By P Gosselin on 29. December 2021
In a recent paper, scientists expressed their surprise that the Arctic had started warming already back in the early 20th century, 100 years ago. This, along with the obligatory CO2 climate warming lip service, is described in a Cambridge University press release.
Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne
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, and found that the Arctic Ocean has been warming for much longer than earlier records have suggested.
Natural oceanic currents
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.
Atlantic waters flow into the Arctic
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.
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.
Using the chemical signatures found in marine microorganisms, researchers have 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.
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.”
800 years should have picked up the Medieval Warm period and the LIA, so there might be a problem with the proxies they are using to determine temperature. If if shows even temperatures until recent decades, they might be picking up something unrelated to temperature.
“800 years should have picked up the Medieval Warm period and the LIA,…”
Al Gores temperature chart from his movie shows that CO2 lagged temperature by about 800 years. Just saying (-:
I hope you’ll forgive my off topic post but I’m hoping that someone here might be able to help me out. A pro-AGW acquaintance of mine doesn’t understand why the AGW hypothesis has a key fingerprint requiring the formation of a mid-tropospheric tropical hot spot for the warming to be caused by CO2 rather than natural variation.
She’s one of those who she says based essentially on precautionary principle, e.g., golly, if the risk is for something severe enough, we MUST take action just in case, even if the chances of the severe outcome is very slim… Which is rather stupid reasoning as far as I’m concerned! I’ve been trying to get her to understand that the AGW hypothesis has been scientifically falsified several times – lack of formation of the hot spot, and the fact that both poles aren’t warming faster than anywhere else (e.g., the Antarctic isn’t behavin’! ), for example.
I’m hoping that one of you might know of a good primer sort of article on why a mid-tropospheric tropical hot spot must form early if the warming is due to CO2 that would help her understand the atmospheric mechanisms involved?
Thanks in advance for your help!!
Unfortunately, I’m thinking that you’re not going to convince her … alarmista are wedded to the precautionary principle … they ALL fall back to that when their cognitive dissonance becomes too stressed.
“[Her] logic [will] not serve her, for [her] heart is in the lie.”
The tropical hotspot thing has been covered a few times by Joanne Nova, eg
Where I live at 19°S it should be detectable, but it hasn’t been. That is because it isn’t there.
And I concur with Streetcred on the precautionary principle. I suspect that more humans have been slaughtered for the precautionary principle than any other reason. It is part of the alarmist creed, a feature rather than a simple error.
The Alarmists are using the Precautionary Principle the wrong way round.
Correctly the principle advises that we should not destroy our economies to advert a small and largely beneficial warming.
From Executive Summary to IPCC 6 Report
“Global surface temperature8 in the first two decades of the 21st century (2001–2020) was 0.99 [0.84 to 1.10] °C higher than 1850–1900.9 Global surface temperature was 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C higher in 2011–2020 than 1850–1900, with larger increases over land (1.59 [1.34 to 1.83] °C) than over the ocean (0.88 [0.68 to 1.01] °C).”
But back in 1850 the CO2 level was about 280 ppm. Now about 420 ppm. A 50% increase, supposedly contributing to a global temp increase of 1.09C. A further increase of the same amount brings us to 560 ppm, a doubling of the pre-industrial level, but a further temp increase of 1.09C max. This would be beneficial in large areas of the world, greater food production and less famine.
Destroying our economies is NOT a good idea!
Some alarmists who know a little about the fingerprint of global warming will point to Sherwood who “found” the missing hot spot until it was revealed he was using wind shear
I doubt you will convince her though
“we MUST take action just in case, even if the chances of the severe outcome is very slim… Which is rather stupid reasoning as far as I’m concerned!”
Especially when the supposed solution will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.
It’s easy to counter PP-type arguments, though, just by inverting them: eg “We MUST avoid removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because there’s a small chance that we could trigger a new Ice Age (Which is already overdue!!!) thereby” …
Not exactly what you asked for, but this seems to come from figures like the one below from the CCSP report of 2006 (Figure 9.1 in the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 report of 2007 is very similar).
This shows the “hindcasts” of computer models of the Earth’s atmosphere, and how much “temperature change due to various forcings” was supposed to occur.
