A Tale of Two Climatic Changes: Part Four
The last of four posts that discuss the differences between the large climatic change that occurred at the end of the last Ice Age and the our current comparably minor ‘climate change’
Key to understanding the posts is Earth’s power balance as presented by Nobel-laureate Dr John Clauser in a video (https://dailysceptic.org/2024/06/08/the-ipcc-catastrophe-narrative-is-a-myth/?highlight=clauser)
Clauser concludes that Earth’s temperature should remain relatively constant thanks to a cloud thermostat that buffers power density changes of up to 18 W/m2, so humankind should not be worried about the relatively minor power density increases caused by atmospheric CO2 increases.
But he leaves open the question on what physical process can disrupt this power balance and cause ‘climate change’.
The third post concluded that the 1910-1944 and recent North Atlantic warming periods were caused by a growing and intensifying Azores High, which in turn was caused by a strengthening North Atlantic Ferrel Cell, which in turn was caused by a strengthening Arctic Cell, which in turn was caused by increases in Arctic surface air temperatures.
That the Arctic Cell strength is increasing due to an increase in East Arctic temperatures is confirmed by Qian et al., 2017 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-016-3067-x) who note a strong geographical correlation between the two (red areas, “A”).
Cause and effect are often unclear when dealing with atmospheric physics, so a good practice is to follow the energy flow, as physical processes nearly always involve energy exchanges.
A physical process is almost never 100 percent efficient so the “cause” is often more energetic than the effect, e.g. the car that caused a 20 car pile-up is often worst-off.
So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the area that is heating 2-4 times faster than the rest of our planet – the Arctic – is the root source of North Atlantic warming.
Physicists following the energy
Physicists follow the energy via power balances, such as the one at top.
NASA’s Earth Observatory (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/84499/measuring-earths-albedo) perform a similar balance in order to explain Arctic heating:
“[S]cientists have been examining this balance sheet with a series of space-based sensors known as Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System, or CERES. The instruments use scanning radiometers to measure both the shortwave solar energy reflected by the planet (albedo) and the longwave thermal energy emitted by it.” i.e. measure the Solar Reflected and Thermal Outgoing terms of the Clauser balance above.
The website claims:
“the maps above show how the reflectivity of Earth—the amount of sunlight reflected back into space—changed between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011.
This global [emphasis added] picture of reflectivity (also called albedo) appears to be a muddle, with different areas reflecting more or less sunlight over the 12-year record.
Shades of blue mark areas that reflected more sunlight over time (increasing albedo), and orange areas denote less reflection (lower albedo).
Taken across the planet, no significant global trend appears.”
So on a planetary scale the Clauser balance works: small variations in reflected energy are temporary not structural. No systemic global changes in albedo were observed. Our current period of “climate change” is therefore different from the glacial to interglacial transition, where the disappearance of large ice sheets resulted in a large shift in average Earth albedo.
However, NASA also note that “[…] at the North Pole, reflectivity decreased markedly, a result of the declining sea ice on the Arctic Ocean and increasing dust and soot on top of the ice.”
As is shown below, NASA’s explanation is incorrect: the increase in “Thermal Outgoing” occurs during the Arctic winter, when both “Solar Incoming” and “Solar reflected” are ~0.
The Arctic is heating during the winter
The Danish Meteorological Institute has been measuring and modeling Arctic (+80 ºN) temperatures for over 60 years (https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php)
The fact that Arctic summer temperatures have remained relatively constant strongly suggests that increases in atmospheric CO2, “Solar Incoming”, and albedo decreases due to “declining sea ice” have not played a role in either Arctic temperature increases or increases in “Thermal Outgoing”.
Between March 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011 the winter temperatures rose by ~4 ºC. Assuming a 1 ºC temperature increase results in an additional 5 W/m2 “Thermal Outgoing” means the “Thermal Outgoing” rose by a whopping 20 W/m2 over this period during the winter months when “Solar Incoming” and “Solar Reflected” were effectively 0 W/m2.
A change in Arctic albedo therefore did not cause this warming.
The previous post highlighted the (also in NASA’s case) often forgotten “Stored Ocean Heat” power term. There is no other plausible source of a 20 W/m2 Thermal Outgoing increase.
Peeling back another layer of the onion: the 1910-1944 and recent North Atlantic warming periods were caused by an increase in the winter release to atmosphere of stored Arctic Ocean heat.
This conclusion can very likely be expanded to “global” warming periods.
Observed mid-troposphere mean temperature anomalies (blue line), Source: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020EA001281
Earth’s temperature variations at the mid-Troposphere are much more representative of Earth’s “Thermal Outgoing” than Earth’s surface temperatures. The above graph demonstrates Earth did not start systemically heating – and emitting more thermal energy – until ~1995, that is around the time the Arctic started systemically heating during the winter.
