Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Home / 2021 / December / 29 / Arctic Ocean Warming Began Already In Early 20th Century, Meaning Natural Factors Strongly At Play, Not CO2
ARCTIC
Arctic Ocean Warming Began Already In Early 20th Century, Meaning Natural Factors
Strongly At Play, Not CO2
22 hours ago Charles Rotter
107 Comments
In a recent paper, scientists expressed their surprise that the Arctic had started warming already back in the early 20th century, 100 years ago.
This, along with the obligatory CO2 climate warming lip service, is described in a Cambridge University press release.
==================================
by University of Cambridge
An international group of researchers reconstructed the recent history of ocean warming at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean in a region called the Fram
Strait, between Greenland and Svalbard, and found that the Arctic Ocean has been warming for much longer than earlier records have suggested.
The Arctic Ocean has been getting warmer since the beginning of the 20th century—decades earlier than records suggest—due to warmer water
flowing into the delicate polar ecosystem from the Atlantic Ocean.
An international group of researchers reconstructed the recent history of ocean warming at the gateway to the Arctic Ocean in a region called the
Fram Strait, between Greenland and Svalbard.
Atlantic waters flow into the Arctic
Using the chemical signatures found in marine microorganisms, the researchers found that the Arctic Ocean began warming rapidly at the
beginning of the last century as warmer and saltier waters flowed in from the Atlantic—a phenomenon called Atlantification—and that this change
likely preceeded the warming documented by modern instrumental measurements. Since 1900, the ocean temperature has risen by approximately
2 degrees Celsius, while sea ice has retreated and salinity has increased.
The results, reported in the journal Science Advances, provide the first historical perspective on Atlantification of the Arctic Ocean and reveal a
connection with the North Atlantic that is much stronger than previously thought. The connection is capable of shaping Arctic climate variability,
which could have important implications for sea-ice retreat and global sea level rise as the polar ice sheets continue to melt.
Atlantification is one of the causes of warming in the Arctic, however instrumental records capable of monitoring this process, such as satellites,
only go back about 40 years.
Using the chemical signatures found in marine microorganisms, researchers have found that the Arctic Ocean began warming rapidly at the beginning
of the last century as warmer and saltier waters flowed in from the Atlantic – a phenomenon called Atlantification.
The researchers used geochemical and ecological data from ocean sediments to reconstruct the change in water column properties over the past
800 years. They precisely dated sediments using a combination of methods and looked for diagnostic signs of Atlantification, like change in
temperature and salinity.
“When we looked at the whole 800-year timescale, our temperature and salinity records look pretty constant,” said co-lead author Dr. Tesi Tommaso
from the Institute of Polar Sciences of the National Research Council in Bologna. “But all of a sudden at the start of the 20th century, you get this
marked change in temperature and salinity—it really sticks out.”
“The reason for this rapid Atlantification of at the gate of the Arctic Ocean is intriguing,” said Muschitiello. “We compared our results with the
ocean circulation at lower latitudes and found there is a strong correlation with the slowdown of dense water formation in the Labrador Sea. In a
future warming scenario, the deep circulation in this subpolar region is expected to further decrease because of the thawing of the Greenland ice
sheet. Our results imply that we might expect further Arctic Atlantification in the future because of climate change.”
The researchers say that their results also expose a possible flaw in climate models, because they do not reproduce this early Atlantification at
the beginning of the last century.
“Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an incomplete understanding of the
mechanisms driving Atlantification,” said Tommaso. “We rely on these simulations to project future climate change, but the lack of any signs of an
early warming in the Arctic Ocean is a missing piece of the puzzle.”
4.7
Article Rating
Like this:
Loading...
Related
Arctic Ocean Started Getting Warmer Decades Global Ice Story: What they don’t tell you Study finds a natural cause for early 20th century
Earlier Than We Thought – Study January 28, 2021 Arctic warming – but kowtows to CO2 in the
November 24, 2021 In "Sea ice" present
In "Climate Models" May 30, 2017
In "Arctic"
Subscribe
Tom Halla
December 29, 2021 6:07 pm
800 years should have picked up the Medieval Warm period and the LIA, so there might be a problem
with the proxies they are using to determine temperature. If if shows even temperatures until recent
decades, they might be picking up something unrelated to temperature.
19
Reply
Steve Case
“800 years should have picked up the Medieval Warm period and the LIA,…”
______________________________________________________________
Al Gores temperature chart from his movie shows that CO2 lagged temperature by about 800 years. Just
saying (-:
9
Reply
Rational Db8
Hi all,
I hope you’ll forgive my off topic post but I’m hoping that someone here might be able to help me
out. A pro-AGW acquaintance of mine doesn’t understand why the AGW hypothesis has a key
fingerprint requiring the formation of a mid-tropospheric tropical hot spot for the warming to be
caused by CO2 rather than natural variation.
