Arctic Ice Rebound Predicted

Guest post by Verity Jones

Man is not the primary cause of change in the Arctic says book by Russian scientists

Forget the orthodox view of Arctic climate change – this book has a very different message. (h/t to WUWT commenter Enneagram)

Published last year, this is a synthesis of work by the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI). It sets out the data and experience of scientists over 85 years, drawing together much already published in the area. For a book that is billed under a climate change heading, this is actually more an antidote to the hype usually associated with warming in the Arctic. A few pages of each chapter are available on-line and even that is well worth reading; no doubt even better in its entirety.

The Preface sets the tone of the book very clearly – “.…scientists have predicted a significant decrease in sea-ice extent in the Arctic and even its complete disappearance in the summertime by the end of the 21st century. This monograph presents results of studies of climatic system changes in the Arctic, focused on ice cover, that do not justify such extreme conclusions.” “Many studies and international projects, such as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA), attribute the air temperature increase during the last quarter of the 20th century exclusively to accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However these studies typically do not account for natural hydrometeorological fluctuations whose effects on multiyear variability, as this monograph shows, can far exceed the anthropogenic impact on climate.

 

Northern Sea Route (Source: Northern Sea Route User Conference)

 

The book begins by examining the major effects of the Polar Ice caps and their overall stability on Earth’s climate – affecting albedo, and regulating the heat flux from the sea to atmosphere. Climate variations are discussed and the WMO’s “30 year average” definition of climate is not considered applicable in the Arctic because fluctuations in the polar climate are so large.

Chapter 2 looks at what is known about changes in sea ice in the 20th century. The Russian data sets probably hold the most extensive information available for the first half of the century due to interest in the Northern Sea Route in the 1930s. In addition, measurements of ice thickness also go back to the middle of the 1930s when they were taken regularly for coast-bound ice at many of the Polar stations.

It is particularly interesting what they say about Arctic air temperatures (Chapter 4). “Periodic cooling and warming events are evident in air temperature fluctuations in the Arctic during the 20th century, similar to changes in ice cover.” A cool period at the beginning of the 20th century was followed by what is commonly referred to as the “Arctic Warming Period” in the 1920s-1940s. Relative cooling was widespread between the late 1950s to late 1970s, followed by the current warming period peaking in recent years. Gridded average temperature anomalies for 70°-85°N produce a curve that fits a polynomial trend to the sixth power and the cycle periodicity is 50-60 years (Figure 4.1). Other indicators in Arctic and Antarctic support this cycle and show its global nature. On the subject of polar amplification, whereby weather and climate variability increase with latitude, a number of models and explanations are discussed. None of these involve CO2.

 

Cyclic temperature for Arctic stations in the GHCNv2 dataset (originally posted at: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/ )

 

The authors point out there is an abundance of hypotheses as to the possible causes of climate and ice variation and climate change (a ‘long-term’ phenomenon) but these lack detailed long-term data. They state “where data do exist, we should prefer data to computer models”; they believe model projections of future ice area fluctuations are unreliable. Actually, they have some deliciously scathing remarks about climate models.

“The models neglect natural fluctuations because they have no means of incorporating them, and put the entire blame for climate changes since the 19th century on human activity.”

On possible future changes they predict that “..in the 21st century, oscillatory (rather than unidirectional) ice extent changes will continue to dominate Arctic seas. A new ice maximum in 2030-2035 is predicted (Figure 6.1) and this will have major implications for shipping in the region.

From the results of spectral analyses, they conclude that there are 50-60 year cycles and less prevalent ones at 20 years, 8-12 years and 2-3 years. These are closely related to variations in general atmospheric circulation. In the longer term the decreasing trend of ice extent may be a segment of a 200 year cyclic variation responsible for the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Much of the discussion about solar effects is behind the paywall for the book, however there are some strong conclusions about solar effects on Arctic climate. Despite the small variation in Total Solar irradiance (TSI) through solar cycles, solar activity may have a greater effect on high latitudes because of interaction with the Earth’s magnetic field. Solar system “dissymmetry” (barycentre) influences are also mentioned as closely corresponding to the 60 year cycles.

