From RESEARCH ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS and the “goodbye climate disruption” department, comes this study that might very well explain why we have less landfalling U.S. hurricanes, less tornadoes, and extreme weather of all kinds seems to be waning.
Climate instability over the past 720,000 years
Ice core analysis from Dome Fuji, Antarctica and climate simulation
A research group formed by 64 researchers from the National Institute of Polar Research, the University of Tokyo, and other organizations analyzed atmospheric temperatures and dust for the past 720,000 years using an ice core obtained at Dome Fuji in Antarctica. Results indicate that when intermediate temperatures occurred within a glacial period, the climate was highly unstable and fluctuated. A climate simulation was also performed based on the Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model, which revealed that the major cause of the observed climate instability was global cooling by a decline in the greenhouse effect.
Climate instability severely impacts both the Earth’s natural environment and human society. In the continued effort for understanding how global warming could affect climate instability, it is important to identify periods in the past that experienced climate instability. These periods need to be studied and modeled to clarify any potential causes of the observed instability. However, little progress has been made in improving our documenting and understanding of climate instability prior to the last glacial period.
The research groups of Dr. Kenji Kawamura and Dr. Hideaki Motoyama (National Institute of Polar Research) analyzed the Second Dome Fuji ice core (Fig. 1, left) that were obtained as part of the Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE) between 2003 and 2007. Their team reproduced fluctuations in the air temperature and dust (solid particulate matter carried by the atmosphere) in the Antarctic for the past 720,000 years (Fig. 1, right).
They combined this with data from the Dome C ice core drilled by a European team to obtain highly robust paleoclimate data. They examined these data, discovering that for the past 720,000 years, the intermediate climate within glacial periods was marked by frequent climate fluctuations (Fig. 2).
This raised a question: Why does the most instability occur when there is an intermediate climate during a glacial period, rather than during an interglacial period, such as we are currently experiencing, or during the coldest part of a glacial period? The research group of Dr. Ayako Abe-Ouchi (University of Tokyo) used a climate model (MIROC) to first reproduce three types of background climate conditions–the interglacial period, intermediate climate within a glacial period, and the coldest part of a glacial period. They then performed a simulation that added the same quantity of fresh water to the northern part of the North Atlantic Ocean in each of the three climate conditions. This simulation was performed using the Earth Simulator supercomputer at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC). The simulation results indicated that the response to freshwater inflow is maximized during the intermediate climate that occurs within glacial periods, causing the climate to become unstable (Fig. 3 A-C).
An important factor affecting climate instability is the vulnerability of Atlantic deep water circulation during global cooling resulting from a decrease in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (Fig. 3 D-E). Until now, the primary factor for climatic instability was thought to be the existence and instability of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere, but this experiment has revealed that carbon dioxide is another important factor, determining not only the average state of the climate, but also the long-term stability of the climate. These results also suggest that future stability in the present interglacial period, which has continued for more than 10,000 years, is not guaranteed. Indeed, if significant melting of the Greenland ice sheet occurs due to anthropogenic warming, it might destabilize the climate.
According to Dr. Kawamura, “Due to anthropogenic emissions, the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have reached a level not seen over the past million years. Large climate components, such as ice sheets and the oceans that have vast size and longtime scales for variations, will undoubtedly change. It will become even more important to combine the climate reconstructions and numerical simulations for the periods when the global environment was much different than it is today, to understand the Earth system by verifying its mechanisms.”
###
The study results have been published in the on-line journal, Science Advances.
Full study, open access is here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/2/e1600446.full
Fewer hurricanes, not less, please.
Beat me to the punch . Also fewer tornadoes.
Fewer, but also lesser.
If you can’t count how many “fewer,” better to go with “less.” While we can count what has occurred, we must speculate how many more weather events might have occurred given a “colder climate.” As the precise difference in the number of weather events is not calculable but can only be assigned a relative value, it would seem “less,” is the proper usage. For example we had fewer hurricanes this year than last, and expect to have even less, next year.
Fewer hurricanes, less hurricane activity.
Tendentiously I usually use “less” fewer times than I use “fewer” but occasionally, if I’m feeling less biased, I use each the other way round …and vice versa.
As a retired teacher of English, I must respectfully disagree. “Fewer” is used with count nouns, such as hurricanes, cars, and the like; such nouns have both singular and plural forms. “Less” is used with non-count nouns such as milk, sugar, air, and the like; in ordinary circumstances, such nouns don’t have plural forms and can’t be directly counted. Thus, “fewer” is appropriate for hurricanes, now, in the past, in the future, whether we can know the exact count right now or not. While “milk” is a non-count noun, “glass of milk” contains a count noun, glass, so we can say, “My class today consumed 21 glasses of milk; tomorrow it should consume fewer [glasses], since the girls will be away for a volleyball match, leaving only the boys to drink milk.”
[The mods note that, with fewer girls nearby, the remaining boys will either follow the girls to the volleyball match and drink more cases there; or remain locally and consume more beers from more cases here using fewer glasses. Less milk will be drunk from fewer cases in either case, though more drunks will likely occur in both cases. .mod]
Use either in this paleo narrative, just as long as it is not used to promote a false or “propaganda” type narrative. NO SPIN ZONE!!!
LOL!
The study does not seem to get into the causation of the relatively stable periods.
“…which revealed that the major cause of the observed climate instability was global cooling by a decline in the greenhouse effect.” Gotta get that CO2 causes warming plug in there.
But doesn’t the Obverse indicate that Lowering the CO2 level will lead to global cooling and thereby more unstable weather/Climate
A water vapor is 75x more potent of a greenhouse gas, and that CO2 levels follow global temperature (rather than precede it), perhaps the relevance is that atmospheric water vapor is condensing out more than CO2 levels are increased. Ambiguity in word choice and structure leaves it open to interpretation.