She’s one of those who she says based essentially on precautionary principle, e.g., golly, if the
risk is for something severe enough, we MUST take action just in case, even if the chances of the
severe outcome is very slim… Which is rather stupid reasoning as far as I’m concerned! I’ve been
trying to get her to understand that the AGW hypothesis has been scientifically falsified several
times – lack of formation of the hot spot, and the fact that both poles aren’t warming faster than
anywhere else (e.g., the Antarctic isn’t behavin’! ), for example.
I’m hoping that one of you might know of a good primer sort of article on why a mid-tropospheric
tropical hot spot must form early if the warming is due to CO2 that would help her understand the
atmospheric mechanisms involved?
Thanks in advance for your help!!
5
Reply
Streetcred
Unfortunately, I’m thinking that you’re not going to convince her … alarmista are wedded to
the precautionary principle … they ALL fall back to that when their cognitive dissonance
becomes too stressed.
8
Reply
Janice Moore
Reply to Streetcred
December 30, 2021 10:01 am
True.
“[Her] logic [will] not serve her, for [her] heart is in the lie.”
George MacDonald
1
Reply
Martin Clark
The tropical hotspot thing has been covered a few times by Joanne Nova, eg
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/new-science-17-solving-the-mystery-of-the-missing-
hotspot/
Where I live at 19°S it should be detectable, but it hasn’t been. That is because it isn’t
there.
And I concur with Streetcred on the precautionary principle. I suspect that more humans
have been slaughtered for the precautionary principle than any other reason. It is part of
the alarmist creed, a feature rather than a simple error.
8
Reply
Redge
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/16/about-that-missing-hot-spot/
https://joannenova.com.au/tag/missing-hot-spot/
Some alarmists who know a little about the fingerprint of global warming will point to
Sherwood who “found” the missing hot spot until it was revealed he was using wind shear
https://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/desperation-who-needs-thermometers-sherwood-
finds-missing-hot-spot-with-homogenized-wind-data/
4
Reply
Joseph Zorzin
“we MUST take action just in case, even if the chances of the severe outcome is very slim…
Which is rather stupid reasoning as far as I’m concerned!”
Especially when the supposed solution will cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.
4
Reply
Steve
It’s easy to counter PP-type arguments, though, just by inverting them: eg “We
MUST avoid removing CO2 from the atmosphere, because there’s a small chance
that we could trigger a new Ice Age (Which is already overdue!!!) thereby” …
4
Reply
Mark BLR
I’m hoping that one of you might know of a good primer sort of article on why a mid-
tropospheric tropical hot spot must form early if the warming is due to CO2 …
Not exactly what you asked for, but this seems to come from figures like the one below
from the CCSP report of 2006 (Figure 9.1 in the IPCC’s AR4 WG1 report of 2007 is very
similar).
This shows the “hindcasts” of computer models of the Earth’s atmosphere, and how much
“temperature change due to various forcings” was supposed to occur.
These models include all the “basic (climate) science”, AKA “fundamental physics”, but
when people ask about the details we get answers like “It’s all terribly complicated, don’t
you worry your pretty little head about things like that …”.
NB : I’m guessing your “pro-AGW acquaintance” would react as badly to that sort of
attitude as anyone else.
As Richard Feynman put it, the reason the “tropospheric hot spot” is so important is :
If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement, is the key to
science.
It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It doesn’t make any
difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is. If it
disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.
4
Reply
Mark BLR
https://skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm
Below is a copy of Figure 9.1 from AR4 for comparison with the CCSP’s version
attached to my OP.
0
Reply
To bed B
Reply to Mark BLR
December 30, 2021 11:00 am
The simple explanation is good. High evaporation and then condensation of this
water transfers a lot of heat so that the lapse rate is much less than the
subtropics. But they ignore that it’s more evaporation that is the reason for a
catastrophic greenhouse effect, while at the beginning, they dismiss it as a flaw in
measurements not making it observable.
0
Reply
Jim Gorman
I would point out instead that we are still living in an Ice Age with a short interglacial
period. The future holds another glaciation with a large part of North America and Europe
covered with glaciers. Think the northern half of North America being under a mile of ice.
The Precautionary Principle should apply in this case since ALL scientists agree that
sometime in the not too distant future (geologically speaking) this condition will return to
the planet Earth.
If you are going to use this principle to argue for a solution to a possible climate outcome,
then you must also consider how to prevent a 100% occurrence of another glaciation.
Raising temperatures in order to prolong the interglacial is probably the best solution.
5
Reply
Sara
That’s really not so hard. Find the info on various past episodes of the planet warming and
cooling long before Hoomans arrived and/or had anything remotely or vaguely like what
we have going on today. Without Hooman influence, the warming and cooling are
obviously natural and part of the planet’s agenda, and we have ZERO control over it.
Find the prehistoric stuff. Plenty of it online, and start back with the Carboniferous period,
when giant bugs roamed the planet. No Hoomans were around back then. Then go from
there. Find some way to get her to a rock shop where she can find really ancient fossils,
such as my shrimp (Carboniferous) and emphasize how long ago that was and how warm
it was all over the planet (except for a few snowy spots).
