Putin's understanding and the battle between the gods

A Russian colleague has commented on the war in Ukraine. According to him, "We have defended Israel against Iranian missiles – why not Ukraine as well... We must not be paralyzed by the thought that we are provoking Putin. If he wants to do something against the West, he will do it anyway. He doesn't need provocation, as he has already decided to deliver a decisive blow to the West. We must stop him by force, just as the Soviet Union was stopped. It is the only language he understands."

I hope the professor's message is understood in the West, especially in Germany, France, the UK, and the USA, and that action is taken accordingly. This means ensuring that Ukraine's victory is not hindered by the availability of weapons.

This is especially crucial now, as Ukraine has finally made legislative changes that should gradually address their chronic manpower shortage. Meanwhile, Russia is increasingly relying on countries like China, North Korea, and Iran for its own armament.

* * *

Speaking of Iran, it was great to read the news that the president and foreign minister of the tyranny governed by the mullahs have died after the helicopter they were traveling in crashed near the Azerbaijan border, in a place near an Israeli base.

The cause of the helicopter crash seems to be bad weather. If that's the case, we humans should thank all the possible gods of climate and weather for the bad weather that brought down that specific helicopter.

In particular, it seems the Jewish god had a hand in this, arranging for the people of Israel to receive compensation for the almost empty strike that Iran launched against the country some time ago. Right now, it appears that Yahweh is a more powerful deity than Allah.

Fortunately, it seems that the helicopter crash does not appear to have involved any human-conducted military special operation—at least based on the news flow—but rather it was solely a contest of power between the gods. This way, even the Iranian mullahs can easily accept the loss of their high leaders as a punishment from a righteous god.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Religious authority and the Iran strike on Israel
Duck emphasizing the urgency of the new border law
The procrastination of Western countries is paid for with the blood of soldiers

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?

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