{"id":329768,"date":"2024-05-23T17:23:21","date_gmt":"2024-05-23T15:23:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329768"},"modified":"2024-05-23T17:23:23","modified_gmt":"2024-05-23T15:23:23","slug":"the-battle-of-the-climate-hypotheses-the-green-house-gas-forcer-vs-the-winter-gatekeeper-round-1","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=329768","title":{"rendered":"The Battle of The climate Hypotheses: The Green-House Gas Forcer vs. The Winter Gatekeeper Round 1."},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gabriel Oxenstierna<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What drives climate change? Is it the anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases [GHG], as the established climate science and the IPCC claims with its GHG forcer hypothesis?
Or is it the natural variations in heat transport to the polar regions during winter, as the new \u201cWinter Gate-keeper hypothesis\u201d [WGH] claims?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WGH asserts to be a general hypothesis for climate change,<\/strong> fully capable of explaining historical climate change, as well as current changes, and with explicit forecasts for our future climate. In these respects, it compares itself with the established IPCC hypothesis of climate change being driven by anthropogenic GHG emissions. The WGH is fully described in two recently published books, and has also been explained in some detail here at WUWT by its originator Javier Vin\u00f3s (here<\/a>, here<\/a>, here<\/a>), and also by Andy May (here<\/a>, here<\/a>).[1][2]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WGH introduces a novel climate-forcing mechanism<\/strong> by proposing that changes in poleward heat transport can strongly influence climate. As the planet Earth has two such polar regions, we have one in cold season during most of the year. Temporally, planet Earth has two peaks of energy loss to space. They are when each of the polar areas is dark and cools by radiating more during the polar winter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The two polar regions have little incoming solar energy and the green-house effect is also very small, especially during the polar winter. If, e.g., more energy would be transported polewards, we\u2019d get a higher loss of energy at the top of atmosphere (ToA), without any compensating gain elsewhere. The energy flux of the planet would be altered by that change in transport.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of specific significance is the regulation of the heat transport into the Arctic. The highest loss of energy is during the dark Arctic winter. Between November and February, the planet emits more energy than at any other time. It\u2019s a complex mechanism, where five different \u201cgate-keepers\u201d  influence the climate via the polar vortex, thus regulating meridional heat transport. This mechanism affects the radiative flux at the ToA, which changes the energy content of the entire climate system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WGH is a unified hypothesis<\/strong> that builds on a multitude of established theories regarding its contributing processes. An attempt at \u201cdefinition\u201d of the WGH by its creator formulates a whole range of testable claims:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis proposes that changes in the heat and moisture that reach the polar regions during winter, particularly the Arctic<\/strong>, play a major role in climate change. This is because the winter polar regions have a very low greenhouse effect<\/strong> due to the lack of atmospheric water vapor, the Earth\u2019s main GHG. Combined with the lack of solar radiation, this leads to an effective loss of energy to space through outgoing infrared radiation<\/strong>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consequently, changes in the transport of heat to the polar regions during winter have an impact on the energy budget of the planet<\/em>. The Arctic is particularly important in WGH because its weaker polar vortex allows for greater variations in heat transport.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any factor that affects the atmospheric zonal circulation, the generation and propagation of planetary waves, or the strength of the polar vortex acts as a vortex gatekeeper capable of regulating the transport of heat to the Arctic during winter<\/strong>. These gatekeepers include theQuasi-Biennial Oscillation, El Ni\u00f1o-Southern Oscillation, volcanic eruptions, multi-decadal ocean oscillations(modes of variability), andsolar activity. [\u2026] The climate exhibits decades-long heat transport regimes, separated by abrupt shifts<\/strong><\/em>.\u201d([2], pages 408f and 533, my emph.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this, and following posts I will analyze the bolded claims regarding heat transport by looking at climate data with a focus on the warming Arctic, since WGH gives the Arctic a defining role in climate change processes. Actually, the Arctic is a focal point for both <\/em>the two competing hypotheses about climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Arctic has been warming almost four times faster than the global average since around 1990.[3]The established climate science (IPCC) essentially explains the warming in the Arctic with the greenhouse effect and has given it its own name: \u201cArctic Amplification\u201d<\/em> [AA]. The IPCC claims that 50-70 percent of the AA is caused by the increased amount of anthropogenic GHG in the atmosphere (emissions of CO2 etc.).[4] These increase the green house effect, which is assumed to cause the large temperature increase in the Arctic in winter. However, they neither provide any coherent theory how this happens, nor an explanation of the timing<\/em> of the AA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The WGH rejects the IPCC hypothesis<\/strong>. Instead, it claims that changes in energy flows into the Arctic are fundamental to explain the increasing temperatures there. It asks: From where comes all the additional energy that makes the Arctic winter temperature rise so sharply?<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Watts in<\/em><\/strong> must correspond to watts out<\/em><\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The climate is constantly striving for a basic energy balance: the solar energy coming in must be balanced by an (approximately) equal amount of thermal energy radiating out \u2013 globally:\u00a0Watts in<\/em>\u00a0must correspond to\u00a0watts out<\/em>.This has to be true as a global average, but\u00a0spatially and temporally it is never met<\/em>. See the animation below with the monthly sequence of the radiation balance, from January to December.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n