by Jim Steele
The Arctic Ocean was nick-named the “upside down Ocean” by Fridtjof Nansen. Nansen was a famous Norwegian zoologists, oceanographer, and Arctic explorer as well as winner of the 1922 Nobel Peace Prize. During his failed expedition to reach the North Pole, his boat, the Fram, got frozen in Arctic sea ice but eventually was exported by Arctic currents, along with Arctic sea ice, into the Atlantic through what is now named the Fram Strait.
Nansen named the Arctic Ocean the “upside down ocean” because contrary to other oceans, the surface waters are the coldest, while between 100 and 900-meters depths the ocean is warmer due to inflows and storage of warm salty Atlantic waters. Sea ice cover prevents the ventilation of that stored heat. However, increases in open water allows more heat ventilation which has raised Arctic air temperatures 2 to 7 times faster than the global average. Open waters have been increasing due to changes in wind direction and currents. Open water is not proof of melting.
NASA estimates that globally added CO2 has increased downward infrared and added “a little over 0.8 Watts per square meter” of energy which their Just So stories claim melted sea ice. But researchers (e.g. Kim 2019) have reported that over open water more winter heat, about 2 Watts per meter squared, is being ventilated heat away more than absorbed. That suggests radiative cooling!
So, NOAA’s 2019 Arctic Report Card created another “Just So story” to blame more open water on the greenhouse effect and Arctic Amplification even though they state, “There is currently no consensus Arctic amplification”. They listed proposed amplification mechanisms: reduced summer albedo, increase of water vapor and clouds, lapse-rate feedback, and decreased air pollution. However, despite all the evidence, ventilating heat from the warm Atlantic layer is never mentioned. That is bad science! Warming due to ventilating heat again means the earth’s climate is cooling and not in a crisis mode.
Two research papers are very informative. Kahl et al 1993, reported in the prestigious journal Nature, that after 40 years of intensive measurements there was no evidence of greenhouse warming over the ice-covered ocean. However, shortly thereafter the winds shifted in the 1990s due to the Arctic Oscillation, decreasing thick insulating sea ice and increasing open waters (Rigor 2000).
A distinction must be made between Arctic fast-ice and drifting pack ice. Fast-ice melts every year and does not add to an open ocean trend. In contrast, some wind directions and currents can cause pack ice to converge and thicken and eliminate regional open water. Other wind directions cause sea ice to diverge, opening “flaw leads” and creating a mosaic of open water and solid ice.
Rigor (2000) reported the following measurements of heat ventilating from different sea ice thicknesses, illustrating how ventilating heats causes Arctic warming. Ventilating heat has been measured to warm the Arctic air by 10 to 700 times more than the CO2 greenhouse effect.
Open leads: 700 W m-2
0.4 meter thick: 80 W m-2
1 meter thick: 30 W m-2
3-meter thick ice: 10 W m-2
Nonetheless, alarmists blame any warming in Greenland or sea ice loss on added CO2, but totally ignore the heat ventilating from the Arcdtic Ocean’s warm Atlantic layer. More Bad Science!
Finally, fast-ice, not pack-ice, is the critical habitat for ringed seals and polar bears. Fast-ice is where seals give birth and nurse their pups and molt their fur. It is during that 4 month period from March through June that ringed seals are most vulnerable to polar bears.
Polar bears have evolved to emerge from their winter dens in March to gorge and fatten on ringed seal pups, accumulating enough energy to survive until the next year. As seen, fast-ice has not melted during the seals critical period. It is why ringed seals are abundant and not threatened and why polar bears have been increasing. Alarmists never distinguish between fast-ice and pack-ice trends.
Beware the alarmists’ Arctic propganda.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hello again Jim,
You failed to mention this response to Kahl et al. in Nature:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232752728_Arctic_greenhouse_effect
“Because warming is occurring over land and on the fringe of the Arctic Ocean, the models predict the largest response in ice margins, away from the central region where the data used by Kahl were collected.”
Models based on speculation versus data. Hm. I wonder which we should believe. 🙄
It seems that alarmists are seldom if ever skeptical of models.
In fact they promote model output all the time and often having used the ridiculous RCP8.5 scenario which in an honest scientific environment would have been dropped years ago.
Hi Snowflake, I didn’t “fail” to mention other replies to Kahl’s work. Simple replies that you allude to NEVER contradicted the fact the Arctic temperatures never warmed over the Arctic regions where sea ice was intact. The point being Arctic warming has been driven by ventilation of Atlantic water heat wherever open water replaced by insulating ice, and the open water was created by the Arctic Oscillation’s wind direction change.
Perhaps you can explain why you think that is not true???
Have a look at
“Surface air temperature variability and trends in the Arctic: new amplification assessment and regionalisation” published in 2016 compared to Kahl’s 1993 paper. It clearly shows warming over the whole of the arctic and at enhanced rates compared to the rest of the northern hemisphere. The url is at
https://a.tellusjournals.se/articles/10.3402/tellusa.v68.28234
The point of this article is agreeing that the air temprature over the Arctic Ocean has been warming faster than elsewhere but that it is due to heat ventilating from the ocean when insulating sea ice was reduced.
