Guest Post by Javier Vinós
Arctic sea ice is lowest during the month of September, and its average extent during this month is a useful metric for measuring Arctic sea ice decline during the current period of global warming. During the 1980s and 1990s, September Arctic sea-ice extent (SIE) showed a moderate decline (Figure 1). After the 1997 climate shift, which involved a rather abrupt global atmospheric reorganization, the Arctic entered a period of rapid change that I call the Arctic Shift.[1] During this period, Arctic SIE declined more rapidly. Scientists noticed this change in trend about a decade later and became increasingly concerned about the prospect of an ice-free Arctic.[2]
The concern about the rapid decline of Arctic SIE in the early years of this century was due to the possibility of a runaway ice-albedo feedback. Loss of sea ice would reduce albedo, and additional solar energy would cause further sea ice loss. Models that reproduced the rapid loss predicted a tipping point that would lead to an ice-free Arctic by 2040, sparking public fears.[3] However, recent work suggests that up to 60% of the decline in September SIE since 1979 may be due to changes in atmospheric circulation.[4] In addition, the persistence of Arctic summer cloud cover significantly reduces the ice-albedo feedback.[5] The realization that internal variability is a more important factor than expected explains why the rate of decline of Arctic summer SIE has slowed so much since 2007, contrary to all expectations.
The Arctic Shift, a period of adjustment of Arctic climate variables to the new atmospheric regime induced by the 1997 climate shift, ended for Arctic SIE in 2007. Since then, the September Arctic SIE shows no significant trend. However, climate researchers are still unaware of the effects of climate shifts and regimes on climate change, and they were surprised by the recovery of sea ice in 2013 when it became clear that there had been no net loss since 2007. Using models, they calculated a 34% chance of a 7-year pause (Figure 2).[6]
However, the hiatus has now extended to 17 years and the probability has dropped to 10%. In other words, there is a 90% chance that climate scientists’ predictions about Arctic sea ice were wrong. If the hiatus continues until 2027, it will become statistically significant (p<0.05, or less than 5%) and no longer explainable by chance. For an explanation of the observed Arctic changes, see chapters 34 and 42 of my forthcoming book “Solving the Climate Puzzle. The Sun’s Surprising Role”.
The current state of affairs has led society to be alarmed by model predictions that have been proven wrong by the time they are published, but this often goes unnoticed. A recent example of this phenomenon is shown in Figure 3. In June 2023, news headlines around the world highlighted a scientific study that warned of the possibility of ice-free summers in the Arctic by the 2030s, regardless of our efforts to reduce emissions.
The article presents projections based on observations of an ice-free Arctic even under a low emissions scenario.[7] However, it should be noted that the data in the article only cover observations through 2019, although data for 2020-22 were available at the time of publication. In addition, the model projections in the study begin in 2021. Figure 3 shows the results of the study under an intermediate emissions scenario similar to the current situation. However, a significant problem arises when considering the acceptance and publication of the paper, as the model projections for 2021 and 2022 differ greatly from the observed data, with a staggering difference of 1.3 million km2 (0.5 million square miles) or 33% lower. This obvious problem, which undermines the entire study, raises questions about how the paper was accepted for publication.
How could such a blatantly flawed, and provably incorrect, article successfully pass the peer-review process? Moreover, who determines its suitability for widespread dissemination in a global media landscape that seems incapable of questioning or scrutinizing these predictions? The data refuting the article are readily available to anyone with an Internet connection and can easily be located with a simple search engine query. The current method of communicating predictions from highly uncertain climate models to the public is undeniably inadequate, and it is truly surprising that no authoritative scientific voice has addressed this issue and voiced disapproval.
Note: Part of the text and some of the figures in this article are taken from several chapters of my forthcoming book, “Solving the Climate Puzzle. The Sun’s Surprising Role,” to be published in November 2023.
-
Vinós, J., 2022. Climate of the Past, Present and Future: A scientific debate. 2nd ed. Critical Science Press. ↑
-
Stroeve, J.C., et al., 2005. Geophys. Res. Lett. 32 (4). doi.org/10.1029/2004GL021810 ↑
-
Holland, M.M., et al., 2006. Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (23). doi.org/10.1029/2006GL028024 ↑
-
Ding, Q., et al., 2017. Nat. Clim. Chang. 7 (4), pp.289–295. doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3241 ↑
-
Sledd, A. & L’Ecuyer, T.S., 2021. Front. Earth Sci. p.1067. doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.769844 ↑
-
Swart, N.C., et al., 2015. Nat. Clim. Change, 5 (2), pp.86–89. doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2483 ↑
-
Kim, Y.H., et al., 2023. Nat. Commun. 14 (1), p.3139. doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-38511-8 ↑
The pervaricators of Arctic Ice doom are nothing more than Carnies presenting a chilly con
Here’s a fun graph for the doomers. 1986 Antarctic sea ice vs 2014 Antarctic sea ice vs 2023 Antarctic sea ice.
