A case against anthropogenic climate change Part 1
The Arctic has long been the poster child of extreme climate change: measurements demonstrate that the Arctic is warming 3-4 times faster than the rest of the planet [1]
This presents a Sisyphean challenge to anthropogenic climate change proponents, as the climate models of the IPCC (the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are unable [1] to simulate either the magnitude or the geographical distribution of the Arctic temperature anomalies that constitute the largest of the 1910-1942 and 1976-present increases in Global Mean Surface Temperature.
The IPCC climate change theory
The main focus of the IPCC AR5 climate change attribution study [2] was to determine the relative contributions of the Natural and Anthropogenic causes to the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) changes, with special attention dedicated to the observed increase of 0.6 °C in the 1951-2010 period.
The attribution analysis used climate models to simulate the changes in global and regional temperatures caused by the changes in Earth’s physical processes, termed “climate forcings”. Two Natural Forcings were modeled: Solar Irradiation Forcing, which actively heats the Earth, and Volcanic Forcing, which irregularly limits the solar radiation that reaches the Earth’s surface.
The two modeled Anthropogenic Forcings were Radiative Forcing due to Greenhouse Gasses (RF), whose main effect is to allow the Earth’s atmosphere to recover some of its emitted heat energy, and Other Anthropogenic Forcing, a catchall that includes e.g. anthropogenic aerosols, and that mainly acts to limit incident Solar Irradiation in a manner similar to Volcanic Forcing.
Other climate forcings were investigated but deemed insignificant and therefore not simulated [2]. It is important to note that the IPCC attribution analysis studied ‘climate change’, that is studied regional temperature anomalies (differences versus a historic average) caused by the changes in regional climate forcings.
Also note that the IPCC-modeled Volcanic and Other Anthropogenic Forcings mainly cause regional cooling, not heating, and are therefore highly unlikely to have caused positive Arctic temperature anomalies.
The Arctic heat anomaly is not directly due to Anthropogenic Forcings
Radiative Forcing due to Greenhouse Gasses (RF) is proportional to Earth’s emitted heat: ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as CO2 are able to capture part of Earth’s emitted heat/longwave radiation energy, whereby more emitted energy results in more captured energy.
A cursory comparison of Earth’s Arctic temperature anomalies and emitted heat (Fig. 1) reveals that Arctic temperatures have increased much more than can be directly attributed to global ‘greenhouse gas’ increases.
This conclusion is fairly uncontroversial: both the IPCC [2] as well as most anthropogenic climate change proponents (e.g. [3]) conclude that RF increases are not directly causing the Arctic heat anomaly. They propose and model a secondary climate forcing known as “Polar Amplification”.
Polar Amplification is not the dominant Arctic climate forcing
The exclusion of RF as the direct cause of the Arctic heat anomaly poses a substantial problem for anthropogenic climate change proponents.
The IPCC attribution analysis ruled out the possibility that changes in solar radiation are directly responsible for the global 1951-2010 temperature increase [2], yet Solar Irradiation Forcing is the only other IPCC-modeled climate forcing that is directly able to cause Earth’s largest temperature anomaly.
The IPCC therefore theorized that “Polar Amplification”, a secondary climate forcing [4; Box 5.1] whereby decreases in Arctic ice cover cause decreasing Arctic albedos, is over time causing more solar radiation energy to be absorbed by the Arctic Ocean.
This secondary feedback loop is therefore modeled by the IPCC as areal polar albedo changes caused by retreating sea ice.
“The resulting ocean warming contributes to further sea ice melting. The sea ice/ocean surface albedo feedback can exhibit threshold behaviour when temperatures exceed the freezing point of sea ice. This may also translate into a strong seasonality of the response characteristics.” [4]
While lack of ice cover undeniably plays a significant role in locally increasing the amount of solar radiation energy absorbed by the Arctic Ocean, measurements and observations suggest Polar Amplification is not causing Arctic temperature anomalies:
- Polar Amplification is a local process that starts when the Arctic Ocean’s ice cover has locally melted, so it must restart every year following the maximum winter ice cover (Fig. 2). It is therefore inefficient at creating long-lived heat accumulations. This is clearly demonstrated by the 2021 and 2022 summer ice covers that were larger in areal extent than previous years, indicating Polar Amplification during preceding periods did not result in heat accumulations that were carried over into 2021.
- Figure 3 demonstrates that no Arctic temperature anomalies are generated during the summer, when Polar Amplification is at its peak. This is confirmed by Fig. 4 which shows Arctic temperature anomalies predominantly occur during winter.
- Arctic temperature anomalies are geographically unrelated to ice cover: some occur in the ~40% of the Arctic that is permanently covered by ice (e.g. East Beaufort Sea), and therefore cannot be caused by Polar Amplification.
- The IPCC studied climate change caused by changing climate forcings, so long-term, systematic changes in Arctic temperatures caused by regional Polar Amplification must be reflected in long-term, regional changes in ice cover and albedo [2]. However, no obvious geographical correlation exists between changes in albedo and the Arctic temperature anomalies or summer ice cover (Fig. 5). The 2000-2011 changes in polar reflectivity (albedo) appear to be relatively uniform over the Arctic, and are geographically uncorrelated to the observed changes in summer ice cover (Fig. 5). In other words, not all of the areas of reduced summer ice cover correspond to observed temperature anomalies: Polar Amplification does not cause Arctic temperature anomalies.