“Surface air variability.” “…over the whole of the Arctic…”
Really? Care to tell me which temperature stations on the sea ice or pack ice recorded those temperatures? Or is this the usual method of using nearby temperature stations and ‘homogenising’ over the ‘whole’ Arctic?
Arctic “amplification” started out of the blue in the late 1990s after decades of warming without amplification. It was due to reduced solar activity for the centennial solar minimum we are experiencing.
The same happened a hundred years ago during the previous centennial solar minimum.
And the same has been happening for over 4,000 years:
Kobashi, T., Box, J.E., Vinther, B.M., Goto‐Azuma, K., Blunier, T., White, J.W.C., Nakaegawa, T. and Andresen, C.S., 2015. Modern solar maximum forced late twentieth century Greenland cooling. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(14), pp.5992-5999.
Whenever solar activity is low for more than one cycle the Arctic warms and sea ice decreases. It is clear that it has little to do with global warming or emissions, as it started in the late 1990s.
As solar activity is expected to increase in the next solar cycle (26), the Arctic is expected to cool and sea ice should grow.
That is a testable hypothesis and so counts as real science.
We shall see.
Here’s the more recent activity that you omitted in your graph above.
cycle25_prediction_short.png
Thanks for showing that there is still a lot of solar energy entering the system.
Good evening Jim (UTC),
Perhaps you could take another look at our previous discussion about the AMO, and respond to the points that I previously raised over there, but which remain unanswered?
Here you go:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/01/21/how-bogus-arctic-warming-attribution-enabled-the-climate-crisis-scam/#comment-3855811
JimH points to another nothing propaganda comment, pertaining to nothing.
Good morning Jim (UTC),
Perhaps you can explain why your previous article on the topic of Arctic warming asserted in the first paragraph that:
“Any critical thinking person can see warm Arctic temperatures are due to inflows of warm Atlantic water”
whereas Blanchet & Girard assert that:
“The energy balance of the Arctic is mainly provided by the import of moist and mild maritime air”?
TIA
“Because warming is occurring over land and on the fringe of the Arctic Ocean,”
Is it really, Jim ???
Only warming I can see this century is from the 2015 El Nino.. nearly all gone now.
Or are you talking about temperatures measured in expanding Arctic towns ?
And “models predict”. LOL… meaningless nonsense, then.
Bnice, Why are you adressing your criticism to me, for the dubious claim that SnowFlake is pushing?
SnowFlake’s name is also Jim. Sorry about that !
Realised too long after I’d written my comment.
Yeah, he is also known as misleading Jim….., he was banned here years ago wonder if he got another reprieve but he is never honest as he as an agenda to run.
Thank you for your kind words Tommy,
Long time no see!
And here I thought that you were imitating ‘Bones’ talking to Kirk! 🙂
That was a quotation from a 1994 reply in Nature to the the paper quoted with apparent approval by Jim S.
Did you click the link and read the rest of it?
Did you read Jim’s paper for that matter?
That’s also all you had to offer to the discussion over at Tallbloke’s Ron.
Please try harder.
In the meantime, here’s a spot of surrealism for you once again:
Before I get back to reading article, comment that NASA estimates the increased down welling of IR from CO2. For anyone who wants to support this claim, including MODTRAN, I want to see the percentage of CO2 excited quantum states over temperature, pressure, and concentration from sea level to the troposphere. The non-LTE folkes could answer this but will not touch it because of the CO2 thermalization. Where the macro world dominates the quantum side. Just want to see a reasonably justified plot. Then the calculation is straight forward. Now back to the article.
Comments??
Need that plot…
Forgot, plot should be of mixed gas, n2, o2, co2 minimum
“Need that plot…” What prevents you from making it?
Believe me, I am tring. In the end you need to know the thermalization reaction rates, both directions to find solution(deep dive into physical chemistry). It will probably need a serious lab setup to measure over full range. Hoping someone may know answer already. Quantum approximations not useful as far as I can tell.
Using just radiative energy doesn’t help all that much in understanding the atmosphere.
Bulk energy transfer, conduction, convection, all have to be considered.
Understand all that. Want someone to justify operation of modtran which I believe is completely wrong for co2 downwelling IR. The superfical spin of downwelling co2 IR needs to be answered directly.
“Bulk energy transfer, conduction, convection, all have to be considered.”
Yes! Looking at only CO2 is trying to figure out a car and thinking the windshield wiper motors make the car go, and ignoring everything under the hood.
In other words- it’s dam complicated- especially if you factor in “Quantum approximations”. Yikes!
Regardless of the endless arguments over CO2’s effects on long wave or short wave radiation up or downwards, and whether CO2 is “heating the oceans”, the warmunists assumptions are simply nonsense. Oceans that cover 70% of the Earth’s surface constitute an enormous heat sink that with its various currents and the effects of atmospheric circulation due to the coriolus effect, it should be painfully obvious that it is the sun that heats the oceans, and it is the oceans that heat or cool the atmospheric air masses that constitute “climate”.
The mass of the oceans is vastly greater than that of the atmosphere. Added to that fact is that the specific heat content of liquid water is about four times that of air.
