UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
The Arctic Ocean has been getting warmer since the beginning of the 20th century – decades earlier than records suggest – due to warmer water flowing into the delicate polar ecosystem from the Atlantic Ocean.
An international group of researchers reconstructed the recent history of ocean warming at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean in a region called the Fram Strait, between Greenland and Svalbard.
Using the chemical signatures found in marine microorganisms, the researchers found that the Arctic Ocean began warming rapidly at the beginning of the last century as warmer and saltier waters flowed in from the Atlantic – a phenomenon called Atlantification – and that this change likely preceeded the warming documented by modern instrumental measurements. Since 1900, the ocean temperature has risen by approximately 2 degrees Celsius, while sea ice has retreated and salinity has increased.
The results, reported in the journal Science Advances, provide the first historical perspective on Atlantification of the Arctic Ocean and reveal a connection with the North Atlantic that is much stronger than previously thought. The connection is capable of shaping Arctic climate variability, which could have important implications for sea-ice retreat and global sea level rise as the polar ice sheets continue to melt.
All of the world’s oceans are warming due to climate change, but the Arctic Ocean, the smallest and shallowest of the world’s oceans, is warming fastest of all.
“The rate of warming in the Arctic is more than double the global average, due to feedback mechanisms,” said co-lead author Dr Francesco Muschitiello from Cambridge’s Department of Geography. “Based on satellite measurements, we know that the Arctic Ocean has been steadily warming, in particular over the past 20 years, but we wanted to place the recent warming into a longer context.”
Atlantification is one of the causes of warming in the Arctic, however instrumental records capable of monitoring this process, such as satellites, only go back about 40 years.
As the Arctic Ocean gets warmer, it causes the ice in the polar region to melt, which in turn affects global sea levels. As the ice melts, it exposes more of the ocean’s surface to the sun, releasing heat and raising air temperatures. As the Arctic continues to warm, it will melt the permafrost, which stores huge amounts of methane, a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
The researchers used geochemical and ecological data from ocean sediments to reconstruct the change in water column properties over the past 800 years. They precisely dated sediments using a combination of methods and looked for diagnostic signs of Atlantification, like change in temperature and salinity.
“When we looked at the whole 800-year timescale, our temperature and salinity records look pretty constant,” said co-lead author Dr Tesi Tommaso from the Institute of Polar Sciences of the National Research Council in Bologna. “But all of a sudden at the start of the 20th century, you get this marked change in temperature and salinity – it really sticks out.”
“The reason for this rapid Atlantification of at the gate of the Arctic Ocean is intriguing,” said Muschitiello. “We compared our results with the ocean circulation at lower latitudes and found there is a strong correlation with the slowdown of dense water formation in the Labrador Sea. In a future warming scenario, the deep circulation in this subpolar region is expected to further decrease because of the thawing of the Greenland ice sheet. Our results imply that we might expect further Arctic Atlantification in the future because of climate change.”
The researchers say that their results also expose a possible flaw in climate models, because they do not reproduce this early Atlantification at the beginning of the last century.
“Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving Atlantification,” said Tommaso. “We rely on these simulations to project future climate change, but the lack of any signs of an early warming in the Arctic Ocean is a missing piece of the puzzle.”
Francesco Muschitiello is a Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, Cambridge.
METHOD OF RESEARCH
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Rapid Atlantification along the Fram Strait at the beginning of the 20th century
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
This evidence indicates we have passed Peak Holocene, more than 5000 years ago.
We are still recovering from the Little Ice Age.
Holocene has been colder than past interglacial periods.
The last 2 million years has been the coldest in our 34 million year, icehouse climate.
We are far closer to a snowball earth than a greenhouse global climate.
And far closer to the end of life on Earth at below 200ppm CO2 rather than the safe top end of 10,000 ppm plus.
“We had no evidence to support our earlier position, so when we examined real evidence,our opinions changed”?
That’s fine. That’s a hypothesis. That’s science. The problem is that hey doubled, tripled, etc. in progress down and bitterly cling to their original handmade tale.
No, early warming of the Arctic is inconvenient for CCC so it was not research was not encouraged.
“But all of a sudden at the start of the 20th century, you get this marked change in temperature and salinity – it really sticks out.”
Therefore, it is not caused by CO2 and it is not anthropogenic !
There are centenary solar cycles (the last started in the early 1900s)
and ocean circulation millennial cycles, when peaks coincide there is warming and vice versa. It is natural variability which is not fully understood outside the time range of 12 months. On that score we have not made much advance since the time of the ancient Mesopotamians.
It’s more likely due to warming post LIA – the timeline is interesting and doesn’t seem to fit with either the LIA cooling or the modern warming.
The U.S. regional chart shows warming from 1910 to 1940 that was equivalent to the warming from 1980 to the present day. So not only was the arctic water temperatures climbing higher, so was the atmospheric temperatures.
The atmospheric temperatures climbed about 2.0C during these periods, according to the U.S. chart.
The U.S. regional chart, Hansen 1999:
The U.S. regional chart is on the left on the webpage.
The reference is 1999 Hansen using 1990s data. His predictions of increasing droughts, floods, storms, and accelerated CONUS warming have not eventuated after 20+ years. The late 20th Century through early 21st Century warming has been much less than that predicted by the UN IPCC CliSciFi models.
David Dilley has highlighted Atlantification in his research. There are approx 20 year super pulses ( he notes 78/98/2019 ) and the US regional chart fits snugly with that. He states no more super pulses for 60 years. Funny how we have now seen a rapid ice recovery going on this year in the Arctic….and it is impressive.
h/t Gavin Kenny
Tom- It shouldn’t really be a surprise that the Arctic has
been melting since 1900 & probably even before then.
In 2010, Phil Jones told BBC’s Roger Harrabin that the
global temperature record used by the IPCC showed the rates of global warming from 1860-1880,
1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were statistically identical.
While the last two usually are used in the CO2
debates, it’s the first one from 1860-1880 that’s most
often overlooked & forgotten. Many temperature graphs
only go back to 1880 or even to the 1940s to hide the
evidence of the first two warming periods. (Since the
interview was done shortly after Climategate, the “big
reveal” was probably done to show his “honesty”. He
then used weasel words after that to re-establish the
Phil’s CRU graph is from:
Another temperature graph to 1850 that often gets
truncated before then is from:
Very nice! Thanks for the charts. Just what I was looking for.
If you look at these charts, both of them show that the 1880’s and the 1930’s are on the same horizontal line on the chart. In other words, both were equally warm.
What this demonstrates to me is that 1880, 1930, 1998, and 2016 ALL belong on that same horizontal line on the chart because they are all equally warm, since the Hansen 1999 chart shows the 1930’s to be as warm or warmer than today, and that means the 1880’s were as warm as today, also.
This demonstrates that there is no unprecedented warming today. This blows up the Human-caused Climate change meme.
I saw a NASA bar chart a month or two ago on WUWT that showed the same thing but have been unable to find it, but now I can just use the chart you provided. 🙂
I think the Data Mannipulators overlooked the 1880’s. They figured if they artificially cooled the 1930’s this would also cool the 1880’s, which it did, so showing them at the same magnitude of warmth would not make a difference to their narrative that we are currently living in the hottest times in human history.
But it makes a big difference to my narrative.
“….20th Century….really sticks out….” ….sticks out compared to what ? Always compared to before thermometers and hydrometers had sufficient accuracy to be called scientific instruments circa 1850….proxy p-miners is all they are….
Everything was flat for 700 years… it’s the new hockey stick!
20th century sticks out -for having some data that is worth looking at. Everything before that is guesstimated, approximated, proxy or a total fabrication ala Mikey Mann’s treemomters.
Why don’t they ever study old newspapers , where they can read the reports of the artic ice melting over a hundred years ago instead of doing proxy measurements.
Whenever this massive pile of data is presented to the “true believers“ that is when they dismiss all of the evidence entirely with the statement, “newspaper articles are just hearsay, they certainly don’t represent reality…“
Except for the simple fact that newspaper articles are DEFINITELY useful as evidence and they add serious value to various proxy measurements that might overlap, but again, anything that diminishes the constant NARRATIVE of the end of the world MUST be ignored… And in this case the important part of the narrative is that MODERN warmth is required to be ‘unprecedented’ – any warmth that is the same or more in the past cannot possibly be real since amount of carbon dioxide at the time was negligible… And this is just one historical fact amongst a huge data dump of other historical truths that pushes the narrative of human caused climate catastrophe into the realm of pseudoscience for me and anyone who has any awareness of climate history…
Newspapers ARE most definitely evidence … and no more “hearsay” than suggesting that contemporaneous scientific papers are hearsay. They are merely following basic Marxist indoctrination techniques by invalidating our history while planting the seeds of their own narrative. They’re even trying to rewrite the scientific method and ‘re-imagining’ the null hypothesis … effectively giving themselves permission to invent whatever absurdities they choose.
Letter by Sir Joseph Banks, strangely unavailable on the internet in the last couple of years, he was President of the Royal Society, written in 1817 to the Lords of the Admiralty, commenting on the fact that there was less ice than usual in the Arctic, appearing “much abated, suggesting a new source of warmth has occurred”. My limited research suggests the letter’s disappearance took place a couple of years back, but it could have been earlier!!!
Minutes of Council, vol8 pp149-153 Royal Society, London, 20th Nov 1817
President of the Royal Society to Admiralty 20th Nov 1817
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past.”
