EU Carbon Sink Policy Lacks Cost-Effectiveness

Norwegian researchers Maarit Kallio and Elias Garvik published a study on the carbon sink policy of the EU and Norway (hereafter Europe), in which achieving forest sink targets would require an immediate and steep reduction in roundwood harvesting in Europe. This reduction could amount to 113–117 million cubic meters in the years 2030–2035 compared to a market-driven scenario, meaning that the costs of emission reductions would rise to more than €700 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

According to the researchers, this would simultaneously result in roughly two-thirds of Europe’s reduction in harvesting being offset by increased tree felling elsewhere in the world, particularly in North America, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia and Chile. In other words, restricting forest harvesting would ultimately lead to a massive transfer of income from Europe to the rest of the world without delivering significant climate benefits.

In addition, the researchers found that although harvesting restrictions would increase forest carbon sinks, their overall impact on the climate would remain limited because the climate benefits of wood products would simultaneously be lost. At the same time, economic activity in our continent would decline and significant income transfers to outside Europe would occur.

Thus, the cost per tonne of emissions saved—due to the economic burden placed on Europeans—would be many times higher than the prices used in the European Emissions Trading System.

This simply means that, in its current form, Europe’s carbon sink policy is not a cost-effective mitigation measure compared to other available options. Europe should therefore promptly abandon its current—naïve and ineffective—carbon sink policy, as it is simply irrational.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The EU Needs Innovations That Drive Climate Neutrality
Misleading Claims About European Forests
History of Finland VI: Age of freedom and utility

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Tuoreen tutkimuksen mukaan EU:n hiilinielupolitiikka on järjetöntä

Recent Arctic Sea Ice Decline Is Not Accelerating

It is time to return to examining the relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the average surface area of northern polar ice in September of the previous year. I therefore once again conducted a regression analysis of the relationship between these two variables—over the period from 1979 to 2025—using carbon dioxide concentrations measured at Mauna Loa and ice area data from the NSIDC.

Since 2018 (using data from 2017), the basic idea underlying the analysis I have carried out annually is derived from the following premises: (1) according to the climate change hypothesis, climate change is an accelerating process; (2) models predict that temperature increases in the Arctic will be faster than in the rest of the globe; and (3) changes in polar ice area serve as a good proxy for temperature changes in the northernmost parts of the Earth.

In the figure below, the years marked in blue indicate those starting points from which annual measurements have demonstrated the existence of such a relationship according to the criterion I use (P < 0.01 in two consecutive years). The height of the bars shows how many years after that starting point this statistical significance was achieved.

The years marked in red are those for which no such statistical significance has been found. In these cases, the height of the bars indicates the number of years available for the analysis.

As my esteemed reader notes, during the early years of the time series the minimum extent of polar ice decreased in such a way that—according to the regression analysis—it exhibited a clear statistical cause-and-effect relationship with atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Moreover, this relationship strengthened almost year by year up to the time series beginning in 2001.

After that, however, a change occurred: although atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations continued to rise steadily, the change in ice area did not reach statistical significance until last year. At that point, the observational series beginning in 2002 also became statistically significant, but only on the basis of an observational record twice as long as that required for the series beginning in the previous year.

This year, what was new was that the time series beginning in 2003 also reached statistical significance. It can therefore be concluded that northern sea ice has indeed melted in a statistically significant manner in recent years as well, but that the process—at least as measured by its annual minimum extent—has not been accelerating, as climate models have predicted.

* * *

In this respect, it is also interesting that although Arctic sea ice reached a larger minimum extent this year than in six other years (2007, 2012, 2016, 2020, 2003, and 2024), it melted rapidly in October, November, and December, and its surface area reached the smallest December average in the measurement record last month. This is shown in the figure below (the early part of which admittedly raises questions, but for which I am unable to provide an explanation).

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Observations on Arctic Sea Ice Challenge the Notion of Particularly Rapid Melting
Exceptionally Warm July Falls Short of Records
Exceptionally Warm July Falls Short of Records

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Pohjoinen merijää sulaa sittenkin

Climate Warning Signs Were There 130 Years Ago – If Only We Had Noticed

Today, climate change is a scientific dogma—questioning it is no longer seen as acceptable. But this wasn’t always the case. According to a recent American study, the effect of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat wasn’t understood until the mid-19th century.

