From North Carolina State University and the “because our models say-so” department comes this press release that is far more predictable than the climate change it claims to predict – Anthony.
By evaluating historical climate records, observational and projection data, an international team of researchers found a “pushing and triggering” mechanism that has driven the Arctic climate system to a new state, which will likely see consistently increased frequency and intensity of extreme events across all system components – the atmosphere, ocean and cryosphere – this century.
“We know that mean temperatures are rising, and the Arctic is commonly considered an indicator of global changes due to its higher sensitivity to any perturbation of external and internal forcings,” says Xiangdong Zhang, research professor at North Carolina State University and senior scientist at the North Carolina Institute for Climate Studies.
“The annual mean warming rate of the Arctic is more than three times the global average – this is known as Arctic amplification,” Zhang says. “But no systematic review has been done about the interplay of warmer temperatures with the dynamics of atmosphere, ocean and sea ice in weather and climate extremes around the Arctic.” Zhang is the lead author of the study.
The team looked at historic temperature data and the records of extreme events in the Arctic system components, as well as CMIP6 model projections that covered a period from the present-day to the end of the century. Overall, they saw that extreme events – atmosphere and ocean heatwaves, heavy precipitation, sea ice loss and ice sheet melt – have consistently occurred across the Arctic climate system with an increased frequency and intensity since the year 2000. The CMIP6, or Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6, is an international project consisting of modeling centers and groups worldwide.
“We usually think about warming as a gradual, quasi-linear change of temperature over time – it slowly gets warmer everywhere,” Zhang says. “But nonlinear changes occur across the entire system. The interplay between warming and the changes in atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice dynamics creates ‘pushing and triggering’ mechanisms that result in a tipping point for the climate system.”
According to the researchers, since the year 2000 these pushing and triggering mechanisms have forced a step change, or sudden shift, in the baseline of the Arctic climate system.
The mechanisms in question include changes in large-scale atmosphere and ocean circulation that enhance poleward atmospheric heat and moisture transport and ocean heat transport into the Arctic. Intense cyclones and blocking high-pressure systems that obstruct the movement of other systems through the upper atmosphere further enhance warming, increasing sea ice and ice sheet temperatures and pushing the Arctic climate system to a tipping point, triggering more extremes.
“Once there is a baseline state change in climate, we also see a change in extreme events,” Zhang says.
According to the researchers’ analysis, since the year 2000 the probability of atmospheric heatwaves has increased by 20%; Atlantic Ocean layer warm events have increased by 76%; sea ice loss events have increased by 83%; and Greenland Ice Sheet melt extent has increased by 68%.
“Prior to the 21st century, these events were rare,” Zhang says. “But with continued warming they will become the new norm, and we could see ice-free summers in the Arctic by mid-century. More work must be done to understanding the interplay of multiscale climate drivers in the Arctic, so that we can predict and plan for the future.”
The study appears in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment. Zhang is supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The work was done by leading and early-career scientists from the U.S., Australia, Canada, China, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just checked NSIDC and yep, Arctic is still covered with ice and snow. Same as Antarctic. Crisis averted simply by looking at the facts!
But if you look at sea levels… oh,wait.
But if you look at food production…
But if you look at burned acreage in all those regions where forest management has not been sabotaged…
Well, maybe there is a reason why a massive increase in Reservoirs,Farmland,Desalination Plants etc to protect us from negative effects of AGW ain’t happening.
Maybe there’s also a reason why the Arabs and Chinese are building so many artificial islands, the Russians icebreakers and why front beach properties are getting more expensive every year.
Biden brother gained 200% by selling his -neither sea level rise, nor warming or that it was located next to Epstein island had a negative impact.
Notice the change in language over the years, attempting to attribute ever-widening natural events to CO₂ increase:
First, Global Warming
Then, Climate Change
Now, Extreme Events (Mentioned multiple times in the above article.)
