Welcome back 

Watch 

THE DENIGRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BY CLIMATE CRISIS POLITICS

at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VWVg8rQ6MI

The transcript is provided belwo

Today I'll examine the science, the history and politics of the Department of Defense's October, 2021 climate analysis. 

Since the 1880s, when the military assisted controlling the huge Yellowstone fire, one important mission of the military has been to protect and assist Americans from devastating fires, floods, and other extreme weather events. But President Biden has now perverted the DOD into a sock puppet propagandizing, the fabricated existential threat of climate change. 

In October, 2021, the DOD released his climate risk analysis that was mandated by president Biden's January executive order.

Lloyd Austin is a five-star general whose military career made him a much worthySecretary of Defense, but he announced that to keep the nation secure, we must tackle the existential threat of climate change, protecting against wildfires floods, droughts in extreme weather.

But the military had already been protecting Americans from devastating weather events for over a century. Past military analyses had provided critical information to help Americans predict and prepare for wildfires in extreme weather on just short notice. Better forecasting still requires more robust investigations into all the contributing factors causing wildfires.

But in contrast to providing valuable timely forecasts, the recent push to add climate analysis, at its very best,  can only hypothesize about wildfires and extreme weather events several decades into the future. In the 19oos, Americans were honestly advised by scientists not to confuse weather with climate change. Climate analyses require at least 30 and better yet a 100 years of data in order to account for natural oscillations like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. But media fear-mongering and the politicization of climate change, now claims we are experiencing climate change with each and every weather event.

Clearly secretary of Austin has no background in climate science. Whether climate changes aree natural or human induced, he has been naively reduced to Biden's mouthpiece pushing a climate crisis.

Kathleen Hicks is the new Undersecretary of Defense and her mission seems to have been to peddle to the public, why a DOD climate analysis is so important. So she appeared on National Public Radio claiming that sending troops to assist in wildfires, supposedly made worse by climate change, was diverting troops from their more important missions and training, even though fighting wildfires has been one of the military's critical missions for more than a century. Hicks also lacks a science background in fire ecology, and so misleadingly propagandized climate change was causing the once short fire season into a fire year. Oblivious to the military's involvement and past wildfire research, she ignored, perhaps unintentionally, the military sponsored publications in 1966, detailing why several regions in the United States are always subjected to year round critical fire weather

Those reports were motivated by several historical fires, such as the 1906 San Francisco fire and the 1943 Hamburg firestorm, all made worse by critical fire weather. The researcher's aim was to determine what constituted critical fire weather, so firefighting agencies could be more prepared. Those timely alerts can never be improved upon by a long-term climate analysis of future events. 

The study detailed the natural weather patterns that produce strong winds, low humidity, high temperatures, and low rainfall. And they detailed why several regions experienced dangerous fire weather all year long. 

Due to the strains on resources from fighting fires in the cool 1960s, the modular airborne firefighting system, or MAFFS, was created in the 1970s consisting of modules of pressurized fire retardants that are easily loaded onto aircraft. 

The DOD promised to further assist with aircraft flight crews and maintenance. And since 1975, the DOD also pledged to provide, as needed, firefighting battalions, each consisting of about 550 people. 

Now the National Interagency Fire Center coordinates military assistance. From their website, they report two battalions were sent this August, 2021 to assist in California's second largest fire, the Dixie fire.

Similar assistance was provided in most previous years.

And one of the largest forces ever sent, fought the 1988 Yellowstone fire at a time when firefighting policies had switched from total suppression to a "let it burn" policy. The DOD then sent six army and two Marine battalions plus 57 helicopters and MAFFS.

 The environmental fire triangle explains why different regions experience different degrees of critical fire weather due to different vegetation, different topography that also affects winds in vegetation, and different weather conditions, common to regional climates. 

A map of wildfire activity clearly shows that the Western USA experiences the greatest amount of wildfires, because it is dominated by the Pacific High pressure system that limits rainfall, making the western climate much drier. In contrast ,the Atlantic High pressure system pumps moisture into the Eastern USA, making the east's climate much wetter .

Their study also detailed why critical fire season was not tied to the hottest months and here are a few examples. 

The middle Mississippi valley region is prone to fires from March to November, but in some years also in winter, 

the Southern Plains region experiences, fire weather year round, commonly due to the Chinook winds, descending from the Rocky mountains and further drying the land. 

The Southwest regions are also experiencing year round fire weather.

And due to annual summer droughts, Northern and central California experiences critical fire weather from March to November, especially when the cooler weather amplifies the Diablo winds, 

Southern California experiences year round fire weather with the most dangerous weather in the cooler months when the Santa Ana winds dominate 

And the Northern Intermountain regions indoor critical fire weather June to October also due to dry windy conditions, driven by seasonal changes in the Pacific high pressure system.

The DOD is well-known for its red team blue team strategy analyses. A red team is assembled to test the correctness of a given policy or a plan that has been proposed by the blue team.

Red teaming mirrors, a scientific process where scientists must publish their hypothesis so that the scientific community and the general public can evaluate the hypothesis. Correct adherence to that rigorous process is why we trust science and why we should trust a proper Red teaming analysis. 

In 2003, the DOD science task force published a report outlining how the secretary of defense should take steps to make red teaming more effective throughout the department.

I certainly hope secretary Austin does the same for climate analyses instead of blindly repeating climate crisis narratives.

From my 40 years of studying fire ecology, blaming increasing wildfires on rising CO2 is the height of idiocy. There are far more significant factors factors we can readily address in alleviate only a red team. Blue team debate would clarify such scientific differences for the public in 2017.

Steve Steve Koonin, a former Obama under secretary of energy and New York university professor also argues for a red team style debate to test the claims of whether or not climate change is the greatest catastrophe, phasing the planet, or just a nothing burger. 