By 2019 the growth of the Arctic Cell therefore caused Atlantic Ocean heat accumulation (https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/marine-science/articles/10.3389/fmars.2021.642372/full). This first occurred in the North Atlantic under the Azores high, which later caused a heat back-up in the South Atlantic
Why is the Arctic Ocean radiating more heat during the winter?
The Arctic map at top shows that over the last 20 years the Arctic Cell and the Arctic Surface Air Temperatures are mainly increasing over the Eastern Arctic, i.e. the Eurasian part of the Arctic. Polyakov et al., 2018 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaec1e) have documented the Arctic Ocean changes between the [2006-2017] and [1981-1995] periods.
First, note that the Arctic Ocean contains an enormous amount of stored heat at depth in what is termed the “Atlantic Intermediate” layer, a ~1 ppm saltier ~1 ºC warmer Atlantic Ocean derived water mass that is overlain by a fresher and colder water mass, with a halocline in between.
Changes in Arctic Surface Air Temperature are mainly caused by increases in temperature of the Surface Mixing Layer, e.g. the upper right (Eastern) area of the graph below.
Polyakov et al., 2018 have estimated stored Arctic ocean energy variations using an Available potential energy (APE) parameter that clearly illustrates the recent Artic Cell intensification and Eastern Arctic temperature increases were largely driven by the release to atmosphere of stored Eastern Arctic Ocean energy: the blue areas in the difference map below highlight the Eastern Arctic areas where stored Arctic Ocean energy has decreased, almost certainly due to its release to atmosphere.
Perhaps it’s El Nino
So what caused the Eastern Arctic ocean’s Surface Mixing Layer to become warmer and saltier?
Some have plausibly suggested that waters heated by El Nino events, and transported to the Arctic via the global thermohaline current circulation are responsible. Several observations however indicate this is very likely not the cause.
There is no apparent historical correlation between Arctic warming periods and El Nino events, e.g. the 1910-1940 period of Arctic Warming had relatively low El Nino activity, while the 1950-1979 period of relatively low/constant temperatures was characterized by large activity.
In addition, if Arctic temperature increases are caused by El Nino events then their time series should show a significant cross correlation, yet they don’t (graph below)
Observations indicate most of the El Nino stored ocean energy is dissipated in the circum-Pacific, i.e. causes temporary “climate change” in e.g. the Southeast Asian monsoon, but has little impact in the North Atlantic. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation#/media/File:NOAA_Nino.jpg)
Perhaps it’s geothermal forcing
The second post highlighted the role geothermal forcing – the 100 ka cycle of elevated geothermal heat – played in the glacial to interglacial transitions. The Eastern Arctic surface temperature anomalies overlie an area of relatively high geothermal heat flux (https://se.copernicus.org/articles/15/513/2024/).
An increase in Arctic ocean floor heat flux, e.g. due to the eruption of a submarine volcano, can plausibly cause plumes of heated water to convect upwards to the Surface Mixing Layer.
A 2001 sonar survey (Report on East Gakkel Ridge at 85°E (Undersea Features), 2009, Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network, 34, no. 5) revealed two previously undiscovered active volcanoes on the Gakkel ridge (“V” in right figure above).
The Gakkel Ridge is historically one of the slowest spreading ridges on Earth, so the discovery of active volcanoes came as a great surprise to the oceanographers, causing them to significantly modify their models to reflect the newly-discovered major increase in geothermal heat flow.
In addition, geothermal variability proxies (https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-correlation-of-seismic-activity-and-recent-global-warming-2157-7617-1000345.php?aid=72728) derived from Mid-Atlantic seismic activity show a post-1995 step increase which strongly suggests that the Eastern Arctic surface air temperature increases are caused by the destabilization of the Eastern Arctic halocline due to an increase in geothermal and hydrothermal heat flux.
The remaining onion
So what caused the 1995 step change in geothermal heat flux?
At this point we’ve peeled back several layers of the onion but still are left wondering how to tackle the rest of it. We’re left trying to explain what causes e.g. the 100 ka fluctuations in geothermal heat flux that demonstrably ended the last glacial period.
And it gets worse.
Research into Asian Monsoon rainfall over the last 870 kyr indicate (above) there is a much stronger correlation between the geomagnetic and climate variations (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2211495120) than there is with “Solar Incoming” variations, and that the geomagnetic/climate covariation follows 100 kyr cycles.
There is a significant correlation between NAO Index variations and geomagnetic variability (left above): large NAO index events typically lag large Geomagnetic variability by 9-11 years.
There is no significant cross correlation between NAO Index and “Solar Incoming” variability (right). The ~11 year lag suggests the 11 year solar cycle is somehow modulating or controlling this relationship.
The Bottom Line
The above strongly suggests that Earth internal power sources – the geomagnetic field and geothermal energy – play an important role in modulating and controlling climatic changes.
The current IPCC climate models overly rely on anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 forcing to explain global temperature variations, so cannot therefore simulate these relationships, and therefore fall far short of being able to explain ‘climate change’.
Science has only taken its first baby steps in constructing a climate model with true predictive powers.
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.