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

Advice to participants of the COP27 climate implementation summit

The climate implementation summit COP27 is starting tomorrow in Egypt. I just want to remind - or advice - its participants on two facts. 

The first one has to do with the climatic change and its scientific basis itself. To do that, I remind that the mathematical models predicting a climate crisis have one clear output: that is, the arctic north of the globe will warm up more quickly than the rest of the world. 

According to that, the area of arctic sea ice can be expected to melt in an accelerating rate. However, the minimum size of the ice was observed already in 2012 - that is ten years ago - and right now its size is largest in relation to time (November 4th) since 2015. Obviously, the arctic north is not warming right now. 

So, before major decisions to restrict people´s life, I would like to see a scientific explanation - compatible to the current climate models - for these observations. Or alternatively, a new model, that predicts a hiatus for the warming of the arctic north right now.  

Second, the threat caused by the climatic change is caused by an increasing concentration of greenhouse gases in atmosphere due to the use of fossilized carbon sources. Therefore, if any action will be decided to stop the warming, we should rather focus on giving up on the use of fossilized carbon than to concentrate on carbon sinks, which will halt the global economy and almost certainly be used by world leaders only to lengthen the fossil-based era. 

With these two facts I wish to the participants of COP27 good luck in finding sensible decisions that - at the same time - reduce the risk of intolerable global warming and allow better life for all people in the world. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Fair policy will build a strong Union
Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea
G-index challenges the theory of the global climatic change

Heat wave in Europe contrasts with the coldness of the Arctic sea

Exceptional temperatures have been reported during this year in many locations. During last weeks the focus has been in Europe, where exceptional temperatures were observed especially in southern part of the continent (example).  

The common theme in those news has been that the exceptional heat would have been due to the global change caused by human actions. I am not denying that, but would like to remind that previously any cold weathers have been neglected by climate scientists as climatic change is a global phenomenon and therefore local cold weathers cannot be used as evidence against global change. Therefore, it would be logical, if the same treatment would be given to warm spells. 

However, climatic science has often pointed out that the change is especially speedy in the Arctic region - actually three times as fast as the global average. Therefore I have been following the area and extent of the Arctic sea ice reported by National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC).

Interestingly indeed, the extent of the Arctic ice is right now more wide than in any of the last 13 years at the same date (July 23). That is in accordance with my analyses of correlation between the area of the Arctic sea ice and atmospheric carbon dioxide content: there has been no statistically significant change between them since year 2002 (the link above is in Finnish, but here is an earlier blogpost in English).

Taken together, based on the local temperatures no clear picture on the global warming can be given. However, we may question the extra rapid warming of the Arctic region - and therefore also climatic models predicting that.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
G-index challenges the theory of the global climatic change
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

 

Measurements of arctic temperatures and sea ice area agree with each other

Antti Lipponen of the Finnish Meteorological Institute tweeted on the arctic temperature, which - according to him - was 4.9℃ warmer than the March average between 1951-1980. He also told that it was fourth highest since March 1950, and showed the following figure.

That accords relatively well with the area of the arctic sea ice  (which should be small when the temperature has been high) in March between years 1987-2022, but differs in its early part of the data, although the area of the ice is sixth smallest since 1987. This NSIDC-data based figure is presented below.

 

I do not criticize the data presented by Lipponen or NSIDC, but want to point out that the trend line of both arctic temperature and arctic sea ice - based only on the latest years - could also be interpreted differently. Namely, the trend line based on more than a decade of the data presented by Lipponen and on nine last years of the sea ice data would point towards recent arctic cooling instead of continuous warming. 

Based on this we should ask, whether the current climate models unanimously forecasting continuous warming in the northernmost parts of the planet should be re-evaluated and better fitted to the data? Or at least, to be more cautious with our interpretations as long as the trend visible in the figures above - and similar trends in data sets for other months or whole years - will continue in becoming years. 

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Arctic ice sheet does not support greenhouse gases as the cause of accelerating global warming