However scientists who had hitched their fame and fortune to promoting catastrophic climate change hypotheses, quickly denounced any such debates, claiming the science was settled. But the only science that's settled is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and greenhouse gases helped keep the Earth's average temperature above freezing. However, the science of how CO2 affects wildfires has never been settled. 

Oddly Michael Mann, a climatologist from Penn state university, disingenuously called red team debates, "a bad faith effort to stack the deck against mainstream science"  claiming sufficient debate has already been happening. But Mann had been perverting the scientific process for years by actively trying to prevent any debate that might create doubt regards his catastrophic global warming hypotheses.

He has claimed the mantle of "science personified" claiming if you disagree with his hypotheses, that you must be anti-science. He led the charge to marginalize all skeptical scientists by calling them deniers. He has threatened to boycott scientific journals for publishing skeptical scientific research and worked behind the scenes to get university administrators to distance themselves from skeptical scientists. 

So here are some disputed issues regarding climate change in wildfires that a fully transparent, public red team blue team debate could resolve.

First what is the proper timeframe to determine the contribution from climate change to wildfires.

Proponents of the hypotheses that rising CO2 is causing more and worse wildfires, typically restrict their published timeframes starting around 1975 or 1985 to show increasing wildfire threats. 

Some timeframes began in the 1950s.

But the starting point for the trends of all these small timeframes begin during the period of heavy fire suppression policies which then switched to the "Let It Burn" policies of the late 1980s. 

But many fire ecologists argue we must examine fire history before the fire suppression policies began reaching their greatest application in 1935, when the forest service began its 10:00 AM policy requiring any new fire to be extinguished by 10:00 AM the next day.

By examining acres burnt between 1911 and 2017, the Oregon Department of Forestry found far more burnt acres in the first decades of the 20th century.

Likewise, by examining charcoal layers in the soil and fire scars and dead and living trees, fire ecologists, Thomas sweat now found far more fires between 1700 and 1900 in the Southwest region than we see now at the present.

The fire triangle outlines the physics controlling the frequency and extent of wildfires. How much heat is needed to dry the land or ignite the fire? Natural fires are started by lightning versus humans that supplied the needed heat via electrical sparks, the lit match of an arsonist or an escaped campfire, or other such accidents.

Fires require oxygen that makes up 21% of our atmosphere. But if fires consume enough oxygen, they can drop levels to just 16%. And the fire is extinguished due to suffocation. 

So the dynamics affecting the winds must be examined because winds replenish the supply of oxygen as well as more rapidly spreading a fire.

Lastly, the fuel loads are critical. Dead grasses, weeds and leaves provide easily ignitable fuels that become flammable in just one warm sunny day. The amount of ground fuels determine if enough heat can be supplied to sustain a fire that ignites larger branches in trees. 

So a red team blue team debate can determine if CO2 contributes enough heat to significantly affect wildfire ignitions, or fuel dryness. 

Now, according to NASA, CO2 increased from a little more than 300 parts per million in 1960 to almost 400 parts per million by 2010.   And now recent concentrations are over 414 parts per million, potentially adding three Watts per meter squared of energy to the planet. 

The same NASA study showed global average temperatures also rose by 0.6 degrees Celsius during that same timeframe.

So how does that added energy compared to human sources of ignition? 

Well, if flaming match produces temperatures between 600 and 800 degrees Celsius or up to 1400 degrees Fahrenheit, the average, uh, so CO2 only contributes about 0.1 to 0.8% of the heat igniting a fire. T

The average surface fire contributes 800 plus degrees Celsius and in extreme condition adds 10 million Watts per meter squared of heat and easily provides enough heat to dry the vegetation as the flames approach.

CO2 provides just  0.00003% of that added energy 

Moisture content affects the temperature needed to ignite the fine fuels like dead grasses and twigs Because hay needs to be carefully dried to maintain quality and prevent rod., several experiments have documented how much time it takes to dry hay. 

When first cut, hay has about 80% moisture content. Depending on how its spread out moisture content is down to 60% in just four to eight hours. In two to three dry days, its down to 12% moisture content. So in sunny California fine fuels like dead grasses, weeds leaves and twigs are readily dried and flammable in a day 

A discarded cigarette producing temperatures of 330 degrees Celsius, will easily ignite grasses and the grass is dried to 12% moisture.

But a flaming match producing 600 to 800 degrees Celsius temperatures,  easily ignites grass if even when the contains only 60% moisture. And that is easily reached in just one sunny afternoon. So global warming climate change is clearly irrelevant, irrelevant to this daily drying. 

Red team blue team could also clarify how changing vegetation types increased wildfire ignitions and if they have added to the current extent of wildfire spread 

Cheat grass is an invasive species from Eurasia that typically dies in dries out by late may in California Studies, such as Bosch in 2012, found cheat grass burns 4 times more frequently than the native vegetation And of the 50 largest wildfires in the USA, cheat grass accounts for 24% of the burnt land area 

Red team blue team debate could decipher how much fire suppression has added to ground fuel accumulation, which also accounts for bigger and more intense fires than have been happening recently 

 

In the past, frequent natural fires created a mosaic across the land, with patches of burnt areas that have lower fuel loads. Lower fuel loads minimize the sustain heat needed for intense forest fires, and  limit thee  extent of any one fire.

The same wisdom that applies to creating a defensible space around one's home applies to protecting our forest. A home's defensible space requires a mosaic of vegetation with open space and little ground ccover that could carry a fire to the house, 

But as seen in the October, 2017 Tubbs fire that demolished a few neighborhoods in Santa Rosa, California, because houses were so close together, once the fire reached one home, either via embers or ground fire, each burning house produced enough radiant heat to ignite the neighboring house, but not enough to burn the well spaced trees.