These models include all the “basic (climate) science”, AKA “fundamental physics”, but when people ask about the details we get answers like “It’s all terribly complicated, don’t you worry your pretty little head about things like that …”.
NB : I’m guessing your “pro-AGW acquaintance” would react as badly to that sort of attitude as anyone else.
The importance of this “prediction” is when people with a Popperian / Feynmanian approach to scientific subjects (such as myself) look at the “all forcings” panel of those figures … and then compare them to actual empirical measurements.
As Richard Feynman put it, the reason the “tropospheric hot spot” is so important is :
PS : In the interest of balance, both “intermediate” and “advanced” responses to the above argument are available at SkS :
Below is a copy of Figure 9.1 from AR4 for comparison with the CCSP’s version attached to my OP.
The simple explanation is good. High evaporation and then condensation of this water transfers a lot of heat so that the lapse rate is much less than the subtropics. But they ignore that it’s more evaporation that is the reason for a catastrophic greenhouse effect, while at the beginning, they dismiss it as a flaw in measurements not making it observable.
I’m not sure that it counts as balance.
I would point out instead that we are still living in an Ice Age with a short interglacial period. The future holds another glaciation with a large part of North America and Europe covered with glaciers. Think the northern half of North America being under a mile of ice.
The Precautionary Principle should apply in this case since ALL scientists agree that sometime in the not too distant future (geologically speaking) this condition will return to the planet Earth.
If you are going to use this principle to argue for a solution to a possible climate outcome, then you must also consider how to prevent a 100% occurrence of another glaciation. Raising temperatures in order to prolong the interglacial is probably the best solution.
That’s really not so hard. Find the info on various past episodes of the planet warming and cooling long before Hoomans arrived and/or had anything remotely or vaguely like what we have going on today. Without Hooman influence, the warming and cooling are obviously natural and part of the planet’s agenda, and we have ZERO control over it.
Find the prehistoric stuff. Plenty of it online, and start back with the Carboniferous period, when giant bugs roamed the planet. No Hoomans were around back then. Then go from there. Find some way to get her to a rock shop where she can find really ancient fossils, such as my shrimp (Carboniferous) and emphasize how long ago that was and how warm it was all over the planet (except for a few snowy spots).
Take her on a fossil hunt, too. Those are fun. I have a shrimp and a fossilized horsetail weed (they are still around today!!!) and a leaf from Alethopteris, a seeded fern, all from the Carboniferous period. There are places where you can get a permit to hunt for fossils and take them home. I never did find a crinoid (Carboniferous period), but I’m still looking.
Just ask her to write a check to cover her fraction of the cost.
The clincher for me is NOAA sea level rise data here. You can surf around and look at other data sets by clicking on the map, and looking at “Linear Trend.” New York and San Francisco have very long data sets, back to 1854 (SF).
The background is this. In the theory of APWG, CO2 causes warming, warming causes glaciers & polar ice to melt causing sea level rise. Ocean warming causes thermosteric sea water expansion contributing to sea level rise.
According to IPCC AR5, CO2 didn’t have an impact on global temperatures until about 1950.
If that is the case, sea level rise due to APGW wouldn’t start until 1950 or later. However NOAA data shows sea level rise going back to 1854, 100 years before the theory of APGW says CO2 takes effect.
Willis has some great
essayswhite papers on how the pandemic drop in CO2 isn’t measurable globally.
The precautionary principle relies on the false assumption that time has no cost. That we can live forever by eliminating risk.
Don’t argue AGW. Where is the social justice in denying Africa and Asia the benefits of industrialization that come with cheap power.
The west industrialized using low tech coal and steam as the first step. So far not one country on earth has successfully demonstrated a different method.
The precautionary principle also argues that you should only used methods that are known to work because of the Law of Unintended Consequences says that wind and solar will result in as yet undiscovered problems. That they could well be dead ends because they produce little surplus energy. There could be many other problems. No one knows.
Never mind the “undiscovered” problems – the KNOWN, but willfully IGNORED, problems are more than enough to “just say no” to wind and solar farms.
(as from the author of the “Dear Annie” column — syndicated in hundreds of news outlets (heh))
About your intellectually challenged friend:
As others have pointed out, her impaired intellectual abilities very likely will prevent her from following your argument, no matter how powerful your facts and reasoning.