Specific heat content in whatever system of units used is a measure of how many units of thermal energy is required to change the temperature of one unit of mass of the material by one unit of temperature. Such as kcal/kg/DegC.
In short, liquid water will absorb an enormous amount of thermal energy from the sun per unit area (such as sq m) compared to the amount of thermal energy required per unit area of atmosphere for the same no. of units of temperature change.
The oceans effectively act as an analogous “lever” of the sun’s energy transfer to the atmosphere.
In other words, the oceans heat or cool the atmosphere far more effectively than the atmosphere heats or cools the oceans.
That is why “air masses” are defined by whether they are “maritime” (originate over oceans) or “continental” (originate over the land which besides being drier also has a much lower specific heat content than liquid water). Maritime air masses tend to moderate atmospheric temperature changes both diurnally and seasonally … they also are more humid than continental air masses, which experience much larger temperature swings. Major ocean currents exert a particularly large effect on atmospheric temperature, such as with the Gulf Stream and the larger AMOC system of currents.
In short, it’s the oceans that control the atmosphere, not the other way around.
A further complication…
“Average cloud cover over the oceans is around 72%.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_cover#:~:text=Average%20cloud%20cover%20is%20around,land%2C%20with%20significant%20seasonal%20variation
“In short, it’s the oceans that control the atmosphere, not the other way around.”
aYes this one is clear to me from observing my lake in Saskatchewan.
every summer the lake warms until late July regardless how cool or wet the summer is then it starts to cool even though August is generally the hottest period because the sun is declining.
A couple summers ago it was cool, didn’t get above 20c until late July, lake still got to its usual 23-24c, then it cooled all through August even though we had glorious stretches of 30c and more.
its the sun.
You might want to re-read my article about specular reflection off water. A point I don’t think that I made is that the higher the reflectivity (high angle of incidence) the less light that makes it into the water to warm it.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/
I’m afraid I have to disagree with that phrase even if I agree with the rest. The atmosphere regulates the heat flux from the ocean to the atmosphere, as most is done through evaporation that critically depends on winds, as does most of the heat transport by the ocean.
An example is El Niño, an imposition of the atmosphere (trade winds and Walker Circulation) on the ocean.
There is ample evidence of atmospheric regulation of ocean heat transport and heat flux to the atmosphere. You can start with chapter 17 of my latest book about ocean heat transport:
https://judithcurry.com/2023/11/04/solving-the-climate-puzzle-the-suns-surprising-role/
The ocean acts as a giant heat capacitor that absorbs heat when the planet warms and releases it when the planet cools, moderating climate change and making life possible.
Seems to me that could be a real crisis. Of course it depends on magnitude.
That description of polar bear evolution doesn’t seem to give the Panserbjørn a chance.
Who What is Panserbjørn?
It is not German (which I speak fluently in 3 of four dialects) but probably another Germanic Nordic language (am guessing Norwegian). Panser= Arctic. Bjorn = bear. Close enough.
No. Arktis (or some variant) would be germanic for Arctic. Panser is germanic for ‘armoured’ and specifically refers to the fictional bears of the ‘His Dark Materials’ series.
A swing and a miss, not quite close enough, Rud!
Could it be from Philip Pullmans trilogy His Dark Materials?
I didn’t differentiate between the book series and the tv series (or the hollywood film for that matter).
JS, superb post. Full of obscure but very important facts both oceanographic and biologic.
I would add one qualitative observation, later quantified by Judith Curry in her ‘Arctic Stadium Wave’ paper. There is lots of evidence for a quasi periodic ~60-65 year Arctic sea ice cycle. It so happens that the starting sea ice satellite observations coincided with a sea ice peak. Something climate alarmists are now regretting. Illustrated details were given in essay ‘Northwest Passage’ in ebook Blowing Smoke.
The slight recovery from the extreme high of 1979 towards much lower Holocene extents, has allowed many sea creatures to return to the Arctic.
Species not evident since the MWP are starting to return to the Arctic waters as their food now has a chance to grow. Sea creatures like whales can’t swim on ice !!
The nearly extinct (from hunting) Narwhale is making a reappearance.
The ice retreats – whale food returns (sciencenorway.no)
Great thing is, that because of fossil fuels and plastics, they will no longer be hunted for whale blubber oil for lamps and for whale bone.
Hopefully the Arctic doesn’t re-freeze too much in the next AMO cycle, and these glorious creatures get a chance to survive, thrive and multiply.
The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola
The abstract from the second link
Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there. The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, returned to Svalbard in 2004 following recent warming, and after almost 4000 years of absence, excluding a short re-appearance during the Medieval Warm Period 900 years ago. Mytilus first arrived in Svalbard at 11 cal. ka BP, indicating that the climate was then as least as warm as present. This first warm period lasted from 11 to 9 cal. ka BP and was followed by a period of lower temperatures 9–8.2 cal. ka BP. After 8.2 cal. ka, the climate around Svalbard warmed again, and although it did not reach the same peak in temperatures as prior to 9 ka, it was nevertheless some 4°C warmer than present between 8.2 and 6 cal. ka BP. Thereafter, a gradual cooling brought temperatures to the present level at about 4.5 cal. ka BP. The warm early-Holocene climate around Svalbard was driven primarily by higher insolation and greater influx of warm Atlantic Water, but feedback processes further influenced the regional climate.