At the same time, the use of fossil fuels began rapidly increasing atmospheric CO₂ levels, but it would still take a long time before the phenomenon even became a subject of scientific concern—let alone the broad societal issue it is today, influencing a vast range of topics.

The study in question explored when climate change could have been detected if 19th-century scientists had access to today’s climate models and observational networks. To do this, the researchers assumed that by the year 1860, it would have been possible to make precise measurements of atmospheric temperature changes. They then determined when a human-caused climate signal would have become detectable.

According to the report, significant cooling of the middle to upper stratosphere—primarily caused by rising levels of CO₂ from human activity—would have been clearly detectable by around 1885. That’s during the height of European imperialism, and well before the invention of gasoline-powered cars.

These findings could have been made based on the favorable signal-to-noise ratio in the mid- to upper stratosphere, where the human-induced cooling is strong and displays distinct patterns that differ clearly from natural variability.

The researchers noted that atmospheric measurement capabilities in 1860 were far from global; high-quality stratospheric temperature measurements would have only existed for mid-latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere. Nevertheless, human-caused stratospheric cooling still would have been detectable by 1894—nearly a decade before the Wright brothers’ first flight.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
National Identity in Stone: Finland’s Ancient Crust Meets Canada’s Hadean Record 
Why Did the Cause of Pierce’s Disease in Grapevines Spread to Europe Only in 2013?
Availability of coffee in a warming world

Alien Life Discovery May Prompt Rethinking of Faith

With the help of NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, dimethyl sulfide (DMS) and dimethyl disulfide (DMDS) have been detected in the atmosphere of an exoplanet—compounds that on Earth are produced solely through biological processes. This suggests that the planet very likely harbors at least microbial life.

In 2022, the James Webb Telescope also detected methane and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of the planet K2-18 b, which in itself could indicate the possibility of life. The two newly discovered chemicals reinforce this possibility, although their presence alone is still not enough to confirm the discovery of life with certainty.

It is clear that research on planet K2-18 b will receive funding following these observations. Therefore, it is likely that within a reasonably short time—just a few years—we may finally find out whether life on Earth is truly unique in the universe.

If that turns out not to be the case, it would have enormous implications for human life on Earth as well. This is because all religions that include a creation story would be forced to re-evaluate their doctrines — and perhaps even admit that we humans may not be quite as unique among the beings of the universe as we’ve been accustomed to believing.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:

The Dire Wolf and the Rights of Extinct Human Species
Did You Know That 1952 Was a Turning Point in World Eras?
Human curiosity altered an orbit of an asteroid

Does Arctic sea ice melt as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase?

According to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, the past year in Finland has been somewhat warmer than usual. According to its measurements, "the average temperature for the entire country was about 3.2 degrees, which is 0.3 degrees above the long-term average of the years 1991‒2020. The annual average temperature ranged from a little over +7 degrees in the southwestern archipelago to about -1 degree in the northwestern part of Lapland."

In contrast, the past year in China was the hottest in its entire recorded history. Additionally, according to Helsingin Sanomat, it "experienced several extreme weather events and heatwave periods" last year.

Not surprisingly, December's news reported that the past year was the hottest in the world's recorded history. Therefore, it was intriguing to revisit my old hobby of studying the development of the Arctic ice cover. According to climate models, it should be warming faster than the rest of the world due to the increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The figure below shows the annual variation in the ice cover's average area throughout its measurement history.

It can be seen that despite the exceptionally warm year according to measurements taken at ground-level weather stations, the average size of the Northern polar ice cap has actually been trending more towards growth than shrinkage in recent years.

In the next figure, I drew an even more interesting graph. It represents the average size of the Northern sea ice in September - that is, the area during the month when the ice is at its minimum.

As my esteemed reader may notice, the area of the Northern sea ice was quite small last September. Not the smallest in recorded history, but the second smallest.

Therefore - or despite it - I delved with great enthusiasm into the task that I have been tackling year after year. That is, the statistical analysis of the relationship between the concentration of the most crucial greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and the average size of the Northern sea ice in September.

In this analysis, I have taken as a starting point the hypothesis of climate models suggesting an accelerating climate change over time, which, according to these models, should be most rapid in the Earth's Arctic zone. As we all know, the ice should indicate this change through both the direct impact of warming in the Northern polar region and the increasing heat energy brought by warmer water from southern currents.

