An Arctic warming anomaly?
A couple weeks ago, the Danish Meteorological Institute recorded an unusual warming event in the Arctic. I had expected climate alarmists would have jumped on it as evidence of man-made warming, but they seem to have missed it.
The normal summer melt season in the Arctic is from around the beginning of April to the end of August, when the temperature above 80 degrees north rises above zero C, usually getting up to around two degrees C above freezing.
Around the end of July, the temperature increased for about five days a further degree or so, which would of course, induce more melting of the ice. After this blip, it dropped back to the mean average temperature and continued as normal. It is now dropping towards the freezing point again as the summer melt season winds down.
For about two weeks prior to the unusual warming blip, the temperature had been about a degree below average, so the two probably cancelled each other out.
You can see the blip in the chart below:
To see just how unusual this was, I looked back at the Danish Meteorological Institute’s archive, which goes back to 1958, and was rather surprised to see how many times a similar thing has happened before.
Years with above average temperatures in the summer melt season were 1959, almost all of 1960, 1961 and 1962, 1964 right at end of the melt season, 1965, 1966 and 1968 twice, three times in 1975, 1976, three times in 1979, 1981, the second half of 1984 and 1985, almost all of 1987, 1988, 1990, almost all of 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994, three times in 1995, twice in 1997, almost all of 1998, the first half of 2000, twice in 2007, three times in 2008, once in 2016 and at the end of the melt season in 2018.
From this we can see warmer than average melt season temperatures are not uncommon. This is 1962:
Below is 1991. Almost the whole melt season was above average temperatures:
Below is 2018. We can see much of the 2018 melt season temperature was below average, then warmed right at the end.
Seeing as there were so many years with above average melt season temperatures, I decided to see how many years had below average temperatures.
The DMI archive reveals 1969, the second half 1972, most of 1975 & 1976, the first half 1978, most of 1980, the start & end of 1985, the end of 1986, most of 1992, the beginning & end of 1994, the second half of 1996, 2001, the second half of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, the first half of 2007, 2008, 2009, the first half of 2010, 2012. The years 2013 & 2014 were well below the average melt season temperature, 2017 and 2018.
Below is 1972:
Below is 1996:
Below is 2013. We can see a significantly shortened melt season that year:
Below is 2018. Most of the melt season was colder than usual, and warmed right at the end:
- Years of above average melt season temperatures 29
- Years of below average melt season temperatures 25
- The other years had pretty much average melt season temperatures.
While there have been slightly more years with above-average melt season temperatures, it is however, interesting to note that since the turn of the century, 13 of the 20 years have had below average summer melt seasons temperatures, while the majority of years with above average melt season temperatures occurred before 2000.
The significantly shortened melt season in 2013, coupled with the number of other years of below average melt season temperatures since 2000, rather puts an end to the alarmist claims the Arctic is warmer and melting more now than ever before.
You can check this out for yourselves here:-
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
As if to emphasize the point, nature appears to have stepped in at just the right moment. In the last few days, Greenland has seen an unprecedented amount of new snowfall, in the region of seven billion tons. This is much more and much sooner than would be expected, and is way above the 1982-2010 mean.
It should also not be forgotten that Greenland had a large increase of snow in June at the start of the melt season, which was also way above the seasonal average.
The dark grey curve traces the mean value from the period 1981-2010. The light grey band shows differences from year to year.
It can be seen here:-
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
So, what is the punchline that we can reasonably state here? Well, we need look no further than this one important admission from the UN IPCC, as stated in the scientific section of the Third Assessment Report, which illustrates how little they actually know about climate futures:
“In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
About the author: Andy Rowlands is a regular contributor to Principia Scientific International; a British independent researcher and writer and assistant editor of the game-changing new climate science book, The Sky Dragon Slayers: Victory Lap.