6ºC warmer, 4ºC warmer.. far less sea ice… for thousand+ year periods
Yet the Arctic sea ice is still there, and the polar bears are still there. !
Today’s artic ice extent is in fact substantially the same (actually a little higher) than the maximum extent observed in 1974.
And certainly a lot higher than through most of the last 10,000 years
Any rational person looking at that, would describe the current sea ice level as rather high, probably in the top 5-10% of the Holocene.
but.. but.. there’s so much “weeping and gnashing of teeth” for trivial changes in ice extent! Apparently some folks haven’t anything more important to worry about.
If they can stampede the lemmings, then they can make lemming stew.
Satellite data.
The Narwhale does not exist. The article refers to bowhead whales, not Narwhals (without an e) which are whales with a unicorn tusk.
The narwhal (Monodon monoceros), also known as the narwhale, is a species of toothed whale. It is a member of the family Monodontidae, and the only species in the genus Monodon. Adults are typically 3.5 to 5.5 m (11 to 18 ft) in length and 800 to 1,600 kg (1,800 to 3,500 lb) in weight. The most prominent feature of the species is an adult male’s long single tusk that can be up to 3 m (9.8 ft).
There are estimated to be 170,000 living narwhals in the world, and the species is listed as least concern.
Monodon means “one tooth” and monoceros “one horn.”
oops.. It even says Bowhead in the article… me bad !
So does my original text.
I wonder why I typed Narwhale ??? . 😉
Narwhale is also correct, according to Wikipedia.
Who know what evil lurks in the heart of MS Word autocorrect? Even the Shadow doesn’t know.
Actually, Narwhals do exist, and are often found in the summer waters of Baffin bBay where their food source and mating area becomes greatly expanded as sea ice decreases.
Too much sea ice as in 1979 and LIA) leaves their food source and mating areas much harder to get at and shorter in duration.
The Story Of A Migrating Narwhal – Arctic Kingdom
Nansen History:
“… his boat, the Fram, got frozen in Arctic sea ice but eventually was exported by Arctic currents, along with Arctic sea ice, into the Atlantic through what is now named the Fram Strait.”
He intentionally let the specially designed (extra stout) ship become caught up in the pack ice. He estimated the pack ice movement and thought that he would be able to get to the North Pole through the natural drift. After he realized that he miscalculated the trajectory of the ice (and ship), he got off and walked, but still never made it to the Pole. Eventually the ship did float far enough to ‘the other side’ and
*other fun facts: One day the wind was blowing pretty strong and they lost a bunch of pages of note paper. A day or two later they saw a polar bear, and it being a scientific expedition they checked the stomach contents after they shot it … the only thing the poor guy had had to eat was the paperwork that had blown away.
Only Norwegians were allowed as crew members (except one lying Swede).
Roald Amundsen applied and wanted to go, but his mommy would not let him.
Nansen is one of few Nobel Peace prize winners that was deserving of the honor.
They used a wind powered generator for electric lighting for the years they drifted in the pack ice.
Nansen was picked-up (rescued) by an Englishman that was rejected because he was not Norske.
The Norwegians run a small fleet of 2 or 3 oceanographic research vessels, of which the lead ship and class are named for Fridtjof Nansen. It’s great that his spirit of discovery and scientific exploration lives on.
Quick question tied into all this?
Are any of the CERES instruments in a postion to measure TOA radiation over the artic and study the effect of ice coverage?
Regards
I am not sure of all the details. However the Joint Polar Satellite System was designed to add polar data to the CERES data suggesting CERES itself does not have adequate coverage over polar regions. Worse, the Joint Polar Satellite System was cancelled because it was too expensive.
But not too expensive to send over $100 billion to Ukraine… it is all about priorities which I say is badly misplaced.
$100bn of obsolete inventory that would have been scrapped anyway if it hadn’t been given away, which is probably cheaper than scrapping it,
Particularly stuff that goes bang.
Things that go boom are never obsolete.
Unless it is an artillery shell of a caliber for which the artillery piece is no longer available.
There’s data on emissions up to about 85º, which is enough to know what is happening. As I explained in the series of articles about how the Sun regulates climate (Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis), there was a strong increase in longwave emissions in the Arctic starting in 1997, when the Arctic Shift took place:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/23/the-winter-gatekeeper-hypothesis-vii-a-summary-and-some-questions/
The planet is losing more energy due to winter Arctic warming, and this reduces global warming.
What exactly are you plotting here, it makes no sense that the Arctic surface radiates more in winter when the surface temperature is 30ºC colder than in the summer. Also according to DMI the surface temperature during the summer is about the same now as it was before 1997. Presumably it’s some kind of anomaly but it would help if you said what it is.
While making a morning commute a number of years ago a local radio station
which has a regular program featuring local events of interest there was
a man on who was a keynote speaker for an annual regional Farm Bureau event. He
was the former CEO of Cargill and at that time had resigned and was still
on the board but was the head of Risk Management . Not a regular type
of guest and it got my attention. He proceeded to describe what they had found
to be their largest risk to their extensive AG operation, and that was the
stormtrack. He went on at length describing how the storm track over the US
had become wavy and had slowed down considerably which was producing weather
that was causing big impacts on their crop production. Instead of storm systems that
would pass thru in a few days these would linger for several weeks and would be thru from
the south/north and be very hot or from the north and be cold which was causing big losses.