Feeling panicked yet?
“Climate scientists admit they have a 90% chance of being wrong about Arctic sea ice.”
I would have stated it was 100%, but that’s just me.
There’s time yet. Every prediction they’ve made about Arctic ice so far has been 100% wrong so I’m expecting them to be consistent.
I must be getting demented in my old age but I don’t see where any climate scientists admit any such thing.
It is implicit in Swart et al. 2015 and Figure 2. If scientists are correct that the decline in Arctic sea ice is due to anthropogenic emissions, then the probability of a pause is given by the models for each emissions scenario. When the probability of a pause is so low that the hypothesis cannot explain it, the hypothesis is rejected.
Swart et al. 2015 say the following:
From their Figure 3c (my Figure 2) it can be seen that the chance of a 17-yr pause is p = 0.10. Thus the probability that internal variability is masking the anthropogenically induced decline is just 10%. It follows logically that the probability of the calculated anthropogenically induced decline being incorrect is 90%. Either internal variability is a lot stronger that estimated or the anthropogenically induced decline is a lot weaker. In any case climate scientists are wrong with a 90% chance about sea ice decline and future projections aren’t worth their salt.
It is the probability of an observation (a 17-year pause) being consistent with the hypothesis of Arctic sea ice decline being anthropogenically induced.
OK, thanks for that reply which is a bit over my head. I’m just waiting to see a climate scientist say, “We were wrong”. Rather than a complex, convoluted suggestion that in a previous publication they may have been somewhat less than perfectly correct- so that ordinary folks with an IQ of 100 or less could see the word “wrong”.
Then, that admittance should be the cover story on all of the MSM. Of course even if a climate scientist said that, it would never be mentioned in the MSM.
As Max Planck noticed, most scientists rather die than admit they were wrong. The way he said it is:
“Science advances one funeral at a time.”
These scientists made the mistake of saying in a scientific publication when a pause would refute their hypothesis. Probably because they never imagined a pause could extend for so long. This is not usually the case, so I had to seize the opportunity.
The same thing happened with the 1997-2014 global temperature pause. CliSciFi said a pause of 17 years (initially only 15 years) would falsify the UN IPCC CliSciFi climate models. When the pause went on for over 18 years governments memory-holed the whole thing.
But I thought that the Climate Scientists have said that natural variability doesn’t matter, all Climate Changes are a consequence of the increases in CO2 (and methane, and certain nitrogen compounds). But now the excuse is that internal variability has swamped anthropogenic changes that would have been observed?
(Spell checker is objecting to anthropogenic. I should think that it would know that word by now.)
I dunno, I might give them a 10% chance of having at least 1 word correct
What’s noteworthy is the unremarkable conditions of the SEI this year despite the high global temperature anomaly. This leds me to believe the source of the temperature spike is attributed to a phenomenon unrelated to the Arctic.
It’s a lottery.
Why 90%? More like 100%, but assume 97% (no evidence needed).
I wonder how many of the scientists who were predicting ice free summers in the Arctic well before now have held their hands up and admitted they didn’t understand all the processes involved.
I wonder how many legacy media outlets will publish these admissions. Well, actually, I’m pretty certain that the number will be zero here in NZ.
I wonder what adjustments they’ll have to make to their models so they still reproduce the rapid loss earlier on, but no longer predict a tipping point leading to ice-free summers.
Ooh, should we still think that the Arctic is warming umpteen times as fast as the rest of the world? If so, why isn’t the ice melting.
“I wonder what adjustments they’ll have to make to their models so they still reproduce the rapid loss earlier on, but no longer predict a tipping point leading to ice-free summers.”
data matching algorithms are not good fortune tellers since they are not knowledge based. They can adjust all they want but it won’t make the algorithm any better.
It might be valuable to mention, for the benefit of younger folks, or those new to this website, that “ice free” doesn’t actually mean “ice free”. It means less than or equal to 1 million square kilometres of ice.
(and spell check apparently doesn’t recognize the correct spelling of metre.)
