Just a few days ago I published an article detailing the theory that Arctic sea ice loss was largely due to Arctic wind patterns. Here is the article.
The first hypothesis is that the recent decline in Arctic ice is due largely to natural phenomenon related to the direction of the polar winds. The theory goes that when the Arctic winds blow in the direction from Alaska to Iceland, the Arctic ice is blown out into the Northern Atlantic, resulting is a reduction of the Artic ice. It has nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with the direction of the Arctic winds.
Another article questioned, “How does Arctic Sea Ice Melt in Sub-Zero Temperatures.”
One of the greatest symbols used by the climate alarmists is that the arctic sea ice is disappearing, presumably due to “melting. The problem is, rarely does the arctic ever have temperatures above freezing. This loss of sea ice is occurring in sub-zero temperatures…The reason the Arctic is losing ice is due to warm water bringing the heat into the Arctic, and wind patterns blowing/moving the ice to warmer oceans.
I was first introduced to this theory over on Tony Heller’s “Deplorable Climate Science Blog,” previously titled “Real Science.” Just today he published a follow-up article documenting the increase in both volume and thickness of the Arctic ice. In it he provides a graphic detailing the theory:
As well as graphics documenting the growth in both volume and thickness of the Arctic sea ice:
The Arctic has seen rapid sea-ice decline in the past three decades, whilst warming at about twice the global average rate. Yet the relationship between Arctic warming and sea-ice loss is not well understood. Here, we present evidence that trends in summertime atmospheric circulation may have contributed as much as 60% to the September sea-ice extent decline since 1979. A tendency towards a stronger anticyclonic circulation over Greenland and the Arctic Ocean with a barotropic structure in the troposphere increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere. Model experiments, with reanalysis data constraining atmospheric circulation, replicate the observed thermodynamic response and indicate that the near-surface changes are dominated by circulation changes rather than feedbacks from the changing sea-ice cover. Internal variability dominates the Arctic summer circulation trend and may be responsible for about 30–50% of the overall decline in September sea ice since 1979.
The quote “increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by warming and moistening the lower troposphere” pretty much explains it, and there is no need for CO2 at all in that equation. In reality, they have it backward, and it should read “increased the downwelling longwave radiation above the ice by moistening and warming the lower troposphere.” The moist air leads to warmth, not vice verse. The very dry air over Antarctica shows no similar warming.
Another interesting comment in the abstract is extremely telling and surprisingly honest. It states “the relationship between Arctic warming and sea-ice loss is not well understood.” So much for this being “settled science.” How could one have a “consensus” on a “science” that is “not well understood?” This lack of understanding, however, didn’t stop the world’s preeminent climate “scientist,” the one-time journalist and Divinity and Law school dropout, Al Gore from making apocalyptic claims. I guess the accuracy of his claim depends on what the definition of “may” is. I guess pigs “may” fly someday as well, but I won’t hold my breadth.
Popular Science also did an article on this topic claiming “Up to half of the Arctic’s melt might be totally natural.” In the article they claimed:
But while scientists are certain that the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate, they aren’t really sure why…Although anthropogenic climate change accounts for some of the melting, Arctic ice is disappearing much faster than climate change models predict it should. A new study in Nature Climate Change sheds new light on the mystery…“There is a mismatch between the model’s output and the observation,” said lead author Qinghua Ding, a professor in the Geography Department at the University of California Santa Barbara. “Observation shows very fast, very abrupt sea ice melting, whereas the climate model cannot capture the fast melting.”