The same dynamic can be seen in the Camp Fire destruction that destroyed much of Paradise, California

 Red team blue team debates can clarify if climate change has amplified the Chinooks or  Santa Ana and Diablo winds that dry,the land and rapidly spread fires in the west. These winds that have spread most of the Western USA's deadly fires are a type of foehn winds. 

in California because the land cools more quickly than the ocean, a high pressure system develops in the high elevation inland deserts during the cool seasons causing the winds to blow towards the lower pressure regions created by relatively warmer oceans.

As the winds descend due to increasing air pressure, they warm without any added energy and the wind's relative humidity rapidly falls, further amplifying critical fire weather.

The good news is if climate change causes warmer winters, these fire enhancing winds should be reduced. 

The red team blue team could separate the effects of human ignitions versus climate change regards attributions to the lengthening of the fire season, as under-secretary Hicks suggested in her radio interviews. Studies have shown that human ignitions have started 80 to 90% of all USA fires. Along the coast of central and southern California, where lightning is rare, humans usually start 100% of the fires.

 Lightning starts most fires from June to August. The red areas show how human ignitions have created more fires outside this natural lightning fire season. More importantly, human ignitions create more fires during the winter and the spring when the Santa Ana and Diablo winds are at full strength, 

More frequent fires, also conveeert landscapes from forests to shrub lands, and then to grasslands. Three human ignited fires in 12 years in southern California's Malibu canyon converted the landscape from shrublands seen on the left the grassland now on the right 

Grassland creates more easily ignited and rapidly spreading fires. 

Red team blue team debates must clarify the different effects of the global average temperature trends versus the local temperature trends. The deadly campfire, that destroyed Paradise California happened during high Diablo winds, despite local maximum temperatures being lower than in the 1930s. 

Similarly, the 2018 Mendocino complex fire, California's third largest fire ever, happened when a farmer driving a metal stake hit a rock and sparked. That spark ignited a field of dry grass despite local maximum temperatures being far lower than the 1930s.

And finally a red team blue team debate must clarify the contributions of natural climate oscillations to recent wildfires. 

Based on tree ring studies of California's rainfall-sensitive blue Oak trees, a natural oscillation between extreme dry and extreme wet years has been demonstrated. The blue star represents the extreme 2014 drought year. The dashed blue line indicates the level of drought that would be expected under similar weather.

The thin black lines reveal that more extreme drought have happened three to five times every century for the past 700 years. Also a similar frequency of extreme wet years is detected as indicated by the black lines extending above the dash red line. This alternation of extremes is due to El Ninos and La Nina's and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation 

The US Forest Service study of burnt area on federal lands found that phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation aligned with the extent of forest fires. Of special interests here, is the extent of burnt land in the 1920s and 30s was similar to recent decades, suggesting there's a natural fire cycle.

The department of defense and its Red teaming strategies exemplify the scientific process. They are in a much needed position to truthfully examine the causes of varying wildfire frequency and wildfire extent, and to offer Americans tangible solutions, such as the management of ground fuels and invasive grasses, More than ever Americans need the truth. And Red teaming is America's last hope of getting honest science that separates the climate crisis narratives of the media and politicians from the scientific truth

I urge secretaries, Austin and Hicks to resist Biden's efforts to pervert the DOD from its truth seeking Red teaming by further transforming the DOD into sock puppets that simply supports misleading climate crises narratives!!!

Up next I'll examine why the Department of Defense's recent climate analyses of precipitation changes also jeopardizes our safety.

But until then embrace renowned scientist's Thomas Huxley advice that

"Skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith the one unpardonable sin." 

And if you appreciate the science clearly presented here, science rarely presented by mainstream media. then please give it a like, press share or copy the video's URL and send it by email to your friends, subscribe to my channel, or read my book, Landscapes and Cycles and environmentalists Journey to Climate Skepticism. 

Thank you.

Interview with Rachel Kennedy of the CO2 Coalition

WATCH interview with Rachel Kennedy of the CO2 Coalition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-lYGtcY1oc

The first in a series of interviews with Jim Steele, author of "Landscapes & Cycles: An Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism." We talk about deforestation, the difference between local and global thinking, the inaccuracy of a global average temperature, and the false demonization of CO2. 

Part 4 How Natural Oscillations Affect Arctic Climate & Predict Future Climate Change

 Watch this important video examining how natural oscillations affect climate, Arctic temperatures and Arctic sea ice

Part 4 How Natural Oscillations Affect Arctic Climate & Predict Future Climate Change

https://youtu.be/8vnfeI-uYY8

The transcript to video is below:

 Welcome everyone. 

This is part four, that's examining the natural dynamics that have driven changes in Arctic ice and Arctic temperatures.  Before scientists can blame rising CO2 for observed Arctic changes, the degree that natural quasi-cycles, or oscillations,  generate those changes must be determined.  Partly due to their more recent characterizations, several oscillations are inadequately represented in the climate models, despite their c

ENSO or the  El Nino Southern Oscillation causes warm waters to slosh eastward across the Pacific,  every three to seven years. It was recognized by renowned climate scientist, Jacob Bjeerknes, who is deemed the father of modern weather forecasting,  in the 1960s, when he pointed out that as El Ninos and La Ninas  re-organize ocean surface temperatures, that same dynamic in turn reorganizes pressure systems in atmospheric circulation.

ENSO causes periodic droughts in California and Peru ,while simultaneously, floods in Indonesia and then switches, causing floods in California and drought in Indonesia. More recently, it has been determined that ENSO affects the jet streams and pressure systems, affecting weather and climate around the world.

The reorganization of ocean temperatures by ENSO has a long-term effect resulting in a 20 to 30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or the PDO, that reorganizes ocean atmospheric circulations, as well as fish populations. It was just named in 1997. Johnstone and Mantua in their 2014 paper revealed how the PDO totally explains the 20th centuries climate changes in western North America. 