The authors conclude that the simulation by the general circulation models does not appear to reflect the cyclic features in Arctic ice extent and climate, and, if their cyclic interpretations of climate variation are correct, ice cover will continue to fluctuate as there is little connection with the anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels.

Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas: Centennial Ice Cover Observations. Authors: Ivan E. Frolov, Zalmann M. Gudkovich, Valery P. Karklin, Evgeny G. Kovalev, and Vasily M. Smolyanitsky. Published by Springer/Praxis (2009) ISBN 9783540858744

============================

Verity is one of WUWT’s moderators and contributors. She also has her own website at Digging in The Clay. Be sure to visit it and bookmark it – Anthony

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans."
0 0 votes
Article Rating
129 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 16, 2010 9:32 am

phlogiston says:
October 16, 2010 at 4:11 am
Rabe says:
October 16, 2010 at 3:25 am
Hmmm – so if you measured say light intensity outside, and made a high order polynomial fit to it, and found an oscillation, this would show that night and day were an illusion and an artefact of naive maths?

Excellent example, do it in Boston, Mass, from 6am on the morning of December 20th until noon the next day, how long would that predict the day length for March 20th to be?

DirkH
October 16, 2010 9:46 am

E.M.Smith says:
October 16, 2010 at 9:22 am
“In desperation, they put in a picture of a tree NEAR the tanks. 100% accurate. It could even identify pictures of Russian tanks without the tank…”
Beautiful. Sebastian Thrun, the Stanford professor behind Google’s Robot cars, once told in an interview that he was letting one of his cars test drive, and it was a new version of the software that was capable of learning itself how to classify road and surroundings.
When he gave the car a route across a bridge, the car refused to go over the bridge.
It turned out that during training the car had learned to identify the green grass on the side of the road as the marker for the environment. As the river under the bridge didn’t have the right color, the car didn’t know what to do.

frederik wisse
October 16, 2010 9:52 am

Like my colleague Harry Septer we are having serious questions about the statistics published on your sea-ice page . Cryosphere today is publishing a near-record sea-ice anomaly of 1.4 million square kilometers for 2 or 3 days ago . When we are looking at the statistics about sea-ice extent published by the university of Bremen and DMI the sea ice extent of 2010 matches about the quantities of sea-ice in the years 2005 and 2006 , where after taking a careful look at the precise reporting by cryosphere today there was a lack of arctic sea ice of approx 1.000.000 square kilometers in the month of october , the lower minimums originating from late august , beginning of september .
It would be interesting to know how the computation of Cryosphere today is organised and whether certain parameters were changed during the recent years or has the satellite hardware been updated causing a lower sea-coverage ? Anyway is there an explanation or a clarification ?

DirkH
October 16, 2010 9:57 am

richard telford says:
October 16, 2010 at 2:56 am
“Juraj V. says:
October 16, 2010 at 1:41 am
The models do not capture the AMO-like variation at all
Not so. See http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n10/full/ngeo955.html

From the linked page: “because volcanic eruptions cannot be predicted a decade in advance, longer-term climate predictability may prove challenging,”
So, have the authors already been ostracized for unsettling the settled science? Poor chaps…

Colin from Mission B.C.
October 16, 2010 9:59 am

Russia may be a nutcase, politically, but their science seems to be driven by good, old fashioned, Scientific Method. I note the Russians are also the primary purveyors of the abiogenic oil theory — a theory that, I think, has gained more traction in recent years. Russian scientists certainly seem to be less inclined to tow the consensus line as their counterparts in the West.

