Arctic sea ice can’t ‘bounce back’

University of Exeter [See my update at the end. -w.]

Quahog clams Credit: Paul Butler

Quahog clams Credit: Paul Butler

Arctic sea ice cannot “quickly bounce back” if climate change causes it to melt, new research suggests.

A team of scientists led by the University of Exeter used the shells of quahog clams, which can live for hundreds of years, and climate models to discover how Arctic sea ice has changed over the last 1,000 years.

They found sea ice coverage shifts over timescales of decades to centuries – so shrinking ice cannot be expected to return rapidly if climate change is slowed or reversed.

The study examined whether past ice changes north of Iceland were “forced” (caused by events such as volcanic eruptions and variations in the sun’s output) or “unforced” (part of a natural pattern).

At least a third of past variation was found to be “forced” – showing the climate system is “very sensitive” to such driving factors, according to lead author Dr Paul Halloran, of the University of Exeter.

“There is increasing evidence that many aspects of our changing climate aren’t caused by natural variation, but are instead ‘forced’ by certain events,” he said.

“Our study shows the large effect that climate drivers can have on Arctic sea ice, even when those drivers are weak as is the case with volcanic eruptions or solar changes.

“Today, the climate driver isn’t weak volcanic or solar changes – it’s human activity, and we are now massively forcing the system.”

Co-author of the study Professor Ian Hall, from Cardiff University, said: “Our results suggest that climate models are able to correctly reproduce the long-term pattern of sea ice change.

“This gives us increased confidence in what climate models are telling us about current and future sea ice loss.”

When there is lots of sea ice, some of this drifts southwards and, by releasing fresh water, can slow the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, otherwise known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

The AMOC brings warm water from the tropics towards the Arctic, so slowing it down cools this region and allows sea ice to grow further.

So, with less ice the AMOC can bring in more warm water – a so-called “positive feedback” where climate change drives further warming and sea ice loss.

Quahog clams are thought to be the longest-living non-colonial animal on Earth, and their shells produce growth rings which can be examined to measure past environmental changes.

Dr Halloran is part of the Global Systems Institute, which brings together experts from a wide range of fields to find solutions to global challenges.

The new study is part of a project including Cardiff University, the Met Office and an international team working on climate model simulations of the last millennium. The work was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council.

###

The paper, published in the journal Scientific Reports, is entitled: “Natural drivers of multidecadal Arctic sea ice variability over the last millennium.”

From EurekAlert!

[UPDATE] I suspect Charles won’t complain if I add today’s situation …

Best to all,

w.

SOURCE

Advertisements

136 thoughts on “Arctic sea ice can’t ‘bounce back’

    • Even better is that just like the Gore Effect, this probably means Arctic ice will rebound almost immediately !!

      • Exactly my thoughts. I love this kind of prediction. God (or Mother Nature) seems to have a sense of humor about them – and usually just the opposite happens. They predict “no snow” and they get plastered. Gotta love it.

        • God has a sense of humour, he makes idiots get positions as “top scientists”. It’s his revenge on science for trying to destroy faith based religion.

          “There is increasing evidence that many aspects of our changing climate aren’t caused by natural variation, but are instead ‘forced’ by certain events,” he said.

          What he means is “internal variation” not “natural.

          So by redefining natural events as “forcings” all natural variation proves changes were “forced”. This is just more semantic tricks to prop up a failing scientific hypothesis.

          Arctic sea minimum increased by 65% in ONE YEAR from 2012 to 2013. You say it can’t “bounce back” but it did. Observations, not models.

          Climate models failed to predict or explain the rapid decline from 1997 to 2007 and equally fail to explain why it is still at the same level it was in 2007 despite “run away melting”, “death spirals” and the “climate crisis”.

          But never mind we’ll continue running the same models to produce more spurious “scientific” claims. Hey it’s publish or perish out here !

    • Not even climate models, they used a one-off of a one-off, which means they used faith

    • Yep, I only got as far as the second paragraph. To be fair, University of Exeter is a good clue to it being bollox.

    • Yep! And this…

      At least a third of past variation was found to be “forced”…

      Found how? Fake CO2 models? What a load of garbage.

      There will be no advancement of climate science until we rid it of these CO2 superstitions, and their devotees.

  1. “Bouncing back” to what ideal temperature? We are continually waiting for that “ideal” temperature number.

  2. When one looks at the world through manmade-global warming glasses, everything is a cause or a victim. It’s that simple. Also, it always has to be bad news.

