
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Two new studies have promoted concerns that anthropogenic global warming could cause abrupt cooling in the Northern Hemisphere – the “Day after Tomorrow” scenario.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald;
Two new studies are adding to concerns about one of the most troubling scenarios for future climate change: the possibility that global warming could slow or shut down the Atlantic’s great ocean circulation systems, with dramatic implications for North America and Europe.
The research, by separate teams of scientists, bolsters predictions of disruptions to global ocean currents – such as the Gulf Stream – that transfer tropical warmth from the equator to northern latitudes, as well as a larger conveyor system that cycles colder water into the ocean’s depths. Both systems help ensure relatively mild conditions in parts of Northern Europe that would otherwise be much colder.
The abstract of the first study, lead author Paul Gierz
Climate change can influence sea surface conditions and the melting rates of ice sheets; resulting in decreased deep water formation rates and ultimately affecting the strength of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). As such, a detailed study of the interactive role of dynamic ice sheets on the AMOC and therefore on global climate is required. We utilize a climate model in combination with a dynamic ice sheet model to investigate changes to the AMOC and North Atlantic climate in response to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scenarios for RCP4.5 and RCP6. It is demonstrated that the inclusion of an ice sheet component results in a drastic freshening of the North Atlantic by up to 2 practical salinity units, enhancing high-latitude haloclines and weakening the AMOC by up to 2 sverdrup (106 m3/s). Incorporating a bidirectionally coupled dynamic ice sheet results in relatively reduced warming over Europe due to the associated decrease in heat transport.
The abstract of the second study, lead author Jud Partin
Proxy records of temperature from the Atlantic clearly show that the Younger Dryas was an abrupt climate change event during the last deglaciation, but records of hydroclimate are underutilized in defining the event. Here we combine a new hydroclimate record from Palawan, Philippines, in the tropical Pacific, with previously published records to highlight a difference between hydroclimate and temperature responses to the Younger Dryas. Although the onset and termination are synchronous across the records, tropical hydroclimate changes are more gradual (>100 years) than the abrupt (10–100 years) temperature changes in the northern Atlantic Ocean. The abrupt recovery of Greenland temperatures likely reflects changes in regional sea ice extent. Proxy data and transient climate model simulations support the hypothesis that freshwater forced a reduction in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, thereby causing the Younger Dryas. However, changes in ocean overturning may not produce the same effects globally as in Greenland.
Northern deep freeze studies seem to be fashionable lately, even Michael Mann had a go earlier this year.
Perhaps giant blocks of ice washing up on American beaches is proving difficult to reconcile with the end of snow narrative. Having said that, there has always been a low profile nod towards the possibility of abrupt cooling, which is of course still all our fault. This apparent effort to keep all the options open is beautifully captured by one of my favourite climategate emails.
Climategate email 4141.txt (written in 2004)
In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media, which can become public perception. It provides a new story for the old news that is climate change – a story that has been running since 1985/88.
Last Friday, even NERC put-out a press release that opened ‘British scientists set sail today from Glasgow to begin work aimed at discovering if Britain is indeed in danger of entering the next ice age.’
…
Dear Asher, and all,
I think this is a real problem, and I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming. But somehow I also feel that one needs to add the dimension of the earth system, and the fact that human beings for the first time ever are able to impact on that system.
Let’s not forget folks, that what we are dealing with is “settled science”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did they do their research based on “The Day After Tomorrow”?
Well, let’s say that sometimes I think that Roland Emmerich is a better climate scientist than the warmists…
What this research seems to be really saying is…Don’t worry, Be Happy…in that a Do Nothing scenario will eventually lead back to a Cooling/Cooler Arctic and an advance of Sheet Ice. Seems kind of cyclical to me!!
Reread the article, in the first study, “We utilize a climate model in combination with a dynamic ice sheet model to investigate changes to the AMOC and North Atlantic climate … ”
In other words, they used excrement to the 2nd power.
It’s called hedging and is apparently very popular in financial centres
Exactly Stephen, or more generally : hedging your bets.
