Tag Archives: Arctic Ocean

Arctic “Just-So Stories”: Bad Science by Climate Alarmists

By Jim Steele

The Arctic Ocean was nick-named the “upside down ocean” by Fridtjof Nansen. Nansen was a famous Norwegian zoologists, oceanographer, and Arctic explorer as well as winner of the 1922 Nobel Peace Prize.

The “upside down ocean” is so named because contrary to other oceans, the surface waters are the coldest, while between 100 and 900-meters depths the ocean is warmer due to inflows and storage of warm salty Atlantic waters. Sea ice cover prevents the ventilation of that heat. Increases in open water allows heat more ventilation and raises Arctic air temperatures 2 to 7 times faster than the global average. Open waters have been increased by changes in wind direction and currents. Open water is not proof of sea ice melting.

NASA estimates that globally added CO2 has increased downward infrared which added “a little over 0.8 Watts per square meter” of energy and that is melting sea ice. But researchers (e.g. Kim 2019) have reported that over open water more winter heat, about 2 Watts per meter squared, is being ventilated heat away than absorbed. That suggests radiative cooling!

So, NOAA’s 2019 Arctic Report Card created a “just so story” to blame more open water on the greenhouse effect and Arctic Amplification even though they state, “There is currently no consensus Arctic amplification”. They listed proposed amplification mechanisms: reduced summer albedo, increase of water vapor and clouds, lapse-rate feedback, and decreased air pollution. However, despite all the evidence, ventilating heat from the warm Atlantic layer is never mentioned. That is bad science!

Two research papers (highlighted in red) are very informative. Kahl et al 1993, reported in the prestigious journal Nature, that after 40 years of intensive measurements there was no evidence of greenhouse warming over the ice-covered ocean. However, shortly thereafter the winds shifted due to the Arctic Oscillation in the 1990s, decreasing thick insulating sea ice and increasing open waters (Rigor 2000).

A distinction must be made between Arctic fast-ice and drifting pack ice (bottom left illustration). Fast-ice melts every year and does not add to the open water trend. In contrast, some wind directions and currents can cause pack ice to converge and thicken and eliminate regional open water. Other wind directions cause sea ice to diverge, opening “flaw leads” and creating a mosaic of open water and solid ice.

Rigor (2000) reported the following measurements of heat ventilating from different sea ice thicknesses, illustrating how ventilating heat causes Arctic warming.

Open leads: 700 W m-2

0.4 meter thick: 80 W m-2

1 meter thick: 30 W m-2

3-meter thick ice: 10 W m-2

Finally, fast-ice, not pack-ice, is the critical habitat for ringed seals and polar bears. Fast-ice is where seals give birth and nurse their pups and molt their fur. It is during this 4 month period from March through June that ringed seals are most vulnerable to polar bears. Polar bears have evolved to emerge from their winter dens in March to gorge and fatten on ringed seal pups, accumulating enough energy to survive until the next year. As seen in the bottom right diagram, fast-ice has not melted during the seals critical period. It is why ringed seals are not threatened and why polar bears are increasing. Alarmists never distinguish between fast-ice and pack-ice trends.

Beware the alarmists’ Arctic propganda.

Averaging Arctic Temperatures Perverts Climate Science and Manipulates Public Perceptions!

Greenland has been cooling

By Jim Steele

NASA’s illustration in the top left, suggests the whole Arctic is warming by 8C above global average which they then blame on rising CO2 and a climate crisis.

In contrast, National Weather Service data on January 29th, 2023, at 60 degrees latitude just south of the Arctic Circle, reveals that ocean currents, derived from the Gulf Stream, are melting sea ice and causing high temperatures where less ice ventilates more heat.

At 60 degrees latitude, the Norwegian Current melts ice and raises winter temperatures to 1.9C (35.4F) in contrast to waters west of Baffin Island where there is no ice melt, and a bone-chilling -39C (-39F), clearly showing the insulating effects of sea ice.

Accrodingly, Kahl (1993) measuring temperatures over sea ice published Absence of evidence for greenhouse warming over the Arctic Ocean in the past 40 years.

The lower left illustration shows where warm Atlantic waters are intruding into the Arctic and the relative amounts of heat carried by currents circulating the Arctic Ocean. The greatest amount of heat enters the Norwegian and Barents Sea. Virtually no warm water reaches the waters west of Baffin Island.

In the lower right, NOAA’s illustration of the 2020 maximum winter ice shows most of the Arctic is covered in sea ice. The exception being the Barents Sea where warm intruding waters melt the ice. The blue circle represents the Arctic Circle and the red rectangle highlights how much sea ice melts inside the Arctic Circle due to warm water intrusions.

Understanding the variations of Arctic temperatures and their relationship to intruding Atlantic water, makes it very clear, it is NOT CO2 that is melting sea ice.

For more details watch WHY COOKING WITH GAS WONT MELT ARCTIC SEA ICE: Temperature Anomaly Graphs Obscure Important Dynamics then

Polar Bear and Seal Biology Exposes the Utter Stupidity of Climate Alarmist Environmentalists!

From Jim Steele

As shown here, any critical thinking person knows the alarmist polar bear narratives are just totally false, ignorant and manipulative fear mongering.

It is not ice that bears depend on, but ringed seals. An understanding of seal biology reveals that less ice is good and more ice is bad for polar bears.

Fact 1: Most ringed seals remain in the Arctic Ocean all winter and give birth to their pups on the ice. Bear cubs and adults gain most of their weight feeding on ringed seal pups from March through May, before any significant sea ice melt.

Fact 2: To survive the winter freeze ringed seals must make breathing holes in the sea ice. They can only make breathing holes in thin new ice. New ice mostly forms where ice melts each summer. Old ice that never melted in previous years is too thick to make breathing holes.

Thus, places like Hudson Bay where the sea ice melts completely each year provides ideal habitat for ringed seals and thus polar bears. In contrast due to dominance of thick multi-year ice, in the central Arctic Ocean very few seals and thus very few polar bears are observed!

Fact 3: Seals depend on fish and the fish food web depends on the primary production of photosynthesizing plankton.

Thick ice prevents photosynthesis. Ice free water allows photosynthesis. Research by Lewis (2020) Changes in Phytoplankton Concentration now drive Increased Arctic Ocean Primary Production reported, “primary production increased by 57% between 1998 and 2018” and “increases were due to widespread sea ice loss”.

Thus the truth is, less ice enables a bountiful food web that sustains the bears.

But observe here how the alarmist Polar Bear International totally misrepresented the arctic food web to push a global warming threat by suggesting the foodweb dependends on ice.

The graphic on the left by the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme correctly illustrates how phytoplankton are mostly abundant where the ice has melted and is in agreement with scientific research that less ice increased primary production by 57%. Their graphic also shows a minor contribution from ice algae.

Then compare the propaganda graphic by Polar Bear International. Their illustration only show ice algae on and under ice, but deceptively omits the far greater importance of phytoplankton to the food web where there is no ice.

Beware people of these dishonest so-called Arctic scientists.

Each summer wherever ice melts, abundant photosynthesizing plankton generate a bountiful food web that maintains an abundance of ringed seals. Ringed seals are so abundant the IUCN designates them as species of Least Concern.

Due to the lack of solar heating during long Arctic nights, new sea ice will always form each year. Each year ringed seals will make their breathing holes and birthing lairs. And female polar bears and their cubs will emerge from winter hibernations to fatten on baby seals. Global warming has benefitted polar bears!

Wrong, USA Today, Ocean Currents Aren’t Near Collapse

From ClimateRealism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article in USA Today, titled “Atlantic Ocean current could collapse soon. How you may endure dramatic weather changes,” claims that a major ocean current system is likely to slow down and collapse as soon as 2025. This claim is based on computer model projections of the future based assumptions about past ocean current behavior and the factors which drive ocean currents. Actual data and its use is limited. The study’s conclusions are unsubstantiated by existing evidence and are contradicted by research which indicates that the Atlantic Ocean currents are likely speeding up.

The USA Today’s article is based on an article published in Nature which examines the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), “a large system of ocean currents that carry warm water from the tropics into the North Atlantic.” The article and the study it references says the AMOC could collapse “by the middle of the century, or possibly any time from 2025 onward, because of human-caused climate change.” The research suggests that freshwater intrusion from Greenland meltwater will change the composition of the water and shut down the ocean conveyor system which moves hot and cold water around the Atlantic.

USA Today reports:

“Such a collapse could trigger rapid weather and climate changes in the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. If it were to happen, it could bring about an ice age in Europe and sea-level rise in cities such as Boston and New York, as well as more potent storms and hurricanes along the East Coast.”

The study itself references a “slowing down” of the current, and assumes that a tipping point will be reached, and uses that assumption along with some statistical analysis to give a window of when that will supposedly happen. The study authors estimate that the AMOC will collapse sometime in the mid-century.

Incredibly, according to USA Today, the researchers claim they have a 95 percent certainty that the AMOC will collapse between 2025 and 2095.

USA Today’s article says studies from 2018 and 2021 agree such a collapse is possible.

The study’s claims are extraordinary, and thus, in the words of Carl Sagan, require extraordinary evidence before they are taken seriously. In the place of evidence, they provide complex statistical analyses.

Even the USA Today acknowledges that the study’s findings “contradict the message of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, in which an abrupt change in the AMOC is considered “unlikely” this century.”

A widely reported 2020 study published in Science came to the exact opposite conclusion with its authors writing “[f]or nearly 25 years the currents have been rapidly speeding up, partly because of global warming.” Climate change can’t be both accelerating and decelerating the same ocean currents simultaneously.

The acceleration was described as equally alarming. The flip-flopping or contradictory views were covered by Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example.

The difference between the studies that predict these polar opposite scenarios is that the recent studies that show acceleration have relied primarily on empirical evidence, such as this one by Oziel, et al. from 2021, and a confirming study that combines modeling and empirical data by Smedsrud et al. also in 2021, but the studies that show slowing seem to based their predictions almost exclusively numerical model outputs.

There is a place for modeling. If properly informed by accurate assumptions, they can be powerful tools, but when model outputs depart from observational or empirical data, model outputs should be questioned. Leaning heavily on climate models to paint an accurate picture of the future is questionable at best, as discussed many times by Climate Realism. Based on the available contradictory evidence, and the limited knowledge base, claiming with 95% certainty that such a collapse is imminent doesn’t ring as particularly scientific.

In regards to the real-world likelihood of such an event taking place, Eric Worrall analyzed these same claims and pointed out that a collapse of AMOC may have occurred in the past, abruptly leading to the Younger Dryas ice age conditions.

However, he explains that the Younger Dryas conditions are believed to have been caused by a sudden, massive, rapid freshwater intrusion, not the gradual melting of a major ice sheet.

Worrall writes:

The Younger Dryas collapse in Northern Hemisphere temperatures was believed to have been caused by disruption to ocean currents which occurred when a gigantic glacial lake sitting on the North American and Canadian ice sheet abruptly discharged thousands of cubic miles of water into the Atlantic Ocean, though there is evidence a lot of fresh water may have ended up in the Arctic Ocean.

Since no comparable freshwater glacial lake exists today, this can’t happen. If this theory of how the last AMOC collapse happened is true, it is unlikely that modern conditions can replicate the event.

Concerning data, the Nature study acknowledges:

The AMOC has only been monitored continuously since 2004 through combined measurements from moored instruments, induced electrical currents in submarine cables and satellite surface measurements. Over the period 2004–2012, a decline in the AMOC has been observed, but longer records are necessary to assess the significance.

In fact, based on the limited data, the authors have no way of knowing whether the AMOC speeds up and down cyclically on a multidecadal or multi-century basis, or whether a steady state is the norm.

Despite this fact authors of the study predict with “high confidence” that the “tipping” will happen between 2025-2095, but they also say that these results are “under the assumption that the model is approximately correct, and we, of course, cannot rule out that other mechanisms are at play, and thus, the uncertainty is larger.”

The authors also hedge their bets in the Discussion section of the Nature paper where they write “we can at present not rule out the possibility that a collapse will only be partial and not lead to a full collapse of the AMOC as suggested by some models.”

Despite these acknowledgements of limited knowledge and uncertainty, the authors insist that their statistical analysis represents “clear indicators of imminent collapse.”

USA Today and other media outlets should probably refrain from sounding the alarm so confidently about impending doom, when the authors of the study themselves go to great lengths within the document, if not in their title and abstract, to hedge their bets and acknowledge the numerous uncertainties in both the model outputs and their knowledge about the factors which enhance and diminish ocean currents.

As University of Pennsylvania climate researcher Michael Mann reportedly told USA Today regarding this study, “I’m not sure the authors bring much to the table other than a fancy statistical method. History is littered with flawed predictions based on fancy statistical methods; sometimes they’re too fancy for their own good.”

Linnea Lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy.

While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”

Linnea Lueken

Study: Northern Greenland Was Ice Free, Forested ~125k Years Ago, Adding 3 Meters To Sea Levels

Fro NoTricksZone

By Kenneth Richard on 27. April 2023

During the last interglacial (LIG) 127 to 119k years ago, when CO2 levels were said to be only 275 ppm, Greenland’s Camp Century surface was ice free, vegetated. Today this same site is buried under a 1.4 kilometers-high ice sheet.

The Arctic was sea ice free during the LIG (Diamond et al., 2021).

Image Source: Diamond et al., 2021

Forests extended to the coasts of the Arctic Ocean during the last interglacial (Sommers et al., 2022). The wasting of the Greenland ice sheet during the LIG translated into 3 meters of sea level equivalent (SLE) from Greenland alone.

As mentioned, Greenland locations that are today covered in 1,400 meters of ice (Christ et al., 2021) were ice-free and covered with vegetation during the LIG (Sommers et al., 2022).

Image Source: Sommers et al., 2022

The Earth’s melted glaciers and Antarctic ice sheet added another 3-6 m of water to the ocean basins, resulting in global sea levels 6-9 meters higher than today during the LIG (Clark et al., 2020).

Image Source: Clark et al., 2020

For some reason it is assumed by mainstream scientists that CO2 has been driving changes to the Greenland ice sheet in recent decades even though measurements indicate the CO2 greenhouse effect (GHE) impact is close to 0 W/m² over Greenland.

The CO2 GHE is said to be as “comparatively weak” for Greenland as it is for Antarctica (-2.9 W/m² to +1 W/m²), a location where increasing CO2 leads to surface cooling, not warming (Schmithusen et al., 2015).

Image Source: Schmithusen et al., 2015

In other words, there is no past or present evidence to suggest the Greenland ice sheet is climatically responding to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.