Greenland Is Getting Colder–New Study
By Paul Homewood
When cooling proves global warming!
Using satellite data, a group of scientists has studied the development of temperature over the past 15 years in a large part of Greenland.
More precisely, they looked at surface temperatures (the temperature close to the Earth’s surface) in a part of the country that is not covered by ice—around one fifth of the surface area of Greenland.
Intuitively, you may think that temperature throughout all of Greenland has been increasing, but that is not the case. When you look at the yearly average, the ice-free parts of Greenland show a slight drop in temperature between 2001 and 2015. With swings in temperature from year to year.
However, these results should not be interpreted as “proof” that the Earth is not warming, say the scientists behind the research, which is published in the journal Scientific Reports.
This is weather, not climate
You need to have thirty years’ worth of data before you can “talk about climate,” says Professor Bo Elberling, an environmental geochemist and senior scientist on the study.
So we should be wary of discussing these results in the context of climate change, says Elberling, who is head of the Center for Permafrost (CENPERM) at the Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
“What’s interesting here is that with these new data we have a unique description of the spatial distribution of surface temperatures across the entire ice-free part of Greenland, which we couldn’t pull out of the approximately 45 weather stations that cover Greenland today,” he say
This clearly was not the result they were expecting to find. And there is little doubt if they had found a small amount of warming, it would have been trumpeted as proving global warming.
Elberling’s claim that “you need to have thirty years’ worth of data before you can talk about climate,” is either remarkably ignorant or flagrantly dishonest. The climate in Greenland is strongly affected by the AMO, which runs on a cycle of about 50 to 60 years.
And as we know, Greenland temperatures are little different nowadays to the 1930s and 40s, when the AMO was previously in warm mode.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/greenland-temperature-trends-1873-2015/
It is intriguing that they state:
Intuitively, you may think that temperature throughout all of Greenland has been increasing.
This is no doubt true, and it is wholly due to the incessant fake propaganda put out by scientists and media to the effect that “Greenland is melting down”. Proper scientists would look at longer term trends, not just a few years data, and tell people the truth.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
What would be the first indicator that the AMO was turning towards its negative phase?
Bloke,
As per my comment below, it’ll be an explosion of Adjustocenic activity by climate scientists “proving” that the (cooling) data must be wrong.
I’d guess cherry picking station records to homogenise is more obvious when there are fewer to choose from.
The article itself is very well worth a read because it’s so full of self-serving warmist bias.
Colour me intrigued, however, when I read the last few paragraphs as follows:
“Citterio points to the value of using satellite data and praises the scientists work to address some of the challenges that they present. For example, satellites observations are only possible when the sky is clear.
“When the sky is overcast the surface receives more infra-red radiation from the sky, resulting in comparatively warmer surface temperatures, but these warmer days can’t be observed by the satellite precisely because of the cloud cover,” he writes.
“Without correcting for this cloud bias, the average surface temperature from satellites would be several degrees colder than actual in situ measurements. A particularly interesting contribution of this paper is the effort to correct for this limitation,”.
So, it appears that even the data that shows cooling has been adjusted upwards before presentation in this paper. And why? Because clouds, apparently, stop satellite measurements that should show warmer surface temperatures. Boo boo.
Hmmmm, really?
Now, I am not sure exactly what “Adjustocene” trickery these people have been up to but to my amateur eye this looks more than suspicious. AND they still didn’t get the result they wanted!
Satellites measure the temperature at a certain level. That temperature should show change if the CO2 theory is correct. Does it show the same temperature as surface measurements – of course not. But it should show the same trend.
Playing around with just temperature and radiation figures will not produce explanation of what is happening unless the thermodynamics of the Rankine Cycle is taken into account; where large energies are transmitted at constant temperature.
Otherwise all one is left with are surmises about what the figures reveal through statistical manipulation.
Right from the beginning when trying to learn more about what happens to our climate, the most eminent Arctic scientists – ie nobody who would have anything to do with the IPCC – said that the Arctic cycles on 60-70 years. So the satellite records have yet to see one full Arctic cycle.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Just about every weather event is greeted as “incontrovertible” proof of global warming with no need to examine historical records or wait to see if such events become a trend. But when genuinely incontrovertible proof emerges (even after all the data fiddling) that the largest land mass under ice in the Arctic is cooling over a protracted period all of a sudden the sceptical hats go on and we’re told that we “musn’t rush to judgement” and we need to wait 30 years to make any definitive statement! It would be hilarious if the implications of these charlatans wielding the power that they have wasn’t so potentially serious for all of us.
“When the sky is overcast the surface receives more infra-red radiation from the sky, resulting in comparatively warmer surface temperatures, but these warmer days can’t be observed by the satellite precisely because of the cloud cover,” he writes.
On the other hand when it’s more cloudy less solar radiation reaches the ground. Then there’s night and day. The writer is greatly over-simplifying, to say the least.
I already knew that. Cooling is just weather and warming is climate change I have been told that so many times, I’m beginning to believe it Goebbels was right after all.
I rather like this statement –
“However, these results should not be interpreted as “proof” that the Earth is not warming, say the scientists behind the research, which is published in the journal Scientific Reports.”
What I like about that is data that might show a cooling or “not warming” trend shouldn’t be considered proof, but had the data showed that there had been a slight warming trend, that would have been proof of global warming.
So-all of a sudden we need 30 years of data before you can talk about “climate”
according to climate scientists.
Therefore i really really wonder how the high priests of climate science/AGW(Mann/Hansen)
were able to come up with global warming in 1988.
Considering that the ice age scare went on until the end of the the 70ies
in wonder where they got their AGW as they had 22 years of ice age and just 8 years
of AGW.
AGW is as real as islam is the religion of peace-and botz idioties are promoted by the very same people.
Kinda true, you can’t draw firm conclusions from 15years of data, however looking back a hundred years it seems that Nuuk has warmed by about 0.2°C since the 1930s, all this in a region of the earth supposed to a bellweather of global warming. Of course not many people can remember the weather 85 years ago but plenty recall the punishing cold of the 80’s and lo and behold temperatures in Nuuk have increased by 1degree since then, with astute cherry picking you can get 5degree change, a smoking gun for AGW.