There is a diminishing amount of data rigging that can be done at this stage. The “corrections” are down to a tweaking a few more hundredths of a degree of warming.
They are crapping themselves at the possibility that the next random fluctuation may be downwards, and without a good excuse like a major volcano.
By claiming all eventualities *could be” caused by global warming, even global cooling, they can then turn round and say : “this is consistent with what was predicted by global warming models”.
If you have enough models and enough bogus studies going in all directions, you will always have someone who can pop up and say : this is exactly what we predicted.
Crap science, good propaganda.
Global warming hedging is not new.
Global warming‘Climate Change’ leading to northern hemisphere cooling andexpanding ice sheets is not new.
Your are of course correct. It is “very popular in financial centres” such as the ‘Centre For Guaranteeing Continued Climate Change Funding’.
It stopped being about science and became all all about money some time back.
Is Global cooling caused by global Warming a positive or negative feedback it all seems a little confusing.(sarc)
So, during the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period, none of these warmer cycles caused another Ice Age, did they? Not to mention the very first Warm Cycle that ended the previous Ice Age!
This ‘study’ shows how utterly bizarre the global warmists twist history. It is utterly illogical. And they don’t care and hope the general public won’t notice this is insane.
well, you have to remembner they use the “hockey stick” reconstruction where those 3 warm periods don’t exist.
Hey, if they can convince a large number of people that, on a planet encased in bitter cold and ice over much of it’s surface for a significant portion of every year, one or two degrees of warming will be an unimaginable and unsurvivable catastrophe, even for life units which preferentially seek out and thrive on heat and warmth wherever they can find it, then they could probably even sell snowballs to a Senator.
Or rocks to a rockhead.
I rather think we are dealing with hubris. Micro-organisms have a much larger influence on the climate than we could ever get.
Good point! Most people who live in the industrialized West have become so disconnected from the natural biosphere that they grossly overestimate human influence. They are living a sort of “Truman Show” existence and believe that what they experience is the global norm. Every year in Florida there are city folk who come to visit. Because they have only experienced domesticated animals and pets, there are usually a few who get bitten when they try to pet the alligators they see. Yes, really…
Same problem with those “cute bears” in Yellowstone.
and elk, and moose, and bison, and …..
and Alpha male squirrels!!!
You just have to talk to them in a manner that meshes with their values;
Has anyone ever caught one of these people on film trying to pet an alligator? Does that qualify for a Darwinette Award?
Global warming making it colder…. Riiiiight!
But, …. it was in a movie!
Yea! I saw that movie. They had to insulate the library door with stack of books, but the awesome glass windows kept the heat inside, and they were saved! I need that glass.
It was the wood frames on the windows what held the heat in.
Back to square one! If the climate system warms, it’s climatre change! If the climate system cools, it’s climate change! Win win scenario! Of course it’s nothing whatsoever to do with vartiations in Solar output affecting the planet in ways we don’t yet fully understand! It cannot possibly be natural, you can’t tax the Sun!
If we haven’t reached the tipping point by now, we’re close. The climate liars are staring in the face of a lose-lose scenario.
Actually, the Sun is being taxed…if you think about it. All energy on this rock was created with some sun light, and that energy is taxed.
Looks like negative feedback. We will see if it can be served at Penn State and GISS with crow.
What, no cheese with that whine?
Speaking of Penn State… they just lost their 1st football game to tiny Temple U. since 1941. Their football program has suffered since revelations emerged about the corrupt nature of the University system which allowed pedophile coach Jerry Sandusky to continue on for years. As everyone knows, college football brings tremendous wealth to universities and the powers that be at Penn State did not want to upset their lucrative gold mine football program. Now, the University is paying the price. The same sort of “he brings home the bacon” philosophy allows Michael Mann to remain at Penn State, since he is a huge “climate change” grant money magnet. Penn State is hardly alone in such grant- mining corruption, just one of the more obvious practitioners. Some people never learn.