Extreme events aren’t changing either !! 🙂
Forgot “Climate Disruption”.
You haven’t factored in the Big Burp-
The ocean is building up a colossal ‘burp’ that could reignite global warming, scientists warn
and if the cows all fart in unison we’re doomed.
“By evaluating historical climate records, observational and projection data, an international team of researchers found a “pushing and triggering” mechanism that has driven the Arctic climate system to a new state,”
“projection data” there it is again the non-existent item the use of which invalidates this whole study.
My first thought. “Projection data” is an oxymoron. But unfortunately this is what typifies the sorry state of so-called “climate science.” They actually think that their models loaded up with incorrect assumptions prive something.
Must be goalpost moving time again. At least it’s 25 years or more now, instead of 5 or 10 years. A lot safer that way.
Didn’t Algore or someone predict the Arctic would be ice-free in 2013 (12 years ago)? the predictions aren’t failures, they’re just 38 years too early.
Earlier than that.
The goalposts are the only things that are really moving in the realm of climate science.
Sea levels and temperatures don’t.
The model worshippers just can’t help themselves, can they? Of course, having an unskeptical media eager for an alarming headline guarantees more modeling “studies” that provide them.
These claims would be a lot more impressive if the period of observation extended back 5-10 thousand years…
The period of observation for the ozone holes was only a handful of years – they only had data back till 1969.(for some reason they only have Ant/arctic sea ice extent data back to 1979 )
Yet they were absolutely able to determine that CFC’s are to blame.
Neither the lack of data nor the fact that the Antarctic hole was way bigger though only a fraction of global CFC’s were released down under was an obstacle.
The lack of data was never a problem as long as it can be compensated with a lack of integrity and an abundance in consensus.
Yes that was my next thought – how ridiculous it is for a “scientist” to believe a change over a period of a mere 25 years has something to do with “climate,” when that’s not even half of SHORT cycles of the Earth’s oceans (I believe the “short” cycles are ~60 years), and you would need multiples OF THOSE to claim a “climate signal.”
First, authors like these have to show that their temperature data has not been fiddled by adjusters; second, their findings have to be consistent with times before year 2000 as well as after; third, several articles show that every continent, even every bigger country on Earth claims that it is warming faster than the average.
When authors use raw data, use long periods of data instead of short, cherry picked periods, calculate and show classical uncertainty estimates – then many strange hypotheses are disproven. Geoff S
Based on a ~3500-year cycle I found in the orbits of the Jovian planets, and which is quite easy to see in the Greenland GISP2 ice core data, the next tipping point is ~2200AD. This same repeating pattern can also be found in the IntCal20 isotope records. In other words, it’s the Sun.
This result suggests that we’re currently living in a variation of the Minoan Warm Period. It also offers a possible explanation for the 1878 El Niño and wide-spread famine that occurred at that time.
Interesting observation….
Well observed, I first saw the same pitch between the three coldest spikes. To be precise, it is a mean 3453 years, which is every fourth grand solar minimum series of 863 years. Produced by the synodic cycles of Uranus, Jupiter, Earth, and Venus. The colder periods in Greenland are the high solar periods, and the warm spikes are the grand solar minima. The warm spike 1365-1195 BC was a pair of super solar minima, from 1365 BC and from 1250 BC. The end of the second one was the late Bronze Age collapse, when the Minoan culture ended, along with several other civilisations. They are an excellent analogue for the next two centennial solar minima from 2095 and from 2200, the most severe back to back pair of grand solar minima for 3450 years.
Thanks, Ulric. Based on orbital data the ~3500 year cycle is a bit longer than 3500 years, and does involve four cycles of a variable-period 800-year cycle with a mean period longer than 863 years.
Can you describe this cycle and which Jovian bodies are involved?
All four Jovian planets are involved. All will eventually be described in the same paper that explains how I can predict temperature from sunspot data.
I thought the animated GIF was worth disclosing early; it’s reasonably self-explanatory. I’m glad that a few people found it interesting.