Take her on a fossil hunt, too. Those are fun. I have a shrimp and a fossilized horsetail
weed (they are still around today!!!) and a leaf from Alethopteris, a seeded fern, all from
the Carboniferous period. There are places where you can get a permit to hunt for fossils
and take them home. I never did find a crinoid (Carboniferous period), but I’m still looking.
3
Reply
Loren C. Wilson
Just ask her to write a check to cover her fraction of the cost.
3
Reply
Lil-Mike
The clincher for me is NOAA sea level rise data here. You can surf around and look at
other data sets by clicking on the map, and looking at “Linear Trend.” New York and San
Francisco have very long data sets, back to 1854 (SF).
The background is this. In the theory of APWG, CO2 causes warming, warming causes
glaciers & polar ice to melt causing sea level rise. Ocean warming causes thermosteric
sea water expansion contributing to sea level rise.
According to IPCC AR5, CO2 didn’t have an impact on global temperatures until about
1950.
If that is the case, sea level rise due to APGW wouldn’t start until 1950 or later. However
NOAA data shows sea level rise going back to 1854, 100 years before the theory of APGW
says CO2 takes effect.
Willis has some great essays white papers on how the pandemic drop in CO2 isn’t
measurable globally.
2
Reply
Ed Fox
The precautionary principle relies on the false assumption that time has no cost. That we
can live forever by eliminating risk.
Don’t argue AGW. Where is the social justice in denying Africa and Asia the benefits of
industrialization that come with cheap power.
The west industrialized using low tech coal and steam as the first step. So far not one
country on earth has successfully demonstrated a different method.
The precautionary principle also argues that you should only used methods that are
known to work because of the Law of Unintended Consequences says that wind and solar
will result in as yet undiscovered problems. That they could well be dead ends because
they produce little surplus energy. There could be many other problems. No one knows.
2
Reply
Never mind the “undiscovered” problems – the KNOWN, but willfully IGNORED,
problems are more than enough to “just say no” to wind and solar farms.
0
Reply
Janice Moore
(as from the author of the “Dear Annie” column — syndicated in hundreds of news outlets
(heh))
Dear Rational,
As others have pointed out, her impaired intellectual abilities very likely will prevent her
from following your argument, no matter how powerful your facts and reasoning.
The key is for you to realize that you are not going to change her and YOU ARE NOT THE
PROBLEM. Here is a little demonstration to help you see this:
Rational One: So, you think that human CO2 emissions can cause
RO: Here are dozens of peer reviewed studies debunking the claim
about 97%.
accurate results.
C: Well, even if their models are no good, they still know from
other stuff.
RO: They have no other “stuff.” The failed models are all they
have. Not one piece of data proves that human CO2 causes
dangerous warming.
C: But, just in case they’re right, we should take precautions.
RO: The “precautions” will doom billions of people to the misery of
energy poverty.
RO: If your physician told you that she felt pretty sure that you
were likely to die from bone cancer if you don’t cut off your
Just in case.
Arrrrrgh!
So, Rational, you see that your (purportedly) inadequate explanations are not the problem.
They never have been.
Since you wrote to “Dear Annie” about this, I will assume you’d like a little advice. If she
isn’t your mother, I would suggest having “plans” whenever she calls you.
Annie
1
Reply
goldminor
Eight hundred years ago would be the 1300s, or at the end of the MWP. Maybe whatever took place was
a driver in the formation of the LIA.
3
Reply
Burl Henry
Reply to goldminor
December 30, 2021 4:16 am
The ~300 year MWP was caused by a dearth of volcanic eruptions, only 31 VEI4 or higher
eruptions occurred during that time.(10 per century).
The ~600 year LIA (1250–1850) was caused by a recurrence of volcanic activity with many VEI5
(27).There were 144 VEI4-VEI7 eruptions (18, 13, 13 ,32, 28, 38 per century)
The warming of the arctic ocean that began about 100 years ago was simply due to fewer
volcanic eruptions. (fewer dimming volcanic SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere).
Our climate is driven solely by the amount of SO2 aerosols in our atmosphere, of either volcanic
or industrial origin. CO2 has NO climatic effect.
-5
Reply
Bruce Cobb
4
Reply
Burl Henry
Reply to Bruce Cobb
December 30, 2021 7:34 am
Bruce Cobb:
You are WRONG.
Earth’s temperatures are solely driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating in
our atmosphere.
See:”Central England Temps Data Set: Key to understanding the cause of Climate
Change
https://www.osf.io/b2vxp/
-5
Reply
Janice Moore
“Earth’s temperatures are solely driven by the amount of SO2 aerosols circulating
in our atmosphere.”
LOL
2
Reply
Smart Rock
This paper has data from the Fram Strait, off the northeast corner of Greenland. The Norse settlements
during the MWP were at the south end of the west coast of Greenland, on the Labrador Sea. So this data
set is local and doesn’t tell us much about the climate history of the rest of Greenland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=
-45.47,62.72,1717/loc=-49.828,60.920 shows warm(ish) water from the Atlantic
washing both sides of southern Greenland, which is probably what happened during the MWP. And
presumably this tail end of the Gulf Stream was cut off during the LIA.