That’s the false narrative of known fudged serial investigator Louise Freeh. Freeh’s PSU report has been debunked, just like his false claims about Richard Jewel and other Freeh Reports were overturned as false. The NCAA had to completely backtrack on all of the Sanctions against Penn State. All scholarships and bowl privileges have been restored and all of the Football Team and Joe Paterno wins were fully restored.
The NCAA was way out of line and got caught up in the dishonest media frenzy. The NCAA over-reacted and they had no evidence to justify their actions.
If anything, the media’s false attacks and their rush to injustice tend to parallel the media’s Global Warming hysteria, where multiple groups got sucked into the false and unsupportable claims.
The prosecutor in the case said that he had seen all of the information and there was no evidence of any coverup by Joe Paterno.
FWIW- The new NCAA guidelines, for what to do if an event gets presented to a manager, exactly parallel what Joe Paterno did at that time.
It’s OK, we are safe. It is just a model so totally detached from reality.
I wonder if anyone is investigating the crazy idea that cooling of the Arctic and of the rest of the world could be caused by global cooling, rather than global warming?
That the same influences that have caused cyclic warm and cold periods in the past, will *gasp* continue to do so in the future?
A radical idea, to be sure, and lacking the appeal of a one-size-fits-all, blame-it-on-the-devil-gas-CO2 theory that jams every possible scenario in one simple meme.
One thing about this new-fangled “CYA science”…the more it changes, the more it stays the same.
Just because weather patterns neigh on to a million years have only had ice ages about 80 to 90 percent of the time, why are we scared of a little warm weather?
Scientists predict wind stops blowing…
…film at 11
Let’s see if I have this right.
A warmer arctic region will slow the rate at which artic ocean waters cool. Which in turn will cause a slow down in the ocean currents. Which in turn will cause less heat to be brought to the arctic, which in turn will cause the arctic to cool and a new ice age will start.
These dudes just don’t understand how negative feedbacks work.
The slowdown in ocean currents, if it were to occur, would merely result in the arctic not warming as much as it otherwise would have. If the arctic were to cool as much as these fools predict, the resulting drop in sea temperatures would resurrect the ocean currents.
They don’t recognise interactions as cyclical, only straight line trends are allowed.
And only if those lines are going up
Mark. Remember that CO2 has magical properties and can cause anything it wants to happen. Think of it like green or red kryptonite.
/sarc
Once again the hubris is staggering. The first time???
I guess whoever wrote that Climate gate email never heard of Atomic bombs. A nuclear war might just have a wee bit of impact on the system. Not to mention man-made bio weapons and viruses. The author probably also missed the part that every living organism, whether human, plant, fish, insect, or fowl has always had an impact on the system.
Maybe the hubris is so staggering because it is concentrated in the tiny bubble these scientists live in.
Apparently the person who wrote that Climate gate email never learned the verb “affect”, either.
We have been impacting upon it since we started organised farming, probably 8-10,000 years ago, and seafaring maybe 5,000 years ago. The biggest impact to date has been the stripping of most forests for fuel and shipbuilding. At one time the UK was mostly dense forest.
We have been impacting on it since we started breathing, not to mention farting.
I’m sitting at a desk (inside a building) situated on a glacial moraine which was covered by a mile thick ice cap a dozen, or so millennia ago. Thankfully, the glacier melted, though with no help from my primitive ancestors’ means of locomotion. Though the Younger Dryas might have interrupted the melting, a bit, there is evidence that world wide cooling was happening about the same time. So, if the Younger Dryas was world wide, where did the heat go? Into Trenberth’s deep Atlantic hot box, where today’s Global Warming is stored? Somehow, I don’t buy either story. If warming can be blamed as causing ice to melt, the explanation has to include credible evidence of what is warming up.
Wait, what?
LOL
It was our ancestors in Europe riding on those Mastodons that caused the Ice Ages to end. You see, the beasts would be upset about the harness and would, like my ox team, protest by expelling digestive gases. This warmed up Europe and melted the glaciers. 🙂
I just can’t figure why this doesn’t make sense to you Tom….try shutting down the reasoning part of your mind, and amplify the emotional part…..See, don’t you fell better now?
