Scientists Request Revamping Of Climate Models After Finding Arctic 4.6°C WARMER In 1930s Than Today!

Earlier Arctic warmth unexplained: In Franz Josef Land it was several degrees warmer in early 1930s than today

By Die kalte Sonne
(German text translated/edited by P Gosselin)

In January 2019, a paper by Andrzej Araźny et al appeared in the journal Theoretical and Applied Climatology, in which the researchers evaluated the weather data from four scientific expeditions to the Arctic Franz Josef Land.

Chart Source: A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day.

The Araźny team also came across an unusual heat that was registered during a trip in 1930/31 when it was 4.6 °C warmer than the modern average in 1981-2010. The authors explain that there have been two phases of warmth in the Arctic in the last 140 years. The first spanned from 1920-1938 and the second began in the 1980s or 90s. Both heat phases have a similar course, so that the proportion of natural versus anthropogenic climate drives is unclear.

Araźny and colleagues demand that climate models address this question more intensively in order to finally close the large gaps in understanding in the Arctic climate system – also with regard to attribution.

What follows is the abstract of the study, whose pdf can be downloaded free of charge:

A comparison of bioclimatic conditions on Franz Josef Land (the Arctic) between the turn of the nineteenth to twentieth century and present day

The paper presents the variability of meteorological conditions: air temperature, wind speed and relative air humidity; and biometeorological indices: wind chill temperature, predicted clothing insulation and accepted level of physical activity on Franz Josef Land (in Teplitz Bay and Calm Bay) in the years 1899–1931. It employs meteorological measurements taken during four scientific expeditions to the study area. The analysis mainly covered the period October–April, for which the most complete data set is available. For that period of the year, which includes the part of the year with the Franz Josef Land’s coldest air temperatures, the range and nature of changes in meteorological and biometeorological conditions between historical periods and the modern period (1981–2010) were studied. The data analysis revealed that during the three oldest expeditions (which took place in the years 1899–1914), the biometeorological conditions in the study area were more harsh to humans than in the modern period (1981–2010) or similarly harsh. In contrast, during the 1930/1931 expedition, which represents the Early Twentieth Century Warming (ETCW), conditions were clearly more favourable (including predicted clothing insulation being 0.3 clo lower and 4.0 °C higher wind chill temperature than conditions observed nowadays).”

In the discussion the authors address in detail the Arctic warmth phenomenon of the 1930s:

In approximately the last 140 years, there have been two periods of significant temperature increases in the Arctic. The first began in around 1918–1920 and lasted until 1938 and has been called the ‘1930s warming’ (Bengtsson et al. 2004). Other works have referred to this period as the ‘Early Twentieth Century Warming’ (ETCW, Brönnimann 2009) or the ‘Early Twentieth Century Arctic Warming’ (ETCAW, Wegmann et al. 2017, 2018). Our results confirm the observations for the last expedition from the historical study period in 1930/1931. These years covered the warmest part of the ETCW (Table 3, Fig. 4). In turn, the second increased warming of the Arctic began around 1980 (Johannessen et al. 2004) or according to Przybylak (2007) in about the mid-1990s. Changes in overall atmospheric circulation have long been believed to have been the cause of the ETCW (e.g. Scherhag 1937). As the modern climate warming (since 1975) has progressed in a largely similar manner to the progression of the ETCW (Wood and Overland 2010; Semenov and Latif 2012), there has been renewed interest in the insufficiently well-explained causes of the ETCW using the latest research methods, including, primarily, climate models. An analysis of the literature shows that the cause of such a significant warming in the present period is still not clear. There is even controversy over whether the main factors in the process are natural or anthropogenic, although the decided majority of researchers assign a greater role to natural factors (Bengtsson et al. 2004; Semenov and Latif 2012). It would appear that the greatest differences of opinion on the causes of the ETCW are to be found in works presenting climate models (see, e.g. Shiogama et al. 2006; Suo et al. 2013), which is an excellent illustration of the still insufficient knowledge of the mechanisms governing the Arctic Climate System.”

In the conclusion, the authors compare the warmth of the 1930s to today’s values:

during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010.”

16 responses to “Scientists Request Revamping Of Climate Models After Finding Arctic 4.6°C WARMER In 1930s Than Today!”