  3. Okay, can they show us proof that the changes they noted in the growth rings of the clams were caused by particular changes in climate?

    Did they verify every single line of code in the models used was fit for purpose?

      • The onus of proof is on the claimant:

        “the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness”

        ~ Laplace

        “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

        Popularised by Carl Sagan

        • Redge;
          “Extraordinary clams require extraordinary evidence”

          Rising waters make clams happy:
          “the fuller version of the phrase, now rarely heard – ‘as happy as a clam at high water’. High tide is when clams are free from the attentions of predators; surely the happiest of times in the bivalve mollusc world. The phrase originated in the north-eastern states of the USA in the early 19th century.”

          https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/as-happy-as-a-clam.html

      • Loydo, in the end we only found

        “Today, the climate driver isn’t weak volcanic or solar changes – it’s human activity, and we are now massively forcing the system.”

        So why doesn’t Dr. Paul Halloran, of the University of Exeter, REVERSE “our” forcing – opening Red Sea via Suez Channel to Mediterranean and Golf of Mexico to Pacific via Panama Channel.

        What too have we overwhelming done to “our” Planet. What’s he awaiting of “us”.

        OTOH – long before man walked on Earth the Americas were separated, proto Mare-Nostra and pre Indian Ocean were connected by the Thetis.

        – explaining please, Dr. Paul Halloran, of the University of Exeter.
        ____________________________________

        Sure you’ll find new complex questions to solved simple solutions. Loydo.

  4. Another “conclusive” research piece fitted to the presupposition and vaguely referencing a mysterious natural equilibrium that only humans can destroy.

        • Still about average based on when ice readings were stared in 1979. AVERAGE!

          Have not learned much in your 57 years, even with all that hitch hiking!

        • No, still very much near the top of the last 10,000 years

          Time is not measured by your attention span, Loy-doh !!

          • Lydo, the satellites were not launched in 1979. ( Are you daft to not know this, as you have been told this many times.) The sea ice was much lower about 6 years prior. 1979 was peak sea ice.

          • Loydo, if you were half as smart as your mother told you, you would be able to figure out for yourself that the two sentences do not contradict each other.

        • The trick of starting the graph of Arctic ice extent in 1979 to exaggerate the loss has been exposed many, many times, both on WUWT and by Tony Heller. You’ve been busted, Loydo.

        • Yet still below the 2σ? So where do you get the expectation that sea ice would not change over any arbitrary 40 year period? Are you a climate change deeniyer ??

        • Loydo,
          I’ve often wondered why TQM and 6 Sigma use 6σ as a key to improving quality in manufacturing but for sea ice and other climate measurements use 2σ / 4σ. You got any explanation for the differences

          • Loydo: The trick was to launch a satellite.

            No, the trick was to start the graph at the end of a cooling period when ice extent was at a maximum, as you well know.

        • We only have solid data going back 40 years. We also know that 40 years ago was the coldest period since the end of the Little Ice Age.

        • PS, having arctic ice continue to grow puts the kibosh on the claims that arctic ice has entered a death spiral that your side keeps dragging out.

        • Loydo, what is the time range for your two-sigma basis? Geologic evidence points that there was no summer ice pack during the Holocene optimum. That broadens your two-sigma range a bit. We need enough data to make an informed decision. Even 100 years of data is not long enough to be able to predict any trends in the climate. There are too many variables that we don’t have a good value for, as well as variables we don’t even know yet.

    • There is a rich and varied smorgasbord of forcings to choose between, to fit any and every observed climate change. And then proclaim sensitivity and carbon doom.

      Did it warm? The warm forcing menu:
      CO2
      methane
      CFCs
      ozone
      Fart gas
      El Niño
      Soot
      Land use changes
      Etc…

      Did it cool? The cool forcing menu:
      Cloud
      Volcanoes
      SO2
      Particles
      Ocean upwelling
      Albedo
      Increasing vegetation (trees etc)
      Land use changes
      Etc…

  5. I don’t know about arctic sea ice “bouncing” back.

    There’s no land mass in the arctic. All the sea ice is floating
    in the sea. If it melts, the sea level will DROP!!!

    • Jphn, you might want to re-take high school science. If floating ice melts, it has no impact on water levels.

        • Really John. Try this experiement. Put an ice cube in a glass and fill the glass with water up to the brim. As the ice melts, watch the water level. Is it overflowing the brim, Is it still at the brim, or is it now below the brim? (hint: it’ll be the middle of those three options). Go on, try the experiment and see for yourself, or remain in ignorance your choice.