He further noted that their weather unit found these change happened while the arctic had warmed a fair bit more than the rest of the country. They have their own private weather unit.
So when I read this excellent piece on the arctic by Mr Steele I see a connection
to the Cargill problem and the way the arctic functions. What am I missing?
After over 40 years of CAGW alarm, no one has presented any reliable evidence that proves the theory of CO2-induced “greenhouse effect” driven warming as the predominant cause or even a significant contributor to the recent gentle warming which has been nothing but helpful to life in the biosphere. While there are endless opportunities to bring such evidence forward the advocates of the theory routinely refuse to do so or to debate the theory with other true scientists who are appropriately skeptical, as all scientists should be.
In the same time frame there are a multitude of other mostly natural climate drivers which could explain most or all of recent warming which have substantial supporting evidence, even though none of us can claim to have a complete knowledge of the mechanics of how climate change works especially on the time-scales we are discussing. Yet, if one is truly interested in understanding and making an appropriate and proportional social response to recent climate changes then one must examine and try to understand all drivers, yet the CAGW advocates studiously ignore and try to divert attention from all possible drivers but the one they want to use as an excuse for global control of almost every aspect of human society, industry, trade, and living standards.
This is just a very long-winded way of saying how frustrated I remain that so many good scientists continue to provide all the evidence we need to revisit the CAGW theory with well-founded skepticism, while providing a multitude of alternate valid theories of causation, but we still have a bureaucratic, political, “scientific”, and journalistic elite who keep singing the same “end is nigh” refrain as if they are members of a mindless cult, or worse, a true conspiracy against the welfare of human society.
While we have time on our hands as we wait for the truth to float into view for most, we could perhaps put our heads together and figure out a reliable way to replace the unaccountable pattern of social governance we seem to have now which will destroy society if not stopped, with a new system that holds individuals fully accountable for the harm they cause through whatever position of influence they hold whether political, academic, administrative, educational, journalistic or other. People respond reliably to “carrots and sticks”. We don’t have nearly enough “sticks”.
I’ve been following this site since it started and have heard comments along these lines throughout its existence.
Yet all we’ve seen is further warming.
Truth has already floated into plain view; not everyone can see it, apparently.
You STILL haven’t recognised the TRUTH that the atmospheric warming comes only from El Nino events.
The TRUTH is that there is NO EVIDENCE of human causation of the atmospheric warming in the last 45 years.
You keep proving that…. by producing no evidence.
You wouldn’t know the TRUTH even if it kick you fair in the a**e !
That’s because it doesn’t. El Nino is cancelled out by La Nina over time, hence the term ‘oscillation’.
If the ENSO system only ever adds heat and never subtracts, by whatever magical process you envisage, then how come the oceans haven’t long since boiled of the face of the earth?
FinalNail Clearly you fail to understand the climate dynamics. La Nina conditions cause an upwelling of cooler subsurface water in the eastern Pacific. That causes the global average air temperature to cool. However simultaneously it enables greater solar heating of the ocean which gets stored in subsurface layers in the western Pacific as deep as 200 meter depths yet doesnt affect air temperatures.
El Nino events bring that heat that was stored in subsurface layers and brings it to the surface where it can ventilate and warm the air temperature. Still the ventilation of that heat is cooling the ocean.
Yes, La Nina causes cooling and El Nino causes warming. Over time they cancel one another out, as can be seen from the ENSO index.
So who is it that doesn’t understand climate dynamics here, Jim?
“La Nina causes cooling and El Nino causes warming”
Obviously it is YOU that doesn’t understand, even remotely. !
Damn FinalNail maybe you are just stupid troll. La Nina cools air temperatures but warms the ocean. You are totally wrong to argue El Nino cancels that warming. As La Nina conditions store heat in the western Pacific, some of that heat is also circulated northward via the Kuroshio current, some into the Indian Ocean, as well as other heat transport. Essentially La Nina conditions allow ocean heat storage some of which is transported around the world raising temperatures elsewhere.
It (theFinalNail) thinks ENSO cycles regulate the climate by heat and cold parcels riding the Hadley cells up and down to New York on their way from the equator to adjust those thermometers. Or something like that, it couldn’t possibly entertain the idea of Enso Cycles regulating Earths global humidity levels, radiative transfer theory is beyond its capacity.
It should stick to something easier, perhaps tik tac toe or checkers.
It (LT3) doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘oscillation’.
It needs an education.
I’m not arguing that El Nino cancels ocean warming; I’m stating the obvious fact that the ENSO system simply moves heat around. La Nina does not create magic cooling; El Nino does not create magic heat.
There has to be an outside input to create a temperature change in the system, whether warming or cooling.
In our current situation, it’s warming.
It can’t be explained by solar, because TSI has decreased over the observed period of warming.
It can’t be explained by heat previously stored in the oceans being released, because all evidence points to the oceans also warming, even at depth.