The Madden Julian oscillation, first described in 1971, annually relocates the regions of strongest convection as it moves across the warm equatorial Indian and Pacific oceans. That alters the jet streams and global pressure systems and can have an impact on the two major oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean. And those oscillations drive the changes in Arctic ocean sea ice and temperatures.

First, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or AMO ,causes north Atlantic surface waters to warm and the Southern Atlantic to cool and then, vice versa over a period of 20 to 60 years while superimposed on long-term warming trends.

The AMO correlates with changes in the north Atlantic fisheries, as well as Greenland air temperatures, Greenland's ice caps, and the warming in the Arctic and the loss of the sea ice as seen in recent decades and in the 1920s and thirties, that was documented by the Danish sea ice records. Contrary to CO2 driven climate crisis narratives that the most rapid climate change is happening now. Studies showed that the rate of Greenland's warming was 50% greater in the 1920s than the recent warming starting in the 1990s 

And contrary to predictions from CO2 warming models, the AMO cycled to its cold phase in the 70s and 80s causing Greenland's temperatures to cool and its ice cap to increase, as well as the fish that had once migrated north during the warming decades, to now retreat southward. The AMO warm phase peaked about a decade ago, and once again, it is now headed to its cold face.

The AMOs alternation between warm and cold phases appears to be driven by changes in heat transport by the Gulf Stream, as demonstrated by the 2018 peer reviewed paper. There is currently a debate whether or not the Gulf stream is now slowing down, but the sub polar waters have definitely been cooling, in what some have called the cold blob. 

Studies such as Frajka-Williams 2017 study suggests that the Atlantic cooling will continue, as expected as the AMO enters the cool phase. 

New studies, such as the 2020 research by Morenao and Chamarro, find that the AMO, also called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Variability is linked to decadal changes in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, or ITC Z, as we discussed in the video part three, just as the ITCZ has affected climate for thousands of years.  When the ITCZ is located more northward, there is more warm tropical waters crossing the equator to feed the Gulf stream. The subtropical high pressure system also moves northward and produces winds that help drive the Gulf stream towards the Arctic 

During the colder periods like the last ice age and more recent Little Ice Age,  associated with colder Northern temperatures the ITCz shifted southwards and less warm waters crossed the equator. The subtropical high pressure system also shifts southward, causing more warm water to be circulated back towards the equator and reduce the warm waters flowing into the Arctic. 

This alternation between pumping warm water into the Arctic versus re-cycling warm water back towards the equator,  is a key dynamic driving warming and cooling in the Arctic. And thus the global average temperature. Scandinavian scientists in the Barrents Sea Ice Edge project also reported in 2020, an alternation between pumping water into the Arctic versus circulating warm water back towards the equator, as a key dynamic driving warming and cooling in the Arctic, They suggested changes in the Earth's rotation and other natural dynamics were affecting the ocean heat transport. 

Other researchers suggest the most likely candidate is the North Atlantic Oscillation. The North Atlantic Oscillation or the NAO, is an atmospheric oscillation caused by changing strengths and locations of the Icelandic Low and Azore High pressure systems. And they alter the strength and direction of the warm winds and the resulting flows of warm water into the Arctic. 

The phases of the NAO vary over periods of just days and weeks. However its annual average also alternates over periods of decades. From the 1970s through the 2000s, the NAO was on average in a more positive phase.  In the positive phase the Icelandic low pressure system intensifies and its location helps draw more storms, warmer air and warmer ocean water temperatures into the Arctic, thus reducing sea ice.

This lengthy positive phase aligned with, and seemingly supported, catastrophic beliefs that rising CO2 was melting the Arctic. 

However for the 30 years before the 70s, the NAO was primarily in the negative phase, causing its cooler conditions. The negative phase drives storms and warm air and moisture westward,  instead of north into the Arctic. But like the AMO it now appears there is a trend back to a more negative phases.

The following series of illustrations are screenshots taken from the videos on the website earth.nullschool.net,  that uses data from the National Weather Service, GPS computer models, and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction. 

I encourage everyone to go to this site. It provides everyone with the same data professional scientists use to forecast weather and climate, and it enables YOU to appreciate the role of Arctic pressure systems or pressure systems elsewhere, and truly follow the science!

Now, if you click on the word earth up pops this menu. You can choose from this menu to have overlays based on temperature, winds, or pressure systems, etc, and choose to view those factors and how they are affecting different levels of the atmosphere, from the surface to higher up.

Using the control buttons, you can choose the date of interest to see how the Arctic's weather factors have affected a given extreme event 

For this illustration, I chose the MSLP button to view the mean sea level pressure that overlays the surface winds. The purple color represents the areas of low pressure. The Icelandic low is centered just south of Greenland. I've added the red arrows to more clearly see how the Low circulates the winds, faintly seen in white. The gray areas represent high pressure regions. And I added the green arrows to clearly see how the High pressure affects air circulation.

On October 21st, these pressure systems were driving the winds towards Scandinavia, but the winds abruptly turned towards great Britain driven by the low pressure system centered over Scandinavia.

A week later by October 28th, the Low pressure systems had merged, with its center now to the east of Greenland while the Azore High shifted southward, changing the winds' directions. My red arrow shows the directions of the winds. So I forecasted that those winds would carry heavy moisture towards southern Great Britain. To evaluate my understanding, I then looked for the BBC weather reports for that date. As expected the weather reports forecasted heavy rains hitting the west coast of Wales. 

On that same date, a high pressure system had settled on the center of Greenland. The high pressure system is pushing moisture away and blocking moisture from entering and adding snow and ice to Greenland, except in Greenland's upper Northwest corner.

