Climate Letter #1685

Scientists have a new theory about what is causing the unusual warming of the Arctic region, as reviewed by an article in Scientific American.  The same theory is said to have applications to warming in other parts of the globe.  The story goes on to explain the fact that scientists are still quite uncertain about the cause or causes of the Arctic warming in general and briefly describes some of the other, more prevalent theories.  Here is the link:  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/because-of-rising-co2-trees-might-be-warming-the-arctic/

I want to mention it because the current episode of unusual Arctic warming has been the main theme of these letters for a number of days and weeks recently, and the reasons offered are quite different from the above.  My own thesis for explanation has been presented in considerable detail and documented through a series of images copied from the U of Maine’s Climate Weather Maps.  In my mind this material forms a complete and convincing explanation of the current episode, which by the way is progressing at the same rate in the revelations of today’s maps.  The same principles also seems to be generally applicable to temperature anomalies in mid-to-high latitudes all around the globe practically every day, suggesting they may also have been instrumental in determining the Arctic warming trend of recent years, but I don’t have any imagery on hand with which to demonstrate.

I also have no way to properly publish the entire thesis except right here in the Climate Letters, nor can I even make the claim that it is original, although that thought does come to mind at times. I do think it is worth spending more time studying and refining and will keep using these letters—which are now more like an ongoing journal than daily newsletters—to add more basic content and improve upon the verbal descriptions of all the ideas involved. If any reader likes the ideas and wants to pass them on, or use them in some way, or has some suggestions to offer, that’s all fine by me

One thing that is unusual about my thesis, which sets it apart from many scientific theories, is that it does not require any of the heat to be transported through the atmosphere, not even one mile. All of the warming depends only on heating effects generated through the well-known greenhouse effect, in this case directly involving just one of the greenhouse gases, water vapor. The thesis also makes use of a well-known scientific fact that air temperature and water vapor always seem to go hand-in-hand, that is, whenever air temperature is raised by one degree C it will normally be found to hold 7% more water vapor by content than it did before.the increase. Conversely, I see the same relationship in a different order of cause and effect when applied to greenhouse activity, by observing that the addition of 7% more water vapor to any part of a vertical column of air, no matter by what means, will add one degree to air temperature at the bottom of the column, all else being equal. Looked at logarithmically, that means ten degrees will be added at the bottom by any doubling of water vapor within the column. The weather maps provide plenty of evidence for this being a regular kind of event, with the temperature linkage holding true whenever the activity is imposed over solid surfaces and under ideal conditions.

Wrapping this up, I want to pass on another link to an outside story, this one to a free-access scientific report published just over a year ago, involving paleoclimatology in the Late Cretaceous period: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018PA003546. I think the whole report is readable, fascinating in many ways, and based on research of the highest standards.  One particular paragraph, edited to remove reference links, contains the main points of interest:  “Even in the context of an extreme greenhouse climate, δ¹⁸O data from some parts of the Southern Hemisphere show anomalous warmth: in particular, estimates from Sites 327 and 511 at the Falkland Plateau (Figure 1) suggest that, at paleolatitudes of ~55–60°S, SSTs exceeded 30 °C for much of the Late Cretaceous, before cooling rapidly in the mid‐Campanian…..By contrast, modern mean annual SSTs at ~60°S are ~0 °C…..If these records from the Falkland Plateau are indicative of widespread and prolonged warmth in the mid‐ to high latitudes, there are major implications for polar climate and latitudinal temperature gradients in a greenhouse world. These high temperatures within 15° to 20° latitude of the coast of Antarctica question the feasibility of polar ice caps and sea ice during the Late Cretaceous…..In addition, the high δ¹⁸O‐based temperatures are not easily reconciled with climate models without extremely high atmospheric p CO₂…..Such high p CO₂ values are not corroborated by most proxy or carbon‐cycle models for the Late Cretaceous…..” According to my thesis, at that high latitude, if today’s Antarctic jetstreams were for some reason absent or greatly impaired during that era, the uncontrolled influx of water vapor could by itself conceivably have been powerful enough to provide the bulk of year-around greenhouse warming needed for the 30-degree difference in sea surface temperature to take effect and remain that way.

Carl