Finland Is Worried That It Is Nearly As Warm As 1939!
By Paul Homewood
h/t Patsy Lacey
From the Guardian, via Yahoo:
Finland, the new chair of the Arctic council, has appealed to climate change scientists to fight the threat of the US and Russia tearing up commitments to combat global warming.
The Nordic country takes up the two-year chairmanship of the body, increasingly a forum where arguments about climate change play out, at a ministerial meeting on Thursday in Fairbanks, Alaska, where the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, will represent the Trump administration.
The meeting is due to set targets to reduce black carbon in the Arctic, a pollutant that traps atmospheric heat, but comes amid fears the US is poised to downgrade its commitments made at the 2015 Paris conference on climate change.
Harri Mäki-Reinikka, the Finnish ambassador for northern policies, called for the Paris treaty to be respected.
“We hope there will be no deals over the heads of others – these are very global issues. Arctic conditions are changing. If the temperatures are two degrees higher globally that can be four degrees higher, or even six degrees in the Arctic,” he said.
“What is even more worrying is that ice and snow are melting faster than we estimated, and that will change the composition of the waters and even the sea level might be rising. If we have two countries, Russia and the US, not sharing the view that climate change is happening or is manmade or how much it is manmade, it is very difficult to proceed.”
Mäki-Reinikka said “a month ago Putin said climate change is not man made” but recent reports of bubbles of methane gas forming in Siberia, potentially putting more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, could mean “a vicious circle of climate change and global warming will be faster, and the Paris climate change agreements will need to be stronger”.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/finland-voices-concern-over-us-155203999.html
Finland only has one long running GHCN station in the Arctic Circle, the small town of Sodankyla.
As we keep on finding around the Arctic, temperatures there were just as high in the 1930s as they are now.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=614028360000&dt=1&ds=14
As for sea levels, they are actually falling in that part of the world:
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=040-001
As with all such bodies, the Arctic Council is no more than an excuse for bureaucrats and junk scientists to enjoy well paid jobs that enable them to pretend they are doing something important, instead of having to work for a living.
PS Maybe I’m being a bit thick, but can anybody explain to me how black carbon can “trap atmospheric heat”?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
“PS Maybe I’m being a bit thick, but can anybody explain to me how black carbon can “trap atmospheric heat”?”
I think the numpties are trying to say that the sunlight isn’t reflected in the normal way, as the carbon dust doesn’t reflect it like snow.
However, as we are only talking about particulates in the parts per million (if not billion), it’s nonsense – too insignificant to make a difference.
I suspect they are talking about air pollution depositing a film of stuff on the ice. I’ve seen pictures of grey stuff covering ice, especially on inland glaciers, and I assume this stuff is carbon particulates which reduce reflectivity of sunlight and thus increase the ice melt rate.
Yes Brooke you can get pink diamonds if you have the mind and pockets to match.
It is impossible to trap heat, but it is possible to trap energy, Heat is energy flowing from a high temperature object to a lower temperature object. An object does not possess heat.
I would guess that black carbon sits onto of the white snow, and being black, it soaks up more heat than otherwise – thus heat that would otherwise be reflected from the ice is absorbed by it – or trapped as said in the article
What is black carbon anyway? After the EPA slapped the nuckles of US power plants about mercury and soot, they are cleaner in the southeast US than they have ever been, and that’s probably true for most.
Apart from a small rise in temperature (0.6 K / century), what other measurable evidence is claimed for climate change? All I see is unfounded claims of sea level rise, Arctic warming and a so called tipping point.
I didn’t realise there were different color carbons. Actually what is carbons? And do the colours range like M&Ms.
Lots of difficult questions for the Fina to sort?
Black carbon is what people in the future will be spraying on the advancing ice fields as the world goes into the next glacial period. It will be called “climate change mitigation”.
Meanwhile Norway enjoys 40cm of snow near Oslo, latest snow since 1937.
Of course that’s only ‘weather’ not ‘climate change’.
It’s to inconvenient to mention. Lol.
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Gold.
(Sums up the climate disconnect that bedevils the doomsday, CO2-centric, disaster nuts.)
Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
Positively sweltering in April
Finland: Is it fall, winter or spring?
