An Arctic Warming Anomaly? revisited
A recent PSI news post by Andy Rowlands highlighted some curious anomalies in the Danish Meteorological Institute’s (DMI) Arctic temperature data. Andy’s article focused mainly on the summer temperatures, which do not show any significant warming trends over the 1958-2010 period.
(Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php)
Curiously, the winter temperatures do reflect global trends: the colder mid-60’s, the heating to the mid-70’s, a heating trend from 2000 onwards. These two distinct graphs must reflect the fact that different heating processes dominate the Arctic energy balance during the different seasons.
The Arctic is relatively unique in that it is far removed from the confounding influence of the open oceans (and their energy) that dominate most weather systems: the processes that are at play are mostly local, and not “imported” e.g. from a relatively warm ocean body that can transfer energy to the Arctic.
The IPCC identify1 two heating processes that are active during all seasons: “natural forcing” due to solar irradiation and volcanics and “anthropogenic forcing” due to greenhouse gasses and aerosols. The summer temperature is basically a flat line fluctuating around an anomaly value of 0, so does not show the “fingerprints” of an ever-increasing anthropogenic forcing.
The flat line is consistent with the IPCC claim1 that solar irradiation does not vary significantly over the 1958-2020 period. In a nutshell: the graph is consistent with a summer season that is dominated by a relatively unvarying solar irradiation forcing combined with little to no anthropogenic forcing.
The winter period is a different matter: it clearly shows a warming trend since 2000. Solar irradiation forcing has gone: the Arctic is dark during winter. Anthropogenic forcing was shown to be absent during the summer, so it is unlikely that it makes a comeback during winter. Therefore the heating process must be one that is unrecognized by the IPCC: it is likely geomagnetic induction heating of the ocean’s currents (https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/vogel-prom-paper.pdf).
The Magnetic North Pole shifted from just west of Ellesmere Island in 2000 to a location quite proximal to the geographic North Pole in 2020 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole). An area of relatively intense geomagnetic variability accompanied this migration, and causes geomagnetic induction heating of the Arctic currents, e.g. the Transpolar Current.
This heating energy is dwarfed by solar irradiation during the summers, but clearly has a relatively large impact during the periods when solar irradiation energy is absent or low, i.e. winter. Note that temperatures are not additive, and that the increasing trend of the temperature anomalies during the winter months should be seen as an increase of energy supplied to the Arctic. Geomagnetic induction heating of the ocean’s currents is the only plausible mechanism that can supply this energy during the winter months.
PS My apologies to Andy for usurping his subject, but the above seemed a bit long to add to the comments of his article.
[1] Bindoff, N.L., P.A. Stott, K.M. AchutaRao, M.R. Allen, N. Gillett, D. Gutzler, K. Hansingo, G. Hegerl, Y. Hu, S. Jain, I.I. Mokhov, J. Overland, J. Perlwitz, R. Sebbari and X. Zhang, 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., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.
About the author: Koen Vogel PhD received his PhD in Geology from The Pennsylvania State University, worked in the Petroleum Industry for 25 years in a variety of technical and managerial roles, and since his retirement has been engaged in pursuing his intellectual interests. Such interests include reviewing the IPCC reports, authoring a book on Geostatistics (currently in review), and editing technical proposals for start-ups. His latest paper, ‘The Role of Geomagnetic Induction Heating in Climate Change’ is available for open peer review on Principia Scientific International (please submit comments below on Koen Vogel’s new paper).
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi,Koen
You wrote: “The Arctic is relatively unique in that it is far removed from the confounding influence of the open oceans (and their energy) that dominate most weather systems: the processes that are at play are mostly local, and not “imported” e.g. from a relatively warm ocean body that can transfer energy to the Arctic.”
I question the validity of these conclusions. I have followed the MOSAiC Expedition and its daily reports. I have studied the 6 hour reports of the Fluid Earth from Ohio State University which show that the only ‘large’ atmospheric systems are the cold air masses which from time to time, drift down from the Arctic region to the Gulf of Mexico. For a fact is that most the other weather systems over the USA are what I must consider to be local as the often drift from west to east.