Indeed -and we know why there was less ice:
The Tambora eruption and human history (theecologist.org)
Right, every contrary indicator is a one-off, easily explained away. In that spirit, how do you explain the arctic warmth that appears, at least according to this study, to have begun circa 1900? Or, all the warmth, drought, and fires that occurred in the US West in the first four decades of the 20th century? I could go on…
“Gillen D’Arcy Wood is Director of Sustainability Studies Initiative in the Humanities, and Professor of English at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” Humanities and English with a mission to save the Earth: Great scientific credentials.
In response to which the RN sent an expedition to Spitzbergen the next summer and found that the ice had returned to normal. The expedition reached Spitzbergen in June, only to be frozen into Magdalena Bay for a few weeks.
It’s just a good thing we are not all living in the 1930’s right now, because the Alarmists would be going nuts over all the disastrous weather events that would be occurring during this period.
If you read the newspapers of the past, today is a “walk in the park” compared to the extreme weather experienced worldwide in the 1930’s.
It really isn’t, just look at the last 6 months: 3 1 in 1,000 extreme rain events, 1 1 in 1,000 year heat event, new heat records in Sicily and Greece, many severe rain events, ‘Mediterranean hurricane’ in Sicily, many new record temperatures.
How may locations are there where one might measure an extreme rain event? Thousands of locations?
Griff, please provide a statistical analysis of how many 1-in-1,000 events should be expected around the globe in any given year. Until then, your numbers mean nothing.
Once again griff demonstrates that it doesn’t understand statistics, it absolutely refuses to learn about statistics when given the chance.
The fact that there were 3 1 in 1000 year events somewhere in the world in the past year is not at all unusual. In a world with millions of “places”, one would expect there to be thousands of 1 in 1000 year events every single year.
Nobody studies old newspapers and magazines and old science papers for old climate information better than Tony Heller: https://www.youtube.com/c/TonyHeller/videos
Yes, he cherry picks events and says because it happened once it disproves climate change – ignoring patterns and increased events in recent times.
Heller is not science or a reliable source – I remember even Anthony Watts ahs called him out on inaccuracies
Griff, please provide your data on “…patterns and increased events in recent times.”
This is funny, coming from the guy who proclaims that every slightly warmer than normal event is proof of global warming.
When you cretins insist on calling every weather event “unprecedented” and conflate all weather with climate, the evidence Tony Heller provides is crucial to the narrative and his information is extremely reliable. If you think not … I invite you to refute it.
Nobody Cherry picks better the griff and his 31-1000 year events, griff you couldn’t be more clueless if you tried.
Without the slightest sense of the irony, Believers would examine these reports and conclude that the journalists of 1900 were biased because they wanted to conclude that the Earth was overheating.
Early 19th century melting/lack of ice was clearly traceable to the eruption of the Tambora volcano
The Tambora eruption and human history (theecologist.org)
“Gillen D’Arcy Wood is Director of Sustainability Studies Initiative in the Humanities, and Professor of English at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” Humanities and English with a mission to save the Earth: Great scientific credentials.
How dare you question the work of a self declared climate scientist. /sarc
Correlation is not causation, unless griff wants it to be.
The Little Ice Age was already coming to an end long before the Tambora eruption.
When I read the headline, I thought the article would be about how the CAGW conjecture does not match historical data. It seems that the meme of the story is just the opposite, and the failure to match the data is not even mentioned until the very end. I presume that’s in the hope that few will ever read that far.
That was my first thought as well. Oh joy, finally a paper lending weight to the null hypothesis … that natural forces and events were the primary cause of Arctic warming, just as they are for all other indicators of “climate change”. Human causation is just one of many immeasurable influences on climate.
“When I read the headline, I thought the article would be about how the CAGW conjecture does not match historical data. It seems that the meme of the story is just the opposite, and the failure to match the data is not even mentioned until the very end.”
Actually, it does match the data if we use unmodified, regional temperature charts as our guide instead of using the bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick charts.
The regional charts, from all over the world, show an increase of surface temperatures from about 1910 to 1940, which amounted to about a 2.0C increase in temperatures during that period, which equals the claimed 2.0C increase in ocean temperatures. So both the oceans and the atmosphere warmed during this time, and to the same degree, if we go by legitimate surface temperature charts.
While the study authors point out the inability of UN IPCC CliSciFi models to reflect actual warming, they still insist that they accurately predict future warming.
How can they say, with a straight face, that warm water in the Arctic ocean can melt (floating) ice and thereby raise the sea level?
The article didn’t say melting sea ice raises sea level. What it said was “As the Arctic Ocean gets warmer, it causes the ice in the polar region to melt, which in turn affects global sea levels. As the ice melts, it exposes more of the ocean’s surface to the sun, releasing heat and raising air temperatures. As the Arctic continues to warm, it will melt the permafrost, which stores huge amounts of methane, a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.” It is important to note that Tesi et al. 2021 makes no statements about sea level rise anyway. That was from the author of the article. Anyway, sea ice isn’t the issue with sea level rise. It is the ice on land that contributes to sea level rise when it melts. A warmer ocean is associated with warmer air temperatures which then enhances ice melt on land. A warmer ocean undermines ice shelves enhancing grounding line discharge losses. And as the article points out positive feedbacks cause more carbon to get released into the atmosphere causing yet more warming which in turn causes more land ice to melt causing yet more sea level rise.
If it melts! Taking into account the lapse rate, the interior of Greenland is too high and too cold to do much melting. That isn’t going to change much even if most of the ice at lower elevations were to melt. That is why simple linear extrapolations of melting rates are meaningless.
It’s not if or even when. It’s already melting. See Mouginot et al. 2019 for details.
Cumulative anomalies in SMB (blue), discharge (D, red), and mass (M, purple) in gigatons (gigaton = 10e12 kg) for the time period 1972–2018 for the seven regions of Greenland and the entire ice sheet component: (A) SW, (B) CW, (C) NW, (D) NO, (E) NE, (F) DE, (G) SE, and (H) GIS.
Please note the cherrypicked beginning date. What was going on before 1972? AMO, much?
I had said, “Taking into account the lapse rate, the interior of Greenland is too high and too cold to do much melting.”
Do your submitted graphs reflect the high interior or the low coastal areas?
It’s the total mass balance. A-G are regional. H is the entirety of Greenland. It includes the high interior and low coastal areas. It does not include sea ice.
Often claimed, never demonstrated.
Absorption band saturated by H2O.
That’s just one of a long list of false assumptions promulgated by AGW true believers. Atmospheric chemistry simply won’t allow large concentrations of methane to exist. Furthermore the Summer melting period doesn’t come close to melting the vast bulk of permafrost
If you can’t distinguish between the release of “carbon” and CO2 into the atmosphere you shouldn’t even be commenting on anything about climate.
“…it will melt the permafrost…”.
1). the permafrost line has moved from the US/Can border to the Arctic circle over the last 80 centuries with beneficial effect to mankind, wildlife, you-name-it as far as we can tell…
2). the Boreal Forest replaced the once-glaciated areas after the permafrost melted and sequestered more CO2 than was emitted by the frozen soil and glacial till.
3). where permafrost emits CH4 as it thaws, it is mostly due to vegetative matter decay. The trapped vegetative matter was mostly a result of the previous warm climate in that same area.
4). the presence of “soil” in permafrost conditions should indicates that the permafrost has come and gone previously, or that glaciers deposited dirt in the area.
5). most permafrost land is rocky or gravelly and emits less methane than your driveway.
Thank you for the list. I was aware of those things. However, I believe the true believers are referring to a rapid release of CH4 due to AGW.
CO2 is one of the molecular forms in which carbon can exist in the atmosphere. Are you challenging this?
However, CO2 is never referred to as “carbon”. CO2 is referred to as carbon dioxide. I’m challenging your misuse of a specific term … a grade school error. There is “carbon” in the atmosphere, known as soot.
Rory Forbes said: “However, CO2 is never referred to as “carbon””
I never said it was. Something isn’t clicking here. Let me see if I can explain it this way. There is 880 GtC (that is gigatons of carbon) in the atmosphere and 3200 GtCO2 (this gigatons of carbon dioxide). Most of the carbon in the atmosphere is locked up in the CO2 molecule via a covalent bond. Just because carbon can bond with molecular oxygen, with 4 hydrogen atoms etc. does not mean the carbon disappeared. It is still there. And note that I never referred to CO2 as being carbon. That was a strawman you and you alone created. What I said was “CO2 is one of the molecular forms in which carbon can exist in the atmosphere.” which is a factual statement no one except perhaps you and a few other WUWT participants challenges. So when you say “I’m challenging your misuse of a specific term” then you are challenging 1) that carbon is the atom with 12 protons and/or 2) that carbon can exist in molecular form and/or 3) you made an off-the-cuff post without really thinking about what I actually said.
Roy Forbes said: “There is “carbon” in the atmosphere, known as soot.”
Are you serious? Soot is the general term for a whole class of complex molecules all of which contain carbon but none of which are actually pure elemental carbon.
bdgwx said: “1) that carbon is the atom with 12 protons”
Fail. Carbon has 6 protons.
Isn’t that like calling the cat who ate the canary a bird? No! It’s still a cat!
No it’s not. The cat who the canary is still cat. But the cat is now a carrier of a canary. It’s the same with CO2, CH4 etc. Those are still carbon dioxide, methane, etc. but they are also contain carbon.
When scientists say there is 880 GtC (gigatons of carbon) in the atmosphere they aren’t saying there is 880 gigatons of carbon dioxide (of which there is actually about 3200 GtCO2). Carbon dioxide is a carrier of carbon just in molecular form. Just because it is bonded with two oxygen atoms doesn’t mean that the carbon atom ceased to exist. It’s still there, still has mass, and still must be accounted for.