October 16, 2010 10:41 am

Their work tells me that I am on the right track with my statistical analysis technique.
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf and http://www.kidswincom.net/CO2OLR.pdf. I am presently working with some of the Arctic surface stations monthly data that goes back as far as the early 1800s. I have found a 77 year cycle with one harmonic is statistically significant and common to most of the stations. The longer term cycle is probably 308 years (4×77) which I have found to be statistically significant for CO2 data. The earth tends to respond harmonically to the sun’s input.

tonyb
Editor
October 16, 2010 10:58 am

The current arctic warming period is absolutely nothing new.
This long article by myself -with many links- examines the little known period 1815-60 when the Arctic ice melted and the Royal Society mounted an expedition to investigate the causes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688
This free online book by Dr Arnd Bernaerts examines the last great warming -prior to the modern one- in great detail. It covers the period 1920 onwards..
http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html
We have extensive evidence of these other warm periods (without even needing to refer to ther Vikings.) Why do we insist on believing the current episiode is unprecedented?
tonyb

Alex
October 16, 2010 11:39 am

Breaking the Paywall.
Thanx Serge Brin and his Google, there are few “Paywalls” in internet now.
I think, one of the working links has been already posted here…
A very nice piece of work!

Murray Carpenter
October 16, 2010 12:36 pm
Bill
October 16, 2010 12:57 pm

The 8 Oct 10 issue of AAAS’s Science has identified the next battleground in the Left’s attempts to control the economy, the Nitrogen cycle. Work by scientists from Denmark, Cal Berkley, and Rutgers purport to show that mankind has disrupted the nitrogen cycle through overfertilization and burning fossil fuels. They state we must modify our behavior or risk causing irreversible changes to life on earth.

Vorlath
October 16, 2010 1:07 pm

“The models neglect natural fluctuations because they have no means of incorporating them, and put the entire blame for climate changes since the 19th century on human activity.”
How many times have I heard climate scientists say that their models must be correct because there is no other explanation than man made influence on the climate to explain the current warming. This is one of the things that made me take a step back from my earlier beliefs on AGW. How do they explain the little ice age?
Where I’m from, there’s an old saying: “Apres mauvais temps, beau temps”. It says “after bad weather, good weather.” Now, can we say that after cold climate, warm climate? Or after warm climate, cold climate? Climate scientists don’t seem to understand how climate can change through natural variations as it has done in the past.

Enneagram
October 16, 2010 1:19 pm

And this book, also, which forecasts succesfully Fish Catches all over the world:
Leonid Klyashtorin
http://alexeylyubushin.narod.ru/Climate_Changes_and_Fish_Productivity.pdf

Enneagram
October 16, 2010 1:24 pm

As Edgard Cayce said: “From Russia comes the hope of the world”. Perhaps because that country has been “freezed” for 75 years, during the leftists revolution, it remained fortunately uncontaminated from people like the Greens, Club of Rome, Malthusians, Al Baby, J.”Trains” Hansen, and the like.

October 16, 2010 1:30 pm

Alexej Buergin says: October 16, 2010 at 1:49 am
” Latimer Alder says: … Arctic Ice can only be studied by those with third hand experience,..eg in Houston, Pennsylvania and stuff. Places where it gets real cold in the winter.”
And to study sea ice you have to be as far from the sea as possible, some place like Colorado. No wonder they always get it wrong.

You fail to appreciate how thoroughly living down here or up in Colorado removes local bias.
Mike in Houston

Enneagram
October 16, 2010 1:33 pm

What has really happened is that NASA and NOAA did not buy the last version of WEE for their scientists because of budget cuts.

CRS, Dr.P.H.
October 16, 2010 1:39 pm

Ah, our good friends, the Russians! Of course, they know & understand the Arctic better than anyone, because their national security depends upon it.
I was always interested about why Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and it was an interesting play to amass a huge surplus of carbon credits due to the collapse of inefficient Soviet industry:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126058162650288357.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The skullduggery in this climate change/disruption stuff is staggering!!