There isn’t a cycle of all four at that length.
It turns out to be much more complicated than beats between fixed orbital periods, if that’s what you mean.
Synodic cycles, which for all four is 4627 years. The central issue is that solar cycle variability, i.e. grand solar minima, cannot be explained without Earth and Venus,
Why do you claim Earth and Venus are required? Tidal forcing? VEJ 22-year cycle? Or, is it the 3500-year cycle?
I don’t believe that it is about tidal forcing. Most sunspot cycle maximums occur when inferior conjunctions of Earth-Venus are in better alignment with Uranus. That produces the roughly 10.4 year long cycles between each centennial minimum, it has no 22 year Hale like component.
The centennial minima and their changes in duration are a product of the synodic cycles of E-V versus J-U. Their first grand synodic period at around 110 years produces the centennial cycle. That cycle slips slowly over a 1726.62 year cycle, producing two series of grand solar minima, alternating with two series of high solar periods every 863 years on average.
VEJ alone cannot account for changes in solar cycle length or the occurrence if centennial minima and their variability.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YOu7hHVEuaWWLuztj6ThEsJd7Z-765Uz-L68lQbRdbQ/edit?tab=t.0
863 years before 1365 BC was the start of the 4.2 kyr aridity event, that was also warmer in Greenland. Negative NAO and the associated warmer AMO.
Thanks.. BTW there is a 10.6-year JSN(2,-2,-1) beat.
I would have to see the calculations on that.
Your animated gif is excellent, it also highlights an issue with the GISP2 series through the little ice age, which I have commented on further down the page.
My version of Scafetta’s vector notation:
10.57=1/( 2/11.86 -2/29.45 -1/164.8 )
I saw your comment. Loehle’s 2007/8 reconstruction includes both a 1000 and 1300-year peak.
The LIA is the only concern I have with the GISP2 temperature reconstruction. The temporal accuracy and resolution is amazing.
JSN heliocentric positions every 10.57 years are all over the place, it’s hard to see how that could be constraining solar cycle lengths and only between each centennial minimum. I am not a fan of Scafetta’s hypothetical beat periods.
With synodic cycles, Saturn cannot be involved because the periods don’t correspond to solar cycles.
The VEJU cycles readily explain centennial minima and the variations in their lengths, as well as the associated changes in solar cycle lengths. The very shortest sunspot cycles should occur in the middle of the longer grand solar minima. Geometric syzygy and quadrature series within elliptical orbits have to have varying intervals, such that the intervals between centennial minima vary too.
Wilis E did a piece of work a while ago in which he analysed CERES data to show that temperature increases were larger at night, in the winter and, indeed, in the Artic. The collollary of this set of facts is that daytime, summer temperatures in temperate and tropical areas are lower than the average global temperature rises. Looking forward to the major splash piece about this in the Guardian!
Dr Xiangdong Zhang is a prolific producer of reports…or his team is…but where do his loyalties lie..?
His loyalties lie with whomever funds his grants.
Yep.
“You get what you pay for”, as that time-honored observation proves.
You get “who” you pay for. !!
Quelle surprise! More fifth column ‘research’ demonizing fossil fuel usage in order to support Western de-industrialization / collapse. Perhaps time to look into the allegiances of the ‘international team’ working stateside.
‘Three times average warming in the Arctic’ plus ‘Coldest October on record in the Antarctic’ = 0.
I thought the prediction was that the Arctic was (or poles were) supposed to warm five times as fast. So even the Arctic warming is 40% lower than predicted. Sheesh…
Every place on earth is warming at least twice as fast than the average.
This is a pillar of modern climate science combined with victimhood mentality = You’re a special victim of AGW,too.