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.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Update: Greenland saw even more snow on the 12th, equalling where it would be in the depths of the Arctic winter, not during the summer melt season – http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Reply
Barry
| #
Thanks for the research Andy,seems that the more we know the less sure we are about climate change. Here in western Canada we have had a cooler summer with almost no major fires but not one word of that mentioned on the msm. Last summer with a major fire in northern Alberta we only had a few years to live if we didn’t change our ways. The weather is a fickle thing and we have not made a lot of progress in long term forecasting past about three days. So I am never sure how we know what the weather will be 80 years from now.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Thanks for your kind words Barry. It always makes me smile when we see how inaccurate weather forecasting still is, yet alarmists expect us to believe climate predictions out to the end of the century. I would also like to thank John O’Sullivan for his help with this article.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
A great subject choice. Most alarmists usually focus on the arctic sea-ice extent, and not the temperature variations. Some remarks:
1) The temperature records are for arctic temperature averages above the 80th parallel, i.e. in an area that remains (mostly?) covered with sea ice. As such there may be other processes at work than in areas where the sea ice temporarily disappears. e.g. Murmansk, Eastern Siberia or even the Southern Parts of Greenland.
2) It’s good that you found half of the years are above average and half below average: that’s the definition of average ;-). It is interesting that the latter years do not show – as a rule – higher temperatures, i.e. there does not appear to be a warming trend. The Northern hemisphere/Northern Atlantic is warming considerably more than the Southern Hemisphere/Northern Pacific. It seems the same might be true for the Arctic: global warming seems to mainly be occurring in the Northern Atlantic. It would be instructive to see if the warmer/colder years follow a Poisson distribution, i.e. are truly random.
3) The reason IPCC don’t make more out of the Arctic is because they cannot explain the phenomena observed there, e.g. why the Labrador current is heating much more than the equatorial waters of offshore Sumatra. It doesn’t fit the CO2 story at all. Solar irradiation has a high angle of incidence (hence the cold) so the Arctic is hard to heat. They have a very dubious theory involving “Arctic Multipliers” but to me it seems unsupported by any observations, i.e. great theory, shame about the data that contradicts it.
4) Climate variations in Greenland are going to be key to unravelling the historic record of warming and cooling cycles, and probably in determining the causes of the start and end of the last ice age. During the Mideval Climate Optimum (950-1250) there were Dorset settlements above the 80th parallel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland). Clearly the conditions were better than today.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
I totally agree with Barry and Koen that you have directed our attention to important actual measurements.
But I question how and where these measurements are being made. The Arctic Ocean has a large area and has two surfaces: a liquid and a solid (ice). And its water is salty and not fresh water like that of the rivers which flow into it. And the density of its liquid water depends upon temperature and the concentration of the salt dissolved in it. Fresh water, at a given temperature, is less dense than the salt water. And fresh water, as we know melts (freezes) at 0 C and salt water freezes at a lower temperature but the salt water that freezes is ‘pure’ water. And we know that this ice ‘floats’ on liquid water.
And in the case of the Arctic salt water we know that the temperature on which the ice floats has a temperature of about neg. 2.3 C. Which obviously means the any melting to the ice must be occurring at the upper surface of the ice. But, rivers (and smaller streams) of fresh water flow into the Ocean and must also initially ‘float’ on the salt water as the ice floats on this fresh water until it becomes mixed with the salt water beneath it.
I review these observed facts because the temperature of the salt water must be causing the fresh water about it to freeze.
So, my bottom line is to understand the functioning of this dynamic system we must carefully and completely define it must function in some elementary way. And Andy, you do give us excellent starting point.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Hi Jerry, may I suggest the DMI may be able to answer your questions?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Water freezes at 0 C minus 80 calories. When salt water loses these calories it form fresh water ice.resulting in more concentrates salt water.
The floating ice has a greater area exposed for heat exchange. When the temperature increases it absorbs these 80 calories and turns into 0 C water. When the temperature is colder the ice (being a solid) transmits heat from the salt water to the atmosphere, losing calories, and more salt water is frozen into fresh water ice. .