Irritating, isn’t it. The alarmists can’t even call something by its proper name. Real scientific.
Carbon is the proper name of the atom with 12 protons. What do you call it?
However “carbon” is not the proper name for a carbon and two oxygens. That is called carbon dioxide … quite a different thing.
Try to get it right in the future.
When two oxygen atoms are bonded with a carbon I scientists, and everyone else calls that molecule CO2 or carbon dioxide as well. But when I, scientists, and everyone else are tracking the mass flows of C we call it carbon regardless of what it is bonded to. I’ll repeat…when I, scientists and everyone else refer to carbon we talking about the atom with 12 protons regardless of whether it is elemental or in molecular form.
Is “carbon” a greenhouse gas? No, of course not. The entire discussion is about the effect of atmospheric gases on global temperatures. The issue is not about “the mass flow of carbon”.
What is important (which you’re trying to ignore): CO2 is a gas with a specific effect on light. Elemental carbon is not.
Nobody is saying carbon is a GHG. Nobody is ignoring CO2. These and others claims you’ve posted here are strawmen. I’m more than happy to help you tear them down. Just know that you and you alone created them.
That is exactly what you are doing. Carbon has never been the issue and the relative quantity in the atmosphere is unimportant. It’s the properties of CO2, as a minor GHG, of some small importance.
You are creating straw men in you own mind probably because of your rudimentary command of English.
I’ve never called carbon a GHG. Nor have I ignored CO2, CH4, or any other carbon based molecule.
A strawman is an claim that one party erroneously assigns to another and then presents reasons why the claim is wrong as a means of challenging the other claims that the other person really is making. The claim that carbon is a GHG (untrue) and that CO2 is carbon (untrue) are claims that you and you alone made. You made it to challenge the claim that carbon is released into the atmosphere (true).
Here is a summary of my position on the matter.
1) Carbon is the atom with 12 protons.
2) CO2 and CH4 are examples of molecules that contain carbon and allow the carbon atom to exist in molecular form.
3) Some, but not all, molecules that contain carbon also happen to be GHGs.
4) Carbon is released into the atmosphere.
If you want to challenge something I said then first make sure I actually said it. If you don’t challenge any of these 4 points then we both agree at least on those 4 points. Do you want to challenge any of these 4 points?
bdgwx said: “1) Carbon is the atom with 12 protons.”
Fail. Carbon has 6 protons.
We’ll, you might as well say oxygen gets you wet because it’s part of H2O. But it doesn’t, in the same way that carbon without the 02 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
You need to try much harder.
I wouldn’t nor have I ever said oxygen gets you wet because it’s part of H2O nor would I or have I ever called C a GHG because it’s part of CO2. That doesn’t change the fact that carbon can exist in molecular form when bonded with other atoms. It doesn’t have to bond with O2 to be part of a gas species that is a GHG. CH4 is an obvious example. It also doesn’t change the fact that carbon gets released into the atmosphere. Remember, just because carbon can exist in many forms does not in any way mean that it isn’t still carbon.
Methinks you doth protest too much!
Face it, you’re getting totally schooled on daftly refering to CO2 as Carbon and now you’re making a rather desperate attempt to backtrack.
Anyway, I need to stop typing now as I’m sat on some Carbon, sorry, I meant a bus, and I’m getting motion sick. I don’t want to be throwing up all over the terephthalate, sorry, I meant floor.
I’m not the one protesting here. And I never referred to CO2 as carbon. Now, I did make a mistake along way by referring to carbon as the atom with 12 protons. Carbon is the atom with an atomic mass of 12 and only 6 protons. That is an embarrassing mistake indeed, but one I will absolutely own. And I make no excuses for that remedial mistake. Let it be known that I will also admit when I’ve misspoken.
bdgwx said: “refer to carbon we talking about the atom with 12 protons”
Fail. Carbon has 6 protons.
bdgwx said: “Carbon is the proper name of the atom with 12 protons”
Fail. Carbon has 6 protons.
I’m talking about carbon dioxide.
Some people, not you in this case, conflate carbon and carbon dioxide as if they are one and the same.
I think that is a distortion of reality, and it should stop. If someone means carbon dioxide, they should say carbon dioxide. When they don’t, it irritates me and others, as you can see from the other comments.
Confusing lauguage does not help science.
Scientists talk about carbon because it occurs in many molecular forms and those molecular forms change. This is why it is called the “carbon cycle” and not the “carbon dioxide cycle”. It’s why accounting is done in GtC and not GtCO2. If scientists only discussed CO2 they would be criticized heavily (and rightly so) for ignoring all of the other forms in which carbon can exist. Carbon is the correct terminology for the carbon atom. It would be confusing and incorrect to refer to carbon as carbon dioxide.
If CO2 is supposed to be causing so much grief then the least they could do is learn the proper name for it. 🙂
More carbon gets released? I’m not a scientist, but I am sceptical.
It’s true. The paleoclimate record has many examples of net releases of carbon into the atmosphere including the PETM, other ETM events, and even the familiar glacial cycles of the Quaternary Period. There are countless periods in Earth’s past where the carbon mass in the atmosphere has gone up.
Why don’t you refer to it as “oxygen” being released into the atmosphere? After all, CO2 contains oxygen. Is it because “carbon” sounds much dirtier and scarier and fits the alarmist narrative?
Do you talk about filling your bath with “hydrogen” when you run yourself a bath? Do you refer to a meat pie as “flour”. Do you see how silly and unscientific you sound when you refer to CO2 as “carbon”?
Andrew Wilkins said: “Why don’t you refer to it as “oxygen” being released into the atmosphere?”
I would if we were talking about oxygen getting released into the atmosphere like what happened during the great oxidation event over 2 billion years ago, but that’s not what is being discussed. And remember that C combines with O2 during combustion so O2 isn’t actually getting released as part of the usage of fossil fuels.
Andrew Wilkins said: “After all, CO2 contains oxygen.”
Sure. But don’t forget about CFCs, HCFCs, CF4, CH3CCl3, CCl4, CH4, etc. none of which have oxygen but all of which have carbon and all of which are GHGs. .
Andrew Wilkins said: “Do you talk about filling your bath with “hydrogen” when you run yourself a bath?”
No. I say it is filling with water.
Andrew Wilkins said: “Do you refer to a meat pie as “flour””
No. To be honest though I don’t know what a “meat pie” is.
Andrew Wilkins said: “Do you see how silly and unscientific you sound when you refer to CO2 as “carbon”?”
First…I’m not referring to CO2 as carbon. I refer to it as carbon dioxide or CO2.
Second…when I say “carbon” I’m referring to all molecular forms in which the atom with 12 protons exists in the atmosphere, hydrosphere, and any other reservoir in which it can be found.
Third…this is not silly nor is it unscientific. All of the literature regarding the atom with 12 protons and any molecules containing it refer to it as carbon. And the mass accounting for the carbon cycle is done in units of gigatons of carbon (GtC).
That’s why you’re being corrected. “Carbon” is not being released into the atmosphere nor is it a euphemism for all kinds of organic compounds, as you describe. You’re talking nonsense.
Carbon is a chemical element. CO2 is a chemical compound.
Rory Forbes said: “That’s why you’re being corrected. “Carbon” is not being released into the atmosphere”
Patently False. About 220 GtC is released into the atmosphere every year. And the net transfer since 1850 is about 650 GtC nearly 100% of that is from humans. See Friedlingstein et al. 2020 for details.
Rory Forbes said: “Carbon is a chemical element. CO2 is a chemical compound.”
I don’t mean any offense by this, but duh. Note that CO2 like CH4, CCl4, etc. contain carbon. Those molecules are forms in which the carbon exists in the atmosphere. You can’t ignore them because they are real.
I understand your problem. You failed English. Now you’re either intentionally missing the point or you’re just plain obtuse.
Carbon is not a greenhouse gas or a gas of any kind. CO2 is a gas. See the difference?
I don’t mean to offend, but duh … all organic compounds contain carbon. However we don’t refer to them all as ‘carbon’.
So you’re saying that humans have been the only source of atmospheric CO2 since 1850 … LOL interesting thought.
Seriously? The one who calls soot carbon is lecturing me on the difference between carbon and a GHG? Note, that I never said carbon was a GHG nor have I ever called CO2 carbon. I also never said organic compounds were carbon or referred to them as carbon. That was you. What I said was that carbon gets released into the atmosphere and that it exists in several forms including CO2 and other carbon containing molecules that also happen to be GHGs. That doesn’t mean CO2 is carbon or that GHGs are carbon.
And no. I’m not saying that humans are the only source of atmospheric CO2 since 1850. In fact, I said the opposite. I said 220 GtC gets released in the atmosphere every year. And you probably noticed from the Friedlingstein et al. 2020 publication that 210 GtC of that is from ocean and land sources.
Here is some advice and I mean this with all due respect. Instead of trying to imply that the atom with 12 protons isn’t carbon, or that it stops being carbon when in molecular form, or that molecules containing carbon cannot also be GHGs, or the various other strange challenges you are presenting here ask questions instead. I certainly won’t have all of the answers, but we can learn together if you’re willing.
You’re getting more and more confused. This would be so much easier if you could read basic English. I can see you’re struggling.
Soot – a black powdery or flaky substance consisting largely of amorphous carbon, produced by the incomplete burning of organic matter.
Nope, I never said such a thing. I said: “all organic compounds contain carbon. However we don’t refer to them all as ‘carbon’.” See the difference?
No, you didn’t day that at all. You only think you did, but even that is wrong. The important aspect of CO2, in the present context, is that it is a minor GHG, not that it contains carbon. Water vapour is the only GHG of any hypothetical importance to the greenhouse effect.