To check that conclusion, I went to the Polar Portal website, which I also highly recommend to everyone. Indeed, the only moisture entering gloom Greenland was in the far Northwest, represented by the blue there.

Bottom panel shows how the massive ice and snow accumulates each day during the year. On average, about 2 gigatons are added every day, represented by the thick black line. Greenland only loses surface mass during the months from May to August when there's high solar irradiation. On October 28th, the gain of mass was barely one gigaton, as expected by the pressure patterns affect on moisture carrying winds. 

In contrast three months earlier on May 25th, a large Icelandic Low pressure system was located in the Southwest of Greenland. The circulation pattern suggested strong moisture flows and surface mass gains over the Southeast tip and Western Greenland. Sure enough, the pressure system drove record amounts of moisture onto Greenland, adding 12 gigatons of ice and snow 

CO2 climate change theory argues a warmer planet increases the amount of moisture evaporating from the oceans to the air, suggesting that increased warmth had caused this extreme precipitation, but here aadheerents of such global warming beliefs would be misled.

The moisture was being transported from a cooling region of the ocean, the one known as the cold blob. 

So likewise if you follow these weather events, it becomes clear time after time, that the extreme events are driven by various configurations of pressure systems, not global warming.  In addition to extreme weather events, the shifting of the average position and strength of the Icelandic Low and the Azore High, generates the phases of the North Atlantic Oscillation, which largely determines how much warm water enters the Arctic.                            

That relationship is illustrated by a study by Delworth in 2016, showing the NAO variations since 1950 correlate with the increasing warm inflows and thus less sea ice. The NAO becomes increasingly positive from the 1970s, peaking in the 1990s. Because the NAO is an atmospheric oscillation, there's a little inertia so it can change phases quickly in one year. The volume of warm water moving northward in the Atlantic Multi-decadal Overturning currents, measured at 50 degrees north , increase as the NAO becomes more positive, but with a slight time lag due to the ocean's greater inertia. 

Likewise, the amount of heat transported northward also increases.

And lastly, the amount of heat entering the Barrents Sea to melt more sea ice, likewise had increased. But with much less heat, because heat is ventilated and lost as it move from 50 degrees north and into the Barrents Sea at 70 degrees north. 

This correlation has also been documented in several other peer reviewed studies. And all measures show that since the late 1990s, less warm water intrudes into the Arctic as the natural North Atlantic Oscillation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation appeared to be both trending towards their negative phases. And that trend, at least in part, explains the growing cold blog.

The declining trend in intruding waters also explains the stable sea ice since 2007. From the 1980s to the first decade of the 2000s, the warm water and air intrusions into the Barents Sea, correlates with the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. But the leveling off of summer sea ice extent since 2007 correlates with the reduced warm water intrusions.

And in contrast to doomsday climate crisis narratives, the current levels of reduced sea ice extent, greatly benefits the entire Arctic food web. Less ice allows more photosynthesis, providing more food right up the food chain for fish, seals, and polar bears. And undeniably, polar bear populations have greatly increased 

Misled by the positive North Atlantic Oscillation phase, Al gore jumped on the "crisis meme" bandwagon to position himself as 'the politician' that could best save the world from the approaching warming crisis.In 2009, he told the world that during the summer months, the Arctic would be completely ice-free in five to seven years. But that prediction failed.

But to be fair, he was a victim of the beliefs of alarmist researchers, who also promoted the idea of a climate crisis in 2010. Prominent alarmist climate researchers, like Ken Caldera and Michael Mann, cxccc wrote to the secretary of the interior, Ken Salazar urging him to declare the polar bear endangered from global warming. The letter stated climate change imperils the polar bear and for the current greenhouse gas emission trends, Arctic summer sea ice would disappear by the 2030s or before!

But as CO2 driven predictions continued to fail, the sea ice has stopped decreasing and polar bears are fat and increasing. 

It's still the dire Arctic warnings that serve as mainstream media clickbait. So we still see headlines about experts predicting an ice-free Arctic by 2020 or 2030 or 2050 to echo the dire UN climate reports. 

So what should we expect by 2030?

Should we expect an ice-free Arctic as predicted by CO2 driven climate crisis models?

I will see ice begin to increase as suggested by known natural oscillations based on the science of natural oscillations. I've already placed my bets with a few fellow scientists that Arctic sea ice should start increasing by 2030 up next. Why the department of defense's recent climate analysis jeopardizes our safety. And until then, please embrace renowned scientist.

Thomas Huxley's advice. Skepticism is the highest of duties in blind faith. The one on pardonable sin. And if you appreciate the science clearly presented here, science rarely presented by mainstream media. Then please give it a like share or copy the URL of the video and send it to friends via email, subscribe to my channel and see all the videos or read my book, landscapes and cycles in environmentalist journey to climate skepticism.

Thank you.

How the Sun Controls Arctic Sea Ice and Temperatures

Watch: How the Sun Controls Arctic Sea Ice and Arctic Temperatures 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyBz8OtnWmg

Here is the transcript

Welcome back 

Today in part three on Arctic climate, I examine the connection between how the sun heats the oceans and how the oceans heat the Arctic from decades to millennia. The tropics receive more than twice the solar energy as the Arctic does, heating tropical ocean surface temperatures to about 30 degrees centigrade or 86 Fahrenheit. In contrast polar regions warm only to about negative 2 degrees.Centigrade or 28 Fahrenheit.

Thus, the Tropic serves as a reservoir of heat for the polar regions. Some researchers believe that sunspot cycles have affected climate change, but solar energy emissions during sunspot cycles varies by only about plus or minus 1.3 Watts per meter squared. So most agree,  that small amount of energy is not enough to now warm the earth from the cold depths of the Little Ice Age to it lasted from about 1300 to 1850 AD, leading some scientists to ill-advisedly dismiss the sun's role in climate change. 