So while the fresh water flowing into the arctic ocean may lower the concentration of salt it is the ice that is freezing water from the salt water causing the crystals to grow not the salt water freezing the fresh water.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
I asked, how and where these temperature measurements are being made, use to draw attention to the fact that these are averaged temperatures quite indirectly being determined from satellite data.
I now ask: Does it seem a coincident that the average temperature during the melting season are so consistent (constant) and only about a degree Celsius above the melting temperature of ice which obvious limits the temperature of a melting ice surface.
Next, it is well observe that during the summer season that fresh water lakes at lower latitudes form a shallow (maybe less than 10 meters) warm water layer whose density is less than the colder, more dense, water beneath it. The same should be true for the Arctic Ocean liquid surface. This seems to explain the average temperatures during the melting season being a degree or so above 273K (0 C).
You wrote: “As if to emphasize the point, nature appears to have stepped in at just the right moment. In the last few days, Greenland has seen an unprecedented amount of new snowfall, in the region of seven billion tons. This is much more and much sooner than would be expected, and is way above the 1982-2010 mean.” I ask for a reference to the mean snowfall data for the 1982-2010 mean. For the photos of the MOSAiC Expedition I saw this snowfall which began on the ice shortly after March 21, which I had not seen during the winter season.
Keep up the good work of at least considering actual average temperature data which outside the melting season certainly varies over a large range of temperatures.
Have a good day, Jerr
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Thanks Jerry, the DMI may well be able to give you the mean snowfall data you mentioned. Regarding the unexpected Greenland snowfall, I posted this article on social media, which inevitably drew a few comments from alarmists about how much ice has been lost from Greenland due to ‘climate change’. I replied that as we are still effectively recovering from the Little Ice Age, perhaps that is what we should expect. I also reminded the commenters about the Viking colony at Hvalsey, when much of Greenland was ice-free during the MWP and considerably warmer. At that point, comments stopped 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
Great job!!!
I have written essays for PSI readers to inform them of historical fact which I consider they are not awate. Your article does just this. For I seldom read here at PSI anyone actually writing about actually observed data (evidence0 about which there can be no question. Instead, I much more frequently read repeated endless arguments. For, I fear, that to many, argumentation is an intellectual game they merely enjoy playing.
And I hope you have read that science is a studious practical game bused solely upon reproducible observations and measurements. One might ask: What about the scientific theorists who merely reason? I will allow the great theorist Einstein answer this question: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”
Great job for you referred to data which silenced your critics.
I was going to close my comment; but I cannot allow an opportunity past by without a comment which is relative to the issue of the ice age from which the Northern Hemisphere is still recovering according to the observations to which you refer.
The ‘peak’ of the the most recent ice age must have occurred when a glacier melted on a 9 acre field just south of our farm’s barn, at a latitude of less than 45 degrees North, and deposited about 5 erratic bloopers there when it melted. And I have written that to form this glacier which moved down from the north, it has to have snowed a lot. And to snow a lot there needs to be a source of much water. And this water best not be covered by ice. Hence, I considerer the observed fact there is evidence of much volcanic activity found in the Arctic region. Hence the energy necessary to vaporize (necessary to initiate any precipitation) the water of the Arctic Ocean was the nuclear fission reaction occurring the the earth”s interior.
It’s all that simple.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Thanks again Jerry. Your comment about a single experiment proving a theory wrong is particul;arly relevant to my other great interest; particle physics. I’ve been following the work of Cern in particular since their Intersecting Storage Ring project discovered both the W & Z bosons in the early 80s. They had expected to find one or the other, but not both, so the theorists had to tweak the Standard Model to account for it. The same with predictions of ‘pre-quarks’; particles theorised to make up quarks, have never been found, and are now accepted as being non-existent.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Dev,
The single experiment proving Einstein’s theories wrong was done when they calculated the energy given off by the radioactive decay of an atom. When the results didn’t match the theory they invented the neutrino, which was designed to be undetectable (no mass, no charge) in order to preserve the theory with no evidence to support it.