Everything we can measure is warming, over the long term. So we’re back to asking you where you think the ‘cooling’ is?
More stupidity by the dishonest troll FinalFail who obscures climate dynamics saying “It can’t be explained by solar, because TSI has decreased over the observed period of warming”
FinalFail doesn’t know reduced cloud cover increases solar heating? What an idiot!
Oh, so clouds have caused the gigantic increase in ocean heat content and the warming of the surface and atmosphere?
And the evidence for this is….?
And still no explanation of how warming = cooling?
Toe Fungal Nail is so clever he knows the temperature of every cubic meter of the World’s oceans to better than the resolution of ARGO float thermometers.
No, it doesn’t cancel out because they are not concurrent in time.
Of course they’re not concurrent in time. You can’t have both phases of an oscillation occurring simultaneously, otherwise it wouldn’t be an oscillation.
That doesn’t mean that one phase of the oscillation can’t cancel the other one out over time. That’s sort of the definition of an oscillation.
La Nina was more present from 1940-1975 We got cooling
Since then, there has been a series of strong solar cycles.
El Nino has been prevailing since the late 1970s ..
Since 1995 there have been another three very strong El Ninos
So you are patently WRONG as always..
… over the last 45 years they have NOT balanced out.
There is still a lot of solar energy reaching the oceans in the tropical region.
They may start to “balance out” as the solar energy drops over the next few cycles.
If so, the whole AGW-cult-scam collapses completely.
Again.. you still have not produced a single bit of evidence of any human causation.
Human causation is what the “Global Warming ” scam is all about
And, as you keep proving… THERE IS NONE.
Here’s the updated version of your graph that includes the last 30 years.
meiv2.timeseries.png
B-nasty loves his out-of-date graphs, doesn’t he?
WRONG as always.
You continue to have basically ZERO understanding of La Nina and El Nino.
And show absolutely no interest in education yourself.
You don’t understand the nature of the “oscillation”.. It is not like a “pendulum”
You don’t understand even remotely the dynamics of El Ninos and La Nina.
That leads you say some truly idiotic things that have absolutely ZERO basis in reality.
“The TRUTH is that there is NO EVIDENCE of human causation of the atmospheric warming in the last 45 years.
You keep proving that…. by producing no evidence.“
In fact, here’s the global UAH record showing monthly data in red, the full linear trend in blue and the linear trend for the period since WUWT came into existence (Nov 2006) in Green.
Correlation does not prove causation, as we all know; so there’s no way we can prove that the existence of WUWT has caused a sharp increase in the rate of global warming.
It’s just rather amusing, that’s all.
That record represents approximately 0.000001% of earth’s existence, i.e., anyone ascribing more than a smidgen of shit to it is out of their mind.
You’re not seeing the funny side of this at all here, Scissor.
Over the existence of WUWT, a site that denies the existence of (or more often these days, denies the significance of) global warming, has presided over one of the fastest rates of global warming in the modern record.
And that’s according to UAH, the preferred global temperature reference for WUWT.
Come on, man. That’s funny. Ironic, at least.
You are the one in DENIAL of the FACT that the only atmospheric warming in 45 years has come from El Nino events.
You are the one TOTALLY INCAPABLE of showing any human causation whatsoever.
You have FAILED COMPLETELY yet again.
You do know that it was COOLING up to the current EL Nino, don’t you..
You do know that basically the whole of the satellite data has zero trend apart from those El Nino events, don’t you.
Yes, we are seeing the hilariously STUPID slap-stick ignorance you keep producing !
Have you considered you’ve got it ass-backward as per usual? That the warming and the associated misguided or misinformed scientific correlations spawned by the mediocre climate enthusiasts necessitated a site set up to try to keep the record straight and fight back against the tide of mis- and dis-information?
UAH is the poster-child global temperature data set of WUWT. It re-posts Roy Spencer’s UAH monthly updates (which are at record high levels) and it features the UAH monthly data on its side-panel.
That data UAH confirms that the rate of global warming since WUWT began is significantly higher, according to UAH, than the long-term warming trend.
That’s laugh-out-loud funny. Come on!
Again the “monkey with a ruler” using strong El Ninos to create a trend.
Thus PROVING absolutely that El Ninos are the source of the warming.
Well done little monkey !
Oscillation.
Look it up.
They call it that for a reason that evades you.
Any gray hair yet? If you’re lucky, its appearance will precede you in death, then the final nail.
Prefer to call it ‘silver’.
The bell tolls for us all.
A constant ringing in the echo-chamber where your mind should be.
Here I am in the echo chamber.
LOL, then you have no argument with the post, you got bored came here to show that you are not interested in an honest discussion of the article.
The evidence does not exist. I’ve looked for it for 10 years in the scientific bibliography. At present it is just a popular belief, or an “extraordinary popular delusion,” as Charles MacKay would have said.
That might be true if the oceans weren’t warming too.
How can the earth’s temperature be “cooling” when both land and ocean temperatures/heat content are increasing in tandem?
Someone once suggested, quite seriously, that because of the water content of the air that oceans should be considered to run continuously from the sea bed to the top of the atmosphere, just with different layers of density. Obviously the denser the water, the greater the potential heat content so you’d get a constant flux and change in heat being transferred between the various levels, giving rise to circulation patterns. It’s an interesting idea and, from a certain perspective, makes a lot of sense.