You said: “the net transfer since 1850 is about 650 GtC nearly 100% of that is from humans.”
Here is some advice … learn to read. I did not say, “the atom with 12 protons isn’t carbon, or that it stops being carbon when in molecular form, or that molecules containing carbon cannot also be GHGs”. If that’s what you read, you need help with your reading.
Bottom line … you need to learn the basics before you try instructing anyone on a subject. It isn’t the carbon in CO2 that gives it importance, in the context atmospheric warming. The carbon is only important in the context of photosynthesis. Whenever the greenhouse effect is discussed, CO2 is used, not carbon.
Rory Forbes said: “Soot – a black powdery or flaky substance consisting largely of amorphous carbon, produced by the incomplete burning of organic matter.”
Exactly. It contains carbon, but it is not carbon. CO2 and CH4 are other examples of substances that contain carbon, but are not carbon. All of these are forms in which carbon can be released into the atmosphere.
Rory Forbes said: “Nope, I never said such a thing”
You said soot was carbon. Not only is soot a byproduct of the combustion of organic compounds but it many cases it is itself an organic compound because it is a hydrocarbon.
Rory Forbes said: “No, you didn’t day that at all.” in reference to what I said “What I said was that carbon gets released into the atmosphere.”
I’ll remind you of what I said here.
Rory Forbes said: “You only think you did, but even that is wrong.”
I stand by what I said. Carbon gets released into the atmosphere. Not even the most misguided contrarians challenge this. You are the first person I’ve come across that has done so. Though I suspect you don’t actually challenge this. You’re just making off-the-cuff statements without giving those statements much thought. Do you really want to maintain your position that carbon does not get released into the atmosphere? What kind of evidence can I present that would convince you?
Rory Robes said: ” I did not say, “the atom with 12 protons isn’t carbon, or that it stops being carbon when in molecular form, or that molecules containing carbon cannot also be GHGs”
Great! Then is it safe to say that we both agree that 1) the atom with 12 protons is carbon, 2) that CO2, CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, etc. are molecules in which carbon can exist in molecular form, 3) that if you want to estimate how much carbon is in the atmosphere you must consider not only carbon in elemental form (negligible) AND the carbon that exists in molecular form, and 4) that carbon gets released into the atmosphere via many different processes and in many different forms?
And yet, “Soot – a black powdery or flaky substance consisting largely of amorphous carbon, produced by the incomplete burning of organic matter.” In other words you’re agreeing that soot is carbon. What you described earlier is called ash.
Of course you did and every time you repeat it, you’re wrong. Your comment is like saying aluminum is released into the atmosphere every time an airplane takes off. The fact that CO2 contains carbon has no bearing on its effectiveness as a GHG. Water is a GHG; many times more abundant than all the other GHGs combined.
Why would I want to maintain anything else when I’m right? As I said earlier, your claim is like saying that aluminum is released into the atmosphere every time an airplane takes off.
Show me any scientific source where carbon is described as the “the atom with 12 protons”. It only has 6 protons, giving it the atomic number 6?
“Carbon occurs naturally as three isotopes: carbon 12, which has 6 neutrons (plus 6 protons equals 12), carbon 13, which has 7 neutrons, and carbon 14, which has 8 neutrons” (google)
Why would anyone want to do that? The only issue is how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and what, if any, harmful effects it’s causing?
No, actually it doesn’t; any more than carbon has 12 protons. It has 6 protons and between 6 and 8 neutrons, depending on the isotope. You can’t seem to help offering wrong information.
You’re one very confused dude. “Rory Robes” had no part in this discussion … and Magnesium is the “atom with 12 protons”, in case you were interested.
Soot is (CxH)n where x is between 1 and 3 depending on the source.
The point is, soot is the nearest thing to carbon we’re emitting. The planet emits ~96-97% of the CO2 and man emits the rest.
Rory Forbes said: “In other words you’re agreeing that soot is carbon.”
No I’m not. I’m saying soot contains carbon plus a other stuff. It’s the same with CO2 and CH4. They contain carbon, but they aren’t carbon themselves.
Rory Forbes said: “Of course you did and every time you repeat it, you’re wrong.”
You don’t think carbon as it exists in any form (soot, CO2, CH4, etc.) gets released into the atmosphere? Really? How can I convince you otherwise?
Rory Forbes said: “The fact that CO2 contains carbon has no bearing on its effectiveness as a GHG.”
Yes it does. First…diatomic molecules are not effective GHGs. It takes molecules with 3 or more atoms to be effective GHGs. Second…the composition of the molecule matters in terms of that specific molecules effectiveness as a GHG for reasons that are extremely complicated. That is a molecular physics and quantum mechanics discussion though.
Rory Forbes said: “Show me any scientific source where carbon is described as the “the atom with 12 protons”. It only has 6 protons, giving it the atomic number 6?”
+1 and yikes. You are absolutely correct. When I say “the atom with 12 protons is carbon” I should have been saying “the atom with 6 protons is carbon” or “the atom with an atomic mass of 12 is carbon”. That is an embarrassing mistake which I will absolutely own. I definitely agree…carbon is the atom with 6 protons; not 12.
Rory Forbes said: “Why would anyone want to do that? The only issue is how much CO2 is in the atmosphere and what, if any, harmful effects it’s causing?”
We track carbon because it changes forms when moving in and out of the atmosphere. For example, it gets taken up by the ocean as dissolved inorganic compounds. It’s not always in the form of CO2. Furthermore, the issue is not just with CO2. There are many other carbon based molecules that scientists consider. CFCs, for example, are both ozone depleting and potent GHGs.
Either your English is degenerating rapidly or you’re being disingenuous. I never said anything like that. I said that there are no human carbon emissions except soot. Your English skills are not up to the task of playing with words. You barely get the simple bits right. If one says ‘carbon is emitted’ it does not mean all compounds containing carbon.
The point is; carbon isn’t of itself necessary in a GHG. H2O, SO4, O3 and N2O are all GHGs with many times more effect than all the carbon containing compounds combined. In fact, carbon is just a minor player, yet it’s all you talk about.
You still can’t get it right, even when I instruct you. First, there is no point in calling carbon “the atom with 6 protons”, it’s pedantic at best. Second, the atomic mass of carbon is not 12, because it has 3 isotopes. Carbon-13 (13C) has a mass of 13 amu and carbon 14 has a mass of 14 amu. Therefore the mas of carbon is approx. 12.011 amu, but so what in the context of GHGs.
Your whole last paragraph is irrelevant to the subject and more gratuitous word salad. You really have nothing to contribute here but your ignorance. In other words, using carbon as a place keeper for all GHGs has absolutely no validity. It is used that way to distort the truth and seem scary.
Rory Forbes said: “ I said that there are no human carbon emissions except soot.”
That’s not right. Humans emit carbon in many forms including soot, CH4, CO2, CFCs, and HCFCs. All of these molecules are carriers of carbon and all of them are emitted by humans. Note that the article is not talking about the carbon emissions from humans though. They are talking about the carbon (primarily in methane form) from permafrost.
Rory Forbes said: “If one says ‘carbon is emitted’ it does not mean all compounds containing carbon.”
Yes it does. I think this is another case where you are making off-the-cuff statements just to be argumentative without really thinking about what you are saying. I say that because just above you accept that one form of carbon humans emit is soot which are complex hydrocarbons. It isn’t pure carbon, but it contains carbon.
Rory Forbes said: “In fact, carbon is just a minor player, yet it’s all you talk about.”
The GWP for SO4 is an aerosol that has a negative value, O3 is about 1000, and N20 is about 250. CO2 is 1 and CH4 is 28, but CFCs, HFCs, HCFCs, etc. exceed 10,000 in many cases. Carbon based molecules are an important consideration.
Rory Forbes said: “In other words, using carbon as a place keeper for all GHGs has absolutely no validity.”
I’m not using it as a place holder for all GHGs. I’m using it to refer to carbon in any form that it may exist in the climate system whether it be GHGs, aqueous carbon dioxide, dissolved inorganic compounds, etc. And note that when I say carbon is released in the atmosphere I’m not singling out any specific form nor am I ignoring any specific form though in this context the primary focus is naturally released methane.
I stand by my statement that carbon is released into the atmosphere whether you accept that fact or not.
Wrong again, that is not how English convention works. Each of those compounds have specific names and are not referred to collectively as carbon in any language. Just because airplanes contain aluminum does not mean we’re emitting aluminum into the atmosphere.
The permafrost is not emitting carbon either. Carbon is a harmless inert element. Methane is a naturally occurring flammable hydrocarbon … greatly limited by our O2 rich atmosphere.
Carbon based molecules are a very minor part of the greenhouse effect. Most are already fully saturated and have no measurable effect.
You can stand on your head for all I care, but your bad English clearly prevents you from understanding naming convention. It really doesn’t matter how much carbon is held in the mixture of gases we call air. Water vapour dominates the GHE,
This entire discussion is a great example of the need for precision in language. When you get sloppy in language, you get sloppy in thought.
But the Left doesn’t want precision. They want scary. They want ambiguous so they can imply scary. “Climate change” is intentionally ambiguous.
Exactly right, Rory. Precision provides clarity. Ambiguity makes it easier to keep people scared.
bdgwx said: “Instead of trying to imply that the atom with 12 protons isn’t carbon.”
Fail. Carbon has 6 protons.
Real scientists in such circumstances do elemental balances,
e.g. dC/dt= fn(CO2, CH4….) GtC/yr
dO/dt= fn(O2, CO2, H2O….) GtO/yr
“Real scientists in such circumstances” use all sorts of methods the clearest method available being the best. Yours wasn’t that.