One of the original physicist who first proposed E=mc^2 (published 2 years before Einstein) conceded that it proved the theory wrong. Today physics has become a continuous creation of particle to try to preserve bad theory.
Accelerators are garbage science where, because the proponents gets to say what squiggly line constitutes proof, they are always able to find proof but never anything that doesn’t exist in their theories.
Quarks do not exist, even though they have been “found”. Neutrons are a molecule formed by a proton and electron and have both a positive and negative charge.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Andy,
Sorry for confusing you with Dev. I’m not good with names.
Herb
Andy Rowlands
| #
No worries about the name mixup 🙂 Quarks most definately do exist, there are six ‘versions’ presently known; Up, Down, Top, Bottom, Strange and Charm. Just before the LHC shut down for it’s big upgrade, it found hints of what could be a seventh quark. When the LHC re-starts, it will continue to look for signs of it, and if it is confirmed, Cern will need to look for an eighth, as they should come in pairs. A neutron is not a molecule, it is an elementary particle. Molecules are groups of atoms. A neutron has no charge, an electron has a negative charge and a proton a positive charge.
MattH
| #
Hi Andy Rowlands.
Talking of quarks and stuff. What is an “oh my God “particle?
Cheers Matt
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Andy,
In a dying star the electrons and protons come together producing energy radiated by the star creating neutrons. When a neutron is not in the nucleus of an atom (and sometimes when it is (beta decay)) it spontaneous splits into an electron, proton, (not quarks) and a gamma ray. The gamma ray is a radiation of energy, so the neutron is radiating energy both when created and when it self destructs, which violates the first law of thermodynamics. The solution for this dilemma is that the neutron is a subatomic molecule (like an alpha particle) made from an electron and proton with equal positive and negative charges. As it moves through a magnetic field it produces two currents moving in opposite direction and the magnetic field (right hand rule) provides the energy to split the neutron back into an electron and proton releasing energy in the form of a gamma ray.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andy,
Have you looked at http://polarportal.dk/en/sea-ice-and-icebergs/sea-ice-thickness-and-volume/ which shows the extent of sea ice and its depth ar measured from satellite for each day?
I point specifically to the ice free surfaces along the northeast coast of Greenland and the observation of sea ice along the east coast of Greenland down to below 70 N latitude. Then I call attention to deep sea ice just above Hudson Bay that is also below 70 N latitude. And I searched if there are any towns near this sea ice and there are and it is reported that their bay can be ice bond during the entire Yeat.
Which, to me, seems quite interesting that I have not found anyone speculating why this ice seems not to melt at such a low latitude.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
The below referenced oceanic current map appears to explain much of your discussion. The Baffin Island current on the Western side of Greenland looks a little chilly and one could deduce the same current meanders South through the nearby Island landmasses.
https://cdn.britannica.com/91/53891-050-3CDF0E7C/ocean-systems-world.jpg
Have a nice day. Matt
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Matt,
After looking at the link to which you referred, I doubt it explains the ice at latitudes lower than than that of the Baffin Island current. if you look at the Polar Portal link to see where the ice is shown to be, you will maybe see why I doubt. It is best look at the enlarged image of the most recent day’s data and enlarge it the second step and study the shape of the east coast of the island of which one the two ice floes are still shown on the west coast of this island.
Details are important.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Jerry.
The map referenced below clarifies a little better the polar ocean current dispersal.
The entrance to Hudson Bay and Eastern Greenland, Spitzbergen etc are influenced by the remnants of the gulf stream. The areas of which you refer have influence from polar water.
There will be a contributing factor, even if minor.
I wish I had more time to follow your leads. Thank you Jerry.
Best wishes. Matt
https://earthsky.org/earth/arctic-ice-melt-changing-major-ocean-current-beaufort-gyre
Reply