Climate scientists have pretty much filled all the bases. The trouble is, there are no more home runs to be made but only foul balls to be caught.
It will be very funny when, 30 years from now, the europeans will start to migrate in Africa or Middle East and will leave the hundred of thousands of today emigrants freeze to death 🙂 So finally the europeans will be the first real “climate emigrants”
That’s also a prediction in “The Day After Tomorrow”. By the end of the movie we see a lot of Americans trying to cross illegaly to Mexico.
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Hey, how did you make that?
Menicholas
The same way this was made…
୧༼ ͡◉ᴥ ͡◉༽୨
Try here: http://kawaiiface.net/
Basically, as the ASCII character set has expanded with all the different languages, it has become possible to produce almost everything.
Aah.
TY.
one reason that the “science” is irreproducible (is that even a word?) is that it is marketing
Uncle, uncle!!!! The laws of physics have been redefined! I just placed a pot of water over medium flame until boiling commenced. Turned the flame to high and the water froze solid! CAGW alarmist conclusion: first we bake and fry then we freeze to death! God (IPCC) help us all!! And to think I was going to abandon my relocation to a more stable climate somewhere on Mercury! Time to go!
Well, Mercury does have a far more stable and predictable climate, you got that right. You can choose between basking beside a lake of molten lead or enjoying the cool refreshment of 100 K that results from a lack of GHGs (or for that matter, any gases at all above a pretty hard vacuum) in a tidally locked planet. Heck, if you look along the terminator between light and dark side, you might even find a valley that stays pretty close to 300K!
Too bad about the lack of atmosphere, though. It’s strictly a bring your own ecology party.
rgb
Ideal for greenies then, Robert !
rgb, problem w/the 300K valley is that if you stood on a shadow line, half of you’d be at boiling lead, and the other half near absolute zero.
( ´_⊃`)( ̄。 ̄)~zzz(O.O)ᕙ(⇀‸↼‶)ᕗ(⊙︿⊙✿)’̿’\̵͇̿̿\=(•̪●)=/̵͇̿̿/’̿̿ ̿ ̿ ̿⊂•⊃_⊂•⊃( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ゚,_ゝ゚)~(⊕⌢⊕)~
Due to Mercury’s (slow) rotation relative to the sun, you’d have to keep looking for new valleys, or give up the vagabond life and settle down at one of the poles. 🙂
Maybe ocean currents will change and freeze Europe but it would be hard to pin that on human emissions given the data. I would like to present two papers. Paper #1 finds that surface temperature explains changes in atmospheric CO2 much better than human emissions do.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2642639
Paper #2 finds that when uncertainty in the flows is taken into consideration in the IPCC AR5 carbon budget, it is no longer clear that rising atmospheric CO2 can be ascribed to human emissions.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2654191
Taken together, the results imply that the relationship between anthropogenic emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 that has been taken for granted in the theory of AGW is not supported by the data.
Thanks Chaam, I’ll give them a read.
There is no doubt about it. We do not have a significant influence on atmospheric CO2. It is a temperature dependent process. But, few will be convinced of it until CO2 starts tracking downward with decreasing temperatures.
That indeed will be the test..
What we need to see over the next couple of decades is cooling at say 0.1degC per decade, and a return to say 1980s/1990s levels of CO2 notwithstanding BAU emissions between now and say 2035.
Of course, if this were to happen, warmists will argue that this is due to expanding carbon sinks (absorbing much more CO2 than man emits), and the reduced levels of CO2 explain the falling temperatures.
There is no winning in this game.
Perhaps a better scenario would be cooling temperatures and rising BAY emissions and rising atmospheric levels of CO2. That would cause the warmists more difficulties, but I consider that there is plenty of merit in the argument that CO2 is a response to temperatures such that if temperatures fall, one would expect some reduction in CO2 (less out gassing from the oceans).
“Of course, if this were to happen, warmists will argue that this is due to expanding carbon sinks (absorbing much more CO2 than man emits), and the reduced levels of CO2 explain the falling temperatures.”