It would require quite a lot of evidence though, right?
Oh indeed, but it is still an interesting thought experiment, yes?
Well, gases and liquids are both fluids so I guess it’s worth a try. It’s a bit of a long shot compared to the more obvious candidate though, in my humble.
It would need a very strong education in ocean dynamics which appears to be sadly lacking in todays ‘instant gratification’ education system.
Evidence.?? !
Pretty sure you are totally clueless about what the word even means !!
Ventilating ocean heat cools the ocean while warming the atmosphere. Ocean warming can be conclusively attributed to solar heating due as La Nina like condition cause fewer clouds where the sun heats the ocean.
I’ve described this dynamic in detail in Science of Solar Ponds Challenges the Climate Crisis
But you still don’t answer the question of whether the statement that the “earth’s climate is cooling” is false. You state above that the ventilating ocean heats the atmosphere and that ocean warming is due to solar heating so it would seem that you think that ventilating oceans can in fact warm the earth.
No. I do believe our climate has slightly warmed. However I argue that it is solar energy that is heating the oceans where tropical cloud cover has been reduced. The ventilation of that solar heat absorbed by the oceans can raise air temperatures while the ventilation of that ocean heat is a dynamic that is cooling the climate system and prevents extreme warming. Its NOT evidence of CO2 driven warming or a climate crisis.
So how does any of this mean that “the earth’s climate cooling”, as you stated?
You seem to be agreeing that the oceans are warming, the surface is warming and the atmosphere is warming. Yet you say the “earth’s climate is cooling”.
Eh?
This is typical FinalNAil trolling bullshite that we have been accustomed to seeing. You are changing the context of my statement “Warming due to ventilating heat again means the earth’s climate is cooling and not in a crisis mode.” refers to the Arctic Ocean,. Reqad the article’s title for a clue. But you dishonestly change the context to say I stated “the earth’s climate cooling”
That’s why you are known as a disgusting liar!
I was not stating the oceans have not been warming over recent decades. I was stating the ventilation of Arctic ocean heat is dishonestly being cited as evidence of a warming crisis, instead of recognizing that the ventilation of ocean heat has a cooling effect that prevents any runaway warming. It is the ventilation of Arctic ocean heat that warms Arctic air and wrongly gets averaged into the global average
We’re still no closer to finding out what it is you mean by your statement that the earth is “cooling” when, as you say yourself, the oceans have been warming over recent decades.
Let’s make the question simpler, for a simple person like me:
If the oceans, surface and atmosphere are all warming, in what way is the earth “cooling”, as you claim?
Again, a total inability to comprehend what was actually written.
It must be very frustrating for you to have so little understanding of the reality of …… everything. !
Right, so how come the oceans don’t lose heat when measured; in fact they have gained heat?
But solar output has reduced over the periods we are talking about; less TSI has been measured over the time that both the oceans and the atmosphere have measurably warmed.
What evidence is there that cloud cover has reduced to the extent that it would allow massive heating of the oceans and atmosphere in a few decades?
Oh, and you still haven’t explained how all this is means that “the earth’s climate is cooling”?
Ocean heat totals haven’t been measured, they have only been estimated from a ridiculously small sample size – the error range is so massive as to make it, essentially, worthless.
Nevertheless, the sampling all agrees on a steady increase in ocean heat content.
Maybe the thousands of buoys have just been unlucky?
OCH…. see that little red squiggle
Or are you going to continue to IGNORE THE SCIENCE. !
Employing ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ I see.
Not FAKE proxies like Mann used..
Sorry if you can’t understand just how TINY the OHC change has been in the last 100 or so years.
Just HOW LITTLE OCEAN WARMING there has actually been compared to the rest of the Holocene
Choose to remain an ignorant numbat.
I see you don’t understand what the Nature Trick was.
“Employing ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ I see.”
True, should have used say the 100 year average of recent OHC.
Would have got one tiny dot that you couldn’t even see.
Way to shoot yourself in the foot, idiot !
Considering those ‘thousands of buoys’ have been sampling a small geographical area (relatively speaking) not spread equally across all ocean areas then I would wholeheartedly agree with your proposition.
Cloud cover over the tropic HAS reduce.
Absorbed shortwave Radiation has Increased
Ocean warming….. So absolutely no possible way it can have any human causation.
Ocean heat content change is tiny compared to the drop in OHC even in the last 2000 years.
See that little red squiggle at the end…
This chart (whatever it is) is irrelevant to Jim’s claim that the climate is currently “cooling”, despite abundant evidence that the oceans and atmosphere are simultaneously warming?
Where is this “cooling” that manifests itself as warming?
FinalNail you are just dishonestly trolling, creating bogus strawman arguments and ignoring the explanation in order to obscure the discussion regards how changes in sea ice can either insulate ocean heat or allow heat ventilation and atmospheric warming!
I am not trolling and I am not being dishonest in any way. You have not yet provided any explanation for this categorical statement:
In what sense is the climate cooling when every metric we have, including ocean heat content (those ‘venting oceans’), shows that it is warming?