The key is for you to realize that you are not going to change her and YOU ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Here is a little demonstration to help you see this:
Rational One: So, you think that human CO2 emissions can cause
dangerous global warming: why?
Challenged: Because, like, oh, 99% of scientists say so.
RO: Here are dozens of peer reviewed studies debunking the claim
C: Okay, well most scientists say so.
RO: Actually, they don’t. And leading climate scientists such as
Richard Lindzen and Christopher Essex say CO2 has never
been proven to be a danger. Further, virtually all the computer
simulations of climate, called “climate models,” have proven to
be piles of junk, i.e., they are completely unable to output
C: Well, even if their models are no good, they still know from
RO: They have no other “stuff.” The failed models are all they
have. Not one piece of data proves that human CO2 causes
C: But, just in case they’re right, we should take precautions.
RO: The “precautions” will doom billions of people to the misery of
C: I think they would rather be alive. If we kill the planet, they
won’t even be here.
RO: If your physician told you that she felt pretty sure that you
were likely to die from bone cancer if you don’t cut off your
legs because she recently read some articles written by
people who sell prostheses that say that bone cancer in
people your age and older is caused by leg muscle cells
reaching a tipping point and mutating into cancer and they
have models that “prove” this is highly likely to happen —
would you have your legs amputated?
C: No. But, I still think we ought to limit our carbon pollution.
Just in case.
RO: SERIOUSLY?? Those people on WUWT were RIGHT!!!
So, Rational, you see that your (purportedly) inadequate explanations are not the problem. They never have been.
Since you wrote to “Dear Annie” about this, I will assume you’d like a little advice. If she isn’t your mother, I would suggest having “plans” whenever she calls you.
According to the precautionary principle, we should all stay indoors and never go out, let alone cross a street. Everything we do is an interaction with the world and has inherent risks. A blind approach to the precautionary principle is idiotically simplistic. Like it or not, we have to make balanced decisions on a little bit of warming or a virus or whatever.
Taken to the extreme “don’t get out of bed in the morning because something bad might happen to you”
Thanks so much to everyone who replied!!
If you say it in his boring monotone, apparently people believe it without question.
Eight hundred years ago would be the 1300s, or at the end of the MWP. Maybe whatever took place was a driver in the formation of the LIA.
Goldminor: (and rational Db8)
The ~300 year MWP was caused by a dearth of volcanic eruptions, only 31 VEI4 or higher eruptions occurred during that time.(10 per century).
The ~600 year LIA (1250–1850) was caused by a recurrence of volcanic activity with many VEI5 (27).There were 144 VEI4-VEI7 eruptions (18, 13, 13 ,32, 28, 38 per century)
The warming of the arctic ocean that began about 100 years ago was simply due to fewer volcanic eruptions. (fewer dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere).
Our climate is driven solely by the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, of either volcanic or industrial origin. CO2 has NO climatic effect.
No. Aeorosols are a bit player only.
You are WRONG.
Earth’s temperatures are solely driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere.
See:”Central England Temps Data Set: Key to understanding the cause of Climate Change
“Earth’s temperatures are solely driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in our atmosphere.”
Yes, it’s a hard sell, but I have the data to prove it.
In their discussion of atmospheric aerosols, NASA states that “Stratospheric (volcanic) SO2 aerosols reflect sunlight, reducing the amount of energy reaching the lower atmosphere, and the Earth’s surface, cooling them” and anthropogenic SO2 aerosols, from the burning of fossil fuels, “absorb no sunlight, but they reflect it,thereby reducing the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface”
Thus, the amount of cooling from their presence in the atmosphere (79 million tons in 2019) cannot be ignored. Nor can the warming that occurs when their tonnage in the atmosphere is reduced (down from 136 Megatons in 1979, due to global Clean Air efforts)
The NASA image below shows the distribution of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere for the date when it was generated)
This paper has data from the Fram Strait, off the northeast corner of Greenland. The Norse settlements during the MWP were at the south end of the west coast of Greenland, on the Labrador Sea. So this data set is local and doesn’t tell us much about the climate history of the rest of Greenland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-45.47,62.72,1717/loc=-49.828,60.920 shows warm(ish) water from the Atlantic
washing both sides of southern Greenland, which is probably what happened during the MWP. And presumably this tail end of the Gulf Stream was cut off during the LIA.