  1. R2Dtoo

    And the real scientists speak up, and challenge the dominant narrative. Great – but now about the media coverage? We have the ammunition, but they have the weapons.

  2. Robert Kernodle

    The media have the weapons, alright — weapons of mass delusion.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    Researchers need to go back further, – into the late 1700s and early 1800s.
    Please read the part in red at the following:

    LONG POST WITH PHOTOS submarines and ice etc

    “It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

    (This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
    President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

    *13 President of the Royal Society, Minutes of Council,
    Volume 8. pp.149-153, Royal Society, London.
    20th November, 1817.

  4. Phil Salmon

    And they have a nuclear weapon: silence.

  5. Lasse

    It confirms old findings as in this report:

    Remarkable warming occurred in Svalbard during 1930 , especially during winter.

  6. tom0mason

    Thank-you Pierre,

    yet again another region that shows that this ‘Global Warming’ is not that global! Maybe the CO2 there just was not up to its over hyped billing.
    So as we come out of the LIA we warm (and cool and warm again) with NOTHING showing that there is any ‘catastrophic’ warming. Sure the world is slowly warming but is not that what happen as we leave the LIA behind — less than 1°C in a hundred years is NOT an untoward amount of warming, its perfectly within natural levels.
    A slowdown in warming, a return to a cooler era, would be a disaster for nature and mankind, so lets hope that the current cooling is just a blip and not a change in the trend.

    1. SebastianH

      The current cooling?

      Even skeptic’s darling UAH6.0 doesn’t show any cooling (neither “blip” nor “trend”):

      1. tom0mason

        From Hiatus …
        Recent hiatus in surface warming and discrepancies with climate models
        The IPCC AR5 notes the lack of warming since 1998:

        The rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012) [is] 0.05 [–0.05 to +0.15] °C per decade)which is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012) [of] 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade.

        The significance of this hiatus in warming since 1998 is in context of comparison with climate model projections. The IPCC AR4 stated:

        For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.2°C per decade is projected for a range of SRES emission scenarios. (AR4 SPM)

        However the HIATUS lasted till 2016.

        … To an El-Niño, see, …

        … to Current Cooling.

        Essentially all you are claiming is the El-Niño warming as a sign of global warming signal. Sheesh, what a dope

        🙂 .

  7. Kristian

    The headline reads: “Scientists Request Revamping Of Climate Models After Finding Arctic 4.6°C WARMER In 1930s Than Today!”

    While the paper’s conclusion reads: “…during the 1930/31 expedition it was 4.6 °C warmer than the years 1981–2010.”

    Firstly, that’s ONE year against a full climatological normal period. Secondly, 1981-2010 is most certainly not TODAY! Today’s Arctic temps are definitely higher than during the 1981-2010 normal period.

    You need to compare apples with apples.

  8. Alfons Mittelmeyer

    Here we see, what climate models cannot explain: the early NH high latitude warming.

    (observations: upper left image)

    From 1920 to about 1940 the temperature of the Gulf Stream increased, maybe also the salinity decreased, but I can’t find data. This causes lower density and scientists believe, that this would cause a weaker AMOC. But this is wrong. Lower density let the warm Atlantic waters flow farther north before they sink. Before 1920 the warm waters should have been already mainly sunken at these high northern latitudes and cold polar low saline waters extended more southernly. When the warm Atlantic waters became less dense, they popped up to the surface in these high latitudes and caused there a sudden warming. Of course then the surface waters had a higher salinity. It could also be, that AMOC became stronger. When the warm waters are longer at the surface, the winds may exert more force.

  9. Brian Dulmaine

    How does this nonsense get posted by legitimate media.

  10. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #359 | Watts Up With That?
  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #359 - Sciencetells
  12. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #359 – Daily News
  13. Mark Fisher

    Odd. Why is it that the “Climate Cabal” can’t suffer to engage in discussion. I’d say pre-CO2 spike studies of relevant areas alleged to be adversed impacted by rising levels of CO2 would be welcomed. Instead you see snide comments and dismissiveness. It’s a major reason why skeptics of CO2 AGW are hardening the view that they are victims of a delusional religious cult.

  14. Graham hiskett

    Brian dulmain . What makes this article nosense. Stating facts is not nonsense. You are the one spouting nonsense. Who is paying you ?

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy