure.
But it was only a 75% probability.
If it was a 75% probability “within the next five to seven years” from 2009, doesn’t it logically follow that the probability has increased significantly in the 13 years since 2009?
Whatever high probabilities one wants to assign to that prediction, it is a fact that the Arctic still has summer ice.
Oh, damn, logic!
“Scientists report 11 of 15 Hudson Bay sites have been cooling since 2000.”
While this may well be the case, the public message is:
“Temperatures in the Barents Sea region are ‘off the scale’ and may affect extreme weather in the US and Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/15/new-data-reveals-extraordinary-global-heating-in-the-arctic
And the give away…
“We expected to see strong warming, but not on the scale we found”
Of course they did.
These items from DMI have been consigned to Room 101 in the mean time.
Greenland Surface Conditions
Modelled Sea Ice Thickness
Temperature North of 80′
I think you mean the memory hole, Ben. Room 101 is where corporate CEOs go to learn about critical race theory, gendered pronouns, the coming Climate Apocalypse and the art of greenwashing.
Do they have biologists there who can teach them what a woman is, too? 😮
It’s the Guardian, you can safely disregard anything the Guardian says. They are still refusing to allow any debate about Climate Change, for obvious reasons.
Off the scale?, yet no where near what it can reach.
“Water temperature all along the Barents Sea coast is not yet warm enough for swimming and does not exceed 20°C. The warmest water temperature Barents Sea today is 12°C (in Vadso), and the coldest Barents Sea surface temperature now is 10°C (in Varde).”
https://seatemperature.info/barents-sea-water-temperature.html
I thought the Arctic region was supposed to be warming faster than the rest of the world?
It isn’t hard to beat the UK.
It is, even for the ‘coolest’ temperature series evah, namely UAH lower troposphere:
It’s quite typical for the TricksZone to cherry-pic a small part of some region differing from the whole around.
It’s quite typical of you, Bindidon, to wave the magician’s cherry red scarf (thank you, Kip Hansen) to divert attention away from the point:
“The press and climate change enthusiasts have been hyping the loss of Arctic sea ice, but the models simulate it so poorly that [Stroeve, et al. (2012)] had to conclude that, as far as we know, natural variability causes the bulk of the ice loss.”
Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale (2014) at 44.
No kidding and we all know that this ice is not as icy as the old ice 😉
Sorry M(r)s Moore…
I was answering to MarkW’s
” I thought the Arctic region was supposed to be warming faster than the rest of the world? ”
No problem for me to show the (much higher) warming difference between Arctic and the rest of the world, by rather using raw weather station data (GHCN daily) or raw SST data (HadISST1 SST).
I used UAH instead, in order not to look too ‘alarmistic’.
The person diverting here with regard to MarkW’s comment: that’s you.
You remind me Lucky Luke, ‘the man who shot quicker than his shadow’.
And the person diverting, yet AGAIN, wrt the point (“supposed to be” by AGWists such as yourself, = “supposed to be” due to human CO2)
AND, now,
diverting wrt my comment.
Hm. I just realized that “Bindidon” may actually not understand what I wrote.
Bindidon:
2. Those GCMs failed to project Arctic amplification of the natural warming trend of the last 150 years or so.
3. Those GCMs’ output are the “evidence” AGWists rely on to push the conjecture about human-caused “global warming,” a.k.a., “climate change.”
Conclusion:
Your comment falsely implied that AGW is supported by the Arctic amplified warming data.
” Your comment falsely implied that AGW is supported by the Arctic amplified warming data. ”
This is a LIE.
It is a CONCLUSION.
.
.
.
Are you really that poor at reading comprehension?
Or did you intentionally state what you knew to be inaccurate? In other words, LIE.
Antarctica should be warming faster then the rest of the world due to the increasing CO2 theory with the Arctic second place. It doesn’t because the source of warming is not CO2 from the atmosphere, but heat energy from the NAD, AMOC and Gulf stream towards to Arctic ocean. Antarctica doesn’t have this type of ocean central heating system so doesn’t warm like it.
The majoirty of warming in the Arctic is at night during Winter. Station data of over 30 stations based there showed warming of 1.8c between 1976 and 2010 with slight change since.
How this would be reported in lamestream media:
Arviat on Hudson Bay has warmed an astounding 0.4°C due to Climate Change ™ Polar bears may be extinct in 3, 2, 1…
Isn’t that about right, griffo?
Has Al Gore just built a holiday home there?
Darn! This is not good. I picked up a couple of options there on some prime ocean front property, planning to make a killing on them when the palm trees start growing. I guess I’ll have to wait a couple of more years.
I’ve been to Moosenee and Moose Factory. The UHI effect of these 2 small towns wouldn’t have any effect on the ever so small decadel warming would they???
Dude in MN when it’s is -25 in the winter would anyone notice it could be -26?
Bring on global warming.
Do they make Moose at Moose Factory? I’m intrigued.
The big moosen make little moosen and then there are many much more moosen
I haven’t seen a “Breaking News!” interruption on CNN about this. Must be false, right?
Hudson’s Bay is doing its share to combat planet scorching — why, oh why can’t we??!!
Can’t wait for the “good news for the Polar Bear” stories to appear in the MSM……………
……….. tumbleweed …………….
But the data haven’t yet been corrected, adjusted or homogenized.
The monthly temperature anomaly in the lower troposphere over Hudson Bay has warmed during the duration of the satellite record from its start in December 1978 through March 2015, according to UAH TLT v6, as shown at
in
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=Churchill+Manitoba+temperature+
https://imgbox.com/4k1OlAFF
But yet we are still cold 🤔
If the instruments sitting in situ see cooling and the remote sensing sees warming, then maybe there is something off in the remote sensing. The instruments sitting in the environment will be actually measuring the value while all other means of gaining that temperature reading are by inference and calculation. Actual measurement is always more reliable. UAH is just the least unreliable for those points on the map (besides the thermometers on the ground.)
Here in North Lincolnshire England as far as the timing of the first snowfall is concerned there has been no warming over the last 45 years.
bgwxyz will be along shortly to demand that someone provide him with a global reconstruction.
+1
Canada’s government and Environment Canada having all been telling Canadians for years that Canada’s Arctic is warming at twice or three times the rest of the planet. Fictional nonsense.
If you close all the automated reporting sites (associated with old NORAD DEW sites), and only measure from the remaining populated areas (with generators and heating fires galore) then homogenize those readings over the 1000km surroundings, you will invariably get warming. Of course if you sited stations 10 km outside those population settings, the increase is nonexistent.
A new trend/or future change in temperatures warming or cooling will always be more noticable in the Arctic then anywhere else in the world with the reasons below.
1) An energy change in delivery to the Arctic ocean will effect this region first then eventually the rest of the Northern hemisphere.
2) The largest changes in temperature over recent decades have occurred in the Arctic region so any new trends will be shown here first.
3) Future cooling in the Arctic ocean will be introduced once the PDO and especially the AMO become progressively negative.
4) Recent years of sea ice levels have stabilised showing that increasing temperatures there are less with some areas even cooling.
The southern ocean is down almost 0.7W/m^2 in ToA solar intensity since 1500, the last time perihelion occurred at the austral summer solstice. Down 0.06W/m^2 since 1980. The temperature is doing what is expected when the solar intensity drops off.
All latitudes north od 50S have increased sunlight since 1980 but Equator has cooled very slightly while the northern latitudes show the obvious response from increasing solar intensity.
Hudson Bay cools more in one decade than NOAA’s Zettajoule fantasies warm in two decades.
One is suspicious why Hudson Bay wasn’t included in NOAA datasets… Has NOAA been cherry picking?
Trudeau didn’t get this memo.
Reading the comments it seems some say the piece is good due its content showing the truth on warming then we read the pragmatic Richard green who rightly says it does nt counter the narrative being portrayed in msm and by politicians.
Both sides are correct .
There needs to be a strategy In acted by realists that can counter the prevailing narrative globally .
I believe a lot of people have not swallowed the agw narrative completely.
Richard is correct but if stories like this could only make out into the main stream then it would oppose the little numerous stories that back up the alarmists like local heatwaves , Fire first fires etc .
Muse their own tactic against them .
Unfortunately before anyone says it the media won t allow .
we need to find a way to carry the message so that it can reach a much bigger attendance .
I believe the above story is a piece in Richard s jig saw to oppose the alarmists .
Lots of clever people here and elsewhere like to discredit me as an alarmist or a warmista.
I would say the originators of all these compliments are all coolistas 🙂
Do we really need such a TricksZone ‘article’ to get convinced that the Arctic is cooling since a while?
Better is to look at the GHCN daily data, which probably is the rawest surface station data available.
1) Warming
Of course: the Arctic is warming, ant that a lot quicker than the rest:
Trends in °C / decade
2) Cooling
But, but… at the end of the chart we see the plots falling down a lot, and zooming into 2000-2022 gives
with as trends
and, of course, since 2016 shows the highest values since 1981,
*
Make the best of it!
It is the first time the Arctic region has cooled since the mid 1970’s. (that is a big deal)
Could it be a temporary blip or is it a new trend?
My previous post has already described that the Arctic will be the first place to show a new trend.
I would believe it is a NEW TREND and this is just the start.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-11046-x
The Arctic will continue to cool when the AMO increasingly moves towards its negative phase expected to properly kick in around the end of this decade/start of next decade. (~2029-2033)
Obvious question – is there any human activity that might have caused the warming at the 4 sites?