Arctic Climate Change - Man Made - says European Climatoligists

Another report on the effects of climate change in the Arctic region detailed in this report:

Pollution from industrialized nations leading cause of Arctic heating

Washington, Mar 17: Pollution from industrialized nations is heating the Arctic atmosphere faster than any region on Earth, a new study by European climatologists has revealed.

According to the researchers writing in today's issue of the journal Science, temperature spikes in the Arctic are mainly caused by "human-induced emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases".

"Ship emissions, smoke from summer forest fires, and air pollutants such as aerosols and ozone coming from the lower latitudes are also contributing to 'significant warming trends'," they say.

The study said surface air temperatures in the region have risen faster than the global average over the past few decades and "are predicted to warm by five degrees Celsius [nine degrees Fahrenheit] over a large part of the Arctic by the end of the 21st century".

Well, Dr. Akasofu and his team, among many other scientists disagree.

Dr. Akasofu has been studying Solar-Terrestial physics since the 60s.

Some of the weak points in the present IPCC Report are:

There has recently been so much attention focused on the CO2 effect, the Little Ice age has been forgotten. The recovery rate from the Little Ice Age may be as much as 0.5°C/100 years, comparable to the present warming trend of 0.6°C/100 years. The warming caused by the linear change must be carefully evaluated and subtracted in determining the greenhouse effect.
There was no critical analysis of the mid-century change; the temperature rose between 1910 and 1940, similar in magnitude and rate to the present rise after 1975. Further, the temperature decreased from 1940 to 1975, in spite of the fact that the release of CO2 increased rapidly. At that time, we had similar debates about imminent “global cooling” (the coming of a new ice age) in the 1970s.
It is crucial to investigate any difference between the 1910-40 increase and the increase after 1975, since the former is likely to be due to natural causes, rather than the greenhouse effect.
The most prominent warming (twice the global average) took place in the Arctic, particularly in the continental arctic, during the last half of the 20th century, as stated in the IPCC Report, but it disappeared during the last decade or so. Further, the IPCC models cannot reproduce the prominent continental warming, in spite of the fact that the measured amount of CO2 was considered. This particular warming is likely to be part of multi-decadal oscillations, a natural cause.
It is also important to know that the temperature has been increasing almost linearly from about 1750, or earlier, to the present, in addition to multi-decadal oscillations, such as the familiar El Niño. These are natural changes.
Both changes are significant. Until they can be quantitatively more carefully examined and subtracted from the present trend, it is not possible to determine the manmade greenhouse effect. Therefore, there is no firm basis to claim “most” in the IPCC Report.
The IPCC should have paid more attention to climate change in the Arctic.
The mid-century (1940-1975) alarm of a coming Ice Age teaches a very important lesson to all of us, including climate researchers. It is not possible to forecast climate change (warming or cooling) in the year 2100 based on a few decades of data alone.
Further, it is very confusing that some members of the media and some scientific experts blame “global warming” for every “anomalous” weather change, including big snowfalls, droughts, floods, ice storms, and hurricanes. This only confuses the issue.

www.iarc.uaf.edu...