Claim: Air pollution may have masked mid-20th Century sea ice loss

From the American Geophysical Union:

Melt pools on melting sea-ice. New research shows humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought. Credit: NASA.
Melt pools on melting sea-ice. New research shows humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought. Credit: NASA.

WASHINGTON, DC — Humans may have been altering Arctic sea ice longer than previously thought, according to researchers studying the effects of air pollution on sea ice growth in the mid-20th Century. The new results challenge the perception that Arctic sea ice extent was unperturbed by human-caused climate change until the 1970s.

Scientists have observed Arctic sea ice loss since the mid-1970s and some climate model simulations have shown the region was losing sea ice as far back as 1950. In a new study, recently recovered Russian observations show an increase in sea ice from 1950 to 1975 as large as the subsequent decrease in sea ice observed from 1975 to 2005. The new observations of mid-century sea ice expansion led researchers behind the new study to the search for the cause.

The new study supports the idea that air pollution is to blame for the observed Arctic sea ice expansion. Particles of air pollution that come primarily from the burning of fossil fuels may have temporarily hidden the effects of global warming in the third quarter of the 20th Century in the eastern Arctic, the researchers say.

These particles, called sulfate aerosols, reflect sunlight back into space and cool the surface. This cooling effect may have disguised the influence of global warming on Arctic sea ice and may have resulted in sea ice growth recorded by Russian aerial surveys in the region from 1950 through 1975, according to the new research.

“The cooling impact from increasing aerosols more than masked the warming impact from increasing greenhouse gases,” said John Fyfe, a senior scientist at Environment and Climate Change Canada in Victoria and a co-author of the new study accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.

To test the aerosol idea, researchers used computer modeling to simulate sulfate aerosols in the Arctic from 1950 through 1975. Concentrations of sulfate aerosols were especially high during these years before regulations like the Clean Air Act limited sulfur dioxide emissions that produce sulfate aerosols.

The study’s authors then matched the sulfate aerosol simulations to Russian observational data that suggested a substantial amount of sea ice growth during those years in the eastern Arctic. The resulting simulations show the cooling contribution of aerosols offset the ongoing warming effect of increasing greenhouse gases over the mid-twentieth century in that part of the Arctic. This would explain the expansion of the Arctic sea ice cover in those years, according to the new study.

Aerosols spend only days or weeks in the atmosphere so their effects are short-lived. The weak aerosol cooling effect diminished after 1980, following the enactment of clean air regulations. In the absence of this cooling effect, the warming effect of long-lived greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide has prevailed, leading to Arctic sea ice loss, according to the study’s authors.

The new study helps sort out the swings in Arctic sea ice cover that have been observed over the last 75 years, which is important for a better understanding of sea ice behavior and for predicting its behavior in the future, according to Fyfe.

The new study’s use of both observations and modeling is a good way to attribute the Arctic sea ice growth to sulfate aerosols, said Cecilia Bitz, a sea ice researcher at the University of Washington in Seattle who has also looked into the effects of aerosols on Arctic ice. The sea ice record prior to satellite images is “very sparse,” added Bitz, who was not involved in the new study.

Bitz also points out that some aerosols may have encouraged sea ice to retreat. Black carbon, for instance, is a pollutant from forest fires and other wood and fossil fuel burning that can darken ice and cause it to melt faster when the sun is up – the opposite effect of sulfates. Also, black carbon emissions in some parts of the Arctic are still quite common, she said.

###

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
129 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bruce Cobb
February 24, 2017 12:15 pm

The CO2 temperature knob seems stuck – maybe if we just give it a whack or two…

February 24, 2017 1:20 pm

comment image
In the above image to the left is interconnected ice, to the right is a water channel where the ice was melted from underneath by slowly meandering surface current.
possible analogous land effect
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/frozenFractals.jpg

Peter S
February 24, 2017 1:29 pm

If someone could please enlighten me? There is an agreement amount scientists that, CO2 makes up around 3% of Greenhouse gases. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently measured at around 400ppm. So far I haven’t been able to get from the CSIRO or NASA or the so called 97% group, is how much of that 400ppm is man made.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Peter S
February 24, 2017 1:41 pm

A good guesstimate would be that we are probably responsible for as much as 100 ppm of the life-giving planet-greening gas.

Reply to  Peter S
February 24, 2017 2:11 pm

The estimated CO2 concentration ~1880 (not quite preindustrial ) was ~280ppm. So about 120ppm from all sources-land use change, fossil fuels, and cement being the big ones.

Peter S
Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 2:43 pm

Sorry I omitted to mention that the earth had around 4,000ppm of CO2 back when Dinosaurs roamed the planet and when the temperature was 4 – 5 Degrees C higher than today.. Data shows us that there is a large natural variability of CO2. I am not convinced that the 120ppm increase can be attributed to man.

Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 3:22 pm

Peter S, you cannot take paleostuff as representative of today. Plants evolved. continents moved. We can be quite certain that the delta ~120 ppm since ~1900 is anthropogenic. Salby is way wrong (separate subject, dont take me there or you will trigger a rant about the damage nuts like he have done to the skeptical cause).
But, it doesn’t matter because of sensitivity and greening.
In judo, the idea is to use the opponent’s mass and position against them. Leverage. Disputing stuff that can be reasonably shown true is not the winner’s way. It is bad judo. Lets win this thing. That does NOT mean win every conceivable debating point. Nor every judo hold. Just win the killer judo holds that throw the opponent.
BTW I used to practice judo, and saw an awesome tae kwon do exhibition (Korean eqivalent woth more moves than judo–sort of wrestling versus MMA) in Singapore.
Further BTW, I have just outlined 2 CAGW judo throws to Vuk in this thread. Please learn them.

Peter S
Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 3:46 pm

So here is another question. Logically, I would have thought that CO2 is a product driven by earth’s temperature and not the other way around?

Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 4:06 pm

PS, a very short comeback. Your supposition is true via Henry’s law at ice core time scales~ 800 years, equaling the total thermohaline circulation. Not at time intervals 0.15 of that. Loser argument. Learn to be a winner. Al Gore was wrong. Do not join his side
BTW, I am getting tired of replying to your climate science ignorance. Suggest you study up some before returning. My last ebook Blowing Smoke is a place to start. My 2012 The Arts Of Truth is a backup, as climate change is a whole long chapter vetted by Richard Lindzen.

Peter S
Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 5:46 pm

Don’t get me wrong. I am still of the opinion that AGW will go down as the greatest con job of the century and there are certain people that should be held accountable.

Reply to  ristvan
February 25, 2017 9:13 am

Have a question for you, see further below

Reply to  Peter S
February 24, 2017 2:31 pm

Some years ago Mr. Ferdinand Engelbeen posted this graph on WUWT
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
blue – cumulative emission, red – concentration left in the atmosphere
I have a strong reservation about its accuracy.

Reply to  vukcevic
February 24, 2017 2:58 pm

Vuk, it is probably OK. First, note y axis is compared to the ~280 ppm preindustrial supposed baseline. So ‘0’ in 1900 ~ 280/290 ppm. Second, all the lit says about half of annual anthropogenic CO2 is biologically sunk. 100/180= 0.55. So, close enough (since there is uncertainty in the lit. What we know for sure is that the IPCC Bern model of saturating sinks is wrong.
Third, the temp line shows the pause. Crucial talking point:
Except for the now rapidly cooling ElNino blip of 2015-16, there has been NO increase in GAST this century except by Karlization. Yet that same period represents ~1/3 of the total increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1958 (inception of Keeling curve).
Busts CO2control knob and climate models rather brutally. Simple, and easily verifiable.
This chart is just a visualization of that sound bite. With the added bonus of a second equally hard hitting sound bite:
The warming ~1920-1945 is essentially indistinguishable from the warming ~1975-2000. See–look at the chart. Yet the first period warming cannot be mainly attributed to CO2; there was not enough change. Look again at the chart. (Or, for a more official reference, look at IPCC AR4 WG1 SPM figure 8.2.)
Remember, the battle is political, not scientific. In politics, sound bites count.

Reply to  vukcevic
February 25, 2017 2:28 am

Hi there,
Yes, thanks, I’m and was aware of the points you’ve made. My reservation is about the rate of CO2 absorption.
I would assume that the rate of the CO2 natural absorption is relatively constant, whereby the current increased absorption due to the greening of the planet is meliorated by warmer oceans’ out-gassing.
What graph shows is that before 1940 absorption appear to be minimal, while since 1960 just under 50% of added CO2 concentration is absorbed.
Is there another short term effect, such as precipitations wash-out when concentration rises well above normal, or something else?

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  Peter S
February 27, 2017 8:27 am

Thing is that the natural stuff cycles in and out. No net difference. As much is absorbed as is emitted. It’s just exchanged. As for “outside influences”, Volcanic action is a small bit more than canceled by calcification.
But what we emit accumulates in the system, be it soils (etc.), oceans or atmosphere.
Now, even so, I don’t think we are under any real threat. It’s conceivable we may double atmospheric CO2, but not so much that we would ever, ever redouble. It’s looking as if there is a warming thumb under the scale at ~1C to ~1.5C per doubling. If it’s that low, we are made in the shade. Heck, we’d be coming out of all this with net benefits. The Great Greening. Longer growing seasons. Milder winters, yet little impact on summer. And, as it is occurring primarily at Tmin during winter months in colder climes, negative impacts are minimized and vastly over-offset by the positive.
But even so, atmospheric CO2 is increasing by ~0.5% per year because of that 3% we are emitting.
I don’t think this will prove to be a problem, net. I actually think it will likely turn out to be a good thing. But it appears to be a fact

MarkW
February 24, 2017 1:38 pm

It’s even better than fiddling with the temperature record. With the temperature record they have to justify their fiddling. Since there are no aerosol records, no need for explanations. Just select the amount needed to make the models look good.

marianomarini
February 24, 2017 2:11 pm

The new study supports the idea that air pollution is to blame for the observed Arctic sea ice expansion.