That’s a little too much for a parrot to learn.
I think it will be “climate policy success” or just “climate success”.
“global warming freezing”
I’ve always preferred warm freezing to cool warming, but maybe that’s just me.
More atmospheric CO2 = atmospheric warming
therefore,
more atmospheric CO2 = atmospheric warm freezing
which gives
more atmospheric CO2 = Climate Change of either cooling or warming
And, and, here’s the most important part: there are people who actually believe that!
The science is settled to such a great degree that anything can happen – and will.
Next: CO2 causes cats and dogs to rain down on us.
And here I thought it was frogs!
Why is it that climate “scientists” remind me of a hippy puffing on weed whilst speaking incoherently about defeating the Establishment?
You are giving some of the “climate scientists” way too much respect.
/grin
Because they probably are, at least I hope so, because they need an excuse for their stupidity!
Aha, the old “global warming causes cooling” shibboleth again. They do try and keep all the bases covered
The next thing we know, they’ll be blaming us for this horrid, cold summer we’ve been having – probably due to us having affected the jet stream with our profligate consumption, or some other such nonsense.
Actually, haven’t they already tried that one..?!
Someone on our local neighbourhood website firmly declared two days ago that CO2 affected the course of the jet stream. I was roundly abused when I asked ‘How?’. Thank heavens they no longer burn witches in England or I would be toast!
Yes indeed, the swivel-eyed global warming alarmists do NOT take kindly to being asked for an explanation which they cannot satisfactorily give!
A good one to ask them next time they’re banging on about it is: “Why was it so much warmer in medieval times than it is now – when vikings settled in Greenland, grew crops and livestock and buried their dead in thawed ground (which is now permafrost, of course)?”
‘Light the touchpaper and stand back’, as it were!
They seem to have abandoned the fact that cold is simply the absence of heat, not an energy of itself. Next there will be claims that energy of darkness is being amplified by human activities and we are harming the solar farms.
Obviously a bleed-over from a different instance of the rules of physics in the multiverse.
Pointman
Cthulhu is probably endothermic… 🙂
He works for NOAA now.
Well, I’m pretty sure the temperature in R’Lyeh is around 4 C, so endo or exo, he lies dreaming in the cold. Lovecraft no doubt found these temperatures (and those around the Mountains of Madness) horrifying, because he was hypersensitive to the cold and once collapsed because of a sudden temperature shift in a single day. He would have loved “global warming”, assuming that he or anybody else could detect it in their anecdotal life experience living in a single location. After all, the total global warming since 1850 is less than 1 C in all the anomaly models, and this 1 C has to be compared to an annual variation of perhaps 50 C throughout most of the temperate and polar regions, as well as year to year or day to day local variations much larger than this.
Or, we could express it in terms of latitude and growing zones. A growing zone in the US is defined to be a specific 10 F minimum temperature range. While there is a lot of topology in growing zone maps (which depend on e.g. height above sea level and location in the jet stream as much as on “strictly latitude”) on average a growing zone, a bit over 5 C, is perhaps 250 miles across north to south across the US. What we are talking about as all of the climate change that has occurred from 1850 to the present so far is the moral equivalent of moving from Goldsboro to Durham in NC. Goldsboro’s average temperature is 62.05°F. Durham’s is 59°F. Oops, that is too far — a shift of 1.7 C, almost twice the supposed climate shift since 1850, probably because Goldsboro is roughly 60 crow-flying miles closer to the coast than Durham, even though it is only maybe 30 miles further south. If we round our a list of nearby cities/airports: Raleigh NC (20 miles away) is 60.8°F or just about exactly 1 C warmer, RDU airport (in between is 60.45°F, Burlington (around 30 miles) is 59.6°F, Smithfield (40 miles) is 59.75°F (and located directly in between Raleigh and Goldsboro and yet it’s a full degree F cooler than Raleigh and well over 2 F cooler than Goldsboro, go figure).