Another paper, Thirumalai et al 2018 shows the Atlantic warming starting about 1600. In fact, the oceans tend to be a good predictor of atmospheric trends.
It also shows the salinity increase as well.
It suggests that salinity variation could be one driver to temperature variations.
Perihelion last occurred before the austral summer solstice in 1585. Since then, total global insolation has been declining due to reducing orbital eccentricity but the insolation over the Southern Hemisphere is declining due to the progressively later occurrence of perihelion while the insolation over the northern hemisphere is increasing.
Boreal summers are getting more sunlight but boreal winters less. This will eventually lead to accelerating glaciation of the land masses surrounding the North Atlantic.
That’s true. On the other hand, 800 years ago the MWP was just about over.
By itself, this study shouldn’t be used as definitive proof of anything. It needs to be considered along with the body of other evidence.
This study does add to the data that confirms the Early 20th Century Warming.
As has often been observed, if the climate debate were actually about science, CAGW would have been buried in the ash pit of history a long time ago.
CAGW will be buried in the ‘long drop’ of history!
CAGW will be quietly ushered away, websites will be deleted/changed, and alarmists will deny they ever said such a thing would happen before moving on to the next global issue that can only be solved by them taking away your money and right to an unfettered life.
Yep, screen capture everything you can. The leftard liars and parasites will figure out a way to avoid this reckoning mechanism. It’s what they do, but let’s make it difficult for them.
Enough with the “lefttard (or libtard) remarks. It is possible to be somewhat skeptical of the catastrophic global warming argument without being way over to the right of the political divide. In my opinion those sort of comments diminish much of the usefulness that this site would otherwise have.
“800 years should have picked up the Medieval Warm period and the LIA, so there might be a problem with the proxies they are using to determine temperature.”
It should have picked up the 2.0C cooling that took place from 1940 to 1980, too.
See the U.S. surface temperature chart, Hansen 1999 (the chart on the left on the webpage):
As you can see, it warmed about 2.0C from 1910 to 1940, and then cooled about 2.0C from 1940 to 1980, and then it has warmed about 2.0C from 1980 to 2016, and now in 2021 the temperatues have cooled 0.6C since 2016.
Keep in mind that 1998 was just as warm as 2016, and both are 0.5C cooler than the high temperatures of 1934, according to James Hansen, and one of his colleagues who independently determined this number.
An email archived among the Climategate emails is between Hansen and this colleague and confirms the 0.5C figure.
Hansen has subsequently tried to take this back and now claims the 1930’s were cooler than the present day. But read the text of the webpage provided. There, Hansen says the 1930’s were the hottest decade.
That didn’t fit the CO2 climate change crisis meme when temperatures started cooling after 1998, so to compensate, Hansen and his merry band of Data Mannipulators decided they needed to downplay the 1930’s, in their computers, to enable them to claim temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and were currently the hottest temperatures in 1,000 years, and it’s all the fault of CO2.
If the 1930’s were just as warm as today, then they couldn’t say that, and they couldn’t claim we are experiencing unprecendented warming. And no unprecedented warming means there is no CO2 crisis.
So you can see the problem Hansen had. He wants a CO2 crisis to exist, so he manipulates his computer data to show one. It’s all in his ocmputer. It does not exist in the Real World.
When the data is “inconvenient,” they just change it to fit the narrative. This is how anyone who’s paying attention knows that it’s all bullshit.
I commented before that I went onto the GISS site and recently graphed that same 5 year mean temp from 1880 -2000 and I get a different graph than Hansen showed in 1998
Now it shows the 30s much cooler than the 90s
“Trust no one”, Fox Mulder
It took the report a while to get around to this statement of “…possible flaw in climate models…”, and it might impact their future funding. Good comment ZZW.
“Climate simulations generally … [display] an incomplete understanding of the mechanisms … .”
In other words: THEORY ERROR (not mere random error) — as per Pat Frank.
The famous 1922 article on the melting Arctic:
A possible flaw in our understading of the unfolding catastrophe? I’m shocked – what don’t the writers understand about settled science.
Doubt is not permitted!
Resistance is useless!
Let it flow …
Bad advice if the flow is about to inundate you. Keep your eyes open.
