Yes, there really is. It's the relative size of the number on a curling rock.

https://www.sciencealert.com/we-re-finally-working-out-what-s-behind-this-weird-cooling-patch-of-water-in-the-atlantic

Peatlands. They exist in the north a lot of the time. Think boggy wet earth is losing water, becomes a fire burning (breading) ground (pun); these things are fire churners. When a typical forest fire goes out, water and air circulation can eliminate it completely (it's all above ground) now a drying peatland can take up the fire and keep it going for weeks or months until it pops up again, maybe on the other, unburned side and alas another forest fire starts. https://scitechdaily.com/increased-threat-of-fierce-fires-and-accelerated-global-warming-from-water-loss-in-northern-peatlands/

The ice in the Arctic ocean is disappearing; when that finally happens the temperature of its water will start to rise. Here is this Spring's snapshot: http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2020/05/april-2020-temperatures-very-high.html?m=1

It's been a while since my last post here but I now have a more serious, although speculative, intuition to share with you regarding climate modelling likely deficiencies. 

We're clearly living in a world which is encountering unforeseen events for which we are proving to be, if not ill-prepared in theory, at the very least, in practice. So for my intuition: 

First, I am not an expert in climate science. However hear me out. Making models, one key ingredient is to be sure it reflects reality in theory and thus, models are often validated by comparing how they perform (look at its output) where the inputs are set to values for which we already know the expected output. In many cases, this is done by using past values and showing the model does produce what's expected. In climate science this is likely some prerequisite for models.

So when new theories are tested using a computer model, it likely takes the form of altering some parameter and running it, this time starting from current day inputs and looking forward in time, a.k.a. the unknown.

But what happens when you have models that are validated and then you change several parameters and your outputs, for the climate crisis, are ALARMING? Well, some scientists go bonkers (the sky is falling), some say, we can't predict the future, this is probably a worst-worst case, highly unlikely (not in our lifetimes) and then, and now here's the potential deficiency in the modelling, the scientists make some concessions and revert to only changing a small number of variables in the model (these outcomes are plausible, and ostensibly moreso than that worst case scenario). This happens mainly due to what I'll call validation-bias. When an output is so different from the output using the default parameters that were validated, the tendency to lable such findings as a, not-in-our-lifetime-type likelihood outcome. 

So in climate modelling, we have feedback loops and with them all occurring simultaneously, it's clear that the validated parameters that relate to each feedback loop be set to the climate crisis hypothesized values at the same time and then to not label that as the worst-case scenario, but to actually try to see how the feedback loop can worsen over time. 

Maybe this is being done, and in that case, good, then this just a rant from a non-expert. Anyway, that is the food for thought on this lovely mid-April day.

Global Warming is a hoax, prove me wrong.

protip, you can't

This post contains a link to yet another Article about the climate disaster in progress. This time the instance is the Alaskan waters are ice-free for the first time ever since some time. But this article briefly goes over the most alarming effects already seen in all four corners of the world. Yes, we have heard about the burning arctic lands, the burning Siberia and forest fires in Western Canada. But I didn't bother to click on these articles. I've been keeping mostly up to date on this subject, and it is alarming and I like to know what's going on. I even like to read about the stories that climate denialism produces, just to stay balanced. Yet, I believed every single caption covered in the linked article, and not any of the ones coming from the other side. I wonder why that is?

https://truthout.org/articles/alaskas-sea-ice-completely-melted-for-first-time-in-recorded-history/

Governments with their decisions that are needing to be made regarding climate action/inaction is one big multiplayer game of chicken (a.k.a. prisoner's dilemma). Each government that views moving away from fossil fuels as an economic disadvantage compared to the other countries if they in turn don't act to move away from fossil fuels, would feel obliged to stay on with fossil fuels for that reason, for fear of being disadvantaged with respect to those other countries. And this is leading us to catastrophic climate crisis. That logic applies to all of the world's countries. The best strategy in this game to avoid the climate crisis is if all countries agreed to the economic hit of moving away from fossil fuels and then noone would be disadvantaged vis-a-vis any others.