Yes, which is why they do a cycle expressed in terms of GtC/yr.
NASA needs to stick with what it knows best … rocket science. Climate is obviously well beyond their abilities and understanding. Furthermore they can’t be trusted with data … too many cheats, liars and misfits on the payroll.
“That’s why you’re being corrected. “Carbon” is not being released into the atmosphere “
Of course it is.
And it’s pedantic to say otherwise – as you say yourself – it cant be as an element, only as a molecule.
It’s the C bit that’s important as that is the increasing atmospheric constituent (as an atom).
The O2 bit was there anyway and combined with the O2 in burning/respiration or with H2 under decay in anoxic environments.
I said nothing of the sort. Carbon can be released in the form of soot.
But the “C bit” is unimportant until it is combined with O2. Only then is it providing us with the great benefits. We should be grateful of the increase.
If you’re that confused about simple concepts, little wonder you believe the AGW fraud that relies solely on logical fallacies and bad science to spread the propaganda.
Whoops! It appears I’ve touched a nerve.
Anyway, I must go and find my umbrella before I go home as there appears to be lot of oxygen, sorry, hydrogen, oh, hang on a minute, water raining outside.
I can’t wait to get home as my wife’s cooking a lovely plate of starch glycoalkaloids, casein, and protein. Sorry, I meant spaghetti Bolognese.
Of you don’t know what a meat pie is your knowledge of food must be fairly limited.
Serious question…if “carbon” is offensive to you then what do you propose calling what scientists refer to as the “carbon cycle” and how would you describe the flow of mass between reservoirs represented by the atom with 12 protons?
“carbon” isn’t offensive to me in any way. It just amuses me to see thermageddonists getting their nickers in a twist when someone calls them out on their silly attempts to make CO2 sound dirty and
nasty by renaming it as carbon.
CO2 is plant food. It’s great. And so is carbon. There ya go.
I don’t think neither carbon dioxide nor carbon are dirty. And I never referred to CO2 as carbon.
Should be — I don’t think either carbon dioxide or carbon are dirty.
By referring to carbon, instead of carbon dioxide, the beneficial compound necessary to life, you are suggesting humans are producing something harmful.
That CO2 contains carbon is of no relevance to the greenhouse effect.
Humans are producing harmful things. Aerosols and soot are among them both of which contain carbon. That doesn’t mean I think I carbon itself is harmful. And I never said CO2 isn’t beneficial for life.
The carbon in CO2 is essential in turning O2 into a greenhouse gas. O2 by itself is not active in the IR spectrum but when C is bonded to it is owing to the additional vibration modes for the molecule one of which is active near 15 um which also happens to be close to the peak of terrestrial radiation.
However, the fact they might contain carbon is irrelevant. If you don’t think carbon is harmful, why do you gratuitously insist on mentioning it in place of CO2?
What an absurdly gratuitous and misleading statement, considering that water vapour has no carbon and dwarfs CO2s minor but beneficial contribution as a GHG.
As is water vapour, saturating the minor contribution of CO2. In other words, CO2’s contribution as a GHG is no longer of any consequence.
Rory Forbes said: “If you don’t think carbon is harmful, why do you gratuitously insist on mentioning it in place of CO2?”
Because CO2 isn’t the only form in which carbon can be emitted by Arctic warming. It isn’t even the primary form. Methane from permafrost is the primary focus. And I’m intentionally using the word “carbon” here so that people don’t call me out for ignoring one of the molecular forms.
Rory Forbes said: “In other words, CO2’s contribution as a GHG is no longer of any consequence.”
3.7 W/m2 per 2xCO2 isn’t negligible.
So what? That isn’t a reason. Calling it carbon rather that the proper name is disingenuous and wrong.
Only to ignoramuses and AGW true believers (but I repeat myself). Methane can only remain in our O2 rich atmosphere in very trace amounts because It quickly turns to CO2 and water.
You’re intentionally being obtuse, as usual.
That is an unsupportable assumption. CO2 is fully saturated, as described earlier.
There is no valid reason to be discussing the “carbon” content of the atmosphere, so “carbon footprint” is a meaningless measurement intended to cause fear of the most beneficial trace gas on the planet.
He’s finally outed himself as a True Believer in the Church of the IPCC, going so far as using and defending the Standard Jargon.
As you already know, standard operating procedure for Marxists is to attack the language in concert with attacking all the moral and ethical institutions. It’s more important to dominate the narrative by altering the vocabulary than openly teaching the ideology. Teaching the ideology is easy once they control the language.
Rory Forbes said: “Calling it carbon rather that the proper name is disingenuous and wrong.”
Carbon is it’s proper name. What do you call the atom with 6 protons? Fill in the blank…there is 830 gigatons of ______ in the atmosphere.
Rory Forbes said: “Only to ignoramuses and AGW true believers (but I repeat myself).”
It’s true for everyone. There is a lot of methane locked up in the permafrost that gets released when it melts.
Rory Forbes said: “Methane can only remain in our O2 rich atmosphere in very trace amounts because It quickly turns to CO2 and water.”
Right. So you agree that not only can carbon exist in different molecular forms, but that it gets converted from one form to another via common processes in the geosphere and that there is such a thing as the carbon cycle?
Rory Forbes said: “You’re intentionally being obtuse, as usual.”
No. I’m doing this because one time I said CO2 gets released in the atmosphere I got called out (perhaps rightfully so) because everyone thought I was ignoring all of the other forms in which carbon can exist and gets released into the atmosphere.
Rory Forbes said: “That is an unsupportable assumption.”
Myhre 1998. And that’s only the tip of the iceberg and happens to be on the middle to lower end of estimates of CO2’s radiative forcing that are still consistent with the abundance of evidence.
Rory Forbes said: “CO2 is fully saturated, as described earlier.”
No it’s not. And I’d be happy to discuss this with you, but let’s first agree that CO2 (a carbon containing molecule) gets released into the atmosphere in the first place.
As explained, ad nauseam, carbon is not the “proper name” for any compound containing it. Each of these compounds already have proper names. Go change your own language and leave mine alone. I had to instruct you that carbon didn’t have 12 protons, then instruct you that its mass isn’t 12 either… now you’re an expert? … LOL.
If methane was a problem it would have manifested itself during the Holocene Thermal Optimum and the several subsequent warm periods since then. Go take your pseudo science elsewhere, we don’t do stupid here.
How quickly you forget, it was only a few hours ago I had to instruct you on carbon, its atomic number and its isotopes. Quit pretending you know anything. And quit trying to make straw men. You’re an ignoramus.
No one ever “called you out” for stating the obvious … that CO2 is released into the atmosphere. And I can assure you that no one here gives a damn that other carbon containing compounds are also being released.
There is no evidence supporting the conjecture that anthropogenic CO2 is causing any warming at all. It’s all based on guesswork and bad (or fraudulent) science. There have been nearly 40 years of failed projections based on the AGW conjecture.
You’re wrong again. The science suggests near complete saturation of CO2.
Rory Forbes: “Go change your own language and leave mine alone.”
No problem. The least you can do is tell what language you prefer so that we can have discussions. Fill in the blanks. The atom with 6 protons is called “______”. The amount of mass represented by the atom with 6 protons released into the atmosphere every year is 220 gigatons of “______”. The study of the movement of the atom with 6 protons through the biosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, sedimentary, and fossil reservoirs is called the “______ cycle”.
More meaningless gibberish, indistinguishable from spam. Carbon is NOT being released into the atmosphere, nor is it a significant factor in the GHE.
If you won’t present a better option or any other option at all then I have no choice but to use the term every one else has been using for over a hundred years and fill in those blanks with “carbon”.
I never expected any more of you. Hell, I’m just surprised you didn’t return to calling carbon; “the atom with 12 protons” out of spite.
It seems you’re destined to be an ignoramus.
I think you have the wrong idea about me. I would not do anything to spite someone. And I think you’d find that if we met in real life we’d get along just fine. I also want you to know that I make more than my fair share of mistakes. And one of the most important things I’ve learned is that the more I learn the more I realize how ignorant I am of reality. There is so much to learn. I’ve long come to the conclusion that I will always be ignorant of something. It boggles my mind that people were able to learn about the carbon cycle decades before I even knew there was a carbon cycle
I’m pretty sure you should stick with your tricycle. You’re likely to fall off the carbon cycle.
You do and you did.
Post a quote from me where I said CO2 is dirty and where I called CO2 carbon. While you’re hunting for inaccurate quotes see if you can find the one where someone referred to soot as carbon.
Try this one:
“positive feedbacks cause more carbon to get released into the atmosphere causing yet more warming”
There you go sweet cheeks. Now when are you going to admit defeat?
I stand by that statement. And notice that I never said carbon was dirty or that CO2 was carbon.
So what you’re saying is that Carbon, and not CO2 is causing the climate to warm? You’d better tell Al Gore you’ve made a new scientific discovery.
No. I didn’t say that either. CO2 is one of the forms in which carbon can exist and get released into the atmosphere. CO2 is definitely a GHG. But so is CH4, CFCs, HCFCs, HCFs, etc. I don’t pay attention to Al Gore and I recommend you do the same. He is not a good source for climate science information.
You and Al Gore both, it seems.
Anyway, this discussion is getting boring now. You’ve spent ages looking a fool as you’ve dug yourself into a hole. We’ll leave it there.
So we all agree that carbon gets released into the atmosphere both by nature and by humans and in many different molecular forms?
I tried to upvote you on this one, but the website doesn’t seem to want to put my vote in, so I’ll do it this way and see if the website takes it this way.