The Green Meanies try to make it so!
Note the reference to Climate Change.
Just keep the grant money coming.
Vk 5ELl me.
Maybe the Gakkel Ridge plays a small role … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_a0exADJtk
Huh. So this changes things? The climate maybe?
I mentioned several times in the past that a natural salinity variation across global ocean currents could account for changes in the atmospheric temperatures. It could be the basis of warming periods (Minoan, Roman and Medieval) and cool periods such as the LIA.
If this provided a small underlying recent warming, the addition of the PDO and AMO could then explain all the warming seen over the past 150 years. Yes, it explains climate change.
We heard! See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/24/arctic-ocean-started-getting-warmer-decades-earlier-than-we-thought-study/
Ole Humlum at climate4you->Oceans has a section with detailed charts of the Arctic gateway seas (20W-40E. 70-80N) heat content trends some dating back to 1900 that approximately correlate with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the HadCRUT4 surface air temperature trend from 1920 (Arctic).
Any effect CO2 emissions post-1950 may be having on the global atmosphere is difficult if not impossible to differentiate from natural variations.
“Ole Humlum at climate4you->Oceans has a section with detailed charts of the Arctic gateway seas (20W-40E. 70-80N) heat content trends some dating back to 1900 that approximately correlate with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and”
And the AMO oscillations correlate with the U.S. regional surface temperature chart oscillations.
Even though this paper comes from Cambridge, where Peter (“ice-free by 2013”) Wadhams is also a prof., he doesn’t appear as a co-author. Keeping his head down in embarrassment?
I wonder how many people paid money to read the tripe Wadhams produced?
A few days every year, the North Pole gets more sunlight than any other place on Earth. The surprising fact is that sea ice still persists under such intense energy input.
We’ve read so many times that ice cores show how, over time, CO<sup>2</sup> lagging warming suggesting that the CO<sup>2</sup> increases are not the cause but, rather, the effect, of ocean (and more general) warming. Easily convinced, I guess, I’ve long thought that this is one of the strongest arrows in the skeptics quiver, so to speak because it offers a strong alternative explanation for 30 years of warming (less the pause(s)) and correlation with increases in CO<sup>2</sup>.
And yet of the many pieces here on WUWT about ocean warming, like this one, I can’t recall any one connecting those dots.
Glad to read that they <i>used geochemical and ecological data from ocean sediments to reconstruct the change in water column properties over the past 800 years</i>. Anything about dissolved CO<sup>2</sup>? That would be one property that would be very interesting.
Anyway, that’s what I think.
Because A is shown to be a cause of B it does not logically follow that B cannot be a cause of A.
For example poverty (A) can be a cause of drug addiction (B) and drug addiction (B) can be a cause of poverty (A).
Rising CO2 concentration can be both a cause and effect of increasing global temperature.
Rising CO2 concentration can be both a cause and effect of increasing global temperature.
Not so. Causation can only operate forwards in time. The fact that CO2 always lags temperatures excludes CO2 as the cause. Your analogy with drug addiction and poverty does not hold as it is quite possible to find wealthy people who became drug addicts and fell into poverty as a result.
See “positive feedback”!
Yes, Hiskorr, nearby, has identified a flaw in this arrow of causation argument. A positive feedback loop makes “causation” a difficult thing to prove. For example, when in its cold state the Earth begins to warm from an increased energy input from an orbital variation. This in turn releases a bit of CO2 from the oceans, perhaps. But because the concentration of CO2 is so low in this state (190ppm or so) a small change in CO2 has a large influence on greenhouse feedback and the Earth warms faster, producing a larger increase in CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations CO2 presents a diminishing influence on further warming.
Now, was CO2 the cause or an effect of warming? You see the issue…
So there’s no possibility of a thermal runaway, then. Why are we even worrying about CO2?
Thermal runaway from CO2 concentration? Yes, I would agree, no chance.
It seems to me that we fluctuate between two stable states—glaciation and the current interstadial, based on insolation factors due to orbital mechanics. In either state the bulk of the feedbacks resist temperature change and therefore support homeostasis.
We should be concerned about CO2 though. At least if the long-term survival of our species has any relevance to us. The long-term trend for CO2 is leading to extinction of all life that depends on photosynthesis. The last glacial max saw CO2 drop dangerously close to plant extinction levels. Fossil fuel burning may prove to be our salvation.