The unnecessary claim that meter is correctly spelled “metre” is rejected.
I wonder what adjustments they’ll have to make
“I can make it up, so I did!” ?
I notice that the median line being used for comparison dates from 1981-2010. Why hasn’t this been updated to 1991-2020? Is it because this 30 year average would make today’s ice coverage figure look less threatening or am I being too cynical?
You are correct.
Does anybody have an explanation for why this year’s Antarctic sea ice is quite a bit lower than usual, other than “Climate Change!” dunnit?
We’ve had stories here in NZ this week about how concerned scientists are that the ice is melting, and we all need to stop using FF now!!, blah, blah. I expect that there’s actually a more sensible explanation, but I won’t hear about it from our media.
Weather. 2022 ended after a series of stronger than average storms which broke up a lot of the sea ice which didn’t refreeze as thoroughly because of a relatively mild winter. 2023 started off with a strong series of storms that kept reducing the sea ice – milder than average weather settled over the west around the Hudson bay area whilst the eastern side, around the Chukchi sea saw colder than average temperatures which caused a refreeze of the sea ice there. The main driver of low sea ice are the storms, although the mild temperatures (relatively speaking) did inhibit a lot of sea ice formation. As usual the temperatures across much of the Arctic were below freezing all year meaning that it is impossible for the sea ice to melt unless it has already been broken up and dispersed by storms.
But the increased strong storms were a consequence of Climate Change, or anthropogenic warming, dontchaknow.
Aargh. Apologies all round – because the head article was about the Arctic, I read this post about the Arctic instead of Antarctica. My post is good for the Arctic, though!
According to Judith Curry, strong northerly winds pushed the ice toward the coasts of Antarctica, reducing its extent. This is part of the strong atmospheric anomaly that developed this year’s spring, including a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation in the Northern Hemisphere, and an early start of the ozone hole in the Southern Hemisphere.
At least in part, the weird atmospheric conditions in 2023 can be tied to the Hunga Tonga eruption of 2022, as some of the effects are what could be expected from putting a lot of water vapor in the lower stratosphere. The dynamic changes induced in the stratosphere slowly propagate to the troposphere and surface.
If this hypothesis is correct we should expect a full reversal to prior conditions over the next 3 years, starting next year, as the water is expelled from the stratosphere.
Also simply warmer South Pacific water from the eruption and El Niño.
Note the lack of sea ice is on the Pacific shore of Antarctica.
I recall you saying on Judy’s blog that a reversal would be likely with the onset of the equinox shift.
https://judithcurry.com/2023/08/14/state-of-the-climate-summer-2023/
Yes, I don’t expect the current anomaly to last through the winter. If I am correct it should start declining over the next months and might be fully reverted in about 3 years.
It’s interesting that, despite the overall low extent, some regions actually exceeded average sea ice extent. This year is definitely a tale of different regions.
What happened, why did science become so poor, so childish, so tribalistic, so ’emperors clothes’ and such utter garbage & junk..
How is it not apparent that the comings/goings and variations of Arctic ice *must* track the weather/climate conditions that prevailed over North America during the previous year. Possibly longer but 12 months is a good starting point for Data Miners
i.e The Arctic is a mirror of North America, primally due to ‘prevailing winds‘
Prevailing Winds come in only two significant colours = Wind and Water
Wind: North America with its vast human population will be raising immense amounts of dust, smoke, soot. That dust will be carried north and east, raining down on the ice to assist its melting in 2 significant ways:
So thus we need a measurement of how much that stuff might have been created & used and how much, via DryWeatherConditions will have escaped in the wind. How strong were those winds over the year and which esp direction did the blow?
Just a rough average – how did LastYear change from 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago?
Where are all the Sputniks when we need them, are they not watching this?
Water: Water flowing off the continent will be being swept up by The Conveyor and carried north and east, dispersing itself as it goes..If it intrudes under the ice on the Arctic Ocean it will work to soften/melt and break up the ice.
So:
That was just a few random thoughts and a taster for what might be happening yet has vastly more possibility of being valid than the ViolationOfThe2ndLaw that is = The GHGE, the position of the stars and the oft disproven links to SunSpots and MankoWitchCycles
IOW: Stop trying to be so damn clever – rule out the really simple things first.
“IOW: Stop trying to be so damn clever – rule out the really simple things first.”
_____________________________________________________________
One of the simple things to notice is the rewriting of historical data. Below are the IPCC’s representations of Arctic Sea Ice extent from their first five Assessment Reports. It doesn’t take a genius to notice the Orwellian manipulation in the progression through the FAR, SAR & TAR:
Mostly by disappearing data from before 1980.