      • MarkW, fill a glass with water and drop a few pieces of ice cubes until
        the water reaches the rim. Wait until the ice melts and watch what happens to the water level in the glass.

      • Jose, what will happen is exactly what MarkW said would happen (no impact to water levels), so why are you addressing the ice in glass of water experiment to him? Perhaps you need to try the experiment yourself so you can see what happens.

  6. link to the original paper

    As usual, the original paper is not nearly as brain dead as the press release.

    The original paper hints at an ice free arctic during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). The MWP was relatively prosperous. There is no evidence for the kind of cataclysmic weather events prophesied by the alarmists, quite the opposite. Warmer is richer. link

    An ice free arctic is not a disaster. It’s happened before and humanity prospered. The disaster is when we get cold periods like the Little Ice Age (LIA) with plenty of arctic ice.

  7. I don’t have a link however, many new species of coral have been discovered on the Great Barrier Reef here in Australia. So much for stories about it being 95% dead last year.

    • more of a matter of better ID and some dna abilities? the chap on abc still managed to get in bits are bleached badly/dead due to agw of course carefully omitting how LITTLE that is, of course

  8. The reason they went with climate models is that every time the researchers tried to interview one of the research subjects, they would just clam up.

    This study was fraught with such difficulties. The researchers had to shell out a lot more than they had budgeted.

  9. “Arctic sea ice cannot “quickly bounce back” if climate change causes it to melt, new research suggests.”

    Methinks me smells a climate model, sez me, reading that opening paragraph. On top of an iffy proxy proposed by an industry that considers multiple model runs to be “research.” If you have a relationship based on temperatures to the fourth power, there can be tons of bouncing back, and no number of clam shells will stop it, especially in an area characterized by varying volcanic activity.

    • According to NSIDC, Arctic sea ice extent on day 20 is above every year in the last decade except 2013 and 2010

      Also above 2005 and 2006

      • This is actually not that surprising and says nothing about global warming. The winter maximum has hardly changed at all in the satellite era, only the summer minimum has declined.

        • Which is not surprising since those areas of the Arctic that melt in the summer are well below freezing in the winter, and pretty much always will be, given the total absence of the sun in winter.

          And of course only areas that melt can refreeze!

    • Agreed

      The product of a computer model run is not evidence…..it is just a quantitative prediction which then needs to be confirmed or refuted by measurements and data obtained in the real world, not just in cyberspace.

      Too many climate “scientists” do not like to adhere to the scientific method. It produces too many inconvenient results for their grant-seeking and adulation-seeking projects. Cyberspace is a so much more friendly environment for them.

      Experiment limited to computer runs is to real science what blow-up dolls are to a real girlfriend.

  10. Ha ! Exeter University, formerly the school of mines, and not so long ago the fall back for those whose results fell well short of what was expected.

    Now of course its quite a respected seat of learning, possibly even quite twee. Indeed when compared to the hundreds of technical colleges that morphed into universities in relatively recent times, it may well be not so bad. And it certainly wont hurt their application list to get headlines with studies like this one, as most of the potential intake will be totally on board the Planetary Emergency bandwagon 🙂

    • I believe that at one stage the boasted as having the highest number of IPCC members of any university in the world. I could be wrong though

      Certainly swilling hard on the climate trough.

      • Almost seems then as if its competing with that other ‘Renowned’ institution in East Anglia 🙂

  11. What “forced” the anomalously high extents in the late 1970s. and the Little Ice Age?

    Why was there so much more Arctic sea ice than for nearly all of the previous 9,500 years ?

  12. Not sure why the Arctic ice is considered a measure of anything except variability.

    We know it waxes and wanes. In the 1950 submarines were surfacing at the North pole, now not so much.

    I am surprised they keep taking about it whan Al Gore said it should be gone by now. They seem to want to provide an entree into the long and ever growing list of failed climate predictions. Same goes for the periodic “Ship of Fools” adventures. Imagine the bellowing from the rooftops if they ever get one right vs the quiet mumbling and foot shuffling when they have to be rescued from the ice.

  13. The audacity of nature to indulge variability, perturbations, and chaos, life, is now characterized as a first-order forcing. Gaia, how dare you!

  14. What happened to Alex?
    2014
    Italian Adventurer Alex Bellini Plans To Live On An Iceberg Until . . . It Melts!