Murry Salby, author of Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (https://www.amazon.com/Physics-Atmosphere-Climate-Murry-Salby/dp/0521767180) supports your position, Graeme and Mr. Goldstein.
Here is Salby showing that CO2 lags temperature by a quarter cycle:
(starting around 3 minutes in)
It’s always true that CO2 concentration responds to changes in temperature, but any change in CO2 concentration also adds to the mix a feedback from a change in the greenhouse effect that could further increase warming (or cooling if the concentration is falling) which is what Chris is arguing.
It follows from basic observation that this CO2 feedback is weak and is damped by other feedbacks such as the effects of clouds and thunderstorms, that prevent run-away temperature change.
Making simplistic claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, or that temperature is controlled exclusively by aerosols is the same species of foolishness as the alarmist faith in the CO2 control knob. Climate is not simple at any level.
My comment was about a simple logical flaw in the argument.
In the case of the climate:
A. warming of the atmosphere can cause CO2 to ‘out-gas’ from the oceans.
B. According to physics increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can result in warming of the atmosphere.
The fact that A is true is not a logically valid reason for rejecting B, that is an example of the logical fallacy affirming a disjunct.
Eg. Max is a mammal or Max is a cat. Max is a mammal. Therefore, Max is not a cat.
When the farce ends, will climate scientists declare their models were WRONG? Or will they just slide into another career?
We can only hope the farce ends before they depart for good.
The good news is that it is rapidly becoming unpalatable for politicians to condemn their electorate to shivering through cold winters or sweltering through hot summers.
Career changes are disruptive and angst creators.
You might have to admit you have been a liar for decades, when applying for a new job
This is stated as if climate models have some basis in physics and reality.
CLIMATE MODELS ARE SPECULATIVE GARBAGE. They are based on the GHE fairy tale. They are nonsense.
they are artwork created to generate and emotion.
The huge number of newspaper articles talking about dramatic changes in the Arctic and the dramatic loss of ice in the 1920s and the 1910s is just one of the many glaring factual realities that are typically dismissed by Alarmists, so it’s nice that scientists over 100 years later are able to acknowledge that newspapers were reporting on something that was absolutely real…
Tony Heller has been hammering this point for a long time.
Maybe this observation by Paul Vaughan fits in here:
The arctic is warming thanks to human CO2.
Here’s an example:
Alaska sets record high December temperature of 19.4C | US news | The Guardian
An unusual winter warm spell in Alaska has brought daytime temperatures soaring past 15.5C (60F) and torrents of rain at a time of year normally associated with bitter cold and snow.
At the island community of Kodiak, the air temperature at a tidal gauge hit 19.4C (67F) degrees on Sunday, the highest December reading ever recorded in Alaska
I wonder how many Alaskans were complaining about the 67F?
Talk about beneficial climate change.
December has been warm here in New England- nobody is complaining- other than ski resorts and ski lovers. I happen to love snow shoeing, in a serious winter with deep snow, but I’m not complaining either. I don’t like buying fuel oil to heat my home.
Agreed! Let’s keep this mild winter going.
At the island community of Kodiak, the air temperature at a tidal gauge hit 19.4C (67F) degrees on Sunday, the highest December reading ever recorded in Alaska
so are we now measuring temp with tide gauges?
asking for a friend.
Proof of change isn’t proof of cause.
Also, any idea of how many high temps at cold airports have been recalculated or otherwise invalidated? Quite a few because of engine exhaust.
The ignorance of Griff is once again on display. No knowledge of Alaska. Alaska is a huge state and Kodiak Island is latitude 57.388 N. Hardly in the Arctic. Griff also willfully ignores the words “unusual winter warm spell”. Weather Griff, weather. You just can’t fix religious zealots.
And they have had record cold weather this winter as well. Don’t cherry pick the data.
Tahoe just set a record for snow. I’m sure you have some troll look-up answer for that too.
The Guardian will probably write an article about Tahoe, and then Griff will quote it as evidence of something.
Well then griff explain the following,
“In Spitsbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the years before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s The average total area of the Arctic sea ice seems to have declined by between 10 and 20 per cent over that time.”