3
Reply
Richard M
Another paper, Thirumalai et al 2018 shows the Atlantic warming starting about 1600. In fact, the oceans
tend to be a good predictor of atmospheric trends.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4
It also shows the salinity increase as well.
6
Reply
RickWill
Reply to Richard M
December 29, 2021 9:55 pm
Perihelion last occurred before the austral summer solstice in 1585. Since then, total global
insolation has been declining due to reducing orbital eccentricity but the insolation over the
Southern Hemisphere is declining due to the progressively later occurrence of perihelion while
the insolation over the northern hemisphere is increasing.
Boreal summers are getting more sunlight but boreal winters less. This will eventually lead to
accelerating glaciation of the land masses surrounding the North Atlantic.
7
Reply
commieBob
That’s true. On the other hand, 800 years ago the MWP was just about over.
By itself, this study shouldn’t be used as definitive proof of anything. It needs to be considered along with
the body of other evidence.
This study does add to the data that confirms the Early 20th Century Warming.
As has often been observed, if the climate debate were actually about science, CAGW would have been
buried in the ash pit of history a long time ago.
27
Reply
Streetcred
Reply to commieBob
December 29, 2021 11:42 pm
1
Reply
Redge
Reply to Streetcred
December 30, 2021 1:08 am
Nope
CAGW will be quietly ushered away, websites will be deleted/changed, and alarmists will
deny they ever said such a thing would happen before moving on to the next global issue
that can only be solved by them taking away your money and right to an unfettered life.
13
Reply
philincalifornia
Reply to Redge
December 30, 2021 1:29 am
Yep, screen capture everything you can. The leftard liars and parasites will figure
out a way to avoid this reckoning mechanism. It’s what they do, but let’s make it
difficult for them.
5
Reply
not-a-red-neck
Reply to philincalifornia
December 30, 2021 8:52 am
4
Reply
Tom Abbott
“800 years should have picked up the Medieval Warm period and the LIA, so there might be a problem
with the proxies they are using to determine temperature.”
It should have picked up the 2.0C cooling that took place from 1940 to 1980, too.
See the U.S. surface temperature chart, Hansen 1999 (the chart on the left on the webpage):
https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/
As you can see, it warmed about 2.0C from 1910 to 1940, and then cooled about 2.0C from 1940 to
1980, and then it has warmed about 2.0C from 1980 to 2016, and now in 2021 the temperatues have
cooled 0.6C since 2016.
Keep in mind that 1998 was just as warm as 2016, and both are 0.5C cooler than the high temperatures
of 1934, according to James Hansen, and one of his colleagues who independently determined this
number.
An email archived among the Climategate emails is between Hansen and this colleague and confirms
the 0.5C figure.
Hansen has subsequently tried to take this back and now claims the 1930’s were cooler than the present
day. But read the text of the webpage provided. There, Hansen says the 1930’s were the hottest decade.
That didn’t fit the CO2 climate change crisis meme when temperatures started cooling after 1998, so to
compensate, Hansen and his merry band of Data Mannipulators decided they needed to downplay the
1930’s, in their computers, to enable them to claim temperatures were getting hotter and hotter and were
currently the hottest temperatures in 1,000 years, and it’s all the fault of CO2.
If the 1930’s were just as warm as today, then they couldn’t say that, and they couldn’t claim we are
experiencing unprecendented warming. And no unprecedented warming means there is no CO2 crisis.
So you can see the problem Hansen had. He wants a CO2 crisis to exist, so he manipulates his computer
data to show one. It’s all in his ocmputer. It does not exist in the Real World.
8
Reply
AGW is Not Science
2
Reply
Hi Tom
I commented before that I went onto the GISS site and recently graphed that same 5 year mean
temp from 1880 -2000 and I get a different graph than Hansen showed in 1998
Adjusted away
2
Reply
December 29, 2021 6:15 pm
The researchers say that their results also expose a possible flaw in climate models, because they do not
reproduce this early Atlantification at the beginning of the last century.
Oooops!
Cancellation Alert!
13
Reply
Ron Long
It took the report a while to get around to this statement of “…possible flaw in climate models…”, and it
might impact their future funding. Good comment ZZW.
4
Reply
Janice Moore
In other words: THEORY ERROR (not mere random error) — as per Pat Frank.
2
Reply
John Tillman
December 29, 2021 6:21 pm
https://www.cato.org/commentary/global-warming-apocalypses-didnt-happen
6
Reply
Terry
December 29, 2021 6:21 pm
A possible flaw in our understading of the unfolding catastrophe? I’m shocked – what don’t the
writers understand about settled science.
10
Reply
John Tillman
Reply to Terry
December 29, 2021 6:26 pm
Doubt is not permitted!
Resistance is useless!
3
Reply
Clyde Spencer
4
Reply
gringojay
Let it flow …
2
Reply
Dave Fair
Reply to gringojay
December 30, 2021 1:12 pm
Bad advice if the flow is about to inundate you. Keep your eyes open.