Meanwhile record cold causes a spike in Norwegian energy prices;
Nordic power prices soared as record cold weather in parts of the region delayed the seasonal melting of snow into water needed to generate electricity.
The coldest night on record dating back to 1859 this week helped electricity prices on Wednesday jump 34 percent so far in May from a year earlier…
I’m sure they’d appreciate some warmth right now
Meanwhile, yesterday NPR in one of their usual hysterical reportages on CC, talked seriously about a plan to inject particulates into the atmosphere to imitate a major volcanic eruption, in order to reduce global temperatures. Who let these nutcases out?!
‘As for sea levels, they are actually falling in that part of the world’
Yes, due to the Fennoscandian Rebound.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JB000400/abstract
A recent study claims that ‘Coal mine dust hastens Arctic snow melt’.
‘Dust released by an active coal mine in Svalbard, Norway, reduced the spectral reflectance of nearby snow and ice by up to 84 percent, according to new University of Colorado Boulder-led research.
The study illustrates the significant, localized role that dark-colored particulates—which absorb more solar radiation than light-colored snow and keep more heat closer to the Earth’s surface—can play in hastening Arctic ice melt.’
http://www.colorado.edu/today/2017/02/01/coal-mine-dust-hastens-arctic-snow-melt
However, earlier work found that wasn’t the case…
Arctic snow not darkening due to soot, dust
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151030220525.htm
Just checked. The two biggest sources of Arctic soot are Siberian and Canadian boreal forest fires and China coal. Good luck fixing those.
Interesting on methane…
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/05/in-the-arctic-carbon-dioxide-goes-down-where-methane-comes-up/
Question: If warmer temperatures lead to methane release from the tundra leading to runaway Global Warming© why did this not occur during the Holocene optimum which was 2℃ warmer than present?
Nor did such runaway temperature rises occur in any of the previous interglacials.
Re question: maybe because temperature and pressure are related, and pressure is mostly due to mass, not composition, of the gases in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_gas_law
So a small amount of methane (MW16) increases the mass of the atmosphere and reduces the pressure, hence the temperature drops? Well, that stuffs the Greens in their search for another End of All scare.
I would have thought that it might have something to do with rapid loss of methane by biological action. After all methane is released all the time from swamps and decay yet doesn’t build up in the atmosphere.
The amount of methane involved would be much too small to make any noticeable difference to the mass of the Earth’s atmosphere.
It’s because there were no sources of government funding back then
Soot deposits on ice and snow reduce the surface albedo hence leading to greater absorption of energy as per the Stephan-Boltzmann equation.
Sodankyla is an exception for Northern Europe / Arctic with an increase in annual mean temperature of only about 0.8 degC since the 1930s. Tromso, on the Norwegian coast, has a similar increase. But other long term stations (Vardo, Bodo, Kanin Nos, Vytegra, Eureka, Federova) show increases of between 0.8 and 1.5 degC over the same period. Also many of these (Vardo, Tromso, Bodo, Vytegra, Federova) do not yet show a well-defined peak since 2000. http://www.briangunterblog.wordpress.com
So, something is definitely happening to Arctic and Northern Europe temperatures in the past few decades. But this does not mean that it is man-made as similar effects are not seen in most other regions of the world.
Should be 1.2 to 1.5 degC (not 0.8-1.5).
Are the temperatures from the adjusted GHCN?
My analyses are all using raw data from the KNMI website. Note that there are different seasonal trends at individual stations. For example, at Vardo in far northern Norway, significant increases occur in monthly mean temperatures since 2000 in April, May, September and October and these months are the reason for the increasing annual trend. I am puzzled as to why the recent trends differ so much for individual months. Any suggestions anybody?
Temperatures at coastal stations such as Vardo are heavily dependent on the presence or otherwise of sea ice, Brian. Therefore recent increases in those months likely reflect less ice, rather than a warmer atmosphere.
By contrast, Sodankyla is well inland, and the temperature trend there is more representative of the general climate in the region.
Oh, good! Another surface temperature chart showing the 1930-40s being as hot or hotter than subsequent years. I’ll add it to my collection. Thanks!
What has black carbon to do with carbon dioxide?