Alternatively, the greater amount of energy from increasing greenhouse infrared energy suggested it is rising CO2 that has been warming the earth, but there are also problematic in consistencies with their hypotheses. 

For example, although it is claimed the oceans are absorbing 90% of the CO2 greenhouse energy, unlike solar energy, greenhouse infrared rays penetrate less than the width of a human hair into the ocean surface. So other dynamics affecting the ocean heating must be considered 

As we will see, despite low energy differences, sunspots do affect temperatures by altering critical dynamics governing global heat distribution. 

Furthermore, solar and greenhouse radiative energy are not the only sources heating the earth surface changing sea ice cover either insulates or ventilate, huge amounts of storage solar energy in the ocean. Peer reviewed studies have documented that the Arctic heat released can vary from 10 Watts per meter squared through three meter thick ice to 700 Watts per meter squared through newly formed, thin ice, such heat ventilation easily explains why the Arctic air temperatures have warmed much faster than elsewhere in the world.

All scientists agree that heat is being transported from the tropics to the Arctic. The blue line here shows the average amount of solar heat that's absorbed by tropical oceans is about 300+ Watts per meter square. The red line shows much less of that absorbed heat is radiated away and from the tropics. The difference between incoming and outgoing radiated heat is labeled Surplus indicating that the surplus heat must have been exported out of the tropics by ocean and atmosphere occurrence.

Now, the difference between the solar heat absorbed in the Arctic is a much greater amount of heat than is radiated away from the Arctic, and is labeled the Deficit. It is the inflow of solar heated tropical water. That accounts for that deficit as described in part one, how transport of tropical ocean heat causes an overestimation of the global average temperature I showed via a very simple experiment, how global warming average is greatly biased by this heat transport into the Arctic and its subsequent release to describe the different critical dynamics of heat transport into the Arctic.

The analogy of a residential water system is useful. The  dynamics that affect the surplus heat in the ocean reservoir, I refer to as tropical factors. But like your home's faucets, sub polar factors control how much tropical heat enters the Arctic ocean.  

For this analysis of Arctic climate change, I'll limit the video to changes in the Northern Atlantic. One critical sub polar effect controls how much heated water arriving via the Gulf stream continues into the Arctic versus how much is recycled in the subtropical gyre back towards the equator.

One critical tropical effect controls how much warm Southern hemisphere waters are directed across the equator to the Gulf stream. The sun plays a role in both factors.

The sun and the tilt of the Earth's axis conspire to pump various amounts of warm water into the Arctic between seasons and between cold glacial periods in warm interglacials. 

In recent times, the Earth's axis is tilted 23 and a half degrees. It always points to the north star, but it will point to other stars during a 23,000 year Milankovitch cycle called procession, the earth orbit around the sun also varies from circular to elliptical in another Milankovitch cycle lasting a hundred thousand years. Currently the earth is farthest from the sun during our Northern hemisphere summer. Nonetheless, it is our warmer season due to the tilt of the axis 

Without a tilt, the sun's warmest rays would  strike the equator as happens now, only during each spring and autumn Equinox.

However, due to the tilt, the axis points our Northern hemisphere towards the sun during summer, having caused the warmest solar heating to move northwards to the Tropic of cancer, 23.5 degrees north of the equator. And due to the resulting effects of the winds, moist tropical heat is also drawn towards the Arctic. The tilt also puts Arctic circle in full sunlight, but the Antarctic in full darkness. 

During our winter, the access points away from the sun. So the warmest solar heating happens over the Tropic of Capricorn 23.5 degrees south of the equator, and the flow of the warm ocean water into the Northern hemisphere dwindles. And despite being closer to the sun, we experience winter and the Arctic descends into full darkness with a rapid increase in sea ice.

But the axis tilt also changes with the third Milankovitch Cycle called obliquity. The axis tilt will cycle between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees every 41,000 years with surprisingly major ice age effects. 

The glacial maximum of the last ice age ended as an increasing tilt, also increased the flow of warm Atlantic waters into the Arctic. The warmest period of the interglacial called the Holocene optimum happened during maximum obliquity coinciding with maximum warm Atlantic inflows.

As the axis tilt, then cycled back to a lesser tilt, increasingly less Atlantic water entered the Arctic and accordingly Arctic sea ice gradually increased as temperatures cooled in what scientists call the neoglacial. 

Now scientists have published about a related and relevant scientific conundrum [The Holocene temperature Conundrum; Liu (2014)]. Over the past 6,000 years of a declining tilt, as sea ice increased and reached its greatest extent and thickness during the cold little ice age from 1300 to 1850 AD, you also had during that time, a slight uptick in CO2 concentrations.

So it's odd that some climate scientists, with a more catastrophic view of climate change, believe rising CO2 will prevent further cooling that has been knowingly attributed to declining Obliquity,  a decline that will continue for the next 10,000 years. 

Where the earth is the warmest, the InterTropical Convergence Zone or ITC Z forms.

The warm zone forms a low pressure zone that draws in the winds in the ocean currents from the north and the south. Where winds converge it causes the air to rise. Sailors back in Columbus's day, were stranded in the ITC Z because it was a windlass patch that they called the doldrums. Today, we see the location of the ITCZ from satellite pictures as a narrow band of clouds and circling the earth. However, although the ITCZ shifts northward and southward with the seasons, its location does not strictly adhere to the location of the son's greatest heating during our summer.

The June ITCZ only shifts 9 to 10 degrees north [over the oceans]. And this is partly due to the mixing with cooler waters. During our winter, the January ITCZ barely shifts south of the equator over the oceans, and because the land heats faster than the ocean, the ITCz more closely follows the sun's position southward  over South America. So on average, the ITCZ remains between 2 and 9 degrees north of the equator, drawing warm tropical Southern Hemisphere waters across the equator to amplify warm waters, reaching the Gulf stream. 