0
Reply
John Tillman
0
Reply
Michael
Reply to Terry
December 29, 2021 7:05 pm
Vk 5ELl me.
0
Reply
John Shewchuk
December 29, 2021 6:34 pm
1
Reply
Jackie Pratt
December 29, 2021 6:38 pm
Huh. So this changes things? The climate maybe?
1
Reply
Richard M
I mentioned several times in the past that a natural salinity variation across global ocean currents could
account for changes in the atmospheric temperatures. It could be the basis of warming periods (Minoan,
Roman and Medieval) and cool periods such as the LIA.
If this provided a small underlying recent warming, the addition of the PDO and AMO could then explain
all the warming seen over the past 150 years. Yes, it explains climate change.
4
Reply
Ric Werme
Editor
December 29, 2021 7:19 pm
3
Reply
Chris Hanley
December 29, 2021 7:20 pm
Ole Humlum at climate4you->Oceans has a section with detailed charts of the Arctic gateway seas
(20W-40E. 70-80N) heat content trends some dating back to 1900 that approximately correlate with
the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the HadCRUT4 surface air temperature trend from
1920 (Arctic).
Any effect CO2 emissions post-1950 may be having on the global atmosphere is difficult if not
impossible to differentiate from natural variations.
5
Reply
Tom Abbott
“Ole Humlum at climate4you->Oceans has a section with detailed charts of the Arctic gateway seas
(20W-40E. 70-80N) heat content trends some dating back to 1900 that approximately correlate with the
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and”
And the AMO oscillations correlate with the U.S. regional surface temperature chart oscillations.
1
Reply
Smart Rock
December 29, 2021 7:29 pm
Even though this paper comes from Cambridge, where Peter (“ice-free by 2013”) Wadhams is also a
prof., he doesn’t appear as a co-author. Keeping his head down in embarrassment?
4
Reply
RickWill
I wonder how many people paid money to read the tripe Wadhams produced?
A few days every year, the North Pole gets more sunlight than any other place on Earth. The surprising
fact is that sea ice still persists under such intense energy input.
1
Reply
Stephen Goldstein
December 29, 2021 7:53 pm
We’ve read so many times that ice cores show how, over time, CO<sup>2</sup> lagging warming
suggesting that the CO<sup>2</sup> increases are not the cause but, rather, the effect, of ocean
(and more general) warming. Easily convinced, I guess, I’ve long thought that this is one of the
strongest arrows in the skeptics quiver, so to speak because it offers a strong alternative explanation
for 30 years of warming (less the pause(s)) and correlation with increases in CO<sup>2</sup>.
And yet of the many pieces here on WUWT about ocean warming, like this one, I can’t recall any one
connecting those dots.
Glad to read that they <i>used geochemical and ecological data from ocean sediments to reconstruct
the change in water column properties over the past 800 years</i>. Anything about dissolved
CO<sup>2</sup>? That would be one property that would be very interesting.
4
Reply
Chris Hanley
Because A is shown to be a cause of B it does not logically follow that B cannot be a cause of A.
For example poverty (A) can be a cause of drug addiction (B) and drug addiction (B) can be a cause of
poverty (A).
Rising CO2 concentration can be both a cause and effect of increasing global temperature.
-2
Reply
Graemethecat
Rising CO2 concentration can be both a cause and effect of increasing global temperature.
Not so. Causation can only operate forwards in time. The fact that CO2 always lags temperatures
excludes CO2 as the cause. Your analogy with drug addiction and poverty does not hold as it is
quite possible to find wealthy people who became drug addicts and fell into poverty as a result.
6
Reply
hiskorr
Reply to Graemethecat
December 30, 2021 6:34 am
1
Reply
Kevin kilty
Reply to Graemethecat
December 30, 2021 7:03 am
Yes, Hiskorr, nearby, has identified a flaw in this arrow of causation argument. A positive
feedback loop makes “causation” a difficult thing to prove. For example, when in its cold
state the Earth begins to warm from an increased energy input from an orbital variation.
This in turn releases a bit of CO2 from the oceans, perhaps. But because the
concentration of CO2 is so low in this state (190ppm or so) a small change in CO2 has a
large influence on greenhouse feedback and the Earth warms faster, producing a larger
increase in CO2 concentration. At higher concentrations CO2 presents a diminishing
influence on further warming.
Now, was CO2 the cause or an effect of warming? You see the issue…
2
Reply
Graemethecat
1
Reply
Rich Davis
Reply to Graemethecat
December 30, 2021 8:53 am
We should be concerned about CO2 though. At least if the long-term survival of our
species has any relevance to us. The long-term trend for CO2 is leading to
extinction of all life that depends on photosynthesis. The last glacial max saw CO2
drop dangerously close to plant extinction levels. Fossil fuel burning may prove to
be our salvation.
0
Reply
Janice Moore
Reply to Graemethecat
December 30, 2021 11:26 am
(Hamburg, 2013)
0
Reply
Rich Davis
Reply to Graemethecat
December 30, 2021 8:34 am
It’s always true that CO2 concentration responds to changes in temperature, but any
change in CO2 concentration also adds to the mix a feedback from a change in the
greenhouse effect that could further increase warming (or cooling if the concentration is
falling) which is what Chris is arguing.