Some time ago, I watched an article on YT, on how the arctic circle has moved a few km further north in the North Atlantic. I wonder if that could be a contributing factor?
Really? I suppose that the equator also moved?
The operative word, is precession
You are correct but incorrect in about equal measure. The arctic circle, as a geographic region, remains in the same place (it’s drawn on the maps that way and nobodies interested in redrawing the maps every few years). However the Arctic, as an area of ice defined by it’s location around the North Pole, does move a few metres every year to follow the wanderings of the pole itself. This does impact the limits of multi-year ice and sea ice a very little, but not enough to be a factor.
Javier,
With the data presented, I see a red dotted line in Fig 3 that might as well be straight.
I do not see a convincing case for the Arctic Shift in the blued band.
I do not agree with the 90 percent failure, because such a prediction can fail with recognition of a new factor that upsets the understanding. In other words, one should beware of statistics on time series of climate data performed without a full understanding of perturbing variables, as to identity and magnitude.
Geoff S
The Arctic Shift is defined by the simultaneous change in many climate variables, of which the Arctic sea ice extent is just one. Several were presented in my first book and more are included in my new one to be published soon.
The Arctic Shift took place simultaneously as a global atmospheric reorganization that can be appreciated in more variables, affecting even the stratosphere.
There’s ample scientific bibliography on these climate shifts that happen from time to time. The previous one took place in 1976 when global warming started.
Hi Javier, regarding the Kim et al (2023) piece ( I avoid “paper”) in Nature Comm.: There was a longer blogpost over at Judies by me: https://judithcurry.com/2023/06/15/is-the-arctic-september-sea-ice-doomed-to-disappear-in-the-2030s/ , we also had some exchange there. Indeed this piece was some kind of garbage and it’s unclear why it’s not retrackted in the meantime due to it’s big methodology failures. .
best Frank
Yes. In climate science, if you deliver the right message, it doesn’t matter how bad is your science. It is a weird scientific discipline that doesn’t require the scientific method.
From Swart, et al., 2015:
In short, pauses of 7-years or less or extremely common, pauses of 20 years or less or uncommon, but occur with a greater than 5% probability, pauses of up 32 years can potentially occur, all under significant anthropogenic forcing.
This notion that there is some prediction that is going to be disproved by internal variability in Arctic sea ice trends in the coming couple of years is quite wrongheaded, even if you get a flat trend out to 2027 (and you’re making a pretty tough bet there that I’d be happy to take you up on).
Everything is possible, but if your hypothesis is contradicted by the facts at a p = 0.95 your hypothesis is considered a failure. At p = 0.9, your hypothesis is on very thin ice and very likely incorrect.
I am not into taking bets, but I have been predicting a continuation of the Arctic sea ice pause since October 2016 and so far so correct.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/10/07/evidence-that-multidecadal-arctic-sea-ice-has-turned-the-corner/
I still predict that by 2035, the Arctic should have the same September sea ice extent or more than now, regardless of emissions.
The hypothesis is not that it is impossible to observe a statistically significant pause in sea ice extent, the hypothesis is that there is a 35% chance of observing a 7-year pause, a 5% chance of observing a 20-year pause, and a 4% chance of observing a 32-year pause, all under significant anthropogenic forcing.
And to further that, as time goes on, the probabilities change depending on which emissions scenario is most closely tracked. If we track closer to RCP4.5, the probability of longer pauses increases.
All probability, as in ALL probability is conditional and is based on certain premises/assumptions (e.g., the models). if the “probabilities” change, then all that proves is that the models were wrong in the first place.
All probabilities are 50/50; either something happens or it doesn’t.
I think you would have a hard time convincing the FDA that your new drug is still useful despite only 4% of the patients showing an improvement after taking it.
The chance of something your hypothesis refutes happening is inversely proportional to the chance of your hypothesis being correct.
If sea ice decline is driven by emissions and emissions continue, sea ice decline must continue. If it doesn’t for a sufficiently long time your hypothesis is wrong. It is that simple.
What is this magical internal variability that is being invoked?
Doesn’t that depend on the payoff?
Seeing an unlikely thing occur does not falsify the hypothesis that the thing is unlikely to occur. This is fallacious reasoning.
In this case, up to 32 years is a possibility given internal variability in Arctic sea ice dynamics.