  15. So, before the industrial revolution would seem to be the place to study natural variability (actually before 1950 would do, but let them have their goalpost move). If they didnt find that arctic ice extent going back to the Holocene temperature and sea level highstand was less and less, then the problem as usual with the study is gross bias, a serious ineptude with statistics seemingly peculiar to climate science, or, horror of horrors a deliberate manipulation to get what has become a clisci cliché, a ‘robust’ result.

    Ice extent during the LIA was most certainly the greatest of the last 8 or 9 thousand years. Their underestimate of natural variation at a “third” of the the time covered by the study is a red flag. They seem to have gotten a surprise and having to admit a “third of the variation as natural was how they rescued the study.

    How did they handle the main cycle of the entire Holocene itself? It would have been the elephant that actually overwhelmed most cycles however caused. 5000 – 8000 years ago open water of a major extent washed and built the driftwood littered sandy beaches on the north coast of Greenland!

  16. All very boring. – Arctic sea ice just doesn’t bounce. Never has done. The title is merely a journalist clickbait mechanism and the content says little of value.

  17. Remain clam….. We’ve heard similar claims about the ‘perma-drought’ in California. We heard this about the ‘perma-drought’ in Texas. “AGW and CO2 have caused the climate to change. This is the new normal!” We’ve heard many such extraordinary claims. They have proven to be fevered mind Hog Wash!
    The ‘AGW induced perma-droughts’ in Texas and California proved to be exceedingly short lived, with adequate rains returning to these areas naturally, in spite of the false cries of the alarmists. Similarly, whatever happens in the Arctic will be a natural effect, be it ice free or choked with 5 meter thick ice.

    Statements by the ‘experts’, such as “Our results suggest that climate models are able to correctly reproduce the long-term pattern of sea ice change.”, are weak and unconvincing. Extraordinary claims of CO2 driven AGW require extraordinary proofs, not in evidence here.

  18. We done programmed our biases into a model and:

    “Co-author of the study Professor Ian Hall, from Cardiff University, said: “Our results suggest that climate models are able to correctly reproduce the long-term pattern of sea ice change.”

    What a bunch of fakirs! Delusional through and through.

    “Quahog clams are thought to be the longest-living non-colonial animal on Earth, and their shells produce growth rings which can be examined to measure past environmental changes.”

    A puzzling claim. Quahog clams reproduce and rapidly grow to harvestable size. Every one shows many growth lines in their shells.
    When researchers claim a growth line is annual, I get suspicious when people claim growth rings are annual, especially when the animals are deep below sunlight’s reach and where the waters show minimal temperature change over the year.

    Clams dependent upon sunlight for their growth. It may be that a clam’s growth lines are formed after they’ve fed sufficiently to grow larger, just as reptiles shed their skins when they’ve outgrown their previous skin.

    PS “non-colonial animal” means that the animals are not in colonies like coral.

  19. “The study examined whether past ice changes north of Iceland were “forced” (caused by events such as volcanic eruptions and variations in the sun’s output) or “unforced” (part of a natural pattern).”

    So volcanoes and Solar output are not “Natural”?

    Wow, really, just Wow!

    • “So volcanoes and Solar output are not “Natural”?”

      “Forced” means a change in absorbed solar SW. The energy available to the climate.
      “Natural” means the consequence of movements of that solar energy with the climate system.

      • And yet both of those are from a natural physical portions of the universe.

        If you or they are are trying to make the Thermodynamic mathematical argument as related to where the plus and minus signs are relative to equal signs for this system ie planet Earth please use mathematical notation. You know planet Earth does not live a vacuum, thermodynamically speaking 😉

        Energy flows from areas of high concentration to areas of low concentration.

  20. They didn’t need to do fake “research” to come up with such nonsense. What else is it going to do with 6 months of no sun but *freeze*?
    And they should have looked at history:

    “You can go from no ice one summer to completely landlocked ice where the ice goes from coast to coast in another summer. It’s hard to predict; the Arctic has always been an incredibly variable place.”
    Stephanie Pfirman
    “Arctic Ghost Ship (2015): HMS Terror and Erebus”
    Full PBS NOVA Documentary

  21. To be honest, the idea that re-freezing is slower than melting makes sense. Albedo effects would imply that.
    Yes, I know the angles are not optimum for albedo effects to be important, but they are skewed one way.

    • But the speed isn’t the driving factor. Any melted ice has six months of total darkness to refreeze. The fact that it melted in less than six months doesn’t matter. I take an ice cube out of the freezer and melt it in seconds. I fill the tub up again with water and lo and behold its frozen again in a few hours.