It follows from basic observation that this CO2 feedback is weak and is damped by other
feedbacks such as the effects of clouds and thunderstorms, that prevent run-away
temperature change.
Making simplistic claims that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, or that
temperature is controlled exclusively by aerosols is the same species of foolishness as
the alarmist faith in the CO2 control knob. Climate is not simple at any level.
1
Reply
Chris Hanley
Reply to Graemethecat
December 30, 2021 12:50 pm
A. warming of the atmosphere can cause CO2 to ‘out-gas’ from the oceans.
B. According to physics increasing CO2 in the atmosphere can result in warming of the
atmosphere.
The fact that A is true is not a logically valid reason for rejecting B, that is an example of
the logical fallacy affirming a disjunct.
Eg. Max is a mammal or Max is a cat. Max is a mammal. Therefore, Max is not a cat.
1
Reply
RickWill
December 29, 2021 9:43 pm
When the farce ends, will climate scientists declare their models were WRONG? Or will they just slide
into another career?
We can only hope the farce ends before they depart for good.
The good news is that it is rapidly becoming unpalatable for politicians to condemn their electorate
to shivering through cold winters or sweltering through hot summers.
1
Reply
Willem Post
Reply to RickWill
December 30, 2021 7:05 am
You might have to admit you have been a liar for decades, when applying for a new job
0
Reply
RickWill
December 29, 2021 10:06 pm
“Climate simulations generally do not reproduce this kind of warming in the Arctic Ocean, meaning there’s an
incomplete understanding of the mechanisms driving Atlantification,” s
This is stated as if climate models have some basis in physics and reality.
CLIMATE MODELS ARE SPECULATIVE GARBAGE. They are based on the GHE fairy tale. They are
nonsense.
6
Reply
joe
Reply to RickWill
December 30, 2021 5:19 am
1
Reply
Dave Stephens
December 29, 2021 10:53 pm
The huge number of newspaper articles talking about dramatic changes in the Arctic and the
dramatic loss of ice in the 1920s and the 1910s is just one of the many glaring factual realities that
are typically dismissed by Alarmists, so it’s nice that scientists over 100 years later are able to
acknowledge that newspapers were reporting on something that was absolutely real…
4
Reply
Graemethecat
Reply to Dave Stephens
December 30, 2021 2:25 am
Tony Heller has been hammering this point for a long time.
1
Reply
Philip Mulholland.
December 30, 2021 12:35 am
Yes. Tipping points are observed. Bill Illis’ classic graph again since it underscores discrete circulatory
reorganization fantastically:
1
Reply
griff
December 30, 2021 1:58 am
Nonsense.
Here’s an example:
Alaska sets record high December temperature of 19.4C | US news | The Guardian
An unusual winter warm spell in Alaska has brought daytime temperatures soaring past 15.5C (60F) and
torrents of rain at a time of year normally associated with bitter cold and snow.
At the island community of Kodiak, the air temperature at a tidal gauge hit 19.4C (67F) degrees on
Sunday, the highest December reading ever recorded in Alaska
-14
Reply
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 2:29 am
3
Reply
Rich Davis
OMG! 19.4C
1
Reply
Joseph Zorzin
December has been warm here in New England- nobody is complaining- other than ski
resorts and ski lovers. I happen to love snow shoeing, in a serious winter with deep snow,
but I’m not complaining either. I don’t like buying fuel oil to heat my home.
2
Reply
Rich Davis
2
Reply
joe
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 5:24 am
At the island community of Kodiak, the air temperature at a tidal gauge hit 19.4C (67F) degrees on Sunday,
the highest December reading ever recorded in Alaska
3
Reply
rhs
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 5:51 am
Also, any idea of how many high temps at cold airports have been recalculated or otherwise invalidated?
Quite a few because of engine exhaust.
3
Reply
Tom in Florida
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 6:08 am
The ignorance of Griff is once again on display. No knowledge of Alaska. Alaska is a huge state and
Kodiak Island is latitude 57.388 N. Hardly in the Arctic. Griff also willfully ignores the words “unusual
winter warm spell”. Weather Griff, weather. You just can’t fix religious zealots.
6
Reply
Loren C. Wilson
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 6:26 am
And they have had record cold weather this winter as well. Don’t cherry pick the data.
6
Reply
ResourceGuy
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 7:18 am
Tahoe just set a record for snow. I’m sure you have some troll look-up answer for that too.
4
Reply
Tom Abbott
Reply to ResourceGuy
December 30, 2021 10:05 am
The Guardian will probably write an article about Tahoe, and then Griff will quote it as evidence of
something.
2
Reply
Dave Andrews
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 7:22 am
“In Spitsbergen the open season for shipping at the coal port lengthened from three months in the years
before 1920 to over seven months of the year by the late 1930s The average total area of the Arctic sea
ice seems to have declined by between 10 and 20 per cent over that time.”
