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.”

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.

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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Will Crump,
If the following seems rushed it is because it is – please overlook any apparent snippyness.
Unanswered question – I now can’t find but seem to rememeber it was about cycle causeation. Plenty of possible correlations in several threads here culminating with Joe D’Aleo’s tonight, but few real answers. And don’t say I’m just hand waving – the answer is we don’t know yet, but it is intriguing to find the cycle pattern very clear in many parts of the world – http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/in-search-of-cooling-trends/
Will Crump says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:13 am (Edit)
“The very information you provide casts doubt on the stability of the 60 year cycle since the period of the LIA and MWP were not 60 year cycles.”
How so? The LIA & MWP are clearly not 60 year cycles, as mentioned in the review. The spectal analyses in the book are interesting.
“….other information which suggests the cycle is not stable.” To what are you refering?
“You do not appear to be applying the same level of skeptical challenge to the Russian conclusions as you have to other data that conflicts with your bias.” Actually my bias is to find data that offers an alternative view for consideration, and this was not intended as a ‘critical review’, merely reporting what was concluded in the book, enabling critique by others. After all that’s what happens here!
“The 1940 to 1970 period of cooling appears to be the subject of multiple explanations, and given the complexity of climate,…” I agree, and my mention of sulphate was only in response to your mention of it and citing the Thompson paper.
“…show me the forces that will cause the rebound and why these forces are going to be able to override the increase in radiative forcing by CO2 and warming due to loss of albedo due to diminished ice cover.”
How much effect – realistically – will there be from diminished ice cover? Why don’t you give me some numbers to work with – what area of ocean are we talking about and how long each year will it be ice free? Considering the angle of the sun during the months the ocean will be ice free perhaps you can find estimates of the heat adsorption (numbers please) expected as a result? Then while you are at it how much additional heat will be lost from the Arctic to space during these conditions? That is important because however much heat is added to the region a large percentage will be lost.
“If you are going to rely on diminished heat inflow from ocean currents, then explain why this will occur as TSI increases from its current low point. ”
Let’s turn that around – what is the variation in TSI between ‘low point’ and typical solar max?
“…may be a net positive forcing as el nino patterns are shifting and becoming more intense.” Now it is you that is making assumptions. What evidence do you have that any apparent intensity increases are other than just normal variation and that intensification will continue?
“Perhaps you can identify some long term change in the Atlantic ocean currents, which appear to provide most of the heat inflow from ocean currents to the arctic, due to a shift in thermohaline circulation.”
The thermohaline circulation is not something I have looked at – at all, but there are certainly large long term changes in the Atlantic Ocean. It is intriguing that the cooling and a sudden increase in storminess in the Atlantic at the end of the Medieval Warm Period shows up in the GISP2 ice core data.
http://hol.sagepub.com/content/17/4/427.abstract
Perhaps we might be at risk of such a major change again, or can you say with certainty that high CO2 this time will protect us?
This climate game is just a glass half empty/half full thing – you see it one way, I see it the other. If only it were that trivial eh?