      Provided there is enough time to refreeze, it will refreeze, however quickly it melted.

    • On the other hand, once the ice melts, the heat in the water has easier access to the air, so the water starts to cool rapidly.

  22. Are these the same models that the u.n/ipcc, david Attenborough, or even the vastly educated greta uses?

    If so, then clearly we need to act fast and get the 40+ thousand slave children of the congo to mine cobolt faster so we can all drive ev’s 😀. (sarc)

  23. …..total flog. Glad I chose to skin the article.
    Get these climate “scientists” way more productive. Get them picking potatoes.

  24. and who among them was a clam expert?
    and are the clams large? endangered? and how many did they kill for the study?
    enquiring minds etc,lol
    who ATE the clams after?

  25. “Today, the climate driver isn’t weak volcanic or solar changes – it’s human activity, and we are now massively forcing the system.”

    Only in your wildest dreams. We aren’t forcing the system AT ALL! The sun has never stopped controlling the climate, nor will it. The arctic ice is growing from long-duration low TSI in spite of the warm tropics. What does that tell you?

    Who predicted ice growth to continue at AGU Fall 2018, based on TSI? I did.

    https://i.postimg.cc/hjkKvS21/Lo-TSI-Hard-Winters.jpg

    This nascent itty bitty teeny tiny mini ice age won’t survive the upcoming solar maximum unless Prof. Zharkova is right about impending low solar activity cycles, but human emissions won’t have anything to do with future ice melting once sun-warmed tropical waters inflow again.

    https://i.postimg.cc/zBmD5Q78/Nino34-vs-Sea-Ice-Extent.jpg

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif

  26. I, if, if, if, if, maybe, could, perhaps, er guess, wild guess, even wilder guess, awww just made it all up..

  27. Great post. However, I feel that the general usage of the term “models” and “climate modelling” by both hystericals and sceptics – rather than ‘computer models’ and ‘climate computer modelling’ etc – prevents most of those coming across and reading articles or listening to broadcasts and podcasts and who are not familiar with how computers are at the heart of the new version of climatology, working out how computer models are behind the dodgy foundations behind all this confirmation biased nonsense.

  28. Every winter in the northern hemisphere at the north pole, when there are months long periods of no sun, and the temperatures are well below the freezing point of water, I’m sure that the water will once again freeze into ice, just as it does annually over vast areas of the northern hemisphere, far away from the north pole.

  29. —-“There is increasing evidence that many aspects of our changing climate aren’t caused by natural variation, but are instead ‘forced’ by certain events,” he said.—-

    The most asinine BS Orwellian 1984 doublespeak attempt at redefining definitions. So, the natural physical universe is not the natural physical universe? Guess this would include the occasional comet or meteor strikes are not natural cosmological variations. Shoemaker-Levy 9, anyone?

    They also lost me at their use of models — read we used computational data and numerical analysis to replace actual observational data.

    They still seem to “think”( I use this verb understanding their difficulty in this action) planet Earth and humans beings sit outside of the natural physical universe.

  30. The earth is tired & fed-up with Arctic ice. Too long has the top of the earth’s head suffered from life-hostile frozen conditions. The earth & caring people say — down with Arctic ice! Melt now!

  31. The tree ring history of Glacier Bay Alaska shows that six times in the last 10,000 years trees grew for 2 to 4 hundred years. The current receding glaciers have not been gone long enough for that to happen currently so those who say it hotter now are lying to us big time or just dumb or uneducated. You have to use a Google search to find the report.

  32. I recall the fearmakers saying CO2 would slow down AMOC, now they’re suggesting it will speed up. Which one is it?

  33. [QUOTE FROM ARTICLE] “When there is lots of sea ice, some of this drifts southwards and, by releasing fresh water, can slow the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, otherwise known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

    The AMOC brings warm water from the tropics towards the Arctic, so slowing it down cools this region and allows sea ice to grow further.

    So, with less ice the AMOC can bring in more warm water – a so-called “positive feedback” where climate change drives further warming and sea ice loss.”

    This seems to be a contradiction–if melting sea ice injects fresh water into the AMOC (Gulf Stream) and makes it cooler, wouldn’t that tend to promote the re-growth of sea ice, and represent a negative feedback?