Now the shape of South America also affects how much warm water gets pumped towards the Arctic. The Eastern point of Brazil serves as a divider that can direct more warm water north or south. When the ITCZ is north of the equator, as it is today, it also shifts the Tradewinds and the ocean's warm currents northwards above the Brazilian divider, guiding more warm water towards the Gulf stream. This tropical effect factor warms the north Atlantic.

Furthermore, the northern location of the ITCZ has a sub-polar effect, causing the north Atlantic high pressure system to shift northwards, So that its clockwise circulation guides more Gulf stream and North Atlantic Current (NAC) waters into the Arctic.

During cooler periods, like the last ice age, or the recent little ice age, colder Northern temperatures cause the ITCZ to shift southwards. This tropical factor causes more warm currents to be deflected southward by Brazil, cooling the north Atlantic. The high pressure system also shifts southward with a sub-polar effect that re-circulates more warm water back towards the equator. With less warm water intruding the Arctic, the Arctic is cooler.

Now a group of Scandinavian scientists recently formed the Barents Sea Ice project, analyzing the past 400+ years of varying sea ice and inflows of Atlantic water. One of the primary factors affecting the Barents Sea southern ice edge was correlated with sunspot cycles. Despite the insignificant changes in solar heating, the increase in the number of sunspots increases the effect of solar winds on the Earth's magnetic fields. Stronger magnetic fields slow the rotation of the earth, which then affects the eastward momentum of the oceans current.  During low sunspot periods, such as the Dalton minimum in the early 1800s, the Earth's rotation sped up causing a stronger westward momentum for the North Atlantic Current, which reduced warm water inflows into the Arctic (seen as yellow) and redirecting warm waters eastward (seen in more orange) 

During high sunspot years of our 20th century, a stronger magnetic effect, slowed rotation and allowed more warm water to intrude into the Arctic.

During the Maunder Minimum of the late 1600s, less warm water entered the Arctic and simultaneously more warmer water and moisture was diverted towards the Southern Europe. This caused a peak in Swiss glacier growth across the Alps, threatening Swiss mountain villages and even engulfing some in ice, It wasn't colder Swiss temperatures that prompted that glacier growth. It was the greater supply of moisture that also coincided with higher lake levels at lower elevations.

Likewise, other peer reviewed studies have correlated sunspot with changes in intruding Atlantic water and  changes in Barents Sea ice. When sunspot numbers were high, rotation slows and inflows increased and sea ice extent dropped. When sunspot numbers dropped, sea ice grew as inflows were reduced. 

The effects of sunspots on the Earth's rotation also agrees with independent length of day studies.The longer the length of day in the 1970s correlates with a stronger sunspot cycle 21. A shorter length of day and thus faster rotation, correlates with the reduced solar winds of the sunspot cycle 24. 

So why hasn't the Arctic sea ice grown during this decade, if a faster rotation deflects more warmer water from the Arctic? 

So some suggests the failure of sea ice to increase despite falling sunspots should be expected due to the predicted CO2 warming. But CO2 based predictions have also failed. For example, published in the 2012 Guardian, Arctic sea ice expert Dr. Walheim predicted accelerating sea ice loss and the complete loss of summer sea ice by 2016 as CO2 concentration rise. But no such thing has happened .

On the other hand, Dr. Solheim's prediction of an extreme drop in Svalbard's temperatures by 2020, based on sunspot effects and reduced Atlantic water inflows, has also failed to materialize 

Both failed predictions, illustrate why it's dangerous to predict sea ice extent based on only one or two variables. However, the rapid decline in sea ice that once prompted alarmists' dire climate change predictions has now leveled off since 2007, revealing that dynamics stronger than CO2 warming are also in play.

For 30 years, natural climate oscillations in their warm phase have offset predicted sunspot cooling effects and aligned with CO2 warming predictions. But those oscillations are now shifting to colder phases. So the next decade will determine whether or not the current leveling off of ice extent is signaling the beginning of a return to increasing sea ice. 

So up next: part four will be how natural climate oscillations affect the Arctic climate.

And until then embraced renowned scientists. Thomas Huxley's advice that 

"skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith, the one unpardonable sin."

And if you appreciate the science clearly presented here, science rarely presented by mainstream media. Please give it a like, share it, or copy the URL and email the video, or subscribe to my YouTube channel or read my book, Landscapes and Cycles an Environmentalist Journey to Climate Skepticism.

Thank you.

Pt 2: How Sea Ice Controls Arctic Heat Ventilation and Arctic Air Temperatures

Watch youtube video Pt 2: How Sea Ice Controls Arctic Heat Ventilation and Arctic Air Temperatures

https://youtu.be/bm8UcrOQoso

Below is the transcription of the video

Welcome 

Today, I'm looking at part two,  how sea ice controls the ventilation of heat from the Arctic ocean and the Arctic's air temperatures. 

Now there are three major factors affecting sea ice extent and thus Arctic temperatures. The first, as detailed in part one, the volume of inflowing warm Atlantic water into the Arctic has correlated with sea ice extent for decades and millennia. The warm inflow circulates inside the Arctic for 25 to 30 years and peer reviewed studies such as Polyakov (2017) have determined there is currently enough heat flowing into the Arctic to completely melt all the sea ice.

However, the heat of the inflowing Atlantic water has no effect on air temperature, if sea ice insulates that warmth from the atmosphere. Furthermore, the layers of fresher water, such as the inflowing Pacific water float above the warm Atlantic water, and also insulate the ice and the atmosphere from warmer subsurface temperatures.

The warm inflows create a warm subsurface Atlantic water between about 150 and 900 meters.

