What’s Natural?
by Jim Steele
Glaciers around the world reached their greatest size in four thousand years by 1850. Then abruptly the world began to warm. Arctic sea ice lost 40% of its thickness by 1940. Around the Arctic island of Spitsbergen melting sea ice allowed shipping season to lengthen from 3 months to 7 by 1940, meanwhile 400 additional square miles of sea ice was melting along the Russian coasts. By 1950, 96% of Europe’s glaciers were retreating and small glaciers had simply disappeared. In the tropics, Africa’s Kilimanjaro’s iconic glaciers was also shrinking alarmingly.
In the far north, pine forests couldn’t reproduce between 1850 and 1900 due to the cold. But with warming, all age classes of seedlings proliferated. Tree-line rose by about 70 feet in a few decades. Plants were flowering earlier, and seeds and berries ripened earlier. Atlantic cod moved northward creating a new Greenland fishery and several southern bird species moved into Iceland.

This warmth was an extraordinary climate reversal and scientists sought to understand that change. By the 1950s a foremost glacier expert, H.W. Ahlmann, stated the growing consensus the dramatic warming was due to “an increased transfer of heat through the atmosphere by a strengthening of the winds carrying heat from southern parts to the Arctic.” Today’s top climate scientists are observing similar natural climate change that pushes warm winds and warm ocean currents northward, melting the Arctic once again.
To be fair, In the 1940s the British engineer G.S. Callendar also suggested CO2-global warming was melting glaciers. But he was a lone voice and peer-reviewers had refused to publish his paper attributing CO2-global warming for Kilimanjaro’s melting glaciers.
Today there is growing scientific support for the theories that changing winds cause decades of warming or cooling in the Arctic. One measure of naturally shifting winds is called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) index. The NAO alternates between a positive phase in which westerly winds increase, bringing warmer winters to western Europe. Switching to its negative phase, the westerly winds decline causing western Europe to cool, but that phase also causes warmer winds to blow from south to north more frequently. Scientists admit that as much as 100% of observed climate change could be due to that natural variability.
As political battles over who controls energy policies intensified, interest in fossil fuels and CO2-global warming theory was revived. Scientists promoting CO2-global warming exhumed Callendar’s private papers and elevated his status to a founding hero of global warming theory. A few scientists believed that rising CO2 could affect the winds and the phase of the NAO. Because the positive NAO had produced strong westerly winds that warmed much of Europe and Asia, they predicted the current positive NAO would continue and further intensify global warming.
But that hypothesis failed quickly. The NAO reversed to its negative phase as the 21st century began. That caused westerly winds to weaken. That produced more persistent blocking high pressure systems and a wavier jet stream as seen in the diagram. Blocking weather systems are slower moving than normal storms and force the prevailing winds and other storms to move around them. This was outlined, again, in the 1950s by climate scientists who pioneered our present understanding of blocking systems. Weather satellites now confirm those weather effects. They also showed when early 20th century blocking systems forced warm air from the south to pass over Greenland, surface temperatures rose 10° to 12°C above normal.

In the diagram orange colors are warmer and blue colors are cooler. Blocking systems in the Pacific push warmer air (orange) into Alaska and draw cold air into the southern USA. Thus, Alaskan temperatures are sometimes higher than northern Florida. Likewise, blocking in the Atlantic pushed warm air over Greenland causing extreme melting but brought a cold snap to Europe. Americans became aware of the power of a negative NAO and blocking when a weak hurricane was prevented from normally moving out to sea. Instead it was diverted into New Jersey, transforming into the devastating Superstorm Sandy. In 2019, a warm air mass from the baking Sahara Desert moved northward. Crossing Europe, the Saharan air brought record high temperatures. Continuing northward, that warm air then caused Greenland’s 7th greatest period of melting since 1978.
The theory that the NAO and shifting winds create the conditions that drive Greenland’s warming and cooling is supported by all observable evidence. Greenland lost ice in the 1930s then gained ice in the 1970s and 80s. Although Greenland’s ice has been melting extensively in recent decades, that melt rate is now slowing and the shifting NAO suggests the ice will rebound. In contrast, the competing CO2-global warming theory suggests as CO2 continues to rise, Greenland’s ice will increasingly melt and dramatically raise sea levels. That theory has prompted calls to abandon our coastlines and invest in managed retreat. But before you panic, know your climate history and listen to the science. All the science!
Published in Battle Born Media newspapers 10-13-2020
Jim Steele is retired director of the Sierra Nevada Field Campus, SFSU
and authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism
Contact: naturalclimatechange@earthlink.net
Jim, I wonder whether there is a relationship between the AMO and NAO. It seems to me that the AMO is the more dominate cycle explaining changes in Greenland, Iceland and Artic ice. The unadjusted US temperature certainly displays and AMO cycle. I just not familiar with the research looking at the relationship. It looks to me that the AMO is slowly but surely headed to a cold phase. Combined with a weak sun and dropping magnetic field, we could be in for interesting times.
Nelson, I believe the research shows the NAO and AMO are related. The NAO measures changes in atmospheric pressure while the AMO measures changes in ocean surface temperatures. The NAO has been shown to change the ocean currents which would affect the AMO. I agree that the AMO is headed to the cool phase and the northward flow of warm Atlantic water is decreasing. Having studied these natural oscillations and flow of arm water I have predicted Arctic sea ice will begin rebounding by 1930. The only wild card is how much the heat stored between 100 and 900 meters in the Arctic ocean gets brought to the surface as iceless seas allow the winds to stir the water and inhibits sea ice formations by the the lack sea ice
The real point here is that glaciers now recede much more quickly than they did 2 decades or even a decade ago, that the sea ice is declining even faster, that temperatures across the arctic have set new records not only in the last decade, but in the last few years.
This is not some slow and continued progression since 1850 – this is an acute, increasing change, seen more as we get closer to the present.
This is arctic sea ice extent over a month since minimum – lower than minimums in the 80s and 90s.