Too true. I have yet to see a paper claiming a crisis that any location is warming at half the “Global Average”. This surely would be a massive crisis. After all cold kills 10x more than warm…
“By evaluating historical climate records …” and ” driven the Arctic climate system to a new state”
My sister pointed me to this: “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.” Ecclesiastes 1:9:
I found the historical information in two reports especially interesting:
The first is from John Daly’s blog.
1: “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.
(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817
2: Historical Aspects of the Northern Canadian Treeline, by Harvey Nichols
https://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic29-1-38.pdf
This appears to be from about 1976/77 – – I don’t see a date.
Where at the late John Daly’s website “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at: http://www.john-daly.com, did you find the report?
http://www.john-daly.com/polar/arctic.htm
Thank you very much. If everyone learned of John Daly’s website, all this nonsense about CO2 emissions causing global warming and climate change would vanish overnight, and the UNFCCC, the UN COP and the IPCC would be retired.
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather stations in Death Valley. Note how flat the plots are, which means that CO2 does not cause warming of air at this remote and arid desert.
The amount of work he did in making some many of the charts is quite remarkable and these charts are a valuable resource. He found over 200 weather stations that showed no warming up to 2002.
Last Jan. I sent an email to Prof. Will Hopper at Princeton Univ. in which I mentioned that he should check out John Daly’s website and the Death Valley chart. In a reply, he said that the death of John Daly was a great loss to honest science.
NB: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to the comment text.
Since modeled tipping points didn’t tip, now we have modeled step changes stepping.
Every model in CMIP6 except INM CM5 produces a spurious tropical troposphere hotspot. Why should we believe their potentially spurious Arctic step changes?
Everybody should get a copy of Rud’s ebook “Blowing Smoke.”
UAH shows that warming has occurred in steps at each major El Nino event, with either zero trend or slight cooling between them.
Climate models have zero predictive skill on El Nino events.
That means they have zero predictive skill on anything to do with climate…
A prior example based on a headline – “Antarctic Heating Up 4 Times Faster Than Average” (Sky News August 2022)
This is what happens when people who are ignorant of the basic rules of math when using ordinal or nominal data – unfortunately Centigrade and Fahrenheit are ordinal scales and cannot be freely manipulated.
If global average temperatures have risen from 15.0°C to 15.1°C “here” and Antarctic temperatures have risen from (say) minus 30°C to minus 29.6°C i.e. 0.4° “hotter” than average “there”
Then the ignorant thermogeddonists claim that “there” has risen 0.4°C while “here” has risen 0.1°C
Therefore temperature “there” has risen four time faster than “here”!
Horsefeathers !
The reality of thermodynamics in Kelvin is that “there” is only 0.14% hotter than “here”.
Such is the scientific nonsense touted by the MSM and swallowed by a scientifically ignorant and therefore gullible public.
If you can’t figure out why “there” is only 0.14% more and not four times hotter than “here” – welcome to the ignorant chattering masses – take a science course.
So when you find “Climate Scientists” multiplying or dividing the Centigrade or Fahrenheit scales by any factor, there can only be two reasons :-
1) They deliberately want to overemphasize (or underemphasise) their findings – which is misrepresentation or fraud.
2) They don’t actually understand what they are doing and you should ignore the accolade “scientist” if they are ignorant of such scientific basics.
So a scientist saying that 2°C is double 1°C is talking out of his hat (or somewhere way further south).
A nice summation would be that so-called “scientists” that produce twaddle like this are either deliberately trying to deceive people or they are idiots.
So in either case, not people anyone should be listening to.
Just like Michael Mann, come to think of it.
Another piece of junk science.
Ya think? What are the units used in measuring ” Arctic tipping points”?
Every time Trump gets elected there is a mountain of ‘climate’ manure published in ‘science” journals in a wanton display of acute TDS. There’s a “tipping point” for you.
I guess they needed to stay quiet on the Northwest Passage nonsense while still talking scare in the Arctic and well away from Antarctica science news too.