I think you don’t understand how science works. You cannot demonstrate that anything is true in science, but you can demonstrate that something is false if it is sufficiently unlikely to happen by chance.
When the landmark paper “Variations in the Earth’s Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” was published in 1976, it did not demonstrate that orbital variations were responsible for glaciations. It showed glaciations were taking place at orbital variations frequencies. The chance of a different cause driving glaciations at those particular frequencies is so small that it convinced everybody. But the chance is not zero. It never becomes zero.
The chance of human emissions driving Arctic sea ice decline is getting smaller every year the pause continues. The only faulty reasoning in this case is yours. It is clear scientists are wrong about sea ice decline and don’t understand what drives it. I do and I explain it in my book. It is the variable transport of heat to the Arctic region that drives Arctic sea ice decline, and I provide ample evidence that this process is solar-controlled. There’s 4000 years of evidence on that.
I will show one of the images in my book.
Try to explain that with human emissions.
What the paper you have cited is saying is that there is substantial internal variability in sea ice extent, and this variability can produce decades+ long pauses in sea ice decline even under substantial anthropogenic forcing.
To falsify this claim, you need to demonstrate that it is impossible for there to be such pauses under anthropogenic forcing, not point out that such a pause might be occurring.
You’re really defending a 5% likelihood?
I’m explaining to Javier the meaning of the paper he has cited. Let me know if you have more specific questions or if you are feeling confused on any point, happy to clarify.
I think it is you who need some explaining done. The paper refuted the idea that a 7-year pause in Arctic sea ice decline was unexpected. With a 34% probability, you could expect one in about 20 years. But the current pause is 90% unexpected. we could only expect one like it every century and a half. And it is getting more unlikely every year.
Pardon me, but if you have read the paper, according to their hypothesis and models, the probability of the steep decline that took place between 1997 and 2007 was only 3%, and this is followed by a 17-year-long pause that has a probability of only 10%.
I don’t think I need to falsify anything. Their hypothesis is totally unconvincing and clearly does not explain the evidence.
Saying that the hypothesis is correct regardless of what Arctic sea ice might due for decades because of internal variability is pitiful. With those probabilities, it is more consistent to say that internal variability drives Arctic sea ice extent and human emissions might have some effect that cannot be deduced from the data.
That you are convinced by such data of the veracity of their hypothesis only shows your huge bias.
Swart, et al. are pretty clear on this point:
If you are trying to argue anything else, you have misunderstood the paper. What is happening in the Arctic is in line with model projections coupled with internal variability.
Everything is conceivable, as Iñigo Montoya would say, but the point here is how rare it is. And the definition of rare depends on the hypothesis being defended.
Arctic sea ice extent has been measured since 1979, that is 44 years. Yet it turns out that for over half of that period, its trend has been rare according to the hypothesis defended by the authors.
Take the abundance of rarity as an indication of a wrong hypothesis. Otherwise, you will cut yourself with Occam’s razor.
The simplest explanation is that the hypothesis is wrong, not that Arctic sea ice behavior is rare.
An observation has been made that is consistent with the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not falsified. It’s no more complicated than that. Your framing of the issue as “a 90% chance that scientists are wrong” is incorrect, and I’ve explained why above.
You are wrong, the observation contradicts the hypothesis. It does not support it.
If you accept infinite improbabilities as possibly happening then nothing can be disproved.
If you watch a kettle boiling for a whole year and it never reaches temperature you have not proven that the kettle’s not on. You’ve just proven that it’s a very poor heating element.
Rubbish.
If the observations make the hypothesis incredible, don’t give credit to the hypothesis.
Your faith is strong. But your scientific methodology is poor.
You cannot rule anything out by your infinite improbabilities. And it seems you don’t even want to narrow your uncertainties.
What does the bowl of petunias have to say about it?
You can, of course, rule quite a few possibilities out. A pause of, say, 50 years, or 100 years, should not be observed under continued greenhouse forcing. The pause that has been observed to date is perfectly possible under strong greenhouse forcing. That is what Swart, et al. demonstrate.
Javier believes that if only the trend reaches a level of statistical significance, then we could say it should not be observed under strong greenhouse forcing, but that is not true. The trend reaching a level of statistical significance merely means that it is unlikely to be the result of pure noise, not that internal variability is not strong enough over decadal timescales to produce such a trend in the presence of greenhouse forcing.
This is the most important point: A good scientist never believes anything in the science realm with religious certitude.
This was illustrated by initial resistance to Einstein’s General Relativity. Newtonian Physics was so certainly true….it took a while for some to understand that Newtonian physics approximates truth only under limited conditions.