Of Course
AGW
Ambiguous Generalized Wording
The study does not seem to get into the causation of the relatively stable periods.
Not sure if its applicable, but:
1. Arctic Amplification tends to reduce the pole-to-equator gradient which has the effect of reducing the amount of air mass exchange between high and low latitudes to balance energy. This probably also reduces the resulting distortions.
2. Increased Water Vapor tends to increase the amount of thermal energy (latent in addition to sensible) that a given air mass contains. So thermal energy exchange ( to smooth out imbalances ) occurs more efficiently.
“… but this experiment has revealed that carbon dioxide is another important factor …”
But, this experiment is also based on models that overemphasize the effect of CO2.
And actually not an experiment at all. They get a pass because English is not their primary language, but as for the editors, I think it’s safe to question their science literacy.
This “experiment” reveals nothing except the assumptions programmed into the climate model. Since the whole of current climatology is centred on “proving” CO2 is the control knob of climate, that is what you get when you run such an “experiment”. GIGO.
As is typical in this field, they do not realise that they are doing experiments on the behaviour of a model and mistakenly present this like it actually tells us something about the Earth’s climate system.
From a team that do not seem to understand the difference between frequency and period, labelling their “frequency” axis in units of years and then stating in annotations “extremely low frequencies” on a part of the graph showing extremely large numbers of the “frequency” axis, I would not give this much more weight than any other climatology garbage we get every week of every year.
Very good Greg; I have really hard time understanding this whole IPCC AGW phenomenon – how could otherwise reasonable people act like mindless parrots? I would understand if someone came from behind the stage at one of those “conferences” and said: “Tss, mister, gotta tell ya, we all do it to preserve the fossil fuels for the times when we’ll really need them.”
Otherwise, I can visualize Mr. Bean devil character (as in Bean Hell) in a huge parka greeting the frozen-dead to the Hell pointing out the IPCC members and other AGW proponents saying: “Line up over there; and, don’t you feel like little nitwits?”
There’s no evidence the solar system has always been static. In fact, uniformitarianism recently took a bi hit when Göbekli Teki showed the record of a comet strike roughly 13kBC. Those spikes in the long term record are likely evidence things were much different before the relative temperature plateau we’re in.
And yes, it’s fewer, not less… ;o)
Correction: 11kBC, not 13…
http://ancientufo.org/2017/04/gobekli-tepe-confirms-deadly-comet-strike-ancient-past/
“Ancient UFO
Your trustworthy source about ancient astronaut theories”
No kidding. Some of the people posting here never cease to amaze me.
The University of Edinburgh will be surprised to be conflated with UFO loons but probably won’t be surprised at someone jumping to conclusions to dick up the Internet.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/04/21/ancient-stone-carvings-confirm-comet-struck-earth-10950bc-wiping/
For Javier’s information ; the whole article is available open access from “Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry ”
http://www.maajournal.com/Issues2017a.php
The authors are from the School of Engineering at Edinburgh University
The journal seems a serious one , the article before the Gobekli tepe one is titled :
ARCHAEOMETRIC CONTRIBUTION TO THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LATE BRONZE AGE “HOARD” FROM PORTO DO CONCELHO (MACAO, CENTRAL PORTUGAL) (pp.217-231)
and the one after :
BIOARCHAEOLOGY, CONSERVATION AND DISPLAY OF A 16K-HUMAN SKELETON, JORDAN (pp.251-263)
Why is it that so often warmists are completely unable to take advantage of the staggering amount of free and genuine information that Google makes available at the touch of a mouse and just make shallow comments .
I read that story when it first came out.
Speculation based on wishful thinking with a strong does of confirmation bias on top.
It’s all based on a wild interpretation of what a couple of symbols on a stone tablet mean.
Let me get this straight. These people find a stone with animal carvings. They belief the animals do not represent animals but constellations. They have no idea when the stone was carved because it cannot be dated, but it cannot be older than 11,000 years ago (the oldest age for the start of the temple), although it could be younger. These people say the stone represents the sky 2000 years earlier (13000 thousand years ago). They say they have reconstructed the constellations over Turkey (they are the same as anyplace near that latitude, by the way, so the Turkey remark is silly) and they can clearly recognize the animals (really, really precise match there, huh?). They say they also recognize a swarm of comets hitting the earth (some Turkish smoking, right?) They have no idea how that knowledge if it existed could have been transmitted for 2000 years without writing. Perhaps the stone was being transmitted from father to son in the hope of somebody inventing a temple someday to put it there. After all 2000 years is nothing for knowledge transmission in the Stone Age.
They get to publish that stuff in a really shitty journal, “Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry.” Which goes to show that anything can be published these days. Then an ignorant journalist from a shitty newspaper the telegraph, reports it. And an UFO internet site, despite the story not having UFOs or ancient astronauts, believes is fringe enough for them.
And then you go and actually believe this holds the key to what happened in the Younger Drias. Give me a break. I happen to have a nice really big statue of a lady in a small island at the entrance of NY city. Are you interested?
Gosh, why do we need science when we have astrology and UFOs?
Funny, because when you frame it like that, Javier, I am left with little doubt as to what you elect to believe.
“For Javier’s information ; the whole article is available open access from “Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry ”
Why is it that so often warmists are completely unable to take advantage of the staggering amount of free and genuine information that Google makes available at the touch of a mouse and just make shallow comments .”
So, there’s actually TWO people believing this stuff here. How amazing. One can never underestimate the capacity of people to believe in unbelievable things.
You may have me there, Javier. I admit to two traic failings: The first is that on all my years of trying I find I’ve yet to turn a fallacist. The second is that no matter how much I try, I’ve failed to shake the inverse correlation between his boorishness and that conversion rate.
I’ll leave it to you to determine if you’ve rightly divined my beliefs, such as they may be. Regardless, I suspect this must be that place on the Internet where we shriek realities at one another until one of us is absolutely convinced of the other’s omniscience.
