Obviously I’m going to have to read the paper before I make any informed comment, so I’ll ask some uninformed questions: is there an element of cherry-picking here? Why define the “current warming” as the trend over the years 1995-2005? Why use trends over such short periods at all? For a region the size of Greenland, I would expect there to be a significant amount of chaotic variability in ten-year trends.
I’ve mentioned you in my latest…
I’m going to go out on a limb and forecast that this will be resolved a lot like the AMO. Why? The notion there was an AMO was caused in part by the fact that the 1930s were quite warm, there was cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, and finally, warming again. The Greenland temperatures follow the same pattern. That 1930s warm peak, followed by the aerosol-induced cooling, shows up everywhere.
Obviously I’m going to have to read the paper before I make any informed comment, so I’ll ask some uninformed questions: is there an element of cherry-picking here? Why define the “current warming” as the trend over the years 1995-2005? Why use trends over such short periods at all? For a region the size of Greenland, I would expect there to be a significant amount of chaotic variability in ten-year trends.
I’ve mentioned you in my latest…
I’m going to go out on a limb and forecast that this will be resolved a lot like the AMO. Why? The notion there was an AMO was caused in part by the fact that the 1930s were quite warm, there was cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s, and finally, warming again. The Greenland temperatures follow the same pattern. That 1930s warm peak, followed by the aerosol-induced cooling, shows up everywhere.