So to expand the Arctic sea ice we need to increase air pollution?

Reply to  marianomarini
February 24, 2017 2:13 pm

That is not a preferred option. Best is do nothing and let the natural arctic cycle progress. See essay Northwest Passage, or the Wyatt and Curry stadium wave paper, or the Russian work.

marianomarini
Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 2:23 pm

Mine was a sarcastic inference about the given sentence. If ice melt is due to air pollution, if it increase is due to air pollution. If it stay stable is due to air pollution too?

Reply to  ristvan
February 24, 2017 2:33 pm

I suspected that. But chose to play it straight up. The Chinese are causing enough pollution problems. US progressives apparently think Trump is against clean air and water, when he has said the opposite. Lots of media amplified progressive pewrl clutching today about his newest regulation rollback EO. Regards

Reply to  ristvan
February 25, 2017 3:08 am

The Chinese are causing enough pollution problems data to show … receding ice … advancing ice … ice staying the same.

Reply to  ristvan
February 26, 2017 7:19 am

Reiner – Declining Arctic sea ice volume:comment image

dmacleo
February 24, 2017 2:28 pm

it got so cold all the ice melted and we burned to death…..

Rdcii
February 24, 2017 3:18 pm

So…they found an increase due to pollution as large as the subsequent decrease. That means that we increased the ice, then decreased it by the same amount, and the current state of the ice should be the baseline instead of the anomaly. I like it. The decrease of ice in the arctic was the only real evidence they had for CAGW. Ok, ok, it’s models…but I still like it.

TomRude
February 24, 2017 4:02 pm

Another paper from among authors, Nathan “The Best a Mann can Get” and the Environment Canada Greg Flato, better known for his fawning over meeting Trudeau and Premiers:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/first-ministers-climate-change-scientist-1.3331884

Greg Flato, a senior research scientist with Environment Canada, (…) said a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is needed to stabilize temperatures.
“Warming is unequivocal and human influence on the climate system is clear. Impacts of a changing climate are already being felt, and they will increase with further warming,” he said. “The science indicates that reducing greenhouse gases are what is needed in order to stabilize temperature at some level, and that the amount of CO2 emissions, there’s a cumulative budget that you can emit in order to keep the global temperature below a certain value.”
Flato noted how unusual it was for scientists to brief the premiers and prime minister and then hold a press conference.
“It’s certainly not like my normal day at work,” he said with a laugh. “It was pretty remarkable, and it was a pleasure to be able to do it.”

Thanks to the WUWT article https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/02/cache-of-historical-arctic-sea-ice-maps-discovered/
We do know Arctic sea ice in the late 1930s was quite similar to the mid 1990s/2000s, so even if indeed the simulation by our Canadian scientists was true, then our recent shrinking of Arctic sea ice extent is even less worrying and nothing extraordinary. I wish these scientist re-read Kinnard 2011 and explain how during LIA’s cooling, Arctic sea ice extent also shrank. With a bit of luck, they’d explain LIA was another case of run away global warming… LOL
Another chance to rub shoulders with Justin…

TomRude
Reply to  TomRude
February 24, 2017 4:29 pm

Notwithstanding that if indeed aerosols and air pollution were helping the Arctic sea ice to recover, we’d just have to pollute way more to have the sea ice recover and since we have been told the lack of sea ice wrecks havoc on everything, its sudden recovery would solve all our problems.
I nominate these geniuses for the 2017 Nobels…

accordionsrule
Reply to  TomRude
February 25, 2017 3:40 am

Since SO2 can overwhelm CO2 effects, by fiddling with the two knobs we can achieve Climate Nirvana. Sweet. I used to work in a building like that; the heat and a/c ran simultaneously side-by-side and thus equilibrium was achieved.

hunter
February 24, 2017 5:47 pm

Anything to ignore history and minimize soot/carbon black.

February 25, 2017 12:56 am

Philosophically, what is going on here is a case of ‘data doesn’t match model output, so rather than scratch model, introduce new independent variable’.
Of course this is deeply dangerous for green alarmism because it implies that climate change is all about ‘other stuff’ than CO2.
In short the independent variables to ‘save’ the CO2 model, in the end invalidate it.
The CO2 alarmist narrative depends on DEPENDENT variables. In particular the water based positive feedback that amplifies any temperature change and destabilises the climate to the point where its unlikely life would ever have evolved.
Introducing independent ones to ‘save’ AGW in the end is a nail in its coffin.

chris moffatt
February 25, 2017 9:28 am

Wait. What? Sulfates caused lower temperatures and more ice formation from 1950 – 1975 but did NOT affect global warming which continued merrily on during that period? And why did the sulfates in 1975 stop what they were doing and reverse it so that warming started up again without impacting the global warming graphs? Methinks the sulfates are a lot more powerful than a little CO2 after all!

Kaiser Derden
Reply to  chris moffatt
February 27, 2017 7:37 am

from 1950 – 1975 … global warming which continued merrily on during that period ???? seriously you want to claim that ?

chris moffatt
February 25, 2017 9:28 am

After all, we didn’t stop burning fossil fuels in 1975.