Due to the effects of saltiness, the melting point of Arctic water is a negative 1.8 degrees centigrade or 28.8 Fahrenheit. But peer reviewed study such as Shu (2019) has determined the warm water entering Arctic via the Fram Strait is much higher, about three degrees centigrade or 37.4 Fahrenheit, easily melting sea ice.

As the Atlantic water circulates around the Arctic heat ventilates from the open water and the thinner ice, and warms the air while it is cooling to about 0.4 degrees centigrade; still warm enough to have melt sea ice. However, regions with thick multi-year sea ice will insulate Atlantic water heat from radiating back to the atmosphere. Now the 3 degrees of inflowing heat through the Fram Strait thins the sea ice along its Eurasian coast pathway. But as the heat ventilates into the atmosphere, the inflowing water cools to 0.4 degrees centigrade. So sea ice in the Central and Western Arctic tends to be thicker than in the Eastern Arctic. 

But before that 3 degrees centigrade Atlantic water reaches the Fram strait,  water entering the Arctic circle (designated by this red line) is much warmer and has been keeping most of the Greenland, Norwegian and Barents eSeas free of winter ice. Now, the effects of thicker sea icce explains the results of a peer reviewed paper published in 1993 in the esteemed scientific journal Nature. Researchers measuring air temperatures over Western and central Arctic ice, found no warming over a period of 40 years and even a slight cooling.

So they reported no evidence of any greenhouse warming.

The effect of sea ice on Arctic temperature is more dramatically exhibited by the  Dansgaard-Oeschger events.                                                                                    

Between our current warm interglacial and the previous warm inter-glacial, there is the cold 100,000+ year glacial period. A closer look at that glacial period reveals over 20 rapid warming Dansgaard-Oeschger events, during which air temperature rose by an incredible 5 to 15 degrees centigrade or 9 to 27 Fahrenheit in just a few decades.

And despite a heavily glaciated Northern hemisphere, temperatures were almost as warm as the final warm event that led to the present warm into glacial.

Now there are several hypotheses, all of which may be in play explaining why se ice suddenly released ocean heat to produce those warm Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Some hypothesize that these warm events were caused by an increase in warm water inflows. 

Other suggests because thicker ice was preventing heat from ventilating as their temperatures cooled, sub surface temperatures increased to the point it melted the ice. 

And also as the glaciers grew covering the land from Chicago to Boston, with ice a half a mile thick,  sea level fell creating the Bering Strait land bridge that allowed humans to migrate from Asia to north America, but it also lowered sea level and blocked the inflow of fresher Pacific water.

And without the insulating layer of Pacific water, the warm Atlantic water had a greater direct contact with sea ice, which was then melted more readily.

In our present interglacial, sea ice grows each winter and then it melts each summer.

But typically only the thin first year sea ice represented by the purple color is lost, allowing heat to ventilate. The following winter, summer's open water is covered again by the new ice.  

Thick multi-year sea ice only grows where slabs of ice pile on top of one another, especially where ice slabs are pushed against the Northern Greenland coast or the Canadian Islands as represented by non purple colors. That is where the thickest four-year-old and older ice is maintained. And the bulk of that multi-year ice large is largely unaffected between winter and summer temperatures. However, the amount of thick ice can be greatly altered by the winds of the natural Arctic oscillation, which varies on timescales from weeks to decades to millennia

Peer reviewed science by Ignatius Rigor determined that in 1989, the positive phase of the Arctic oscillation became more dominant and removed thick multi-year ice from the Arctic allowing more heat to ventilate from the subsurface causing the recent rapid Arctic warming.

Now previously in the 1970s and eighties, when the negative phase dominated winds, trapped sea ice inside the Beaufort Gyre, seen in the lower yellow curve, increasing the amount of colliding and overlapping ice.

Along the Eurasian coast, the cold Siberian winds guided the Transpolar Drift (TPD) the upper yellow curve, which primarily carried just thin first-year ice out of the Arctic through the Fram straight to melt in the Atlantic 

The 1989 switch to the positive phase caused a Transpolar Drift to dive deep into the center of the Arctic. Following the path of the red curve seen here and then drove increasing amounts of thick multi-year sea ice out of the Arctic into the Atlantic, through the Fram Strait.

Ocean and atmospheric circulation are clearly the critical climate dynamics, controlling sea ice, heat ventilation, and Arctic warming. But those dynamics are the elephants in the room, rarely addressed by a mainstream media bent on pushing clickbait, driven by climate crisis headlines.

So to summarize 

Presently warm Atlantic inflows mediate sea ice extent and maintain the warm subsurface Atlantic water layer. 

The release of heat from the surface is largely mediated by sea ice thickness. The varying winds driven by the Arctic oscillation can either trap and grow thick ice or remove thick ice 

Combined, those two dynamics have reduced sea ice extent in recent decades, allowing more subsurface heat to ventilate. The ventilating heat cools the ocean while warming the Arctic air.  Higher temperatures caused by a cooling ocean should NEVER be added to a global average temperature that's intended to measure increasing stored heat. 

And although it's true, more ventilation made available more heat available to be recycled via the greenhouse effect, that dynamic is relatively insignificant. Rising CO2 attribution is the media's way of having the tail wag the elephant.

Ocean and atmospheric circulation are by far the most significant drivers of sea ice changes and Arctic warming.

I emphasize again,  ocean and atmospheric circulation are the most significant drivers of the so-called Arctic amplification. 

Up next In part three, I'll examine how the sun affects the amount of warm tropical waters flowing into the Arctic. 

And until then embrace Thomas Huxley's advice "That skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith, the one unpardonable sin."

 And if you appreciate the science clearly presented here, science rarely presented by mainstream media.

Then please give it a, like, give it a share or copy the URL of the video and email it to friends, subscribe to my channel or read my book, landscapes and cycles and environmentalist journey to climate skepticism.

 Thank you.