The climate science crowd now believes in their general prediction of coming apocalypse that they cannot wrap their heads around an Earth weather system dominated by negative feedbacks that will prevent extreme changes.
It will take many data sets clearly showing measurements more like p < .01, than sets at p < .05 ti displace their religious fervor.
“the Historical-RCP4.5 experiment.”
GIGO
To anyone who has not yet done so, please secure a copy of the first citation, which summarizes pretty much everything currently known about the Pleistocene (including the Holocene) climate. It’s dense; it’s long, but every page is packed with useful information. A masterwork.
Available from Amazon in all standard formats.
With the greatest respect to Javier Vinos (whose knowledge of climate matters exceeds mine many times over) he is quite wrong when he writes that “The realization that internal variability is a more important factor than expected explains why the rate of decline of Arctic summer SIE has slowed so much since 2007 …”
It is, was, and always will be internal variability that is the most important factor in driving climatic changes. The realization of this fact by the stubborn climate theoreticians explains nothing except that at long last some of them might be unplugging themselves from their computers and looking at what the real world is actually doing.
I would tend to agree with Tony Heller, that if one uses admittedly lower quality records from before 1979, arctic ice levels seem to be consistent with a multi decade cycle. Even using older records, there are only parts of one cycle, but expecting continued declines in sea ice levels is a remote possibility.
There are several attempts at reconstructions. One is from Alekseev et al. that shows these cycles.
On assessment of the relationship between changes of sea ice extent and climate in the Arctic, Alekseev och 2 medförfattare, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4550
Another reconstruction that shows natural variability.
Unfortunately, satellite observations started at the same time as a long term downturn in SIE.
Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records, R. Connolly, M. Connolly och W. Soon, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2017.1324974
The so called “runaway ice-albedo feedback” never existed in the first place.
Even during the summer, at the angles that sunlight is hitting the water, most of the energy is reflected. The difference between the albedo of ice and the albedo of water, while positive, is minor.
(That is also assuming the ice is clean. As it ages, ice is slowly covered by dust and soot.)
As the article mentions, existing clouds also reflect some of the sunlight, regardless of whether the water is covered by ice or not.
Beyond that, water not covered by ice will lead to increased evaporation, which has two impacts.
1) The evaporation cools water, perhaps by more than the added sunlight is warming it.
2) Increased evaporation leads to more clouds.
Perhaps it is just my denseness but neither what data nor what kind of search might find it seems to be revealed. There is only the declaration that something exists, perhaps hinting that, kike the emperor’s new clothes, anyone who can’t see it must not be worthy.
If you run a search for “Arctic sea ice extent data” you will find the data among the results with a little navigation.
For example here:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/snow-and-ice-extent/sea-ice/N/9
There you can find that the average for the 2007-2022 period has been 4.66 million km2 and no trend. How could it possibly be 2.8 million by 2022?
“The current method of communicating predictions from highly uncertain climate models to the public is undeniably inadequate, and it is truly surprising that no authoritative scientific voice has addressed this issue and voiced disapproval.”
I think you just did Javier.
I am not physicist enough to know the details, but I assume that while the loss of sea ice cover changes albedo, it also increases loss of heat from the arctic ocean via evaporation.
Does anyone here know what the balance of those effects are?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/03/could-arctic-sea-ice-decline-be-caused-by-the-arctic-oscillation/
How does solar radiation work? Solar radiation is absorbed by the surface from which the troposphere is heated. In the stratosphere, energy comes from ultraviolet radiation with a wavelength of less than 242 nm (Chapman reaction). This is very evident above the 65th parallel. When polar night falls, the height of the troposphere drops to 6 km on average, and stratospheric winds rule the circulation in the upper troposphere. It is so strong and constant that it nullifies the influence of El Nino during the winter season.
It seems to some that Ozone is a greenhouse gas and that is why higher temperatures appear in the stratosphere. But this is not true. If that were the case we would have high temperatures in the tropopause in winter, because more ozone accumulates in the lower stratosphere during the winter season. In fact, ozone cools the surface because it absorbs UV radiation above 242 nm.
Let’s look at the current minimum temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere. The cards are dealt by the circulation in the lower stratosphere (polar vortex).
In three days it will become almost wintry in Central Europe. There will be snow in the mountains. It will also be very cold over the Great Lakes.
Interesting that the Arctic Shift coincides with the reduction in global cloud cover and increase in enthalpy