It’s probably why they invented the thing, no?
Translation: I reject your reality and substitute my own.
Javier May 2, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Astrology (to a point), ancient UFOs and creationism are all kosher here, but the gravity hypothesis of atmospheric heating, which at least has some scientific support, isn’t.
Go figure!
Gobekli Tepe???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6bekli_Tepe
I thought the fewer-less battle was lost, although, out of habit, I can’t abandon ‘fewer’. I suspect the those in the fewer camp are older folks like me. I still shudder at “oversight committee”, which meant it’s opposite until an illiterate congressman first misused it. Of course “lesser” is all but banished.
Probably but as time goes we grow fewer and farther between
The “irregardless” battle is lost. The using “me” as a subject is lost. Languages change over time. Now if they could change the spelling of “victuals” back to “vittles,” we might be gaining ground.
Jim
Bryan A
That should be “lesser, and with bigger gaps.”
I’m still skirmishing further/farther.
My Father was always partial to futher to further or farther
In Britain the pedants were able to nag the supermarkets into changing the signs to “Fewer than ten items”. No such success here in Australia, though. And all my energy is taken up in dealing with misplaced commas.
The site’s tag line says “Your trusted site for ancient astronaut theories”.
Now that’s a contradiction in terms.
Talk about jumping to conclusions! Watch one of those UFO tv shows! I would be embarrassed to present pure speculation as fact publicly week after week like they do. I guess they get paid a lot of money to do it. I can’t watch. Their crazy claims remind me a lot of alarmist climate science theories.
There methodology seems to go something like this.
We found an ancient drawing. The figure in the drawing doesn’t look human.
Ergo, we have proof that aliens visited the earth in ancient times.
Göbekli Teki dates from at most 11,500 years ago, ie ~9500 BC, not 15 or even 13 Ka. It was abandonded around 7000 BC. It’s too late for the hypothesized but evidence-free Younger Dryas impact, 12,900 calendar years ago BP, which means before 1950.
The solar system has been stable for around 3.8 billion years, ie the end of the Late Heavy Bombardment (if that actually happened). At least the planets have been in their present order since then, if not exactly the same orbital distances. The gas giants might have formed closer to the sun and migrated outward, a possible explanation for the LHB.
That comets were visible 11,500 years ago isn’t surprising, since they still are. And meteors still fall to earth.
I like it when you promote theory as if it were eyewitnessed undisputed fact.
Chimp,
The solar system is far from stable. All of the planets all have elliptical orbits, most of which are more elliptical than the Earth’s and which affects each others ellipticity. In fact, even the order of the planets isn’t stable since Pluto and Neptune occasionally reverse positions as being the furthest from the Sun. (Please don’t argue whether Pluto is a planet or not …).
…incidentally, the standard record puts BT at not less than 10,500 BP, so Edinburgh finding a record of roughly 11,000 BC isn’t controversial.
http://maajournal.com/Issues/2017/Vol17-1/Sweatman%20and%20Tsikritsis%2017(1).pdf
co2isnotevil May 2, 2017 at 1:51 pm
The orbits are eccentric doesn’t mean they’re unstable.
I thought someone might mention Pluto. It is not a planet. That its orbit, which takes it inside Neptune’s, is more like that of a comet than a planet is just one of the reasons why it is not a planet.
Ten May 2, 2017 at 2:23 pm
The Edinburgh engineers’ date conflicts with that of all other researchers at the site.
That a paper gets published doesn’t mean it’s valid. It’s based upon their interpretation, which was made up before they started.
Chimp, that a consensus exists doesn’t mean it’s not derived from theory. Here’s an obvious one: The Big Bang, a mathematical model perpetually impossible to submit to the letter of science; a mathematical model that by no merit of its own has been transmuted into accepted scientific fact anyway.
You get the idea. Whether archeology instantaneously agrees in a specific theory is no more a proof than general relativity is in a quantum universe.
Don’t mistake me with an archeologist, not that you have or would, obviously. But the history of climate strongly suggests that Earth hasn’t been in a perpetual uniformitarian state, much less this solar system.
I don’t know if, for example, Saturn was a wandering brown dwarf or if orbits aren’t stable. I don’t know if 10,950 was reliably marked down – in mankind’s very long history of being moved to make cataclysmic art – or not. But I think ice cores tell us we’re in a new equilibrium. That’s all.
Extrapolating them back to forever is what the original article assumes. That’s not highly plausible.
Chimp,
Stable means unchanging while the orbits are constantly changing as a consequence of the orbits of other bodies. Even the orbit of the Moon is not stable relative to the Earth as it moves a little further away with each orbit. My point is that 3.8 billion years ago, the orbits of the planets would not be anything close to what they are today, the Moon would consume a large portion of the sky, days would be shorter, years would have more days and the Earth would be closer to the Sun.
To a large extent, it’s the variability in the Earth’s orbit that’s the prime driver of glaciation and going back only a million years we have experienced many periods both warmer and far colder than today’s modern climate optimum.
There is another factor that I see affecting climate stability: The surface albedo feedback. There is some temperature range where variability of sunlight reflection by snow and ice is greatest. That would be a temperature where snow and ice cover would expose a lot of land or sea to a lot of sunlight if it shrank, and would cool a lot of surface to below freezing if it expanded.
Donald,
And how does cloud cover correlate with snow and ice cover? I would intuitively expect a positive correlation. Thus, most of the sunlight would never penetrate to the surface and encounter the snow and ice.
Clyde: So you think making a region snowier/icier (and colder) would make it cloudier? Would that not mean positive cloud albedo feedback to temperature change? Although I think the cloud albedo feedback on average is indeed positive (although less so than IPCC thinks along with water vapor feedback being less positive than its constant relative humidity figure), I have not noticed the (negative) correlation between temperature and cloudiness being great. And snow/ice cover does not produce as much water vapor as ocean water surface, moist soil or most vegetated land.