Good comment, Andrew. 🙂
It took five tries to get this comment to post. Mods?
Thanking you Tom.
Have an upvote in return from me.
I think the posting problem may be on my end, not WUWT’s. Thanks for the vote. 🙂
Tom, it may or may not be relevant, but I’ve noticed that if you have the page open for too long and then try to post, it won’t work. There’s some token associated with the form that expires – not sure what the expiration time is though.
bdgwx said: “All of the literature regarding the atom with 12 protons and any molecules containing it refer to it as carbon.”
Fail. Carbon has 6 protons.
Did you really just say this?????
“ The article didn’t say melting sea ice raises sea level. What it said was “As the Arctic Ocean gets warmer, it causes the ice in the polar region to melt, which in turn affects global sea levels”.
Do you have any idea what you are typing or is just your job to be contrary?
Pat said: “Did you really just say this?????”
Yes. I did. And I stand by that statement. No where in that article did it say melting sea ice contributes to sea level rise. No where in the Tesi et al. 2021 does it even talk about sea level rise. In fact, the article actually says this:
“The connection is capable of shaping Arctic climate variability, which could have important implications for sea-ice retreat and global sea level rise as the polar ice sheets continue to melt.”
“As the Arctic Ocean gets warmer, it causes the ice in the polar region to melt, which in turn affects global sea levels.”
Again…no where does it say that sea ice melting contributes to sea level rise. There is no inconsistency or contradictory information presented in the article in this regard.
If it started in 1900, it wasn’t being caused by CO2.
Yes it was. That CO2 is much more powerful than you think. And now it has got you on its list, and one day, when you least expect it, it will come and GET you. Mark my words. You are doomed.
CO2 will eat your lunch and snatch your girlfriend
CO2, take my ex-wife…please.
Forget the ex, it can take my current one if it wants.
“…CO2 is much more powerful than you think.” suggests CO2 will prevent the next Glacial Cycle of the Ice Age we live in? I will drive around the block a few times in my SUV while thinking about that. You’re welcome.
Co2 wasalready evil before it was Mann made.
The incredible change of Co2 into the ultimate nazimolecule happened September 14th 1867 ,the day when the bible of socialism was realised.
Marx’ Mein Kampf aka Das Kapital.
( in fact it began with Moses Hess when all over Europe “revolutions” started(nowadays this strategy is called arab springs),but a huge strategical mistake was made so Hess had to be replaced a generation later with Karl )
Since that day in 1867 it became that mankind has to fight a common enemy to ,
be it bourgeoisie,tzars, capitalism or white supremacy ,covid or co2.
If it started in 1900, it wasn’t being caused by CO2.
Incorrect. Extensive antropogenic CO2 release started earlier, this is the feature of the Industrial Revolution.
You’re being sarcastic, aren’t you?
nyolci believes whatever her handlers tell her to believe.
In another discussion, she declared that deniers were being paid by fossil fuel interests was true, because everybody she knew believed it.
[everyone needs to stop insulting other commenters. just stop -cr]
I’m still waiting for my big oil cheque. The postie must have nicked it.
Hey, Woke Mark 🙂 your frreaky old self got out again. And you’re incorrect again. No, I don’t have “handlers”, furthermore, “his” and “him” are incorrect too. FYI this is ad hom anyway, HEY, MODS, IT’S YOUR TURN NOW 🙂
I’ll lay off your handlers since you asked so nicely.
What then caused the warmth in the Arctic which the President of the (UK) Royal Society wrote about to the Admiralty on 20th November 1817?
Incorrect, prior to 1950, the increased amounts of CO2 were so small as to be barely measurable.
If the 4 or 5 ppm that CO2 increased by 1900 was enough to do anything, then the 140ppm since then should have warmed the earth by 20 degrees or more.
“Incorrect, prior to 1950, the increased amounts of CO2 were so small as to be barely measurable.”
bollocks … err sorry “fake news” on WUWT. Shock !
“If the 4 or 5 ppm that CO2 increased by 1900 was enough to do anything, then the 140ppm since then should have warmed the earth by 20 degrees or more.”
Let me correct that for you MarkW – Sub “20” for “4 or 5 ppm” by 1900 and by ~ 50 ppm by 1950.
So there you go again thinking only in terms of CO2.
There were negative anthro drivers as well that offset the +ve driver that is CO2…..
So try doing some basic subtraction eh …. you know, like people who do since do.
One dimensional thinking works on WUWT, but nowhere else.
You missed water vapor and non-aerosol changes to cloud coverage. So do the UN IPCC CliSciFi models. They assume that water vapor forcing is a feedback response. The lack of a tropospheric “Hot Spot” disproves that assumption. The fact that observed temperature changes are 66% to 100% of modeled averages disproves the modelers’ assumptions of net forcings. Additionally, models do not accurately track past climatic metrics.
The water vapor feedback and the shortwave cloud feedback are included in the ERF. I highly recommend reading the IPCC WG1 Physical Science Basis for the details.
They are not listed on your “Time Evolution of Forcings.”
I’ve read the last two IPCC WG1s. The major problem is that the the IPCC allows the UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers to run wild with pure speculation as to water vapor, cloud and aerosol feedbacks, along with the use of unrealistic emissions scenarios as BAU. By not rejecting the models with ECSs above 3, the IPCC allows non-science to enter into its reports.
Dave Fair said: “They are not listed on your “Time Evolution of Forcings.””
First…it’s not my graph. Second…they are included the ERF estimates already. Refer to IPCC WG1 Physical Science Basis page 665.
AR6 WG1 p. 665:
“ERF of changes to the atmospheric composition are shown for the gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and halogenated gases. Aerosol changes include the sum of the ERF due to aerosol – radiation and aerosol – cloud interactions. Other anthropogenic forcings include stratospheric ozone, stratospheric water vapour, land use / land cover changes, black carbon deposition on snow, and contrails. Volcanic ERF is defined such that there is zero mean forcing in the past 2.5 kyr. The sum of the best estimates for all forcings is shown as the total forcing. Further uncertainty ranges are provided in Figures 7.10 and 7.11.”
No water vapor nor clouds. Do the aerosol numbers constrain UN IPCC CliSciFi models?
AR5 WG1 pg. 665:
AR6 WG1 ch. 7 (preliminary)
Lots of dense verbiage in Ch. 7, but the fact remains that UN IPCC CliSciFi CMIP6 models further broaden the ECS range and give surface and atmospheric temperature results that exceed observed by 66% to 100%. Not good.
20ppm is still nothing. The 140ppm increase since then hasn’t caused any measurable increase, so could the 20ppm have caused any.
And also land clearance/use added CO2.
Appears to this retired bean counter, the alarmists are in full CYA mode. If this study is correct, the Arctic warming the first half of the 20th century had very little to due to increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Rather than focusing on changing the climate models, the focus should return to questioning how much of an actual effect CO2 has had the last 50 years. But I know far too many have staked their careers on climate change. ie Academics, politicians, MSM, & businesses.
Eventually, these alarmists are going to stumble onto the truth. Mother Nature will see to it.
But will their biases allow them to see or even understand the truth? Money is a huge motivator.
I’ve posted on threads a number of times a quote from H. H. Lamb about the coal port at Spitsbergen going from ice free for three months before 1920 to seven months in the late 1930s.
Here are some other things he says
“It was during the second and third decades of the new century that the climatic warming became noticeable to every body…….In England, and probably in many other places, the temperature jump from one decade to the next was not as great as the change from the 1690s to the first decade of the eighteenth century but it was to be much longer sustained……. Places near the Arctic fringe – such as Iceland, Spitsbergen and even Toronto – experienced warming that was from twice to five times as great”
Please, Dave, do not destroy a profitable meme. Scientists back then were just not as intelligent as CliSciFi practitioners are today.
Paraphrasing climate4you + Polar regions as key regions for global [human-caused] climate change:
“… enhanced temperature increase at high latitudes is due to (1) CO2 having its greatest absorption of infrared radiation (IR) at sub-zero temperature and (2) in Polar regions the air is dry allowing CO2 to exert a much greater influence than would be possible in warmer and moister air masses …”.
It appears Arctic temperatures may have passed a zenith related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and whatever effect increasing greenhouse gases have had on the temperature trend in the past is being eclipsed by other more powerful factors.
Air is even drier over Antarctica, yet the massive East Antarctic Ice Sheet has cooled.
Yeah, but that’s different … because reasons and peer review and settled science.
The quote is absolute, utter bullshit. Antarctica has been cooling for decades, a time period during which CO2 concentrations increased significantly. Also, Arctic temperature variations do not track CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
Stretching the beginning of the series back to 1850 will show 2 cycles of an approximately 70-year cyclic pattern. Additionally, intrusion of warm Atlantic waters strongly affects Arctic temperatures and ice extent.
Hmm. This paper shows that the increase in Arctic air temperatures was much faster from 1910 to 1940 than it was more recently. It shows that there is a poor correlation between Arctic temperatures and CO2 concentrations but a strong correlation between Arctic temperatures and the circulation pattern in the Atlantic.
Arctic Air Temperature Change Amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
Geophysical Research Letters
Petr Chylek – Space and Remote Sensing, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
Chris K. Folland – Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change, Exeter, UK
Glen Lesins -Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Manvendra K. Dubey – Earth and Environmental Sciences, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA
Muyin Wang – Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
I’ve been telling you all that since 2007.
There are similar internal cycles in every ocean basin and the net effect at any given time is highly variable.
Sometimes the net effect amplifies the effect of solar variability and sometimes offsets it on multidecadal periods of time.