Oh then I check ocean.dmi/dk and find no chance in summertime thawing (say four weeks at plus one and a half C) since 1958. Otherwise freezing all year, So how’s it warming?
Change
The MODELS have always predicted warming in the Arctic and Antarctic would be three times the rate for globe. This began with Kellogg in 1974 in his WMO paper. It is simple in the Arctic -open ocean is supposed to have a lower albedo, thus warming the region quickly. Plausible, but not observed.The albedo change, due to Fresnel reflection changes at high latitudes, is actually very similar to sea ice. The models are biased.
All DATA contradict the models. Neither Greenland nor Antarctica is warming significantly. Danish data, going back to the 19th century shows this trend. The most recent study finds slight cooling the Greenland (https://mausamjournal.imd.gov.in/index.php/MAUSAM/article/view/6099/5719). UAH satellite data shows the same for Antarctica.
Let’s stop carrying water for people unwilling to face facts.
If you click on the image, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the circle to return to the comment text.
You obviously have a reasonable competency level in electro magnetic fields and waives.
I applaud your Fresnel reference!
Well done.
And , arctic summer daily mean temperatures have not risen in more than 65 years….. per DMI.
so , chicken littles , where is there any problem ??
I thought the DOE stopped funding this crap. Maybe this was a holdover finish up before the entire apparatus gets sh*tcanned. Lee, please defund Zhang et. al. if you haven’t already. They’re a threat to democracy and everything decent.
Using the mean temperature from 7,000 BCE to 1500 CE as a baseline for the Northern Hemisphere provides a much longer-term view of climate change and highlights both natural variability and major persistent trends that conventional 30-year baselines obscure.
Paleoclimate reconstructions show that the Northern Hemisphere peaked in warmth during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, around 6,000 to 5,000 BCE, with temperatures several degrees higher than today.
Since that maximum, proxy records such as ice cores, tree rings, and lake sediments indicate a multi-millennial declining climate trend—a cooling trend lasting over 7,000 years up to the present day.
This millennium-scale baseline reveals the context of present-day climate anomalies, allowing for a clearer distinction between natural cyclic changes and recent warming events. Modern temperatures can then be assessed against this longer historical mean, rather than narrowly selected recent periods that miss the long term trend.
Many high latitude regions were 8C warmer than today during the Holocene Climatic Optimum. The tipping point from there was cooling.
Yep, more harebrained government are always the best solution to government created problems.
They deceived. They say in the paper: “under a very high emission scenario”. In other words, it won’t happen.
And BTW, funny how they say “The annual mean warming rate of the Arctic is more than three times the global average” instead of “The annual mean global warming rate is less than a third of the average warming rate of the Arctic“. It always has to sound scary.
The only Arctic warming since 2000 has come from the 2016 then 2023/24 El Nino events.
Until 2015 there was basically no warming this century.
Maybe, maybe not. A cycle with noise on a rising trend can look like that. Time will tell.
No, the 2016 event is absolute.. stands out like dog’s *****
…. as is the rise to the 2023/24 El Nino event.
How much are these loons being paid to spout this garbage? They should be in jail.
“The mechanisms in question include changes in large-scale atmosphere and ocean circulation that enhance poleward atmospheric heat and moisture transport and ocean heat transport into the Arctic.”
Sure, negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions for a wavier jet stream pattern which can transport warm humidity events into the Arctic. The negative NAO will also drive a warmer AMO, increasing poleward ocean heat transport into the Arctic. That’s normal when the solar wind is weaker, like during every centennial solar minimum.
These proxies actually makes me very sceptical of the Richard Alley GISP2 series through the little ice age. Greenland and AMO warming during the Oort solar minimum is the one that often gets labelled as the Medieval Warm Period on the GISP2 series, the comparative warming during Sporer, Maunder, and Dalton is not evident on the GISP2 series:
People should be highly skeptical anything Richard Alley publishes. He is one of the most biased alarmist gatekeepers out there. Cherry picking is their bread and butter.