The climate has two natural states where sensitivity low. During transitions, sensitivity is higher.
That much is clear. The study is sound with regards to the observations.
But are we convinced that fresh water oscillations are the source of the instability during the transitions?
I’m not.
As for extreme weather events, as opposed to climate instability: Most weather systems other than tropical cyclones and some low-wind rainstorms are powered by horizontal temperature gradients. Since the Arctic is warming more than the tropics, this would mean most extreme weather events other than tropical cyclones and some low-wind rainstorms would get milder in the northern hemisphere. As for tropical cyclones: We have been getting lucky lately, and their trends have varied greatly for reasons other than global temperature. Thankfully, the tropical and subtropical oceans are warming less than the world as a whole, so most variation of tropical cyclone trends will probably continue to be from factors other than increasing greenhouse gases.
Agreed, Temperature gradients and Pressure gradients drive intensity of mixing. I have long felt that as polar temperatures warm and the temperature differential lessens between high latitudes and low latitudes the storm intensities should lessen.
File under “No Schist, Sherlock”. The meme of more extreme weather was always the nadir of AGW prevarication. Weather fronts are driven by temperature differentials, not absolute temperature.
Not just by temperature. Also by pressure differentials. The two are not the same either.
They generally go hand in hand.
“According to Dr. Kawamura, “Due to anthropogenic emissions, the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have reached a level not seen over the past million years.”
The primary greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.
Water Vapour atmospheric concentrations are between 10,000 and 50,000 ppm and has the lions share in terms of contributing to warming. Why is water vapour just ignored or even just a backdrop for CO2?
Because you can’t tax humidity nor use it as an excuse to redistribute wealth.
Amen sister. Truer words were never spoken.
+100
Why is H2O ignored…because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Fossil fuels and ’emissions’ are why the climate is in such a predicament. FF are why the fewer hurricanes are so much more powerful 😉 FF are why we are sailing through the arctic NW passage 😉 FF are the reason why the ground floor apartments on the lower east side are underwater secondary to SLR 😉 The warmists can wrongfully blame FF and therefore demand we curb the burning FF for the ongoing life on this planet. The warmists know we cannot do anything about water vapour (notwithstanding planetary warming always preceded increased CO2 levels in the historical record indicating CO2 does not cause warming). [ 😉 = sarc ]
FF are not necessarily Why we are sailing through the NW passage but they are HOW we are doing it
In about 399,850 of the past 400,000 years, CO2 change generally lagged global temperature change, despite reinforcing global temperature change. This was a positive feedback. Back then, the sum of carbon in the atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere was largely constant. Temperature change changed the balance between atmospheric CO2 and CO2 (and bicarbonate, etc.) dissolved in ocean water. More recently, humans started transferring large amounts of carbon from the lithosphere to the atmosphere. Unlike most of the time between 400,000 years ago and the industrial revolution, we have warming temperatures and nature removing CO2 from the atmosphere for global year-round figures. This is true to the extent of year-by-year every year since the late 1950s, when remote rural observatories for atmospheric CO2 started getting established. The one at Mauna Loa is not the only one, but merely the “most official” one. Global usage of fossil fuels and other major industrial activities that affect atmospheric CO2 can be tracked to a fair extent, and the Tyndall Centre does that.
I just looked up the lowest RH% ever recorded and found an online calculator to calculate it to ppm.
http://go.vaisala.com/humiditycalculator/5.0/
At 93 F with 1% RH in Australia, the record for the lowest concentration of atmospheric water vapor was recorded, 523 ppm. So even at the extreme lowest concentrations, there is still more water vapor than CO2 in the air.
These places on Earth that have average RHs anywhere close to this record (Sahara, Atacama, Poles) also happen to be areas of the atmosphere that have a net loss of heat according to TERRA and CERES satellite data. This is basically empirical evidence that squashes the CAGW meme and when I bring this evidence in front of Warmists, they tend to scatter like roaches.
Highest concentration ever measured, 105 F at 95 F dewpoint, 58,975 ppm. In case any warmists are reading, 58,975 > 400.
RW: Must have been in South Texas in August.
RWturner: And what is the current rate of increase of water vapor concentration? Because if it isn’t increasing steadily, then we are talking about a background level, plus or minus some variance. Say, 29750 +/- 29225 ppm or thereabouts. I’m not sure how the global average might be skewed relative to the midpoint.
If there is a steady increase, and we know it can never exceed 100% RH, then it can’t be sustained indefinitely without a temperature increase. Although, what do you know, the temperature *is* increasing.
ScottM
A lot of the water in the atmosphere is in supersaturated air, well above 100% RH. Unless particles (cloud condensation nuclei) come along, it remains in that gaseous state.
I wonder if models ‘simplify’ this holding that RH100% is as high as it can go.
There is a great deal of supersaturated air in a hurricane as almost all the particles have been swept down with the rain.
Without H2S, SO2 an black carbon, it would rain a lot less than it does now. Super-clean = super-drought.
Factchecking 93 F (33.9 C) at 1% RH being the dryest place in the world: Water vapor pressure at 33.9 C is 39.7 mmHg to the nearest .1 mmHg, and 1% of this is .397 mmHg or 52.9 pascals.. This is the equilibrium vapor pressure of water vapor over ice at about -26.8 degrees C, or -16.2 degrees F. It has been known to get a lot colder than that on this planet, with relative humidity not exceeding 100%, even at altitudes below 1,000 feet (~300 meters) where the air pressure is around/over 96% of that at sea level.
Something else to consider: Even though the atmosphere has a lot more water vapor than CO2, and even though water vapor is causing more greenhouse gas effect than CO2, the greenhouse gas effect per unit amount of greenhouse gas is greater for CO2. Also, changing the temperature of the world changes the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, resulting in positive feedback. (Although I think a little less positive than the amount considered by IPCC as being most probable.)