People just don’t have any perspective on this. 0.7 C is pretty much exactly the total global anomaly from 1900 to the present. This is the scale of the climate shift that is supposedly going to wipe out whole species of (fill in your favorite small fluffy animal, pretty little wildflower, ecologically important insect, endangered freshwater clam, whatever) any year now. If I dig up a plant in my back yard and carry it to somebody’s yard in Raleigh, a twenty-five minute drive East, the plant will clearly suffer from the “climate shift”, and if I tried taking it to Goldsboro at 1.7 C warmer, that’s very close to the climate shift expected from a doubling of CO_2 alone with no feedback and could end up being the total anomaly shift by 2100 very easily indeed, even according to the IPCC, even if we do little to nothing about CO2.
Obviously, any plant or animal growing happily in my back yard is doomed if I drive it to Goldsboro and let it go or plant it there. The climate shift will be too severe! It will languish and die!
Right.
Most people — let’s try again — no human being alive could detect a climate difference between Durham and Raleigh, or Durham and Chapel Hill, or Durham and Smithfield, or even Durham and Goldsboro. They’re all in the same growing zone. On any given day, at any given hour, one or another of the these will be warmer or cooler than the others, and if we actually measured temperatures in the country — where I live, for example, as opposed to at the airport or at some downtown location — we might find that there is a 1 C shift from one part of Durham to another without even leaving the city limits. Azaleas dug up in Forest Hills are clearly doomed if they are transplanted to Loch’nora.
This is sheer lunacy. This is the “warming signal” that is supposedly being resolved by the process that produces the global anomaly, the climate shift we are all supposed to fear, the climate shift that will lead to mass extinctions and worse.
Or is it just climate noise?
That, my friends, is so very, very, difficult a question to answer. It is very difficult to answer now that the averages I’m reporting have been “adjusted” using techniques that deliberately smooth out the noise inherent in the direct measurements and supposedly correct for things like instrumentation changes or time of observation changes or location changes, each with a small pile of assumptions that are very difficult to retroactively go back and “prove” as the proof once again requires the separation of a presumed signal from unknown noise plus unknown natural variation. Goldsboro very likely does have a slightly different climate, as it is on the border between the piedmont and the coastal plain of NC, and is right at the tip of the “sandhills” region as well. Maps of NC precipitation show huge differences as one sweeps across these different geographical locations — the sandhills seem to favor thunderstorm formation relative to the piedmont, and the coastal plain gets a lot more than either one. There is a strong correlation between precipitation and elevation and surface topography and temperature even within a growing zone:
http://climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/sandhills_July_precip_big.jpg
(the red band outlines the Sandhills).
Climate models, of course, are blind to most of this. Cell sizes are typically at least 100×100 km, which could put Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Smithfield, and Goldsboro all in a single cell and assign that cell a single temperature, a single probability of generating a thunderstorm. But there is a two inch difference in the average July rainfall in Durham and in the Sandhills region only fifty miles south, or in Goldsboro sixty miles east by southeast. The cell size cannot even resolve the variations in rainfall and climate models, as far as I know, are completely blind to the variations in underlying soil types evidenced by this map:
http://climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/sandhills_soils_big.jpg
that are clearly correlated with the precipitation, surface albedo, heat transport variations associated with summer thunderstorms (which are further convolved with height above sea level and position in the general atmospheric circulation patterns and the state of the locally relevant decadal oscillation patterns and their phases, the AO and NAO):
https://climate.ncsu.edu/climate/patterns/NAO.html
At a guess, natural shifts in almost any of these patterns can likely produce decadal or inter-climate-model-cell “climate” shifts as large or larger than any predicted to be “catastrophic”, shifts that naturally lead to floods or droughts or heat waves or cold snaps that are “extreme” compared to some sort of ill-defined running mean that “climate shift” is supposedly referred back to.
rgb
We share a quarky sense of humour …
Pointman
It’s official, all changes are our fault.
So will we enter the new ice age before, while or after the seas boil dry? Enquiring minds want to know!
“You know nothing, john snow”