A cursory examination of summer ice cover (September, 2011 for Fig. 5; October 2022 for Fig. 6) reveals that recent Arctic summer ice cover reductions have largely occurred around the North Barents and Kara Seas (“1” in Fig. 6) and in the West Beaufort/East Siberian Sea (“2” in Fig. 6), but not in the Central Arctic Ocean or in the East Beaufort Sea.
Figure 6 (October, 2022) demonstrates that the ice cover over the Kara and West Beaufort/East Siberian Seas has only partially melted by summer, and has been fully re-covered by ice early in the season.
This clearly indicates Polar Amplification has not caused or contributed to the 2022 East Beaufort Sea temperature anomaly (Fig. 6). Parts of the East Siberian Sea lacked October ice cover, yet Polar Amplification failed to generate a positive anomaly: an aerially large negative anomaly had developed by November.
Observations and measurements therefore contradict the theory that either primary (RF) or secondary (Polar Amplification) IPCC-modeled processes are the dominant Arctic climate forcings.
The IPCC climate models therefore fortuitously, yet incorrectly, simulate Arctic temperature increases (Fig. 1), and as a result cannot match either the magnitude or the geographical distribution of the Arctic temperature anomalies [1]. Anthropogenic climate change proponents therefore invoke other highly-speculative forcings to explain the IPCC climate models’ shortcomings [1]:
- Planck feedback [essentially invoking RFGHG]
- lapse-rate feedback
- near-surface air temperature inversion
- cloud feedback
- ocean heat transport
- meridional atmospheric moisture transport
- reduced air pollution in Europe
- reductions of Asian aerosols
The IPCC analysis [2] itself demonstrates that these forcings have a much smaller effect than either RF or Solar Irradiation forcing. They are therefore extremely unlikely causes of Earth’s largest temperature anomaly.
In summary, all observations strongly indicate that the IPCC climate models are missing an important Arctic climate forcing, which Parts 2 and 3 in this series will demonstrate is “Geothermal Forcing”.
Solar Irradiation and RFGHG are very ineffective in accumulating Arctic Ocean Heat
Figures 3-6 demonstrate that Arctic temperature anomalies are caused by increases –accumulations – of Arctic Ocean heat. Between 1995 and 2020 the Arctic winter mean air temperature increased by 4-8 °C (Fig. 2), which can only be caused by increases in Arctic Ocean heat energy.
Polar Amplification and RF are ineffective at creating long-lived Arctic temperature anomalies: solar and RF energy can only penetrate the upper 10’s of meters of the ocean, and any accumulated heat in this upper layer is largely radiated to space during colder periods.
The Arctic Ocean surface layer forms the energy exchange zone between the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere. Solar and RF energies are clearly fighting a losing battle against heat radiation to the cold atmosphere in this upper layer, resulting in its colder-than-average temperature (Fig. 7).
The consequent Arctic Ocean temperature gradient causes heat energy to be transported upwards from below, and not from above to below as could be expected if RF or Polar Amplification were the dominant Arctic climate forcing.
Deeper ocean heat sources – e.g. geothermal energy – must therefore be largely controlling the Arctic Ocean’s temperature (anomalies). In contrast, the Atlantic Ocean shows a warmer upper layer, and a colder deeper layer: absorption of solar irradiation energy clearly overcompensates the energy lost to outgoing longwave heat radiation (Fig. 7), allowing heat energy to accumulate in the upper layer.
During the Arctic winter these deeper (geothermal) heat energies become a greater climate forcing than Solar Irradiation (the Arctic receives little sunlight during winter) or RF (lower longwave heat radiated during the winter).
In the East Beaufort Sea (Fig. 8) a 1-4 m thick Arctic ice layer conducts the locally warmer Arctic Ocean heat to the extremely cold (< -25 °C) atmosphere, resulting locally in the 4-6 °C January 2023 temperature anomalies.
This radiated heat energy is then re-distributed by the weather (Fig. 4). An ice cover is mostly missing over the North Barents Sea, resulting in a more prominent heat anomaly near the observed recent geothermal activity (V in Fig. 8; discussed in the next post).
Note that it takes considerably less energy to raise air temperatures than water temperatures: globally the recent ~2 °C mean temperature increase correlates to a 0.8 °C mean increase in ocean temperatures [3]. Therefore, calculations in Parts 2 and 3 of this series will assume the mean annual Arctic Temperature anomaly of 2 °C (Fig. 3) was caused by an 0.8 °C mean increase in Arctic Ocean temperature.
Summary
The Arctic temperature anomalies are demonstrably not caused by IPCC-modeled climate forcings, such as Anthropogenic Forcing or Polar Amplification.
Parts 2 and 3 of this series demonstrate they are caused by an IPCC-ignored climate forcing: Geothermal Forcing.
References
[1] Rantanen, M., Karpechko, A.Y., Lipponen, A. et al., 2022, The Arctic has warmed nearly four times faster than the globe since 1979., Commun Earth Environ 3, 168, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00498-3
[2] Bindoff, N.L., Stott, P.A., AchutaRao, K.M. et al., 2013: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
[3] https://berkeleyearth.org/global-temperature-report-for-2020/ retrieved 9 February 2023
[4] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014, Information from Paleoclimate Archives. In Climate Change 2013 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 383-464). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.013
[5] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2023/ retrieved 9 February 2023
[6] Rennermalm, A., & Wood, E., Weaver, A., Eby, M., Déry, S., 2007, Relative sensitivity of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation to river discharge into Hudson Bay and the Arctic Ocean. Journal of Geophysical Research, 112. Doi: 10.1029/2006JG000330.
[7] https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2022/11/ retrieved 9 February 2023
Header image: Twitter
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.