Whoops, good point Don. The lowest vapor pressures are definitely at the poles, just looking at the weather forecast shows it’s common to have dew points in the -80 range, even with RH greater than 50%. Let me qualify that as the driest air outside the poles.
But it’s certainly not probable that there is net positive feedbacks from increasing CO2. CO2 flux in the atmosphere is typically a feedback itself, certainly it has been for the past 3 million years during the glacial cycles. If there were a net positive feedback from increasing CO2, in turn creating an even greater net positive feedback from increased water vapor, the climate system would have ran haywire long ago.
Oops. 😀
“Lower temperatures result in low climate variability; higher temperatures result in low climate variability. But CO2 results in WE’RE GONNA DIE!! WE’RE GONNA DIE!!” Models.
“These results also suggest that future stability in the present interglacial period, which has continued for more than 10,000 years, is not guaranteed. ”
It never was. We will be really lucky if this inter glacial does not end. Already we are 2 degrees cooler than at the beginning of the interlude. The last time we were this warm was about 110,000 years ago and modern humans hadn’t even left Africa.
That assumes a uniformitarian terran past. The core record disputes that, a factor that needs to be included in these speculative studies.
Over 10K years, there weren’t enough changes to the topography to matter.
Intermediate climate within an a glacial period, AKA, interstadial. Were they being graded by how many words the research publication had?
And how sciencey they sounded. Extra credit for ‘robust.’
I am curious about their models showing that the tropics were slightly warmer during max-glaciation. Are their models suggesting that the prime cause max glaciation is a slowdown in heat transfer from the tropics to poles?
Just in case anyone here still has any doubt as to this being a completely political fight now (I do think all of those people have finally given up arguing against that idea) the Dem candidate for the open House seat in Montana said recently that any “denier” who did not believe in “climate change” should go into a garage, turn on the car, and stay til they die.
This is official Democrat Party Dogma now.
not to say there isn’t some comedy here – this is yet another “sciency” goober who never bothered to learn that even though CO and CO2 both have that big “C” and big “O” in them, they aren’t actually the same thing.
Modern cars don’t produce enough CO to harm anyone any way. Even during warm up.
That is possibly the most dangerous statement I ever saw posted anywhere.
Unless of course you meant CO2
Er no Birdynum. Modern cars do not emit carbon monoxide. At all. They tend to go from unburnt fuel to nothing but water CO2 and nitrogen very quickly as the catalytic convertor warms up.
CO is an emissions test FAIL.
So killing yourself with car exhausts is pretty much a thing of the past.
You MIGHT get an overdose of CO2 and suffocate, but you won’t get poisoned.
Actually, modern cars do produce enough to kill you, if you leave the car running, shut the garage door and let the fumes leak into your house. Guarantee it will kill you.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/lake-county-news-sun/news/ct-keyless-ignition-risk-met-20150618-story.html
Im not about to sit in the garage with the motor running to find out if my car is classified as modern and the catalytic converter is working properly.
Thanks all the same but point taken.
Leo Smith
The cause of death from car exhaust was always CO2 overload. Death by CO takes time. Once the far more plentiful CO2 is high enough, lights out immediately.
Even those with electric cars?
Even if models support our position, I’m jaundiced enough to ignore those too because there are just too many variables to account for. I don’t want us to be tagged with the idea we like models only when they favor our narrative.
Also declining hurricanes and tornadoes may just be a temporary phenomenon in the class of weather rather than climate.
There are a few things wrong with this study. There is no evidence that a radiant greenhouse effect exists anywhere in the solar system, including the Earth. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. Their simulation results are make believe. We must all remember that the previous interglacial period, the Eemian, was warmer than this one with more ice cap melting and higher sea levels yet CO2 levels were lower than today. One would expect that a greater temperature difference between the polar regions and the tropics would cause stronger winds and with stronger winds more intense extreme weather conditions.
Mate there is barely anything right with this study.
Its a model (‘simulation’) construct, and simulations are only as good as the rules built in. Which are usually a bust.
As I said the simulations are really a form of make believe. They hard code in that more CO2 causes warming so that is what their simulation results show. Then they try to use their simulation results as evidence that more CO2 causes warming. The whole process begs the question and is of no value. Another concern about simulations is that much of what they are doing may be numerically unstable so that much of their results may be for a function of the numerical instability then the physics of the phenomena under investigation.
“There are a few things wrong with this study. …One would expect that a greater temperature difference between the polar regions and the tropics would cause stronger winds and with stronger winds more intense extreme weather conditions.”
A main thing is that there is no evidence that when Earth has been warmer, that such periods have more violent weather. A problem is that believers don’t want to remind themselves and others that there has times when Earth has been warmer than at the present time.
Or more recently, roughly half or more of the Holocene has been as warm or warmer than the present. Instead if you pick time period of say 1 million years to present, a very large portion of this million years was much cooler than the present time- and humans more primitive than humans in last several centuries, managed to live thru it.
Anyhow, the main factor of having a warmer Earth is the global surface ocean water being warmer, and colder Earth is having a smaller portion of the surface waters being warmer.
This is indisputable and this actually a problem to understanding. One has the simple fact that there is more ocean surface area than compared to land area- and this has been true for billions of years. Or if the realty was there was more land area than ocean area one could say that warmth of land area ‘controls” global temperature.
But there is more to it. Ocean waters warm land areas and land ares don’t warm ocean water.
Land surface areas become hotter than ocean surfaces, but the hotter daytime conditions land regions, mostly radiate this heat into space. One could say Ocean waters inhibts land areas from freezing at night and and land area do nothing to prevent ocean surface from getting colder at night. Ocean retain the heat better than land areas. And the average temperature temperature of world’s ocean is higher than average temperature of the world’s land area. And this would true even if the world’s surface area was 1/2 ocean and 1/2 land area. And since world’s ocean instead is is 70% Ocean to Land, it’s a greater effect. And an even greater effect because more than 70% of surface in the tropics in ocean area.