H.H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2nd edition, 1995, p260
Spitsbergen (Svalbard) lies between about 76 and 81 degrees North opposite the NE tip of Greenland
If you did a bit of reading and research Griff you would know that whilst Kodiak experienced a brief warm interlude, the rest of the state was experiencing record cold. How can this be? Adiabatic winds from a warm Hawaiian atmospheric river. It’s simple thermodynamics, nothing to do with human produced CO2. Other parts of Alaska were experiencing record cold of -18C. Ryan Maue gave a good explanation on his twitter feed, check it out. It is not any kind of CO2 signal, it is a weather event that is quite interesting and such events happen all the time in one form or another anywhere in the world at any time in earth’s history. There are reams of accounts of unusual, hot, cold, wet, dry, events in archive. Go and look, check your history, before you make foolish claims. Kodiak set a record, but so did Ketchikan but I don’t see you remarking on that record.
Griffter plays the role of Simplicio in Galileo’s Treatise on the Tides. He makes unfounded statements that reasonable people can counter with logical arguments and actual data. Griffter is helping any new reader to understand that griffter’s positions are those of an uneducated dupe who is easily influenced by phony arguments shouted by the climate alarmist carnival barkers.
“The arctic is warming thanks to human CO2.”
This isn’t right. This isn’t even wrong.
“An unusual winter warm spell in Alaska”
It’s just weather, Griff.
See the big high-pressure system just south of Alaska? It’s warming up the area. The warmth won’t last long, and it’s not caused by CO2.
The center of the high is marked.
Griff, see that archipelago stretching Westward from Alaska? Where the maximum (purplish) warming occurs? That is where the island of Kodiak is located.
The early 20th century warming can be seen clearly in instrumental data, here for example is Stockholm winter night temperatures (Tmin). Why do so many Canadians and Swedes crave a return to the frigid pre-industrial climate? Maybe one reason is that they have never experienced it, and scientists/media of today ignore the beneficial effects of warming.
“Historical Data Utilized in First-hand accounts from 19th century explorers’ logs for the Canadian Arctic reflect similar climate conditions as present” (2003)
It’s a shame they fail to describe what happened correctly.
That is, ice grew and advanced during the LIA ‘Little Ice Age’.
When the LIA ended and began a return to slightly warmer conditions, the Arctic fitfully started returning to a pre-LIA condition. A condition that it is unlikely to achieve.
It is interesting that they use a lot of self inflating terms without detail to back up their contentions; e.g., “precisely dated sediments”. Who verified their “precisely”?
All the while lumping assumptions and actions to intimate research rigor without explicitly defining what, when, where and why. e.g., “using a combination of methods and looked for diagnostic signs of Atlantification”.
A statement that basically admits pre-existing conclusions and confirmation bias.
“The reason for this rapid Atlantification of at the gate of the Arctic Ocean is intriguing,” said Muschitiello. – article
They still don’t get it, do they? The planet is fine. The planet has been taking care of itself for a very, very, very long time.
They will never understand it or anything it does. And it’s right in front of them.
Now I wonder what that could be……
AMO GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856 With11yearRunningAverage.gif (880×471) (climate4you.com)
Free the Atlantic coral data to see more.
One of the causes of this Arctic Ocean warming was likely to be due to a shifting trends within the weather patterning. Away from northern Atlantic blocking and a increase in Azores highs ridging up towards europe. Which opens the gates to allow warm mid-Atlantic air to push up into the Arctic circle around the northern europe area.
An article titled “The Coming Ice Age” was published in Harper’s in 1958. It describes the work of Maurice Ewing and William Donn and their efforts to understand the Ice Age cycles. A key component of their theory is exchange of warm Atlantic water with cold Arctic waters across “a shallow “sill” between Norway and Greenland”- this has been called the Fram strait since the 1970’s. Their work focused on understanding what caused the glaciers to melt 11,000 years ago, but they also recognized that the ocean was warming (in 1958), and predicted that within 100 years the entire Arctic ice sheet would melt, leading to increased snow in arctic regions and growth of glaciers- the beginning of a new Ice Age.
It’s a fascinating article about their work- not a scientific paper, but a magazine story describing the unexpected findings and fortuitous encounters with other scientists that provided additional pieces of the puzzle. It also seems that in 1958 they had a better understanding of the many natural phenomena affecting climate than we do today.