H.H. Lamb, Climate, History and the Modern World, 2nd edition, 1995, p260
Spitsbergen (Svalbard) lies between about 76 and 81 degrees North opposite the NE tip of Greenland
Badgerbod
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 9:04 am
If you did a bit of reading and research Griff you would know that whilst Kodiak experienced a brief warm
interlude, the rest of the state was experiencing record cold. How can this be? Adiabatic winds from a
warm Hawaiian atmospheric river. It’s simple thermodynamics, nothing to do with human produced CO2.
Other parts of Alaska were experiencing record cold of -18C. Ryan Maue gave a good explanation on his
twitter feed, check it out. It is not any kind of CO2 signal, it is a weather event that is quite interesting and
such events happen all the time in one form or another anywhere in the world at any time in earth’s
history. There are reams of accounts of unusual, hot, cold, wet, dry, events in archive. Go and look, check
your history, before you make foolish claims. Kodiak set a record, but so did Ketchikan but I don’t see you
remarking on that record.
4
Reply
meab
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 9:14 am
Griffter plays the role of Simplicio in Galileo’s Treatise on the Tides. He makes unfounded statements
that reasonable people can counter with logical arguments and actual data. Griffter is helping any new
reader to understand that griffter’s positions are those of an uneducated dupe who is easily influenced
by phony arguments shouted by the climate alarmist carnival barkers.
3
Reply
Patrick B
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 9:39 am
2
Reply
Tom Abbott
Reply to griff
December 30, 2021 9:53 am
See the big high-pressure system just south of Alaska? It’s warming up the area. The warmth won’t last
long, and it’s not caused by CO2.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-154.85,32.31,264/loc=-150.5
68,40.310
3
Reply
Dave Fair
Griff, see that archipelago stretching Westward from Alaska? Where the maximum (purplish)
warming occurs? That is where the island of Kodiak is located.
1
Reply
climanrecon
December 30, 2021 1:59 am
The early 20th century warming can be seen clearly in instrumental data, here for example is
Stockholm winter night temperatures (Tmin). Why do so many Canadians and Swedes crave a return
to the frigid pre-industrial climate? Maybe one reason is that they have never experienced it, and
scientists/media of today ignore the beneficial effects of warming.
2
Reply
climanrecon
December 30, 2021 3:47 am
“Historical Data Utilized in First-hand accounts from 19th century explorers’ logs for the Canadian Arctic
reflect similar climate conditions as present” (2003)
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/arctic/historical-data-canadian-arctic
2
Reply
climanrecon
Reply to climanrecon
December 30, 2021 3:54 am
https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf
1
Reply
ATheoK
December 30, 2021 4:37 am
“In a recent paper, scientists expressed their surprise that the Arctic had started warming already back in the
early 20th century, 100 years ago.“
That is, ice grew and advanced during the LIA ‘Little Ice Age’.
When the LIA ended and began a return to slightly warmer conditions, the Arctic fitfully started
returning to a pre-LIA condition. A condition that it is unlikely to achieve.
“The researchers used geochemical and ecological data from ocean sediments to reconstruct the change in
water column properties over the past 800 years. They precisely dated sediments using a combination of
methods and looked for diagnostic signs of Atlantification, like change in temperature and salinity.
“When we looked at the whole 800-year timescale, our temperature and salinity records look pretty constant,”
said co-lead author Dr. Tesi Tommaso from the Institute of Polar Sciences of the National Research Council in
Bologna. “But all of a sudden at the start of the 20th century, you get this marked change in temperature and
salinity—it really sticks out.”
It is interesting that they use a lot of self inflating terms without detail to back up their contentions;
e.g., “precisely dated sediments”. Who verified their “precisely”?
All the while lumping assumptions and actions to intimate research rigor without explicitly defining
what, when, where and why. e.g., “using a combination of methods and looked for diagnostic signs of
Atlantification”.
1
Reply
Sara
December 30, 2021 5:49 am
“The reason for this rapid Atlantification of at the gate of the Arctic Ocean is intriguing,” said
Muschitiello. – article
They still don’t get it, do they? The planet is fine. The planet has been taking care of itself for a very,
very, very long time.
They will never understand it or anything it does. And it’s right in front of them.
Sad.
ResourceGuy
December 30, 2021 5:53 am
0
Reply
taxed
December 30, 2021 6:30 am
One of the causes of this Arctic Ocean warming was likely to be due to a shifting trends within the
weather patterning. Away from northern Atlantic blocking and a increase in Azores highs ridging up
towards europe. Which opens the gates to allow warm mid-Atlantic air to push up into the Arctic
circle around the northern europe area.
0
Reply
JeanE
December 30, 2021 6:43 am
An article titled “The Coming Ice Age” was published in Harper’s in 1958. It describes the work of
Maurice Ewing and William Donn and their efforts to understand the Ice Age cycles. A key
component of their theory is exchange of warm Atlantic water with cold Arctic waters across “a
shallow “sill” between Norway and Greenland”- this has been called the Fram strait since the 1970’s.