Yes! you are dishonestly and stupidly trolling like you always do!
Energy entering the ocean is warming. Energy leaving the ocean is cooling. Heat leaving the Arctic ocean has a cooling effect. But you dishonestly try to obscure that simple fact as if it is a statement about the earth’s overall trend.
Your dishonest trolling is not worth further replies. So keep babbling to yourself.
Yes.
Of course.
That’s the arm-waving right there Jim. That sentence is meaningless.
Of course I agree that oceans warm as heat enters and cool as it leaves; also that, obviously, heat leaving the oceans cools them.
But the fact is that the oceans are warming, even as heat is entering and leaving. So there has to be an additional factor that’s causing that.
Ignoring? I’d say totally incapable of even comprehending.
Thankfully, no one with any sense cares what you think, b-nasty.
Yes, your comment on Ocean Heat Content was totally irrelevant.
Thanks for admitting that fact.
North Atlantic is cooling
That graph doesn’t seem to agree with any of the data I’ve seen. Of course it would help if you broke your habit of showing graphs with the last decade or so’s data missing.
Summer-Heat-Map-Round-Up-oisst2.1_natlan1_sst_day-Science.jpg
North Atlantic OHC is decreasing
Perhaps you could update the graph? I think there has been a more recent temperature rise, which a researcher named Dr. Veterito attributes to possible seafloor spreading and lava.
the topic was the near Arctic waters.
But yes, there are fairly solid signs of warming in some areas above the plate boundaries.
TheFinalNail, you seem to not understand what Jim is saying and we all understand, because you don’t want to.
Arctic warming and sea ice loss is a cooling mechanism. Something that alarmists fail to recognize because they don’t understand thermodynamics. Whether the planet’s surface warms or cools depends on many things, but Arctic warming is a negative to global warming. Global warming is less than it would be thanks to Arctic warming. The reason is that the greenhouse effect is several times weaker at the poles in winter because 75% of the greenhouse effect is due to water in the atmosphere, and the polar atmosphere in winter is extremely dry, the driest on the planet. Heat is more efficiently lost to space in the Arctic thanks to Arctic warming and sea ice loss, and this is what Jim is defending and I agree with him 100%.
This is very simple to understand except for warming zealots with a closed mind. Are you one?
As I mentioned before with a different troll, The Futile Wail has a mind so closed it’s a brick.
Let me just quote what Jim said, lest it be lost in the mists:
I’m simply asking: how is it, if the earth’s climate is cooling, that the oceans, surface and atmosphere are all measurably warming?
Maybe I have some misunderstanding about what the terms ‘warming’ and ‘cooling’ mean; but I don’t think it’s an unreasonable question.
Is a simple question by a simple person that is ignoring the answer provided in the article. The Earth’s climate is cooling through Arctic warming and ventilated heat while warming due to other causes. The final result depends on all factors involved and is highly variable from year to year.
You don’t think you understand climate, do you? That would be a major self-delusion.
FinalFail is such a extremely stupid troll. I also claim night time cools the climate. But he would still maniacally rant “how is it, the night cools the climate if the oceans, surface and atmosphere are all measurably warming?”
After mentioning the Fridtjof Nansen research ships, I was thinking what would you name a research ship (not Attenborough – that’s ridiculous and I’d rather it was Boaty McBoatface, frankly).
So, purely hypothetically, just for fun – if an international group was about to launch a brand new oceanographic research ship, who (or possibly what) would you name it after?
The Ahab.
Mark Serreze was a co-author on this 1993 paper. Haven’t we heard that name somewhere before? NSIDC director, no less.
He’s actually a nice guy but I wouldn’t be surprised if his mom dresses him.
Serreze.. of “Arctic is screaming” infamous nonsense.
Very nice.
Jim,
Once again you prove yourself to be a master of simple and straightforward explanation! If only all our hardworking posters could match your expertise, we would be even better informed! And you DO get some of the lurking trolls to loudly and proudly prove their rectal/cranial inversion!
That, in and of itself, is an important source of knowledge; and great humor!
I second your comment.
I think that should be “cranial-rectal insertion.”
It is also not proof of melting at the surface from warm air or insolation. Any melting that is happening could just as well be from melting at the bottom of the ice where it contacts the ‘warm’ Atlantic water. There are many things that affect the thickness and distribution of ice.
There’s still the problem of temperature to deal with – it rarely, if at all, gets above 0°C in the main areas of the Arctic so melting in place is not a mechanism that contributes to ice loss. Storm action, winds and waves, will stress and break thinner ice which will usually drift away from the Arctic and melt in warmer waters.
Well sea ice melts at about -2ºC and in the summer there’s plenty of evidence of surface melting with the melts pools on the surface. Also as Clyde says plenty of melting from below, the buoys show plenty of thinning of the ice with time too. A big change has been the disappearance of multi-year ice.
index.php
“Kim 2019 have reported that over open water more winter heat, about 2 Watts per meter squared, is being ventilated heat away more than absorbed.”
Prompts me to realize that, in calculating albedo feedbacks and how all the different feedback effects combine, it makes a big difference that snow and ice are insulators while liquid water is a thermal conductor.