Just like Covid, everything we’ve been told about Climate Change has been a lie.
Whatever caused this I think we can agree that it wasn’t human CO2 emission! It is frustrating that the “scientific” community doesn’t put more emphasis on ocean currents being responsible for climate change today as it almost certainly was in past years. Earth being 70% water might be the clue.
“…global sea level rise as the polar ice sheets continue to melt.”
Another reference to “sea level rise” as floating, Arctic, “ice sheets continue to melt.” Sigh!!
Idiots gonna be idiots.
Their only argument would be if oceans expand thermally from warming after the sea ice melts. The trouble is that warming from 0 to 4C actually shrinks the ocean because the maximum density occurs at 4C.
Arno Arrak published this paper of the “Atlantification” transition at the turn of the 19th to 20th century, which directed warm water into the Arctic and initiated a century of Arctic warming.
This may now be coming to an end.
What!!!??? A flaw in a model – say it isn’t so…
From the article: “Since 1900, the ocean temperature has risen by approximately 2 degrees Celsius, while sea ice has retreated and salinity has increased.”
This would correspond with the air temperatures, too, since the U.S. unmodified, regional chart shows a 2.0C warming from 1910 to 1940.
This paper by Tesi et al is an Italian one based in Bologna, with individual authors also from Cambridge U.K., Norway and Germany. (It’s not a “Cambridge” study).
It’s incredibly interesting and important, showing a sharp transition to “Atlantification” at the turn of the 19th-20th century. It’s worth looking at the paper itself – not just the press release – and look at the figures.
A lot of oceanographic parameters are shown. Some start changing earlier, well back in the 18-19th centuries. Other parameters abruptly change at the start of the 20th century. A classic picture of transition in a complex system – the driving parameters and the responsive, state-flipping parameters.
It’s curious that during the whole 19th century, water temperature in the North Atlantic was higher at the depth of the LIA (little ice age). This might be surprising to some but shows that climate is ocean-adiabatic. The ocean’s colossal heat content cannot change that quickly, so a temperature change at one place means an opposite one somewhere else. Those who would expect a climate phenomenon like the LIA to show up in radiation balance changes at the top of atmosphere (TOA) would look there in vain. The heat never left the ocean.
Do I misunderstand your comment or are you claiming that there was an early industrial warm period somewhere else on earth concurrent with the LIA being a North Atlantic-focused regional anomaly? In other words, if I grasped what you were saying, ocean currents temporarily shunted less tropical heat into the North Atlantic, so that the heat must have warmed some area that had previously been cooler?
Given that the east coast of North America was equally frigid as the British isles and Europe, where do you say that heat went?
No, the heat redistribution was vertical, not horizontal. It means that heat was withheld from the atmosphere by the ocean during the LIA, over at least the whole northern hemisphere. This caused the colder climate of the LIA. That heat was retained in the ocean. It’s well known for instance that during extensive glaciation, sea water temperature under the ice is higher than in the absence of glaciation.
So it means a kind of zero sum game regarding the huge heat content of the whole ocean.
How does the ocean do that? Isn’t the warmest part of the ocean at and very near the air interface?
Yes and that doesn’t have to change. There is a steep temperature gradient from top to bottom, from up to 30 C at the surface to near freezing at the 4km deep ocean floor. Just a subtle change in that gradient can move a lot of heat down or up.
The AMO and hence also the Arctic actually turned cooler 1902-1923:
So you are suggesting there are no lags involved in the relationship?
Maybe a couple of weeks.
Really? Sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is the highest it’s been in nine years,
increasing more than 30% from last year, while the Antarctic’s level is
well above normal. Most years the Arctic loses ice, but this year ice extent has increased” more than 77,000 square miles. That’s according to the Ocean and Sea Ice Satellite Application Facility’s High Latitude Processing Center.
Underwater cities off the coast of Israel are under 45 meters of water and are at least 8000 years old. The ocean has been rising for ages. Anyone know what the CO2 level was 8000 years ago ?
The 40,000 miles of oceanic rift spread a bit faster as well as the warmer magma transferring heat through the Continental Crust until it reaches the point where it descends downwards. The mega floods of the Pacific Scab lands seem to happen on a 60,000 year timeline.