Getting back to what causes more of the Earth ocean surface area being warmer, it seems obvious factor is having a higher average ocean temperature. Or currently ours is about 3 C, if the average ocean temperature was instead 10 C, one would have a warmer world. Or at all times in which the earth average temperature is warm, the Earth surface is warmer.
And roughly when average ocean temperature is warmer, one should less violent weather and when it’s colder, have more violent weather- because the ocean would warm the land and higher latitudes, more, but you should have more rain, or if rainfall is bad, then it would be worse weather. Or a warmer world has more tropical conditions.
I’ve been saying this, more or less, for twenty-plus years, just through simple observation.
Probably one of the first climate modelling exercises that may be validated by reality of what is actually happening. !!
Of course, the introductory paragraph is wrong, since there hasn’t been any statistical warming, it’s had no effect on storms to speak of.
If you read their paper, they ran two simulations with a change in ice sheets and C02.
They then compare those two runs and the apparently ONLY thing they got out of those was C02 is more important then we thought. We they never stop jumping on that!? HOW did they even come close to drawing this conclusion? Could someone else read that part and tell me?
By programming it into the model in the first place
Yep. Its the old think of a number game.
‘think of a number…add ten…subtract the number you first thought of’
…and the answer is ten, which proves I can read your mind…
When they hard code in that more CO2 causes warming, they beg the question and the simulations become useless.
Warmunistas here always attack when I point out that colder is windier than warmer, as shown by wind speeds on other planets.
It does take warm water to make tropical storms, but cyclones also form in the Arctic, some of which reach hurricane speed:
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/weather_climate_patterns.html
And of course the Antarctic is the windiest place on earth.
Ice Ages are stormy, as shown by dust deposits in the oceans from the cold, dry continents. By contrast, Hot House climate are less windy, such as in the Cretaceous Period and Paleocene and Eocene Epochs.
Temperature differential is indeed a major engine of storms.
The extreme WX lie was never even supported by most consensus “climate scientists”.
When Warmunistas attack, just play this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B8jcKx8H_w
It makes their greenie heads explode.
Excellent suggestion. Thanks.
Maybe they’d be happier if they returned to Mars or whatever their home planet might be. Mars might just be cold enough to satisfy them, except for all that nasty CO2 in the air.
I’ve been telling you all for ten years that cooling periods have more extremes than warming periods due to solar effects on the degree of zonality / meridionality of jet stream tracks.
Meridional tracks allow the climate zones to move about more which destabilises the climates of regions near the zone boundaries.
Very small, -slow- changes can have profound effects in a choatic system.
Injecting our thin wisp of atmosphere with 30gt of a significant gas in 100 years appears to be have been a risky proposition.
Good luck.
Injecting McClod’s brain with even an ounce of real science would almost have explosive effects.
Matter and anti-matter combine.
1) It’s not a significant gas.
2) CO2 levels have been 15 to 20 higher than they are today and not only did nothing bad happen, but life flourished.
3) The damage being done to real people in these attempts to eliminate a harmless gas is well documented.
Tony,
The mass of the atmosphere is about 5.15×10^18 kg.
Even if humans are responsible for all the CO2 added in the past century, which we aren’t, we’ve increased the mass of the atmosphere on the order of one percent of one percent. The one extra CO2 molecule added per 10,000 dry air molecules, ie going from three to four molecules, is heavier than air, but the atmosphere also contains some 300 water molecules per 10,000 dry air molecules.
Good luck.
Just glanced at this paper, but it seems to me that it is assessing the likelihood of abrupt climate changes due to freshwater hosing at the N pole slowing AMOC. This of course is different from assessing the likelihood of extreme weather which, as you point out, appears to be governed by the zonality/meridionality of the jet stream. The paper doesn’t appear to address solar/oceanic forcing of AMOC, which is probably why the authors state that the recent slowing of AMOC is unexplained. The point is, if AMOC is to be slowed significantly by freshwater melt at the N pole, it stands to reason that there should be a large reservoir of available polar ice-sheets combined with fairly rapid to very rapid episodic warming – such would be the conditions during the transitional glacial/interglacial and, to a lesser extent, during sudden warming events within an ice age. Relative climate stability during the latter part of the Holocene has been due to the fact that there is relatively little ice at high latitudes, certainly not enough to cause severe AMOC slowing during moderate warming periods. Despite doom-laden prognostications of ‘The Day After Tomorrow’, I think that’s still the case and if there is to be a slowdown in AMOC, it will likely be solar forced, thus cooling Europe, the Northern Hemisphere and, to a lesser extent, the globe. Then we can expect an increased volatility of weather due to increasing zonality of the jet stream.
Thermodynamics require a gradient for observable change.
I realize the data is not global, but if I’m reading the temperature chart correctly, current temperature (at the left, where time before present is zero) is clearly less than the peaks at about 130, 240 and 330 thousand years ago, and has been trending downward since about 10-15 thousand years ago. I wonder what that means?
Looks like from the present, the long term trend is for cooler temperatures, aka glaciation. A degree or two of heating from AGW isn’t going to change that, but it might help mitigate it.
Dr. Kenji Kawamura? Is there something we’re not being told, Anthony? 😉
Anthony’s Kenji would be Kenji Watts. Though I don’t know if he’s a doctor or not.
He’s a card-carrying member of the UCS, so he’s obviously a scientist!
He’s a scientist, but that doesn’t mean he has a doctorate.
How were they able to model northern hemisphere climate from a single Antarctic proxy? It would seem that they would need more data points that one mountain in the southern hemisphere to accurately model global climate.
“They then performed a simulation that added the same quantity of fresh water to the northern part of the North Atlantic Ocean in each of the three climate conditions. ”
Of course they probably have no idea if the quantity of fresh water they simulated is even remotely close to what actually could have happened.