Unfortunately, I was disappointed as the picture was very similar to the previous year's corresponding analysis, as shown in the illustration below.

In the figure, the blue columns represent the number of years for which statistically significant dependence between atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the September average size of the Northern sea ice is observed using data from each respective year. As my esteemed reader can observe, this analysis clearly supported the climate models' prediction of global warming from the beginning of the measurement history until the year 2001.

From the year 2002 onward, I have drawn only red columns. Red, because there is no statistically significant dependence between atmospheric carbon dioxide and the Northern sea ice after that year.

The height of the red columns indicates the number of years of data available for each column – for example, for the year 2002, the available data includes the years 2003-2023, totaling 21 years. This is a significant eleven years longer than the statistically significant data starting from 2001.

In simple terms, this means that the annual minimum size of the Northern sea ice did indeed decrease as atmospheric carbon dioxide increased until the year 2001. However, the subsequent increase in greenhouse gas levels has not had a significant impact on the size of this ice cover. Thus, this analysis falsifies or disproves the claim derived from climate models that the Northern polar ice is melting due to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration – or greenhouse gases in general.

The original thought in Finnish:
Sulaako arktinen merijää ilmakehän kasvihuonekaasujen lisääntyessä?

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The increase in carbon dioxide concentration warms more than anticipated
The record-breaking warming of the oceans is not visible in the Arctic
Arctic sea ice contradicts with the climatic model predictions, but is that changing now?

The increase in carbon dioxide concentration warms more than anticipated

I have previously followed with great interest the progress of climate change. In doing so, I have personally observed how ground-level measurement data has been retrospectively altered in such a way that there may not be reality-based justifications, such as changes in the location of thermometer or adjustments for temperature changes due to urbanization.

Therefore, my interest has shifted mainly to monitoring the surface area of the Arctic sea ice because I find its distortion quite challenging or downright impossible. To my satisfaction, I have also noted that there have been no significant changes to these statistics.

Today I read a recent study that measured the impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration on the lower atmosphere's temperature. Increasing it (CO₂) has so far been thought to have a direct effect on the global average surface air temperature.

However, this is not the case, as Haozhe He et al. found that doubling the atmospheric CO₂ concentration increases the impact of CO₂-induced growth by about a quarter. In other words, the more anthropogenic CO₂ emissions accumulate in the atmosphere, the more serious the consequences.

In essence, He et al. presented a prediction - or hypothesis - that the lower atmosphere's temperature should rise more rapidly as the climate warms. Therefore, I plan to monitor how this is reflected in the fluctuations of the Arctic sea ice area - above all, whether it begins to melt again after statistically remaining the same size for over a decade despite the increase in CO₂ concentration.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
The record-breaking warming of the oceans is not visible in the Arctic
Record low temperature in northern Finland
Arctic sea ice contradicts with the climatic model predictions, but is that changing now?

The activists sought excitement and a boost to their self-esteem in the Stockholm Diamond League

Climate activists disrupted a star-studded athletics competition yesterday in Sweden by blocking the track with 400-meter hurdles. This upset the competition's winner, Norwegian Karsten Warholm, who said, "it is completely idiotic. It should be allowed to protest, but that is sickeningly bad. That's not the way to do it, no matter what it's about". 

The activists themselves claimed, "we are doing this because people die every day from the climate disaster. Politicians do not act. We need to raise this issue."

However, especially in Europe, politicians have taken significant action to mitigate climate change. The European Union, in particular, has made a decision to become climate-neutral by 2050 at the latest. Additionally, as an interim goal, it has been decided to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 55 percent by 2030.

In other words, the activists' justification is not valid, and there seems to be an entirely different reason behind their actions. It is likely driven by a disregard for others and a search for excitement, as well as a boost to the participants' self-esteem. This is evident considering the significant attention it received worldwide.

* * *

In this context, it is also worth looking at how the climate has evolved in the Arctic region predicted to warm more rapidly than other parts of the world. The timing is ideal as the NSIDC (National Snow and Ice Data Center) has just released data on the extent of Arctic sea ice for the past month.

According to the data, the ice extent surrounding the North Pole was slightly larger this year´s June compared to the years 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2017, 2016, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2007, 2006, and the same as in 2015. To get a better understanding of the situation beyond a series of years, it is helpful to examine the development of ice extent visually.