The real point here is that alarmist climatology is in fundamental and entrenched denial of the existence and reality of natural climate changes and oscillations. In double-speak they pretend to acknowledge it while at the same time dismissing it as long term, slow, small and insignificant. It is not long term or slow or insignificant. It occurs on all spatial and temporal scales according to fractality as is inevitable from th enonlinear dynamics that generate it. The modern record of polar ice is far too short to conclude anything of substance whatsoever on secular climate trends if they exist at all. Climatology clings absurdly to the myth of Edenic stasis as a null hypothesis. Thought for the day: climate change is the null hypothesis.
There are phases, Griff. The ice and the surface temperature are offset by a time delay. The warming during the 80s and early 90s produced very little melting, then in the late 90s and early 2000s temperature didn’t change much yet ice melted at high speed. Late 2000s and 2010s saw an ice stabilization and the resume of the warming. Now we are back to the opposite situation, temperatures are slowly decreasing yet ice melting accelerates.
Being an alarmist you can always change focus to what is changing faster to claim its unprecedented. The reality is that climate changes slowly even now. We are just measuring the changes with greater than ever precision and at places we never measured before. That is what is unprecedented.
WRONG AGAIN, griff
Most glaciers were receding quicker from 1920-1940
They slowed through the 1970s, of course, because that was a colder period.
Current Greenland area is just a tiny bit down from the EXTREME HIGHS of the Little Ice Age
And the temperature in Greenland is just a small bump out of the coldest period in 10,000 years
This is all NATURAL, and you have never been able to produce one single piece of evidence otherwise.
Sea ice isn’t declining griff. Arctic sea ice decline started bottoming out in 2007 and the Antarctic sea ice is as robust as ever.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
NoTricksZone has discussed a published proxy review which embarrasingly shows practically no ocean warming in the last two centuries:
https://notrickszone.com/2020/10/12/unheralded-global-ocean-2000-year-temperature-reconstruction-reveals-embarrassingly-small-modern-changes/
It also confirms that the oceans were much warmer at the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago (that’s why it’s called the optimum!).
They key paper – McGregor et al 2015 – is behind a paywall but the NTZ post includes the important figures that include significant recent cooling in parts of both the Atlantic and Pacific:
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2510
Absence of recent warming in this review of all (quality controlled) ocean proxies puts the JoshWillisised Argo data in an uncomfortable light – makes it look like a children’s story book by Josh Willis.
BTW the main evidence of both Greenland and Antarctic ice loss is the “GRACE” satellite gravity based estimates. This data is somewhat on its own and very suspect. Where alternative measurements are available (e.g. in Iceland) GRACE data fare poorly in comparison:
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/209/1/226/2893456
Note that what happens at the base of ice sheets is about geology and nothing about climate. Climate is about the surface. In Antarctica the focus is all on the Western Peninsula ice which happens to sit on a string of active volcanoes. The main eastern part of Antarctica is cooling. The entire southern ocean is cooling. The polar warming desperate fantasy will before long collapse spectacularly like one of the calving ice cliffs. It is likely that Antarctica is already – for some time – leading the climate into glacial inception, as it always does, even as the likes of Loydo and Griff prophecy warming doom for political gain.
Apart from its inherent and known measurement issues, GRACE is trying to measure ice mass by gravity over a rather active volcanic magma sack.
All you can really say ….. D’OH !….. as Homer or Loy is wont to do.
A WW2-era plane that was forced to land on Greenland ice sheet in 1942 was discovered a couple years ago under more than 300 feet of ice. What does this tell us about the state of the surface mass balance over the past 80 years? It appears to be pretty strong anecdotal evidence, at least, of substantial growth.
A WW2-era plane that was forced to land on Greenland ice sheet in 1942 was discovered a couple years ago under more than 300 feet of ice. What does this tell us about the state of the surface mass balance over the past 80 years? It appears to be pretty strong anecdotal evidence, at least, of substantial growth.
We hear a lot about warmer north Atlantic waters warming the artic but what if now the cooler Arctic waters are cooling the north Atlantic.
https://apps.ecmwf.int/webapps/opencharts/products/w_sst?area=North%20Atlantic&base_time=202010150000&level=sst&valid_time=202010300000
The consensus of IPCC circulation models is that rising CO2 forcing increases positive NAO conditions, which is associated with a cooler AMO as well a cooler Greenland.
https://archive.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
The coldest periods in Western Europe are typically during centennial solar minima, due to increased negative NAO conditions, so naturally the AMO and Greenland are warmer then.
How come all of this little ice age, glaciation, moraines, etc. stuff seems to happen in the NH and hardly worth a mention in the SH?