It is that variability which disguises any solar effect unless the solar effect continues for several solar cycles.
All observed warming is simply a recovery from the Little ice Age filtered through the various ocean cycles.
The solar effect is not derived from changes in total solar irradiance but rather from solar effects above the tropopause altering jet stream tracks, global cloudiness and the proportion of total solar irradiance that gets into the oceans.
That changes the balance between El Niño and La Nina events to produce warming when El Niño dominates and cooling when La Nina dominates.
Just as proposed in my longstanding Hot Water Bottle Hypothesis.
Nicely explained Stephen.
re. Your hot water bottle – add some whisky to the bottle before going to bed then you can lie in bed nice and warm and take the occasional swig from the bottle without the tiresome chore of having to get out of bed into the cold.
That’s the input. Now what about the output?
An old milk jug by the bed. Boy Scout leaders learn that trick real quick when cold weather camping.
I prefer the whisky bottle next to the bed. No need to dig around for the hot water bottle.
Pours easier, too!
Having camped in Alaskan fall, winter, and spring I can attest to the practicality of the practice.
“Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period.”
Thanks for the quotes, meab.
Yes, the temperature trends do show warming from 1910 to 1940, and show significant cooling (2.0C) from 1940 to 1980, and then show significant warming again from 1980 to the present day.
But you won’t see this if you look at a bogus, bastardized, computer-generated Hockey Stick chart which has distorted the temperature record to make it appear that we are living in the warmest times in human history.
But these temperature trends *do* show up in the worldwide, unmodified, regional surface temperature charts, such as the U.S. regional chart, Hansen 1999.
Hansen 1999 is on the left on the webpage and a bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart is on the right. The Hansen 1999 chart clearly shows the cold of the 1910’s and the warming that took place up to the 1940’s, and then the 2.0C cooling from the 1940’s to 1980, and then shows the warming from 1980 to the present. Hansen 1999 ends in 1999, but the year 2016, is no warmer than 1998, so 1998 is representative of the rest of the chart as far as temperature rise magnitude is concerned. I use Hansen 1999, because it is the least bastadized U.S. chart I can find.
The bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick Data Mannipulators artificially cooled the 1930’s on their chart in order to enable them to promote the false impression that the Earth is experiencing unprededented warming today and it’s caused by CO2 and we have to do something about CO2.
But as you can see from the regional chart, it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, and we are *not* experiencing unprecedented warming today, and this means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere and this means CO2 does not need to be restricted or regulated.
This study of ocean temperatures confirms the validity of the regional surface temperature charts and blows up the Hockey Stick chart, which is the only “evidence” the alarmists can point to for climate change alarm.
The graphs show that CONUS temperatures generally track global trends until 1980. At 1980, global temperatures begin to deviate significantly from CONUS temperatures.
Does CliSciFi have any reasons for such a change? Since CONUS has a much denser and better maintained observation system, I suspect data manipulation on the global scale post-1980.
So…. Cooling, then?
If energy from the newly exposed sea surface heats the air above then that air will rise faster via convection.
In order to enable air to rise faster in one place it must simultaneously descend faster elsewhere.
The faster descent returns kinetic energy to the surface via adiabatic warming as fast as kinetic energy is removed from the surface in the corresponding ascent.
The warmed surface beneath the descent radiates to space just as fast as the surface is cooled beneath the rising air.
Net effect zero.
A change in the rate of convective overturning will always neutralise radiative imbalances including any caused by radiative gases by adjusting the rate at which energy is radiated to space from the surface.
It is like trying to pump up a balloon with holes in it.
Your “balance” applies only to dry air. A “newly exposed sea surface” that warms also increases the humidity of the air. The increased convection carries water vapor to higher altitudes where the energy of evaporation is released by condensation (and possibly freezing) before the water (ice) descends. Convection thus carries much more energy up than adiabatic compression creates in descent.
This is my interpretation also. The only limiting factor is that N2 and O2 also participate in convection. I can understand how they may have zero effect but I haven’t really done the math to insure that “work” is reversible in this process.
I almost sprayed my keyboard when I read your response. Well spotted.
“So…. Cooling, then?”
Funnily enough, no. At the longest timescales, there is a paradox that having cold polar regions is associated with a cooler Earth, while warm polar regions are associated with a warmer Earth.
It isn’t clear to me how this comes about, other than some kind of cloud feedback mechanism. In this case, the surface can be relatively warm at the poles while the amount of radiation escaping is heavily restrained by a persistent cloud layer.
I can see how the current Antarctica inevitably leads to a cold south polar region, since the high cold plateau is very dry and hence typically cloud free and thus very cold. The Arctic is of course very different and there is plenty of potential there for more open sea to cause more clouds and so support a much warmer surface with a positive feedback.
So much for the canary
From the abstract:
And we have a hockey stick or two too
An ice-hockey squad.
The hockey stick is in the words above too. Constant for 800 years. Sudden changes at beginning of the last century.
What is more worrying is that scientists are claiming melting sea ice is raising sea levels.
From the discussion section of the paper:
“All of the world’s oceans are warming due to climate change”
They just got it backward, mixing causes and consequences, as usual in climate “science”.
This is another confirmation of my arguments in the video TRANSPORT OF TROPICAL OCEAN HEAT CAUSES AN OVER ESTIMATION OF THE GLOBAL AVERAGE TEMPERATURE
Thank you Jim for your always clear simple logic . I do very much appreciate your transcript where I can proceed at my own pace and avoid missing bits here and there as during a live recording . Keep up the good work !
I think the paper is excellent, but some here miss the full implications. Statements about the Icelandic Basin being warmer is a local effect. they go on to say
“the absence of similar trends in these regions highlights that the 20th century trends we observe were not predominantly caused by the mean effects of global warming, but instead reflect a northwestward expansion of the warm conditions in the Iceland Basin due to a change in ocean circulation.”
The discuss possible mechanisms that control warm in flows and changes in the Subpolar gyre acts as a gateway.
They mention greenhouse warminig projections for causing increased fresh water, but go on to say
“Although the major assemblage changes occurred during the 20th century and may thus be attributable to this freshening trend [projected by greenhouse theory], the earliest changes in the species assemblage (~1750 CE) seem too early to be influenced by anthropogenic greenhouse warming. Instead, they may have been a result of freshwater addition during the late Little Ice Age”
What’s clear is the dooms day media like CNN are trying to spin this paper into more alarmism. The CNN “journalist” clearly misses the studies main points but then goes on to quote alarmist researchers and finish with ““We’re still slowly getting to know how the whole system works,” he said. “And my fear is that by the time that we do crack the problem, it’s going to be too late.”
CNN fear mongering is criminal
Ooops, I have been referencing a previous related 2020 paper. “Exceptional 20th Century Ocean Circulation in the Northeast Atlantic”
Another Hockey Stick paleo reconstruction.
Sea level rise?!!
And warm water comes from the tropical sun. Not CO2. CO2 cant warm water.
And geothermal sources such as submarine volcanism.
Geothermal Heat and Arctic Sea Ice Variability by Wyss Yim, 2018
“a possible flaw in climate models, “
Just the one?
Another peer-approved paper. Methinks the Arctic ocean is getting warmer because of the nuclear powered icebreaker Yamal’s efforts pulling out the container ships stranded in the ice that does not exist.
The view that there is only one controlling variable, CO2 is very similar to previous episodes in the history of disease and public policy.
Miasma theory said that bad air caused diseases such as cholera. It had a lot going for it. It was true that in places with poor or no sanitation and in low lying swampy areas there were high rates of illness, not just cholera but others. It was also true to some extent that cleaning the areas up, which lowered the stench, lessened outbreaks.
But.. it wasn’t the vapours which were causing the illness, it was things associated with the vapors. Nor was it vapors from the marshes that caused malaria, but bits from the mosquitoes prevalent in the marshes.
CO2 is similar. It is true that there are some correlations between CO2 and temperature, and there is a halfway plausible theory that gives it some initial viability. But the theory can’t explain lots of temperature variation, just as miasma was not there in all cases of cholera outbreaks. Its not the control knob for the climate.
And similarly, as this study shows, when you look in detail at most of the things that are said to show global warming, they turn out to be connected to and caused by quite other things than the global average temperature or the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
There are lots of examples in medical science of this kind of thing, and of the die hard insistence of the medical and scientific establishment that they had found the only one true cause and that a more fact based explanation was not worth considering. The story of puerperal fever in the 18th and 19th centuries is another very instructive example.
michel said: “The view that there is only one controlling variable, CO2 is very similar to previous episodes in the history of disease and public policy.”
I don’t know how the idea that there can only ever be one controlling variable and that CO2 was it got so firmly established in popular culture. If only people would read the IPCC reports and other literature they’d see that there are many agents that perturb the Earth’s energy balance and many more that effect the flows of heat/energy into and out of the atmosphere. I think this is one of the biggest misconception of global warming that I see from laypeople and one of the most often cited strawman I see from contrarians.
Then why are the IPCC and politicians introducing measures to reduce emissions of CO2 and why have several climate scientists referred to CO2 as “The control knob of climate change”?
I apologise – I believe the quote was more like “The principal control knob of climate change” (AA Lacis, NASA Goddard).
I guess the fact that so many alarmists claim that CO2 swamps everything else is lost on you.
CO2 does not swamp everything else all of the time. That is a common misconception. It is true that it is the most influential factor today. Aerosols are not far behind though. I don’t pay attention to what alarmists think.
I’m still waiting for evidence that CO2 has any influence on climate, much less being the dominant one.