From the image, we can see that the extent of Arctic sea ice in June has been quite variable but has decreased over the years surrounding the turn of the millennium. In recent years, it has remained stable, and no further ice melt has been observed. 

Aiempia ajatuksia samasta aihepiiristä:
Record low temperature in northern Finland
Arctic sea ice contradicts with the climatic model predictions, but is that changing now?
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

Global warming - searching for the guiltiness

The predicted climatic warming by greenhouse gases is one of the big questions of our time, which determines even economic options of the future. Therefore it was interesting to read about an analysis, which gives estimates about the contribution of different countries in this threat.

The first calculation presented a simple calculation of the total amount of carbon dioxide including emissions from fossil fuels as well as from land use and forestry since 1850 up to 2021. There USA is clearly in the first place by its 20 per cent share, and followed from distance by China, Russia, Brasil, Indonesia, Germany, India, United Kingdom, Japan and Canada. 

The second calculation is based on the cumulative consumption of each nation. It only covers years from 1990 to 2021. In this calculation top ten includes the same countries as above, and in the same order. Therefore, often highlighted guiltiness of outsourced carbon emissions is not a major issue, although it adds to the share of responsibility accorded to wealthy nations.

The two other calculations are based on emissions per capita, but using different approaches. The first one takes a country’s cumulative emissions in each year and divides it by the number of people living in the country at the time. 

According to this calculation Canadians have the highest emissions. Thereafter come people of the USA, Estonia, Australia, Trinidad & Tobago, Russia, Kazakhstan, United Kingdom, Germany and Belgium. My home country, Finland, is in the eleventh place raising it high on the list. 

  

The second approach takes a country’s per capita emissions in each year and adds them up over time, and on top of the list are inhabitants of New Zealand followed by people of Canada, Australia, United States, Argentina, Qatar, Gabon, Malaysia, Republic of Congo and Nicaragua. Finland is not among the top 20. 

Taken together, the four classifications above shows that carbon emissions are not a simple case. And therefore politically active actors may select the list that best serves their purposes. 

Therefore all of us, who are targeted, should be cautious, and put the claims in a frame. For example, as a Finn, I should agree that consumption of me and my national fellows are causing considerable amounts of carbon compared to most other people, but also remember that our total share of the global emissions is like a drop in an Ocean. And to understand, that our high per capita emissions is largely caused by our geographic location in a cold climate as well as the large area of the country resulting in a higher need of domestic travel than in most other countries. 

Actually, I would have liked to see a calculation, where the cumulative consumption of each nation would have been divided by the area of the countries. As a Finn, I would happily prefer to use that as the most important criterion in evaluating the position of each nation in causing the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  

My argument is based on the fact, that such a statistics would not reward nations from their increasing population - as the two per capita calculations above do - but rather encourage the nations with exploding population sized to act on this main cause of the global environmental crisis including climate, biodiversity and land use aspects.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Arctic sea ice contradicts with the climatic model predictions, but is that changing now?
Availability of coffee in a warming world
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive

University of Delaware (UD) found one of its scientists guilty of research misconduct. She has committed fabrication and falsification in work on fish behavior and coral reefs. The university is going to retract three of her research papers, including one in the Science magazine, one of the leading scientific journals of the world.

The retracted papers reported worrisome results how Earth’s rising carbon dioxide levels would have dramatic effects on fish behavior and ecology. In other words, the results strongly supported the current fears of extremely harmful outcome of the climatic warming. 

It should be understood that - after this case - the scientific community should conduct a serious introspection about its practices. In this process a special attention should be put on the critical assessment on the results supporting the prevailing theories of each time. 

The scientific picture on each topic consists of theories from which testable hypotheses are derived. In this structure the most important feature is that even a single falsifying result may prove the hypothesis wrong - and as a consequence, also the theory behind that. 

However, when talking about prevailing and politically important theories - such as the global change - it is easy to note leading journals to eagerly publish reports that support such theories. Thus, for a dishonest researcher the most attractive way to advance her career is to report fictitious but worrisome reports on observations on the effects of the climatic change. Exactly that seems to have happened with the current case mentioned above.

Therefore I propose that manuscripts reporting highly expected - but dramatic - results on the most popular scientific theory of each time are considered with a special suspicion in both the review process as well as in editorial decisions. After all, as I noted above, they are not important for the scientific process compared to falsifying reports. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea
Should forbidden questions be answered or not?
A new justification is needed for environmental activists