See my comment below. Florida minds thinking alike. Ma Nature ran the experiment for real during the last interglacial, the Eemian. We even know how much delta fresh water added or subtracted from the oceans from the two Eemian high stands and the intervening low. (~ 2-2.5 meters SLR first highstand over 3 millennia, back to present over 4 millennia, then up ~1 meter over 3 millennia, then down into the just past ice age, from which SLR rose ~150 meters in ~ 10 millennia ending ~8 millennia ago). Amazing what modelers do not know that semi-retired climate writers do.
slightly OT.
EPICA CO2 v GRIP Temperature
CO2 Low: Temperature HIGH
CO2 High: Temperature LOW.. like it is currently, barely a small bump above the COLDEST period in 10,000 years.
And the recent small spike in CO2, from whatever cause…
…great for the planets plant and other life, more please.
No use at all for warming anything, unfortunately.
No warming from CO2 over oceans
No warming in our convective gravity/pressure/density controlled atmosphere.
We are destined to remain at the less-warm part of the current interglacial.
I see four or five lines of data traced on that image, and not a single one of them is identified as to what it is.
Nor is the source identified.
Not nice.
source is obvious… EPICA core CO2 (black overlay)
and GISP temperatures.. a graph that has been around for ages..
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/01/ice-core-data-shows-the-much-feared-2c-climate-tipping-point-has-already-occurred/
When you overlay one graph on top of another, of course it gets messy.
Shows I have not tampered with the given data in any way.
I think the color coding is given away by the borders of the temperature boxes: Red and Dark Red. By a process of elimination, the other two curves, Orange and Dun, are carbon dioxide for the corresponding dates.
AndyG55, you are mixing two hemispheres. Greenland and Antarctica. Dunno if that works or not. Sufficiently interesting chart to maybe write up with more explanation as a possible longer guest post here?
Are you saying that CO2 is not well mixed in the atmosphere ? 😉
No. That temps are not.
temperature pattern is similar in many places.
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/20/50-inverted-hockey-sticks-scientists-find-earth-cools-as-co2-rises/#sthash.tSLrdyoy.dpbs
Holocene OPTIMUM -> cooling through Neoglaciation -> MWP -> cooling to LIA -> very slight bump to now.
Another similar graph
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GAOgOInKk7I/VI9wifApBrI/AAAAAAAAAGU/U_CJdGcUYJ0/s1600/GISP2%2Bvs%2BCO2%2Bprez%2Bflipped.png
That one is from Jim Steele.
That’s a good one.
Thanks.
Well, I’m stumped. The polar axis has moved another degree through the night sky out of Ophiuchus, toward the Teapot, and that wobble hasn’t even been mentioned.
The birds come back from the south on time, but there’s no food for them, so I have to be Bird Mom and put out food for the little darlin’s, the grackles, brownheaded cowbirds, redwinged blackbirds – all common field birds that no one pays attention to – and they want to know WHY ARE THERE NO BUGS FOR THEM TO EAT??????
They appreciate my including dried mealworms in the menu, too, but they just do not understand why, why, why there are no bugs or worms for them when it is the end of frakkin’ March and they are hungry. Yes, I have pictures, dates embedded in the photo files.
I do not understand why, when there is so much more to a planet like this, why these so-called scientists can’t see past the grant money and get out of their cloistered habitats to see the real world occasionally. If they did that, they might be better scientists, and they might actually understand that this planet is actually bigger than they are, and they have no control over what it does. I guess grant money and cozy computer labs count for more. It’s like an episode of ‘The Twilight Zone’ at times.
I couldn’t even read it……1/2 or even 1 degree, even if you believe that, did not make one bit of difference
I knew it! It is the clashing of hot and cold systems that create storms. If the cold warms up a little and the hot cools off there is less difference and less severe storms.
This could turn out to be a really inconvenient science study for the CAGW believers (faithful).
Read the entire paper plus SI (many scientific bodies buried in SIs, see essays By Land or by Sea and Shell Games for examples). Hard to argue with the ice core evidence plotted in fig. 2. Easy to argue with the causitive explanation developed by this paper using climate models–changes in fresh water ocean influx, primarily NH NA. Were this the case, then the two highstand Eemian interglacial with its intervening ‘lowstand’ should have produced corresponding 3x climate shifts on order of 3000 years each. But it didn’t, according to fig. 2. Dunno what the cause for the ice core observations might be, but it isn’t interstadial meltwater. Ma Nature already ran that experiment.
Lapse rate?
“Until now, … but this experiment has revealed that carbon dioxide is another important factor”
Good Grief. There was not experiment. Simulations are not experiments. CO2 is an important factor in their simulations because that is the way they were programed.
No experiments were conducted and no data was generated. Like the rest of “Climate Science” it was an elaborate act of mathematical onanism.
Experiment ?
I just still want to see an experimentally demonstrated course in the most basic quantitative equations of heat transfer I would expect as fundamentals in any course in planetary physics as rigorous as I would expect in an undergraduate course in any other branch of applied physics like , eg : semiconductors .
That’s why I’ve set up a prize fund for best YouTube demo at http://cosy.com/Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html#YouTubePhysicsDemoFund . Join me .
before reading this my understanding of thermodynamics is a warming earth would manifest in the cold temperatures not being as cold because the warmth seeks cold, that would mean lesser differential between the air masses of warm and cold and weaker storms…….
The ten Aprils 1998-2007, inclusive, were significantly warmer than the ten most recent Aprils. Both intervals included super El Ninos. UAH April anomalies, degrees C:
1998: 0.74 W
1999: 0.01 C
2000: 0.05 W
2001: 0.20 Warmer
2002: 0.23 W
2003: 0.15 Cooler
2004: 0.14 C
2005: 0.33 W
2006: 0.07 C
2007: 0.14 W
10-Yr Mean: 0.206
2008: -0.13 C
2009: -0.01 C
2010: 0.32 W
2011: -0.04 C
2012: 0.11 W
2013: 0.05 C
2014: 0.11 W
2015: 0.08 C
2016: 0.71 W
2017: 0.27 C
10-Yr Mean: 0.147
Taking whole years, as computed and rounded by Dr. Spencer, the past ten years have averaged slightly warmer than the prior ten. Obviously can’t include 2017 yet.
RANK YEAR deg.C.
01 2016 +0.50 (Super El Nino)
04 2015 +0.26
08 2014 +0.18
10 2013 +0.13
16 2012 +0.06
19 2011 +0.02
03 2010 +0.34
13 2009 +0.10
29 2008 -0.10
09 2007 +0.16
10-Year Mean: 0.165
12 2006 +0.11
06 2005 +0.20
14 2004 +0.08
07 2003 +0.19
05 2002 +0.22
11 2001 +0.12
25 2000 -0.02
24 1999 -0.02
02 1998 +0.48 (Super El Nino)
22 1997 -0.01
10-Year Mean: 0.135
23 1996 -0.01
15 1995 +0.07
28 1994 -0.06
31 1993 -0.20
36 1992 -0.28 (Pinatubo Effect)
20 1991 +0.02
21 1990 +0.01
32 1989 -0.21
18 1988 +0.04 (Year of Hansen)
17 1987 +0.05
34 1986 -0.22
38 1985 -0.36
35 1984 -0.24
26 1983 -0.04
37 1982 -0.30
30 1981 -0.11
27 1980 -0.04
33 1979 -0.21
For the 20 years, 1997-2016, thus the average anomaly is 0.15, or 0.0075 per year. At that rate, we’d warm 0.63 degrees by AD 2100. Scary!
wrote these 2 blogs on this matter, though a much shorter term observation
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/43756 Why a Warming World May Be the Cause of Less Weather Woes
and this
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/48170
Is the Current Climate Cycle Thwarting Major U.S. Hurricane Hits?
Thanks for those articles, Joe.
I’m a believer that the weather is definitely getting milder, and the explanation that the poles are warming while the tropics are not or just barely, makes sense, but I’m not clear as to what would cause this difference.
You mention CO2 as a possible cause. My question is how can CO2 warm one section of the globe and not another, at the same time?
On topic, we have to be ready for worse weather (it seems to be starting, maybe) as the cooling gathers strength. The warmists are already skewing their story to claim it (eg Rutgers), so it behooves us to get our act together. The Quiet Sun’s , wild jetstreams/polar vortices will get rough and cold, off and on, with much storm damage and loss of crops. Arguing about less or fewer or ancient symbols will not cut it. Plenty of fossil fuels and distributed thorium reactors, for instance, can make a huge difference. With energy, we can do wonders. Without it, we perish.
Caution, this is a move to explain away the lack of increasing magnitude and frequency for droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes.
“Uh, we meant that CO2 causes what we see NOW. Ignore all the fire and brimstone Obama touted.”
“A climate simulation was also performed based on the Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model, which revealed that the major cause of the observed climate instability was global cooling by a decline in the greenhouse effect.”
Impressing! Physics do change over time – NOT! There’s no “greenhouse effect” today as there was no “greenhouse effect” last year.
“An important factor affecting climate instability is the vulnerability of Atlantic deep water circulation during global cooling resulting from a decrease in the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ..”
So now CO2 also controls the deep oceans?
This is alarmist propaganda, pure and simple. What ever they are milking the tax payers, it is too much!
Yes with “intermediate temperatures” “the climate was highly instabil”:
“Results indicate that when intermediate temperatures occurred within a glacial period, the climate was highly unstable and fluctuated. A climate simulation was also performed based on the Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model, which revealed that the major cause of the observed climate instability was global cooling by a decline in the greenhouse effect.”
______________________________________
NO – where’s the connection with
“global cooling by a decline in the greenhouse effect”:
SHOULDN’T THAT BE
“decline in the greenhouse effect BY GLOBAL COOLING” !
The cooling driver “intermediate climate during a glacial period”
drives to
“decline in the greenhouse effect.”
There’ll be no more funding or grants for these honest scientists after this scientific study which came to the politically incorrect finding.
A warm planet is a happy planet
CO2 is a beneficial trace gas that feeds plants and greens the planet. It may have a negligible to small warming effect, which is also beneficial, as noted in the article. Life on earth has always prospered during warmer times, and has suffered during colder times. Attempts to demonize CO2 are money-making scams from Global Warming of Doom cultists.
” Life on earth has always prospered during warmer times, and has suffered during colder times. ”
Not only that, life clearly wants more CO2 or it wouldn’t be sucking it up twice as fast as it did only 50 years back. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428
“Over the past 50 years, the amount of CO2 absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial biosphere annually has more than doubled”
Isn’t that like how an aquarium responds if you aren’t giving enough fish food then start increasing the amount?
Anthony:
Your site is exhibiting sporadic cursor/page reset that seems to be related to Google ads. It makes continuous reading very difficult.
Some places in the tropics see more diurnal temperature variation than annual temperature variation. I think the key is not temperature itself but humidity (water as vapor or clouds) which keeps temperature higher at night.
“This simulation was performed using the Earth Simulator supercomputer …”
Reading that was when I knew this article was going to end up blaming CO2 for everything. Supercomputer grant money is only for the true believers, not AGW-doubting apostates.
Meanwhile, no commenters seem to be mentioning that since long term solar cycles are now known to have a major influence on Earth’s climate, via the solar wind density and its shielding effect against cosmic rays, with upper atmosphere cosmic ray flux strongly influencing water droplet nucleation hence cloud formation, then…
Maybe the noted Earth weather instability during intermediate phases between cool and warm periods, may be due to higher solar wind instability/variability between periods of high and low solar wind flows from the Sun?