Why wait? You could read the available literature documenting the evidence. One of the best places to start for those getting introduced to the topic is the IPCC AR5 and soon to be finalized AR6 reports which collate the evidence. The physical science basis portions are only about 1500 pages so they can read in a reasonable amount of time. You can drill down into the individual citations for a deep dive into the details.
Strawman? It is screamed from the highest levels of CliSciFi, politicians, NGOs and MSM.
I’ve not heard of scientists screaming that CO2 is the end-all-be-all single agent that can effects the climate in all eras past, present, and future. In fact, I’m hearing the opposite from scientists who have identified all kinds of agents ranging from continental position, ocean currents, aerosols, orbital perturbations, solar output changes, atmospheric composition, snow/ice coverage, and many more.
Apparently the media has not heard from your scientists.
Similarly people did not think in the past that miasma was the ONLY source of disease. What they thought was that was A source and was the cause of specific diseases in specific locations. In which they were interestingly wrong, because though there was a correlation their explanation didn’t actually explain anything. If you like, there was a confounding variable, mosquitoes or sewage contamination. Which was associated with the same conditions which were cited as evidence of miasma.
At the moment people do not think that CO2 is the only variable which drives the climate. They also do not attribute all previous episodes of warming and cooling to CO2 fluctuations.
But the general view which the alarmists do hold is that the only new and alarming development in climate drivers is human CO2 emissions. The view seems to be that had we not started emitting CO2, climate cycles would carry on benevolently as they always had. But human CO2 emissions, and the rise from 300ppm to, for instance, 600ppm will bring disastrous warming, and that will bring with it floods, famine, pestilence on a scale which will destroy civilization.
Their solution, and their only proposal, is to reduce emissions rapidly – most recommendations I have come across would get them down to below 10 billion tons a year by about 2040. Some want to get to net zero, and some want to get there sooner.
And that is pretty much it in terms of averting what is often referred to as the Climate Crisis.
So I would say that when the alarmed are looking for for policies to avert the supposed Climate Crisis and what the Guardian calls “global heating”, CO2 is regarded as the only important climate driver. Its the only one which we are thought to have control over, its the only driver we are thought to have raised to dangerous levels. Its not even the other greenouse gases that get this focus, its exclusively CO2.
In that sense, from a policy point of view, the alarmed do regard CO2 as the controller of the only aspect of climate they care about.
I think this is exactly the same kind of blinkered vision which gave rise to the persistence of the miasma theory – and to the refusal to accept the real cause of puerperal fever.
From the article: “As the Arctic continues to warm, it will melt the permafrost, which stores huge amounts of methane, a far more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.”
There is no evidence that Carbon Dioxide is causing damage to anything, other than to the minds of uneducated and/or gullible people.
From the article: ““Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving Atlantification,” said Tommaso.”
Back to the drawing board. The science is not settled.
This statement will be airbrushed away.
Imply is such a commanding action word. Modifying “imply” with “might expect” makes “imply” such an overwhelmingly commanding prediction…
Borehole and drilling cores usually disregard recent sediment layers as the act of drilling disrupts upper layers that represent recent timescale sediment deposits.
Yet, these waffle word clowns believe they can utilize all varves up to the most recent…
And that Atlantification is caused by the dreaded “climate change”…
It’s worse than they thought!
We’re so scared… 🤣 😂 🤣 😂
Good one Mr. Bill!
Newsflash, the only wavelengths CO2 impacts regarding the GHG Effect are 13 to 18 micron LWIR, peak 15 microns. Has anyone ever bothered to demonstrate that those wavelengths can actually warm water? Nope. Visible radiation, not LWIR warms water, Quantum Physics 101. Please someone prove me wrong. Show me a scientific study that isolates the impact of 13 to 18 micron LWIR. Don’t bother looking, it doesn’t exist, and that is all the proof any real scientist needs to know this AGW is a complete scientific joke.
LWIR doesn’t warm water, rather warmer air slows the rate at which the energy put into the water by the sun can escape.
Once again, you are talking about only 13 to 18-micron LWIR. That is consistent with -80C. Shoe me an ocean that is -80C. Sure blocking the entire IR Spectrum will slow cooling. Blocking a very very very narrow spectrum won’t do diddly. If you claim it does, shoe me any experimental evidence. SImply take a Long Pass Filter that isolates 13 to 18 microns, shine light through it, and measure if the temperature changes. Why hasn’t that basis experiment been run? Also, ice emits 10.5 micron LWIR. CO2 radiation won’t even melt ice.
13 to 18-micron LWIR has nothing to do with -80C.
At a temperature of 300K a blackbody radiator will emit 32 W/m2/sr
whereas at -80C it will emit 5.4 W/m2/sr.
Also my 10.6 micron CO2 laser will melt steel, never mind ice!
1) CO2 only affects 13 to 18 Micron LWIR, Peak 15 Micron
2) 15 Micron LWIR is consistent with a black body of -80C
3) 15 Micron LWIR doesn’t penetrate water
4) Water takes a lot of energy to warm, and has the highest specific heat of any common material
5) Visible Radiation, 0.4 to 0.7 Micron penetrates and warms water
6) The oceans are the key drivers of the climate, what warms the oceans, warms the globe
7) The oceans contain 2,000x the energy of the atmosphere
8) To claim CO2 is the cause of global warming one must demonstrate that LWIR between 13 and 18 micron can warm water
9) LWIR between 13 and 18 microns can be isolated using a long pass filter
10) It would be a very easy experiment to run to demonstrate 13 to 18 micron LWIR can warm water by simply measuring the temperature change of water with additional energy added to it be applying light through a long pass filter
11) Has that basis experiment been run? Nope
12) Evidence of warming isn’t evidence CO2 is causing that warming, CO2 isns’t warming the oceans, visible radiation is. Fewer clouds allow more sunlight to reach the oceans.
“Accounts from 19th-century Canadian Arctic Explorers’ Logs Reflect Present Climate Conditions”
I have it on very good authority (facts, they call them) that Earth’s oceans began warming up from the last glacial interval on Earth approximately 12,000 years ago, at the beginning of the Holocene Epoch.
The average depth of the Arctic Ocean is 1,040 m (3,400 ft). If someone wants to assert something about the Arctic Ocean recently “warming”, say, since the beginning of the 20th century as in the above article, they will have to provide data showing they accurately know how the temperature profiles to that depth, over the areal extent of that ocean, have changed since that time.
Sorry, Argo floats don’t work under floating ice.
“All of the world’s oceans are warming due to climate change, but the Arctic Ocean, the smallest and shallowest of the world’s oceans, is warming fastest of all.”
The AMO and Arctic are normally warmer at least during each centennial solar minimum.
The Arctic Oceans are fed through the Baring Straights, which are part of the Ring of Fire. The Arctic Ocean isn’t warming due to CO2, it is warming because warm oceans are feeding the Arctic warm water. Warm the Pacific, warm the Arctic. What is warming the Pacific? More visible radiation reaching the oceans.
The Arctic Ocean gets much more warm feed from the North Atlantic,
There is also an 8 month lagged teleconnection between El Nino events and major warm pulses to the AMO.
The study shows: 1) The Arctic Ocean responds strongly to Atlantic Ocean intrusions (duh … look at the map.); 2) the Arctic Ocean has warmed over the last few centuries (denied by the various Hockey Sticks used in CliSciFi) as we are recovering from the disastrous Little Ice Age (also duh); 3) UN IPCC CliSciFi models didn’t predict such early warming (also duh); and 4) Arctic ocean temperature has increased by about 2 C in the 120 years since 1900 (unstated if proxy or instrument- based), without discussing its cyclical nature.
The study fails to show the significant variations of Arctic Ocean and sea ice over the past 120 years. It also unnecessarily and unscientifically speculates that the world will continue to warm significantly because, as they said, they believe the UN IPCC CliSciFi models accurately predict future global warming).
I wonder why they limited the study to 800 years, specifically. Other paleo studies I’m aware of cover time periods of 1,000, 2,000, Holocene, glacial period (with approximately 42,000 and 100,000 glacial periods) and deep geological timeframes, with nothing at precisely 800 years. As one of the CliSciFi practitioners once said “you have to pick cherries to make cherry pie.”
How inconvenient for their anthropogenic warming theories. Will they torture the data to prove that it was? Can’t have their pet theories contradicted can we?
There was an anomalous warming peak at the end of the previous, Eemian interglacial too. Looks like it might be a thing about interglacials – a last fling of warming before decent into glacial inception.
hearty 2007 global sea-level – Google Scholar
In two places, the author says that melting ice in the Arctic will cause a change in sea levels. But Arctic is floating so there is no change in sea levels when it melts unlike Antarctic ice which is mostly on land and will raise sea levels when it melts.
Last time I looked Greenland is in the Arctic, 3.5 trillion tonnes of its icesheet has melted during the last decade which has caused raising of the sea level.
Last time I looked, rise of the level of the actual sea was as non-existent as ever.
All those trillions of tons of hubris and I’m yet to see a single coastline with sea level different to a corresponding photo 100 years ago.
I guess I’m not an emperor so I just can’t see it.
Suggest checking out Virginia Key in Florida
OK and the result was a rise in global sea level of ONE CENTIMETRE. Take to the boats!
Check this NOAA tide data out.
Yes a 19th century start to current ocean-driven warming is bad optics for the creed of anthropogenic CO2 driven warming.
But we already know how this goes and what to expect.
Out come the revisionist editors.
In a few weeks time another paper will appear contradicting this, hammering the temperature record back onto the CO2 timeline.
“As the Arctic Ocean gets warmer, it causes the ice in the polar region to melt, which in turn affects global sea levels.”
When a “scientist” says this how are we supposed to take them seriously?