Arctic Temps Show Little Change Over Past 90 Years
Data shows the Arctic more stable than media doomsayers portray it to be. In the latter part of the latest Klimaschau video, Arctic mean temperature trends above 70°N are examined.
The first chart (8:38) goes back to 2000. Though the running 37-month average rose until 2006, it’s been steady ever since:
Over the last five years, the plot in fact shows some cooling off.
No real warming since the 1930s
Next, looking back long term, we examine the data going back 100 years:
Source: climate4you
The above chart from climate4you shows that the Arctic mean temperatures were almost as warm back in the 1930s and 40s as they are today.
Moreover, Arctic temperatures trended downward from 1930 to 1988, a time when manmade CO2 emissions were rising worldwide.
Next from 1990 to 2016, they rose. In the last few years, there’s been no increase. So what’s really happening?
Ocean cycles (stupid)
So why have Arctic temperatures not gone up continuously like they were supposed to do, according to CO2 global warming theory?
The answer of course is that there are obviously many other factors at play, some being much more powerful than trace gas CO2. For example, oceanic sea surface temperature cycles, here especially the AMO.
AMO likely the powerful driver
Next, we roughly superimpose a chart of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), one that also includes cyclone frequency:
As the above chart shows, when the AMO was in its warm phase from the 1930s to the 1950s, Arctic temps were warmer. The warm North Atlantic sea surface temperatures warmed the adjacent Arctic.
But then by the mid-1970s, the Atlantic sea surface had cooled, and the Arctic responded accordingly.
Next in the 1990s and 2000s, the Atlantic sea surface warmed strongly, and so did the Arctic. Arctic temperatures have little to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Cyclones respond to the AMO
Interestingly, tropical cyclone frequency also varied in sync with the AMO. During periods of a warm AMO phase, tropical cyclones were tended to be more frequent. And when the AMO was in its cool phase, cyclone frequency tamed down.
Unfortunately, activist scientists like to ignore the role of oceanic cycles on climate variability, and constantly fudge the numbers and cook the data to try to pin everything on man-made CO2.
The reality, however, is that things just aren’t that simple.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
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
| #
I like this, more real science.
Reply
Koen Vogel
| #
Hi Pierre,
There are some considerable flaws in your arguments and reasoning, the main one being that it is entirely unclear by what process the AMO – in the Atlantic – could heat the Arctic. And even if it did, what’s heating the AMO? In fact you are doing us climate skeptics a disservice, as the heating of the Arctic during the winter months (https://principia-scientific.com/an-arctic-warming-anomaly-revisited/) to me is the best indication that the IPCC CO2 attribution narrative is nonsense: how can the Arctic heat in the winter when the RFGHG=0? The IPCC reports “studies that find a significant role for the AMO show that this does not project strongly onto1951–2010 temperature trends”, and believe me they have looked hard: it would solve their problem on how to get heat from where RFGHG is largest – near the equator – to where it is apparently accumulating- the North Atlantic and the Arctic. The IPCC also point out that the same pattern was apparent during the 1909-1943 global heating period (as your data also show): mainly heating of the Arctic during the winter, then the North Atlantic. This pattern is entirely inconsistent with RFGHG. See: https://youtu.be/YZIljLpHkLM as well as https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/vogel-prom-paper.pdf
Reply