Enneagram
October 16, 2010 2:17 pm

Bill says:
October 16, 2010 at 12:57 pm

What is more funny is that up there in the “developed” countries are buying natural “Nitre” (mined nitrates from Chile) as “organic”, to be incorporated as such in crops, at more than USD$10 per kilo. That´s good. To sell mirrors and necklaces to all those “post modern, leftist , gay oriented, and white powders aspirers´primitive individuals”

John F. Hultquist
October 16, 2010 2:24 pm

Bob of Castlemaine says at 12:44 am
Also, after our prolonged drought, rainfall in this part of the world has been above average for most of the country since around July 2009, with the last couple of months rainfall in many areas double the LTA.
Meanwhile the November issue of Natural History magazine has a two page (p. 2,3) photo by Nick Moir of the Sydney Morning Herald and some accompanying text (p.4) designed to convince the viewer/reader that Australia is doomed to be crisp as toast and curl up at the edges.

phlogiston
October 16, 2010 2:44 pm

Isn’t this the AMO we are looking at?
The graph in this post looks almost identical to the one in the post last year on Barents sea 100-150m temperatures, against the AMO:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/08/new-paper-barents-sea-temperature-correlated-to-the-amo-as-much-as-4%C2%B0c/

phlogiston
October 16, 2010 2:53 pm


Rabe says:
October 16, 2010 at 5:34 am
phlogiston: …naive maths?
Umm, …yep. My experience is that most natural phenomena map either (partly) to a polynomial order of at most 3 or are cyclic (for which one would use fourier analysis) or are chaotic (for which one would better give up) or the sum of some of those.
Guess my preference on this topic. 😉

I agree a polynomial is not exactly the ideal way to look at oscillation (to say the least!). I take Phil’s point about selectivity as to the cycle start and end point. It depends on your objective – here the point is simply to demonstrate the presence of an oscillation, rather than to accurately characterise it. You need several waves in order to do that – the more the better.

Z
October 16, 2010 3:02 pm

nc says:
October 16, 2010 at 8:24 am
maelstrom
Russia is also building floating nuclear power plants for use in the Arctic. Oil and gas exploration being one reason.

And what could possibly go wrong?

October 16, 2010 3:04 pm

anthony, I sent you a longish e-mail yesterday that is pertinent in this context. Murray
REPLY: Sorry, but I have not received it. Probably got spammed. Try again?

October 16, 2010 4:07 pm

Thanks #PapyJako says: October 16, 2010 at 1:33 am “ for the reference.
The book provides a very good overview of the parameters which may play a role for assessing the mechanism that drive the conditions in the Arctic, but, on brief review, the book is weak in regard to two aspects at least:
___The discussion of the arctic warming since winter 1918/19 during the 1930s is completely ignored. All significant papers e.g. Birkeland (1930), O.V. Johannsson (1936), R. Scherhag (1936, 1937, 1939), C.E.P. Brooks (1938); Carruthers (1941), Manley (1941), are not even mentioned, neither the paper by Schokalsky, J. (1936); ‚Recent Russian researches in the Arctic Sea and the in mountains of Central Asia’, in: The Scottish Geographical Magazine, Vol. 52, No.2, March 1936, p. 73-84. ; see Ch. 3 (b), p. 30, at: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_3.html
___Little attention has been given to the difference between the summer and winter season, which is presumably the most interesting aspect to evaluate forcing and identify clues that generate changes. (see my earlier comment “01:37am”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/arctic-ice-rebound%C2%A0predicted/#comment-509037
However, Ivan E. Frolov et al. are explicit with regard modelling (p.93) (excerpt):
“___There are large discrepancies in the results of simulations of climate change using coupled atmosphere-ocean models, which testifies to the uncertainties inherent in the models,
___These models are unable to simulate real historical climate changes. …… “,
which fist well to the opinion recently highlighted in the AGU news letter No 38 (21.Sept. 2010) section ‘Research Spotlights’:
___”Before a global climate model can be used by scientists to predict future climate patterns, it must first successfully predict the climate of the past as known by historical records or as inferred by proxy data…..”.
Indeed there is a reasonable amount of “real data” available since the 1910s, which allow to identify the principle source of the Arctic warming from 1919 to 1939 (Ch. 7. „Where did the early Arctic Warming originate?” at: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_7.html ), or done in the interesting paper by “# tonyb, 10:58am”: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/20/historic-variation-in-arctic-ice/#more-8688