I have asked Andy where have these Arctic temperatures being measured. And his answer was I should check with the Danish meteorologists and climatologists. Which suggests to me that he doesn’t know and is not interested in learning this ‘fact’.
I am quite sure that much of the recent temperature has been ‘determined’ by the instruments of satellites and that one purpose of the localized MOSAiC Expedition was evaluate the validity of its data. And this satellite data at http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/thickness only goes back to 2011.
So I conclue that one factor that ‘might’ explain the recent winter warming is where and how the temperature date is being ‘measured’.
And given our concern about increasing temperatures I would like to read an explanation how it is the summer temperatures have not been significantly influenced by anything. Where as for 80 years the winter temperatures have been ‘extremely’ variable.
Another factor which it seems MOSAiC expedition seems to ignore are the Russian rivers which drain into the Arctic Ocean from 70 N or lower. And how the atmosphere is blocked by mountain ranges from draining the very cold atmosphere over a very large land surface into the Pacific, Atlantic, Indian Oceans. Which in the case of North America does not prevent the cold air masses from the Arctic from draining into the Gulf of Mexico.
I hope you will ponder these factors about which I have not commonly read many writing about in the general literature.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Jerry,
I hope I can adequately address some of the issues. Concerning the data source: DMI state on their website “The ERA40 reanalysis data set from ECMWF, has been applied to calculate daily mean temperatures for the period from 1958 to 2002.” ECMWF= European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts; ERA 40 (from https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/era40) is “a second generation reanalysis … the first reanalysis to directly assimilate satellite radiance data (TOVS, SSM/I, ERS and ATOVS). So I think you are correct in thinking that the measurement method is reliant on satellite data, though many of these satellite programs date back to the 60’s and 70’s. In fact one of the “key limitations” claimed by the above website is “Spurious Arctic temperature trends”. What exactly is meant by that is unclear, but it might mean that it doesn’t fit the current anthropogenic warming story. Or it might mean the data is unreliable. Since 2002 the data are produced by a numerical weather prediction model that “is based on vastly more information than available from any single observing system. Data from ground, aircraft, bouys, ship, satellites, radiosondes, etc. are all combined to adjust the first guess field. As a consequence the quality of an analysis is much better than what can be obtained from gridding, or treating in other ways, data from a single or a few observing systems” which to me suggests that DMI are producing a quality data set – at least since 2002 – that conditions the satellite observations to actual measurements.
Concerning the “confounding influence” of open oceans: Moscow, Edinburgh and Newfoundland all lie on roughly the same latitude line, yet Edinburgh has much milder winters due to the Gulfstream passing its energy along to local weather systems. Newfoundland has a relatively cold offshore Labrador current. Moscow is too far away from the Gulf stream to get much benefit, and has a continental climate. The point I was trying to make is it is very hard to get enough energy up there to warm the Arctic by 8 degrees in the winter: similar to Moscow, it is far removed from open oceans that might transfer some heat to it. As to Arctic rivers, please read my explanation to Tom O (soon to follow): Arctic rivers are part of a steady-state that cannot be used to explain temperature variability.
Reply
Tom O
| #
According to Joe Bastardi, the winter warming is an artifact of increased atmospheric humidity, which is why there is little warming showing up in the summer, since humidity impacts lower temperatures far more than higher temperatures. A much sounder explanation for the winter anomaly. Besides, the original article struck me as pointing out an actual anomaly of the summer temperatures, and wasn’t slanted at attempting to support or detract from the global warming dogma, as this article obviously is intended.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Tom, Let me first clarify that I do believe the Earth – on average – is heating up: I believe that NASA/NOAA have produced a quality data set supporting this. The NASA temperature data are reported as anomalies relative to a chosen average, e,g, 1950-1980. This chosen average represents a steady-state model temperature, one that reflects a natural energy balance between solar irradiation energy, energy retained by the atmosphere, land and oceans, and energy lost to space (I would also add geomagnetic induction energy, but let’s leave that for now). These anomalies, i.e. the warming of the earth must therefore be attributed to something that’s changing the steady state, i.e. a factor whose variability is disrupting the balance. IPCC claim greenhouse gasses are disrupting the balance: globally the increase in the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere concurs with the global increase in temperature. One of the points I was trying to make is that no such temperature increase is noticed in the Arctic summer month temperatures, so any greenhouse gas variability is not noticeable in the temperature trends. An Arctic regional anomaly doesn’t disprove climate change due to increasing greenhouse gasses, but it adds to an ever-growing list of regional anomalies that cannot be explained by “global warming dogma”, which I take you to mean the IPCC story. The IPCC would lump this Arctic regional anomaly under “internal variability”, i.e. an anomaly that cannot be reproduced by its climate models.
