Forecasted Temperature anomalies 2 meters above ground for February 2016 in Europe
Dr Arnd Bernaerts has long studied effects in Northern European Seas. Here are excerpts from his recent publication: Offshore Wind-Parks and Northern Europe’s Mild Winters: Contribution from Ships, Fishery, et cetera? http://www.davidpublisher.org/Public/uploads/Contribute/569da5d061f90.pdf
His main point from the abstract: The marine environment of North Sea and Baltic is one of the most heavily strained by numerous human activities. Simultaneously water and air temperatures increase more than elsewhere in Europe and globally, which cannot be explained with “global warming”.
Excerpts:
Since mankind, during the course of a year, agitates the water column of North Sea and Baltic by stirring, more warmth is taken to deeper water in the summer season and rises to the surface from lower layers in the winter period, where heat is exchanged with the air until sea icing is observed. This is a process that can be seen from the beginning of September until the end of March.
Marine activities play a much bigger role in time factor and duration of ice formation. If the sea surface temperature has already reached the freezing point, any vessel shovels warmer water to the surface, or vice versa, forcing a more rapid melt… The shrinking ice cover correlates well with an increase in human activities, and subsequently leading to higher air temperature throughout the region.
Basically three facts are established: higher warming, a small shift in the seasons, and a decreasing sea ice cover. In each scenario the two seas’ conditions play a decisive role (North Sea and Baltic). These conditions are impaired by wind farms, shipping, fishing, off shore drilling, under sea floor gas-pipe line construction and maintenance, naval exercise, diving, yachting, and so on, about little to nothing has been investigated and is understood.
Summary
The facts are conclusive. “Global Climate Change” cannot cause a special rise in temperatures in Northern Europe, neither in the North Sea nor the Baltic or beyond. Any use of the oceans by mankind has an influence on thermo-haline structures within the water column from a few cm to 10m and more. Noticeable warmer winters in Europe are the logical consequence.
North Americans should not think themselves unaffected by all this.
Consider this graphic of the Siberian Express:
The more the Atlantic weather governs the situation beyond the Ural the further Polar and Siberian cold will be pushed eastwards, called ‘Siberian Express’(Fig.10). This was felt in Alaska, Canada and Eastern U.S. Many days were extremely cold with deviations from the mean of 20°C and beyond.
More information is here:
Science Matters 
Prior to MLO the atmospheric CO2 concentrations, both paleo ice cores and inconsistent contemporary grab samples, were massive wags. Instrumental data at some of NOAA’s tall towers passed through 400 ppm years before MLO reached that level. IPCC AR5 TS.6.2 cites uncertainty in CO2 concentrations over land. Preliminary data from OCO-2 suggests that CO2 is not as well mixed as assumed. Per IPCC AR5 WG1 chapter 6 mankind’s share of the atmosphere’s natural CO2 is basically unknown, could be anywhere from 4% to 96%. (IPCC AR5 Ch 6, Figure 6.1, Table 6.1)
The major global C reservoirs (not CO2 per se, C is a precursor proxy for CO2), i.e. oceans, atmosphere, vegetation & soil, contain over 45,000 Pg (Gt) of C. Over 90% of this C reserve is in the oceans. Between these reservoirs ebb and flow hundreds of Pg C per year, the great fluxes. For instance, vegetation absorbs C for photosynthesis producing plants and O2. When the plants die and decay they release C. A divinely maintained balance of perfection for thousands of years, now unbalanced by mankind’s evil use of fossil fuels.
So just how much net C does mankind’s evil fossil fuel consumption add to this perfectly balanced 45,000 Gt cauldron of churning, boiling, fluxing C? 4 Gt C. That’s correct, 4. Not 4,000, not 400, 4! How are we supposed to take this seriously? (Anyway 4 is totally assumed/fabricated to make the numbers work.)
IPCC AR5 attributes 2 W/m^2 of unbalancing RF due to the increased CO2 concentration between 1750 and 2011 (Fig TS.7, SPM Fig 5.). In the overall global heat balance 2 W (watt is power, not energy) is lost in the magnitudes and uncertainties (Graphic Trenberth et. al. 2011) of: ToA, 340 +/- 10, fluctuating albedos of clouds, snow and ice, reflection, absorption and release of heat from evaporation and condensation of the ocean and water vapor cycle. (IPCC AR5 Ch 8, FAQ 8.1)
IPCC AR5 acknowledges the LTT pause/hiatus/lull/stasis in Text Box 9.2 and laments the failure of the GCMs to model it. If IPCC can’t explain the pause, they can’t explain the cause. IPCC GCMs don’t work because IPCC exaggerates climate sensitivity (TS 6.2), of CO2/GHGs RF in the power flux balance and dismisses the role of water vapor because man does not cause nor control it.
The sea ice and sheet ice is expanding not shrinking, polar bear population is the highest in decades, the weather (30 years = climate) is less extreme not more, the sea level rise is not accelerating, the GCM’s are repeat failures, the CAGW hypothesis is coming unraveled, COP21 turned into yet another empty and embarrassing fiasco, IPCC AR6 will mimic SNL’s Roseanne Roseannadanna, “Well, neeeveeer mind!!”
One can only hope that 2016 will be the year honest science prevails. In the meantime the hyperbolic CAGW hotterist’s hysteria will continue to fleece the gullible, (i.e. the world’s second oldest profession).
LikeLike
Nicholas, thanks for commenting. You covered a lot of ground. My post had a more modest objective. Just as Pielke Sr. led the way in pointing out how human land use affects local and regional climates, so Bernaerts has long argued that human sea use also has climate impacts. Both effects are real and significant, and both are swept under the CO2 carpet.
LikeLike
Thank you Nicholas for a very lucid and interesting summary of where we are.
I am sure I read somewhere that not only does data from OCO-2 show that CO2 is not well mixed (as you said), but that the greatest concentrations are not always over the industrial developed world.
LikeLike
I’m so glad that people are starting to show interest to a subject that should be of first importance for all of us – the oceans. Mankind was using the oceans for so many years (at first for navigation), but we all must admit that in the past 150-200 years (mainly staring from the World Wars) the use of see and oceans was much more intense. And now, in our days, we started to use it even more intensely (fishery, naval exercises, offshore wind farms and so on). We are stirring the seas like a soup, but we are blind and careless to the effects. Unfortunatelly, I may add, in many situations even those who should care most about what climate change means, scientists, chiefs of state and so on, don’t undestand those effects. They prefer to use enormous sums of money for conferences like COP21, but they “forgot” to speak about the oceans and the way that our activity influences them…. I wonder way, but I guess that no one wants a clear answer…. Anyway, thank you for this post! I hope that it will raise awarness about the subject!
LikeLike
Thanks smamarver. Much of the problem with climate science began with forming the IPCC with a mandate to investigate only man-made climate impacts, and even more narrowly, focused on warming from rising CO2. Without funding for study of oscillations arising from interacting parts of the climate system, or for understanding impacts from land and sea use, there has been little progress to untangle natural from man-made climate effects.
LikeLike
It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d definitely donate to this brilliant blog! I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account. I look forward to fresh updates and will share this site with my Facebook group. Chat soon!
LikeLike