Challenging What We Think We Know: Wildfires Reveal the Power of Science

Large wildfires make headlines that spread across the world. This certainly does nothing to lessen the negative stigma attached to them.

That is why it was so interesting to come across a study examining the impact of wildfires in the western United States on air quality in other parts of the country. The researchers’ hypothesis was that wildfires would worsen air quality simply because of smoke transport.

However, the hypothesis turned out to be incorrect. Ma and colleagues showed that extreme wildfires in the West actually reduce fine particle concentrations in the eastern United States by roughly the same amount as they increase them in the West.

This surprising result was explained by the fact that heat-induced convection from the fires weakens eastward transport of smoke and enhances the removal of air pollutants through precipitation. In fact, this mechanism reduces human mortality and economic losses nationwide!

Of course, it is welcome news that the health effects of wildfires may not be as dramatic as feared. Yet in my view, the real lesson of this study lies elsewhere. It once again demonstrates that ordinary and seemingly logical assumptions people make do not necessarily correspond to reality. At the same time, it helps to highlight why systematic science is very likely one of humanity’s most important institutions.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Control of Douglas fir beetles by woodborer beetles
Forests in Indonesia and Finland
Scientific misconduct on prevailing theories is too attractive

The area of Arctic sea ice was exceptionally large in January

According to climate models, the world is warming frighteningly fast. And even faster in the Arctic sea ice area, which, according to a fairly recent study, entered a state in 2007 from which its surface area cannot recover through normal climate variability.

Recently, it has also been reported that the temperature of the Earth's oceans during the past El Niño year has been the highest in recorded history. As well as the average global climate temperature.

Based on these premises, one could assume that the current January area of Arctic sea ice would be exceptionally small, and its maximum size this winter would be smaller than ever before in recorded history. Or actually, this assumption could be considered a hypothesis derived from the prevailing climate theory nowadays.

So, I went to check the statistics maintained by the National Snow & Ice Data Center on January sea ice areas. Looking at this data series that started in 1979, I was amazed and decided to list the information it contains in the table below.

From the table, it can be seen that the January sea ice area in the Arctic was the 21st largest in its 46-year (the table only includes 45 years due to missing data for the year 1988) observational history. This is clearly larger than the median value of the dataset. Additionally, we notice that the situation was very similar two years ago in 2022, when the ice extent was even larger than this past January.

Therefore, it is interesting to follow how the northern sea ice will develop by the end of this year's autumn. By then, its area should reach its minimum size and perhaps even melt to a smaller area than in 2012, when it was historically at its lowest. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Does Arctic sea ice melt as atmospheric greenhouse gases increase?

The increase in carbon dioxide concentration warms more than anticipated
The record-breaking warming of the oceans is not visible in the Arctic

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?

Arctic sea ice contradicts with the climatic model predictions, but is that changing now?

One of the items I am deeply interested is the development of the climatic change in the Arctic area. For that purpose, I have made statistical analyses on the dependence between the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration and the area of the arctic sea ice.

I published today my most recent analysis in Finnish, and decided also to write a short summary of that in English. I have also previously written a post on this topic into this blog, and recommend reading it in case you - my highly valued reader - are interested in details of this analysis. 

The idea of the analysis is simple: I am using September data (i.e. annual minimum) for arctic sea ice area of the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and carbon dioxide concentration measurements conducted in Mauna Loa. The latter ones are not available for year 2022 due to the eruption of the volcano, and therefore I had to use an estimate based on two previous measurements. The development of the concentration is given in the figure below, where the measured concentrations and estimated value are marked with blue and red color, respectively.

In the next figure I have marked the number of years after which a connection between the carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and the area of the Arctic ice sheet is statistically significant in two consecutive years. In X-axis I marked the year from which each analysis series started.

The left side of the figure (yeasts 1979-2001) is according to the hypothesis, and the blue columns - i.e. number of years needed for statistical significance - are shortening from left to the right as predicted by the climatic models. However, starting from 2002 there are no consecutive two years with statistical significance, and therefore these columns are marked with red color. And their height is simply the number of data years used for each analysis. 

Thus, my analysis suggests that the prediction based on climatic models are supported by data from 1979 to 2001, but thereafter there is a strict contradiction between the models and observations. Normally such a discordance between observations and theory is used to falsify scientific hypotheses. I have, however, not seen that the such a decision would have been made or even discussed among the community of climatic researchers.

* * *

Before ending this blogpost, I would like to point out that the most recent daily measurements of the Arctic sea ice extent have shown an extremely interesting change, where the relative extent of the ice has decreased compared to previous years. As a result, right now (January 5th) the size of the Arctic sea ice is the second smallest ever measured (for the fifth day of each year) despite the fact that e.g. in 5th November it was only at 11th position. 

Therefore it will be extremely interesting to follow how the Arctic sea ice develops in this year. Will its development return back to the development predicted by the climatic change, or will the last weeks´ phenomenon turn out to be only a temporary exception caused by e.g. exceptional weather conditions in the Arctic region. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit
Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea
Arctic ice sheet does not support greenhouse gases as the cause of accelerating global warming

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

G-index challenges the theory of the global climatic change

There are many kinds of estimates describing the development of the global temperature. You may follow statistics based on adjusted temperature measurements from worldwide network of stations, satellite data or - my favorite thus far - melting of arctic sea ice. 

Here I will introduce you - my respected reader - to a G-index developed by a Finnish teacher Simo Ruoho. I know, it sounds ridiculous to compare a school teacher´s achievement to those of huge scientific organisations like NASA - and that is what I thought myself, when I heard about him for the first time some half a year ago.

Now, after following his G-index thereafter, I have become highly interested due to its accuracy. During this time its prediction of the becoming global temperature has failed only once. And no, the prediction has not been changed afterwards. 

In addition, the G-index of Mr. Ruoho has also predicted amazingly well the annual mean temperature of Finland. That is, more accurately than the prediction of the governmental Finnish Meteorologial Institute. 

These evidence are impressive enough for me to share this information in this blog. However, only the accuracy of the future predictions will show, whether he has only had good luck with his index - or whether he has made a major finding on the mechanisms of the global climatic development. 

If the latter, the global atmospheric development does not follow from the carbon dioxide and other emissions due to human actions, but is driven by the exchange of energy between the oceans and atmosphere. In other words, if G-index-based predictions will hold also in the future, the current climate theory developed to explain the warming of the global climate will become falsified. That is, shown to be wrong.

As the global climatic change has a major effect on politics in the EU and elsewhere, that would probably be the greatest scoop ever. But also a sad example of scientists losing their objectivity after the big money became available for the climatic research. 

Therefore - as a professional scientist - I am not sure, should I cross my fingers for the success or failure of Simo Ruoho´s G-index. The fact, however, is that the position of my fingers does not affect the outcome. And therefore the only thing I can do now, is to continue my follow-up of his predictions and their accuracy.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Measurements of arctic temperatures and sea ice area agree with each other
Arctic ice sheet does not support greenhouse gases as the cause of accelerating global warming
A scoop to be kept out of daylight