The increased humidity that you quote I think refers to the MOSAIC study that Jerry points to (see above). I think the MOSAIC model (I could have misunderstood) is that cracks in the ice allow relatively warm (1.5 C) sea water to the surface, which in turn evaporates and forms clouds, thereby warming the atmosphere. The theory is plausible, but then I would expect these cracks to be more common and have a greater impact during the summer months, when there should be more cracks (I would think) and the humidity has a greater impact on retaining solar irradiation energy that is absent during winter. It is very unusual and remarkable that – on average – the Arctic is warming much faster (8 K since 2000) than the rest of the planet, and that this mainly occurs during periods when the main source of energy – solar irradiation – is absent.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
No probs about ‘usurping’ my post Koen 🙂 Additional information is always welcome, though being a Slayer, I do not support the ‘greenhouse gas theory’ of anthropogenic forcing.
Reply
Barry
| #
It’s funny to me that people try to guess at what the temp should be at when if we know anything it’s that the temp and wx patterns change daily and even hourly. Science has taught us that over millions of years the wx has changed drastically from hot to cold and back again with absolutely no influence from man. Now the agw crowd would have us believe that man is responsible for all and any change what so ever,any one that knows anything about wx can tell you that predicting more than 3 days in advance is purely guess work. If the agw bunch want to have a shred of credibility they should start with giving us a truly accurate wx forecast for the coming month or two. Once they have achieved this feat I will put a little more thought into their century away theory. We all know how accurate their claims are from just the last 30 years.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Well said Barry.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Koen
When the the peak energy from an unusually intense solar storm is focused on one geological area of Earth does that influence the movement of the magnetic pole?
Have a good day. Matt
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Matt,
This question actually addresses my PROM paper more than the article above. Separating fact from hypothesis:
1) It is a fact that an intense solar storm will heat the Earth’s core. Faraday’s Law and Joule’s law predict this: the disruption of the Earth’s geomagnetic field will cause induction currents/induction heating, especially in magnetically susceptible, low electrical resistivity materials such as pipelines, power grids, and the Earth’s core itself
2) My hypothesis is that years wherein the sun is particularly active will cause the core to heat, and that inactive solar years cause core cooling. The heating-cooling cycles I describe are decadal: they vary with the 11-year solar cycles.
There are some data presented in the paper in support of the hypothesis. Other authors have demonstrated that geomagnetic variability – such as the North Pole movement – is caused by two types of internal core variations: slow convection movement, resulting in centennial-scale variations, and hydromagnetic waves, resulting in annual-scale variations. Other authors have also demonstrated that core cooling is coupled to an increase in geomagnetic field strength: heat energy is converted to geomagnetic energy. What I have read (can’t find the link) is that the North Pole’s location is determined by two core convection cells: one located in North Canada, the other in North Siberia centered around the Lyakhovsky islands. The Canadian cell is weakening, which causes the pole to shift towards the Siberian location.
So in answer to your question, from what I have read, the pole is moving mainly due to the centennial-scale convection changes in the core. Individual solar storms probably do not contribute much individually, but sum them up over years, decades and centuries then the heat they generate could plausibly change the convection cell configurations. The only other core heating mechanisms – radioactive decay and heat left over from the Earth’s creation – do not seem plausible initiators of century-scale core heat variability. The Earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing since the 17th century, so the core – on a century-scale – must be heating since then. Geomagnetic induction heating of the core due to solar wind seems to fit the bill: the Maunder Minimum – a period of very low solar activity coincides with the most recent geomagnetic field maximum.
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Koen.
I am humbled by your comprehensive reply.
Kind regards. Matt
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Koen,
I have read of decreasing solar flares being linked to increased seismic activity. If the land masses are cooling because of less uv and X-ray radiation and a blocking of solar particles by the increase strength of the magnetic field does’t it stand to reason that the land masses would contract resulting in them pulling apart at the plate seams resulting in an increase in earthquakes and volcanic eruptions?
Herb
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Herb, I also saw the article linking solar flares to seismic activity, though I recall there was a lag (of 1 year?) between the two. The geomagnetic field is currently decreasing (generally; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field) in strength since the mid-17th century so more solar particle and solar wind magnetism reach the earth. My argument above is that the increase in solar wind since the Maunder minimum has increased the induction heating of the Earth’s core, which could in turn affect volcanism and seismicity, though clearly there’s a lot more work to be done.
Reply
Herb Rose,
| #
Hi Koen,
Wouldn’t a delay indicate a change in energy levels? The coldest and hottest days of the year do not occur on the first day of winter or summer. It takes time for the effects of energy levels changes to occur which may explain the 1 year delay. I would expect a similar delay if heating was due to the induction you propose. I am puzzled by the role of ferromagnetism in the Earth’s magnetic field since the core and mantle temperatures are far greater than the Curie point where ferromagnetism ceases.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Everyone,
Koen, since I last visited here, you have added important comments. And the comments of the others are also important because you have begun a really good conversation. To which I will contribute.relative to your statement: “So I think you are correct in thinking that the measurement method is reliant on satellite data, though many of these satellite programs date back to the 60’s and 70’s.”
The most fundament; observation of this satellite data was the ‘obvious’ measurement from the satellite platform was that of the Earth’s albedo. Except, in a telephone conversation with Robert Cess, who was in charge of this project he stated something which caused me to see that this albedo cannot be measured from the satellite platform. Here I must paraphrase what he stated: ‘Sometime the reflected light from water surfaces is so intense that I have to remove that reading from the data set’.
With this clue I will allow you (Koen) and any other reader to ponder the reason for my ‘ridiculous’ conclusion Which tomorrow I will give some more background and my reasoning.
Have a good day, Jerry
.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Everyone,
There have been several comments overnight but no one addressed my comment about the satellite measurement of the fundamental earth’s albedo.
History is very important because it is a fact. Here,I am not referring to its interpretation. I am referring to such facts that in 1955 Richard Feynman gave an address at the 1955 at the autumn meeting of the National Academy of Science. (“What Do You Care What Other People Think?”).
In this address he stated: “The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think.”
Does anyone, who has written a comment after this comment of 8/12/2020 at 1:01pm, know who was the man who moved meteorology to space via the satellite? Or are you totally ignorant of this historical fact?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Everyone,
If you go to Follow MOSAiC (8/19/2020) you can view a photo of the Arctic ice surface within a half of a degree of the North Pole. And based upon what I see I conclude that the ice is covered by fresh snow and puddles of liquid water. What I do not know is whether this liquid water is fresh or salty. But I must conclude that the snow is not salty. And that the only thing (energy) that can be melting it is solar radiation.
What we do not know is whether this fresh snow at this time is common or unusual. For Michael Clarke has explained to me that there is a black hole centered on the North Pole which is not scanned by any satellite. What we are not told by the FM comments for this day, is the thickness of the ice floe which I know they measured because of the ‘long’ ice drill in the photo.
If you have followed this ‘great’ actual science being done during almost early past year now, it seems obvious the data might be ‘slanted’ to promote the idea of ‘global warming’. Just a head’s up.
Now, I have read that it is a fact that it is claimed that the thickness of the ice else where can be measured from a satellite. A question, which I would like to see being answered by observations else where, is: How does this layer of fresh snow affect the depth of ice that is measured? And what is the influence of these scattered puddles of liquid water upon the measurement of data from a satellite?