    Also, sea ice in the Arctic expands every autumn and winter (reaching a maximum in March), then recedes every spring and summer (reaching a minimum in September). Sea ice in the southern parts of the ice cap (Hudson Bay, the Bering Sea, Baffin Bay, and the Arctic coast of Russia) melts every spring, while sea ice near the North Pole remains solid all year. Sea ice that melts in Baffin Bay in spring generates fresh water that is carried southward by the Labrador Current, and eventually mixes with the Gulf Stream, thereby weakening its warming effect in spring and early summer. When Baffin Bay re-freezes in autumn, that fresh cold water is taken out of circulation, and the Gulf Stream regains its warming effect on the west coasts of Europe and Scandinavia.

    There may be other causes of Arctic sea ice loss that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions. Undersea exploration by submarines has found hydrothermal vents (hot springs) under the Arctic Ocean along the Gakkel Ridge, which extends from north of Greenland across the Arctic toward western Russia (see link below, which is one of many). Hot springs would tend to melt sea ice from below, gradually making it thinner, possibly to the point of the sea ice over that area disappearing in the future. However, this could not be attributed to man-made CO2 emissions, and humans have no way of reducing or stopping the flow of hot water from the sea floor.

    https://www.mpg.de/research/mechanisms-of-sea-floor-generation

  34. Um…why do I care if sea returns EVER? There used to be dinosaurs up near the arctic, so I would suggest that sea ice is NOT the optimal state for life on Earth.

  35. To refreeze Arctic region a lot more winter snow is required, and for that currently the low and mid latitudes N. Atlantic is not warm enough, not enough evaporation to provide required volume of snow.
    Here you can see up to date snow storms east of Labrador and Greenland.
    http://images.intellicast.com/WxImages/SatelliteLoop/hinpole_None_anim.gif
    The N. Atlantic’s AMO is about to turn negative, so it looks no re-freezing until the next AMO’s max (combined with the 400yr Arctic-Southern Ocean sub-global conveyor belt) will peak somewhere around 0.4C above the current NH’s temperatures (link, i.e. warm enough to provide couple of decades of excessive Arctic winter precipitations, with subsequent 200 years of cooling completing the job of generating the 22nd and 23rd centuries ‘LIA’.

  36. Arctic sea ice will never bounce back if we continue to use ice breakers to cut and keep shipping lanes open…

  37. There are no longer any climate skeptics. There are only science deniers. You sit there typing on a computer which you have no understanding of how it works communicating with a website using IP packets that you will never ever understand and deny that scientist cannot understand global warming? LOL.

    • You should post the Arctic sea ice extent graph from the site instead of the global sea ice extent graph. That one shows today’s extent exceeding that of all the 9 years listed.

  38. “When there is lots of sea ice, some of this drifts southwards and, by releasing fresh water, can slow the North Atlantic Ocean circulation, otherwise known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).
    The AMOC brings warm water from the tropics towards the Arctic, so slowing it down cools this region and allows sea ice to grow further.
    So, with less ice the AMOC can bring in more warm water – a so-called “positive feedback” where climate change drives further warming and sea ice loss.”

    When the overturning (AMOC) slows, the warm water travels further into the far North Atlantic and Arctic, and reduces the sea ice. The low MOC events are associated with negative North Atlantic Oscillation episodes. The Gulf Stream does speed up marginally during the low MOC events, but the gross changes are to do with the overturning rate and not the Gulf Stream speed.

    “Today, the climate driver isn’t weak volcanic or solar changes – it’s human activity, and we are now massively forcing the system.”

    No it’s weaker solar wind conditions since the mid 1990’s driving a warm Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation phase via negative North Atlantic Oscillation states. A negative feedback to low solar, and normal during each centennial solar minimum.

    https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-13246-x/MediaObjects/41598_2017_13246_Fig2_HTML.jpg

  39. I wonder whether the researchers bothered to make enquiries of the Russian authorities who are building a new fleet of icebreakers, including 4 nuclear powered units with 3-metre ice thickness capability. But then, the Russians just live there. What would they know compared to professional school-kids on their computers many kilometres distant?

  40. “Today, the climate driver isn’t weak volcanic or solar changes – it’s human activity, and we are now massively forcing the system.”

    So why doesn’t Dr. Paul Halloran, of the University of Exeter, REVERSE “our” forcing – opening Red Sea via Suez Channel to Mediterranean and Golf of Mexico to Pacific via Panama Channel.

    What too have we overwhelming done to “our” Planet. What’s he awaiting of “us”.

    OTOH – long before man walked on Earth the Americas were separated, proto Mare-Nostra and pre Indian Ocean were connected by the Thetis.

    – explaining please, Dr. Paul Halloran, of the University of Exeter.

Comments are closed.