Their work focused on understanding what caused the glaciers to melt 11,000 years ago, but they
also recognized that the ocean was warming (in 1958), and predicted that within 100 years the entire
Arctic ice sheet would melt, leading to increased snow in arctic regions and growth of glaciers- the
beginning of a new Ice Age.
It’s a fascinating article about their work- not a scientific paper, but a magazine story describing the
unexpected findings and fortuitous encounters with other scientists that provided additional pieces
of the puzzle. It also seems that in 1958 they had a better understanding of the many natural
phenomena affecting climate than we do today.
3
Reply
Thomas Gasloli
December 30, 2021 6:45 am
Just like Covid, everything we’ve been told about Climate Change has been a lie.
0
Reply
Ouluman
December 30, 2021 6:47 am
Whatever caused this I think we can agree that it wasn’t human CO2 emission! It is frustrating that
the “scientific” community doesn’t put more emphasis on ocean currents being responsible for
climate change today as it almost certainly was in past years. Earth being 70% water might be the
clue.
4
Reply
hiskorr
December 30, 2021 6:48 am
“…global sea level rise as the polar ice sheets continue to melt.”
Another reference to “sea level rise” as floating, Arctic, “ice sheets continue to melt.” Sigh!!
3
Reply
Rich Davis
Reply to hiskorr
December 30, 2021 9:12 am
Their only argument would be if oceans expand thermally from warming after the sea ice melts. The
trouble is that warming from 0 to 4C actually shrinks the ocean because the maximum density occurs at
4C.
0
Reply
Phil Salmon
December 30, 2021 7:01 am
Arno Arrak published this paper of the “Atlantification” transition at the turn of the 19th to 20th
century, which directed warm water into the Arctic and initiated a century of Arctic warming.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.22.8.1069
3
Reply
Al Miller
December 30, 2021 7:17 am
1
Reply
Tom Abbott
December 30, 2021 8:01 am
From the article: “Since 1900, the ocean temperature has risen by approximately 2 degrees Celsius,
while sea ice has retreated and salinity has increased.”
This would correspond with the air temperatures, too, since the U.S. unmodified, regional chart
shows a 2.0C warming from 1910 to 1940.
2
Reply
Phil Salmon
December 30, 2021 8:30 am
This paper by Tesi et al is an Italian one based in Bologna, with individual authors also from
Cambridge U.K., Norway and Germany. (It’s not a “Cambridge” study).
It’s incredibly interesting and important, showing a sharp transition to “Atlantification” at the turn of
the 19th-20th century. It’s worth looking at the paper itself – not just the press release – and look at
the figures.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj2946
A lot of oceanographic parameters are shown. Some start changing earlier, well back in the 18-19th
centuries. Other parameters abruptly change at the start of the 20th century. A classic picture of
transition in a complex system – the driving parameters and the responsive, state-flipping
parameters.
It’s curious that during the whole 19th century, water temperature in the North Atlantic was higher at
the depth of the LIA (little ice age). This might be surprising to some but shows that climate is ocean-
adiabatic. The ocean’s colossal heat content cannot change that quickly, so a temperature change at
one place means an opposite one somewhere else. Those who would expect a climate phenomenon
like the LIA to show up in radiation balance changes at the top of atmosphere (TOA) would look there
in vain. The heat never left the ocean.
1
Reply
Rich Davis
Phil,
Do I misunderstand your comment or are you claiming that there was an early industrial warm period
somewhere else on earth concurrent with the LIA being a North Atlantic-focused regional anomaly? In
other words, if I grasped what you were saying, ocean currents temporarily shunted less tropical heat
into the North Atlantic, so that the heat must have warmed some area that had previously been cooler?
Given that the east coast of North America was equally frigid as the British isles and Europe, where do
you say that heat went?
0
Reply
Phil Salmon
Rich
No, the heat redistribution was vertical, not horizontal. It means that heat was withheld from the
atmosphere by the ocean during the LIA, over at least the whole northern hemisphere. This
caused the colder climate of the LIA. That heat was retained in the ocean. It’s well known for
instance that during extensive glaciation, sea water temperature under the ice is higher than in
the absence of glaciation.
So it means a kind of zero sum game regarding the huge heat content of the whole ocean.
0
Reply
Rich Davis
How does the ocean do that? Isn’t the warmest part of the ocean at and very near the air
interface?
0
Reply
Related Posts
Early Arctic Freeze Threatens to Strand Ships. Black carbon aerosols heating Arctic: Large contribution
1 month ago from mid-latitude biomass burning
Charles Rotter 2 months ago
Charles Rotter
You Missed
Finally, New York State Tells The World How To Achieve Climate Scientist: Movie “Don’t Look Up” Captures How
Net Zero Carbon Emissions Nobody Listens
2 hours ago 6 hours ago
Guest Blogger Eric Worrall
ALARMISM FLOODING
Three Years Till The Guardian’s Global Climate The new historical flood of 2021 in the Amazon River
Catastrophe compared to major floods of the 21st century:
10 hours ago Atmospheric features in the context of the intensification
Guest Blogger of floods
14 hours ago
Charles Rotter