The scientist involved in this project have actual data and not I thinks; it will be interesting to see what they do with it.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Ktause
| #
Hi Everyone,
First I must admit the the date in my previous comment was WRONG; it should have been 8/18,2020.
The Follow MOSAiC narrative for 8/19/2020 included the following statement: “We … tensely watched the compass while we approached 90 [degrees] N.” I double checked this date. The person writing this seems not know the difference between a compass and GPS. Nansen knew his compass could never determine his latitude position regardless of where the magnetic pole might have been at that time.
So, maybe this ‘observation’ might generate a comment.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krasue
| #
Hi Everyone,
Verner Suomi (U of Wisconsin) put meteorology into space by preparing an instrument, to measure the upwelling solar radiation as part of a very early satellite launched after the first satellite was placed into orbit about the earth. He also suggestion that the entire earth surface could be scanned if the satellite was spun about an internal axis the pointed in the directions which the satellite moved as it orbited.orbited.
And I read one of his interviews in which he questioned how the previous average albedo (as calculated from earth based measured data) had been about 0.36 while the new average albedo (as calculated from satellite based measurements) was only about 0.29 at that time.
And I do not remember the reason I initially contacted Robert Cess but certainly do remember the approximate comment which lighted my light bulb.
Most of us have observed the reflection (glare) of visible solar radiation from an molecularly smooth liquid water surface. But to see this reflection of the direct radiation, the sun must be in front of us as is also the area of reflection from the surface. Which also means we have to at an elevation greater than that of the reflection . We know by observation that no reflection can be observed, regardless of our elevation, if the sun is at our back.
And with this general background you need to see for yourselves what my point is.
For I agree with Galileo, if he did state, as translated by some one that “We cannot teach people anything; we can only help them discover it within themselves.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Jerry,
That’s a lot to digest. I haven’t seen any conclusions on ice thickness measurements viz a viz global warming, but I think you may have a point in snow being a confounding influence when measuring from satellites. The trends remain pretty obvious: thicker ice north of Canada and Greenland. That doesn’t really fit into a simple “global warming due to GHG” story.
Concerning your albedo concerns: my impression is that is the measurements are off, then they are also off in Antarctica, so looking at the differences in polar responses to natural and anthropogenic forcings is instructive. But I fail to see a mechanism whereby albedo effects cause extra heating during a time when the sun is absent, i.e. during Arctic winters.
Similar to the Arctic, no anthropogenic effect heating effect is noticeable at the Antarctic (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/antarctica_trends.pdf): summers actually show a cooling trend. Contrary to the Arctic, the sea-borne ice is expanding and thickening in most areas with the exception of the Bellinghausen Sea. Antarctic winters do not see the warming trend noticed in the Arctic. My conclusion is therefore that Arctic winters are becoming warmer due to heating from the Transatlantic current, i.e. the only viable natural heating mechanism during winter it is via the heating of the Transatlantic Current through geomagnetic induction, caused by the geomagnetic variability that comes with a rapidly moving magnetic North Pole.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Apologies, that should read Transpolar Current and not Transatlantic Current.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Koen,
I was afraid that the conversation which was started had ended as many do too soon.
For whatever reason it seems I have read good stuff and see the simple things that it seems others have not seen. Maybe it helps that I grew up in northeastern South Dakota, USA on a small farm where extreme blizzards (life threatening) could form very quickly. And where cold air masses commonly moved down from the Arctic several times each winter and these cold air masses spread broadly east and west as they moved toward the Gulf of Mexico. Lots of moving atmosphere which had to be replaced in the Arctic from somewhere.
A principle which I seldom have read is ‘What goes up must come down!’ Why doesn’t the who winter atmospheres of Arctic Ocean and the Antarctic Contineent get much colder during their long nights? The atmosphere over them is subsiding and being adiabatically warmed periodically is my simple answer. And the atmosphere that goes up in localized, short lived, thunder storms are also carry a load of water (gas, liquid, and solid) to high altitudes. So maybe it doesn’t snow much during the polar winters but ice crystals do form and fall from a cloudless sky.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply