Our sceptical connection in Germany, Pierre Gosselin, has taken notice of an article in Der Spiegel that speaks of the link to ocean cycles for climate. Of course we’ve known this for some time, but like with the New Scientist catching up to solar recognition, the previous denial of natural variability in climate seems to be weakening. BTW if you want to track the status of ocean cycles, our WUWT ENSO/Sea Level/Sea Surface Temperature Page has a lot to offer. Right now the Niño 3.4 index continues to drop, and looks to rival 2008’s plunge.
Der Spiegel: The Ocean’s Influence Greater Than Thought
By Pierre Gosselin
Alex Bojanowski at Germany’s online Der Spiegel reports here on a new paper appearing in Nature that shows climate change in the 1970s was caused by ocean cooling. Climate simulation models once indicated that the cooling in the 1970s was due to sun-reflecting sulfur particles, emitted by industry. But now evidence points to the oceans.
I don’t know why this is news for the authors of the paper. Ocean cycles are well-known to all other scientists. The following graphic shows the AMO 60-year cycle, which is now about to head south.
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Source: http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/SixtyYearCycle.htm
Computer models simulating future climate once predicted that it would soon get warm because of increasing GHG emissions, but, writes Der Spiegel, citing Nature:
Now it turns out that the theory is incomplete. A sudden cooling of the oceans in the northern hemisphere played the decisive role in the drop of air temperatures.
The paper was authored by David W. J. Thompson, John M. Wallace, John J. Kennedy, and Phil D. Jones. The scientists discovered that ocean temperatures in the northern hemisphere dropped an enormous 0.3°C between 1968 and 1972. Der Spiegel writes:
A huge amount of energy was taken out of the oceans. The scientists said that it was surprising that the cooling was so fast.
This shows, again, that the climate simulation models used for predicting the future are inadequate. It’s not sure what caused the oceans to cool. But scientists are sure that aerosols were not the cause. Der Spiegel describes a possible scenario how the oceans may have cooled:
Huge amounts of melt water from Greenland’s glaciers poured into the Atlantic at the end of the 1960s, and formed a cover over the ocean. The melt water cooled the ocean for one thing, and acted to brake the Golf Stream, which transports warm water from the tropics and delivers it to the north. The result: the air also cools down.
But, as Spiegel reports, that hardly explains why there was also cooling n the north Pacific. Der Spiegel:
The scientists will have to refine their climate simulations. The new study shows one thing: The influence of the oceans is greater than previously thought.
I’d say that’s a very polite way of saying: Your models have been crap, and it’s back to the drawing board. This time don’t forget to properly take the oceans and every thing else into account. Yes, there’s a quite a bit more to climate than a single trace gas in the atmosphere. Hooray – the warmists are finally beginning to realize it! (Maybe)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tim.
The discussion went like this.
Jim Clark:
“hich means that the oceans have a larger impact on global surface temperatures than increasing CO2. There is no other conclusion possible and the models must be re-initialized with a climate sensitivity to CO2 much below the current value.”
Mosh: Sensitivity is not an input parameter
Bill: are you sure
Mosh: ya Im sure.
#################
“Richard M says:
September 26, 2010 at 7:05 am (Edit)
You don’t need a specific parameter in models for “sensitivity” to control it. All you need is to tweak other parameters until you see a value you think is correct. This is where it is easy for group-think to create a bias in the models.”
Good god. Do you have any idea how far models are apart from each other? and how different they are in their results.
Group think would be a much better idea than what is practiced in the field today.
And please, boys the models are not tuned and tweaked, except in one very special case. That tuning and tweaking is documented. Its the problem you should be discussing.
Instead you kvetch about things that either are not true or do not matter…
missing, once again, the elephants in the room
If any of you looked at the video I posted and sat through it you’d be back here saying… wait a minute…
but no. you make the arguments you are comfortable making. arguments you heard before. arguments the warmists WANT you to make. You’re avoiding the arguments they have amongst themselves.
Maybe there is another feedback loop at play here, the public’s skepticism regarding mankind’s effect on climate.
Politicians hear from public, scientists hear from politicians, scientists adjust theories to fit in with public views, funding continues.
While reading the very fine book “A Commotion in the Blood; Life, death, and the immune system” by Stephen S. Hall, I could not help noticing the connection between research funding, media reporting, and the public’s perception of the ‘war on cancer’. While some researchers are glad to play the public relations game to garner more support for their research, it is a notoriously fickle beast the have around. The same people who try to secure funding through the public, complain about the lack of understanding by the public.
Unfortunately, people don’t want to hear about uncertainties from their investments in scientific research. They want to hear certainties, especially when dealing with life and death issues. Unfortunately, for all parties concerned, when approaching complicated topics such as immune systems and climate, you cannot get rid of the uncertainties.
This doesn’t stop some from issuing statements containing oversimplifications; they are in the marketing business and know simplified answers are what the public is used to consuming.
Al Gore (and others) tried to manipulate public opinion through dramatic graphics and exaggerations. It worked for a while, until people started noticing the falsehoods in his arguments. It would be interesting to see a compilation of the amount of money spent attempting to alter public perceptions of climate change. I wonder how much the warmists have lost in their investments based on the assumption of carbon trading becoming a reality? I wonder how much more money the public is going to lose with windmills, solar energy and other uneconomic forms of alternative energy?
Remember, the unspoken motivation for pursuing these expensive subsidies is the idea something needs to be done to ‘save the planet for the children’.
Anyway, it is fun to see the turnarounds in thinking regarding natural explanations for climate change, from the AGW crowd, coming on the heels of Al Gore’s complaints regarding the lack of a cap and trade bill from this congress and the drop in carbon futures values. This is all about a shift in the public’s view of climate change.
Steven Mosher was right, and deserves credit for trying to correct one of the (many) misconceptions that surface here. One of the frequent comments made at other sites about this place is how hard it is to take WUWT seriously when those who do know what they are talking about, consistently fail to correct the ignorant statements here. This illustrates what a thankless task it is!
Obviously variables can be set to influence the output. This, along with different ways the input variables are treated is what accounts for the different climate sensitivity outputs of the different models. If that was indeed Jim’s point then he certainly did not make it clear.
Jim Clark wrote:
“Nonetheless, the most important point here remains the fact that sulfur aerosols are not responsible for the mid-20th Century cooling. The oceans are responsible. Which means that the oceans have a larger impact on global surface temperatures than increasing CO2. There is no other conclusion possible and the models must be re-initialized with a climate sensitivity to CO2 much below the current value.”
This paragraph has several problems with it. First off is that this paper by itself does not prove anything but is merely a jumping off place for further discussion, so to say: “Nonetheless, the most important point here remains the fact that sulfur aerosols are not responsible for the mid-20th Century cooling” is not warrented, as this paper does not prove this as a fact, beyond what the author’s methodology indicates. This is why there is considerable discussion of methodology included with the paper so that others can critique it. “The oceans are responsible” is likewise not a warrented statement. Besides it seems to assume that the ocean’s effects are not already considered in atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation models. “Which means that the oceans have a larger impact on global surface temperatures than increasing CO2” this statement is completely unsupported by this paper. Most of the discussion around this paper revolvs around the role of arisols vs SSTs. “There is no other conclusion possible and the models must be re-initialized with a climate sensitivity to CO2 much below the current value.” This is actually quite a whopper. How about that the paper’s methodology has errors? Or that some perameter such as arosols is not being addressed correctly by the AOGCGM? As Steven Mosher pointed out there is no CO2 sensativity knob on the programs. Furthermore without knowing how the models responded to this particular bleb it is impossible to know if the models output should be more or less sensative to CO2 or if the sensativity of some other input factor for example arosouls, some quality of clouds or even lapse rates might need adjusting.
Many folks here are very quick to jump to conclusions. This is hardly a quality that is compatable with calling onself a skeptic.
If the moderators could delete the previous version of this post with the atrocious spelling I would appreciate it. Thank you
Steven Mosher was right, and deserves credit for trying to correct one of the (many) misconceptions that surface here. One of the frequent comments made at other sites about this place is how hard it is to take WUWT seriously when those who do know what they are talking about, consistently fail to correct the ignorant statements here. This illustrates what a thankless task it is!
Obviously variables can be set to influence the output. This, along with different ways the input variables are treated is what accounts for the different climate sensitivity outputs of the different models. If that was indeed Jim’s point then he certainly did not make it clear.
Jim Clark wrote:
“Nonetheless, the most important point here remains the fact that sulfur aerosols are not responsible for the mid-20th Century cooling. The oceans are responsible. Which means that the oceans have a larger impact on global surface temperatures than increasing CO2. There is no other conclusion possible and the models must be re-initialized with a climate sensitivity to CO2 much below the current value.”
This paragraph has several problems with it. First off is that this paper by itself does not prove anything but is merely a jumping off place for further discussion, so to say: “Nonetheless, the most important point here remains the fact that sulfur aerosols are not responsible for the mid-20th Century cooling” is not warranted, as this paper does not prove this as a fact, beyond what the author’s methodology indicates. This is why there is considerable discussion of methodology included with the paper so that others can critique it. “The oceans are responsible” is likewise not a warranted statement. Besides it seems to assume that the ocean’s effects are not already considered in atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation models. “Which means that the oceans have a larger impact on global surface temperatures than increasing CO2” this statement is completely unsupported by this paper. Most of the discussion around this paper revolves around the role of aerosols vs. SSTs. “There is no other conclusion possible and the models must be re-initialized with a climate sensitivity to CO2 much below the current value.” This is actually quite a whopper. How about that the paper’s methodology has errors? Or that some parameter such as aerosols is not being addressed correctly by the AGOG? As Steven Mosher pointed out there is no CO2 sensitivity knob on the programs. Furthermore without knowing how the models responded to this particular bleb it is impossible to know if the models output should be more or less sensitive to CO2 or if the sensitivity of some other input factor for example aerosols, some quality of clouds or even lapse rates might need adjusting.
Many folks here are very quick to jump to conclusions. This is hardly a quality that is compatible with calling oneself a skeptic.
// Quite a turnaround for Spiegel. In the past, its environment pages have combined the daffiness of The Guardian //
where this new paper is reported
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/22/climate-science-ocean-temperatures-phil-jones
where a link can be found to a discussion of the paper in the same issue of Nature
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100922/full/467381a.html
a quote from which
“If further research helps show that the two events are related, this could provide a way to further test modelled ocean responses to freshwater additions from the Arctic,” says Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. Scientists believe that global warming will increase freshwater flow into the North Atlantic.
[…]
Thompson and his colleagues think a circulation change in the North Atlantic is a more likely culprit. But Michael Mann, a climate researcher at Pennsylvania State University in University Park, isn’t so sure. He thinks that aerosols probably contributed to the global chill, and that the ocean cooling was probably the steep end of a natural climate oscillation spanning several decades. “I’m unconvinced they’ve shown that the model of an isolated brief event is a better fit to the data.”
In other words, a bit of science, dealing with the uncertainty at the advancing front of knowledge.
This is good that people are starting to realize the importance of the oceans, and how their is a much stronger correlation between oceans and temperature, then CO2 and temperature.
When both the Atlantic and Pacific are in their cool cylces the earth’s temperature cools off, dramatically, which is what was observed around 1970 and when they are both warm, the earth warms dramatically to a point and then levels off ( which I believe is what caused the spike in temperatures from 1999-2000, after the ‘super nino of 1998’ collapsed. The AMO turned warm, and then both oceans were warm at the same time, dramatic warming then it leveled off (if not cooling slightly). maybe with the PDO being cold now, the temperature will drop despite CO2 rising. Natural Cycles are real important in the climate, much more important then a trace gas necessary for life
Yuba Yollabolly says: Besides it seems to assume that the ocean’s effects are not already considered in atmosphere-ocean coupled general circulation models.
You know, if you have a really good model, like the models used in CFD Boeing simulations, you do not need to assume so much about the ocean’s effects. All you need to do is to write down the equations of motion and closure relations for the oceans and the atmosphere with the proper initial and boundary conditions, and then the numerical simulation should be able to predict
• water vapour feedback
• cloud coverage
• ocean cycles
On the other hand, if we assume, for example, that cloud coverage is constant, well, then cloud coverage remains constant, or if water vapour feedback is assumed to be positive, then it remains positive. Now, I have not seen a simulation prediction of AMO, PDO or other ocean cycles.
You seem to assume that the ocean’s effects are considered. Please explain. Is it a steady state equilibrium assumption, just like an assumption that the cloud coverage may be constant, or is it a result of the numerical calculations? If ocean’s effects are considered to be constant or input to the model, I honestly think that the modelers should be ashamed.
Just like CFD Boeing simulations are able to predict 3D flow transients, ocean’s effects should be a result of, and not an input to, the global climate models.
My take is that it impossible. With the available computational recourses a meaningful global climate model simply is impossible.
Steven Mosher says:
September 26, 2010 at 3:09 am
“[…]or watch this.. only takes and hour ( see around minute 9)
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/871991/formats
http://sms.cam.ac.uk/media/871991;jsessionid=50EF49DB5FB28DC6E75208A58772DBE8?format=flv&quality=high&fetch_type=stream
there are real problems with models, but not setting a sensitivity parameter.
focus on the right problem[…]”
Watched it. I shake my head in despair. How could anyone EVER put trust in a “science” riddled with holes like that. The good professor puts his hopes in stochastic models and new “probabilistic logic” (basically, analogue computing on the micro or nanoscale) to finally achieve models that are able to model convection correctly…
My, oh, my…
Don’t get me wrong, i have nothing against his efforts. But how in the world can we arrive at a document called “advice for policymakers” with such basics. Even politicians should be able to see how broken this is.
Hopefully Cancun will all be bitching and moaning and no results.
Wikipdia states: Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_model
So, clouds are not simulated well… Is it then possible to simulate water vapour feedback to determine whether it is positive or negative? Oh, we are so happy with climate models that assumes positive water vapour feedback…
Wikipdia states: Coupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds.
Very oddly-worded statement.
DirkH:
Thanks. And now you know the power of actually listing to what your opponent has to say and unravelling their position from inside.
Yuba Yollabolly:
At September 26, 2010 at 9:36 am you assert:
“This paragraph has several problems with it. First off is that this paper by itself does not prove anything but is merely a jumping off place for further discussion, so to say: “Nonetheless, the most important point here remains the fact that sulfur aerosols are not responsible for the mid-20th Century cooling” is not warranted, as this paper does not prove this as a fact, beyond what the author’s methodology indicates.”
Say what!
Either you do not know of what you write or you are being deliberately disingenuous.
All global climate models and energy balance models are known to provide indications which are based on the assumed degree of aerosol cooling input to each model as a ‘fiddle factor’ to obtain agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature.
A decade ago I published a peer-reviewed paper that showed the UK’s Hadley Centre general circulation model (GCM) could not model climate and only obtained agreement between past average global temperature and the model’s indications of average global temperature by forcing the agreement with an input of assumed aerosol cooling. And my paper demonstrated that the assumption of aerosol effects being responsible for the model’s failure was incorrect.
(ref. Courtney RS An assessment of validation experiments conducted on computer models of global climate using the general circulation model of the UK’s Hadley Centre Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 491-502, September 1999).
More recently, in 2007, Kiehle published a paper that assessed 9 GCMs and two energy balance models.
(ref. Kiehl JT,Twentieth century climate model response and climate sensitivity. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L22710, doi:10.1029/2007GL031383, 2007).
Kiehl found the same as my paper except that each model used a different aerosol ‘fix’ from every other model.
He says in his paper:
“One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al., 2001] that the same models that agree in simulating the anomaly in surface air temperature differ significantly in their predicted climate sensitivity. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.5 to 4.5 deg C for a doubling of CO2, where most global climate models used for climate change studies vary by at least a factor of two in equilibrium sensitivity.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Kerr [2007] and S. E. Schwartz et al. (Quantifying climate changetoo rosy a picture?, available at http://www.nature.com/reports/climatechange, 2007) recently pointed out the importance of understanding the answer to this question. Indeed, Kerr [2007] referred to the present work and the current paper provides the widely circulated analysis referred to by Kerr [2007]. This report investigates the most probable explanation for such an agreement. It uses published results from a wide variety of model simulations to understand this apparent paradox between model climate responses for the 20th century, but diverse climate model sensitivity.”
And his paper says:
“These results explain to a large degree why models with such diverse climate sensitivities can all simulate the global anomaly in surface temperature. The magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing compensates for the model sensitivity.”
And the “magnitude of applied anthropogenic total forcing” is fixed in each model by the input value of aerosol forcing.
I cannot post Kiehl’s Figure 2 here but it is for 9 GCMs and 2 energy balance models and its caption says:
“Figure 2. Total anthropogenic forcing (Wm2) versus aerosol forcing (Wm2) from nine fully coupled climate models and two energy balance models used to simulate the 20th century.”
The graph has dots all over the place.
The underlying problem is that the modellers assume that additional energy content in the atmosphere will result in an increase of temperature, but that assumption is very, very unlikely to be true.
Radiation physics tells us that additional greenhouse gases will increase the energy content of the atmosphere. Energy content is not necessarily sensible heat.
An adequate climate physics, not radiation physics, would tell us how that increased energy content will be distributed among all the climate modes. Additional atmospheric greenhouse gases may heat the atmosphere, may have an undetectable effect on heat content, or may even cause the atmosphere to cool.
The latter could happen, for example, if the extra energy went into a more vigorous hydrological cycle with resulting increase to low cloudiness. Low clouds reflect incoming solar energy (as every sunbather has noticed when a cloud passed in front of the Sun) and have a negative feedback on surface temperature.
Alternatively, there could be an oscillation in cloudiness (in a feedback cycle) between atmospheric energy and hydrology: as the energy content cycles up and down with cloudiness, then the cloudiness cycles up and down with energy with their cycles not quite 180 degrees out of phase (this is analogous to the observed phase relationship of insolation and atmospheric temperature). The net result of such an oscillation process could be no detectable change in sensible heat, but a marginally observable change in cloud dynamics.
However, nobody understands cloud dynamics so the reality of climate response to increased GHGs cannot be known.
So, the models are known to be wrong, and it is known why they are wrong: i.e.
1. they each emulate a different climate system with a different ‘adjustment’ for aerosol forcing,
2. but there is only one climate system of the Earth so at most only one of them can be right, and
3. there is no reason to suppose any one of them is right, but
4. there is good reason to suppose that they are all wrong because they cannot emulate cloud processes which are not understood.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
September 26, 2010 at 8:45 am
……….”Instead you kvetch about things that either are not true or do not matter…
missing, once again, the elephants in the room
If any of you looked at the video I posted and sat through it you’d be back here saying… wait a minute…
but no. you make the arguments you are comfortable making. arguments you heard before. arguments the warmists WANT you to make. You’re avoiding the arguments they have amongst themselves.”
=======================
A guest post explaining these statements, would be enlightening to this member of “the great unwashed”. I come here to learn (talk about a free education), but I am disappointed by some of your recent comments.
Contempt of ones audience, does not foster communication.
Oh well, I sure am glad I stumbled on to WUWT.
Steven Mosher says:
September 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm
“DirkH:
Thanks. And now you know the power of actually listing to what your opponent has to say and unravelling their position from inside.”
Steve, i’m a computer programmer, i *like* models. What i always found unprofessional was the importance given to this fledgling science. And when i see entire national governments falling for it i must get the impression that either the politicians are as dumb as a box of soap or they have a hidden agenda.
Still don’t know which. But as long as a scientist doesn’t have the attitude of a Mann, Hansen or Schmidt, he’s not my opponent.
One can see how sophisticated the climate models are by examining the direct and indirect Aerosols forcing built-into GISS models.
http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/7408/modeleforcing.gif
These straight lines have the magical property of cancelling out all GHG warming prior to 1970. According to the models, the warming did not really start until 1970 (or 1972 now that the oceans have declined so rapidly). So all those ups and downs from 1880 to 1970 were caused by Solar Forcing or Volcanoes and not GHGs/Aerosols – they completely cancel out.
http://a.imageshack.us/img507/6971/modeleghgminusaerosols.png
Steven Mosher says:
September 26, 2010 at 8:45 am
Good god. Do you have any idea how far models are apart from each other? and how different they are in their results.
Group think would be a much better idea than what is practiced in the field today.
And please, boys the models are not tuned and tweaked, except in one very special case. That tuning and tweaking is documented. Its the problem you should be discussing.
Instead you kvetch about things that either are not true or do not matter…
missing, once again, the elephants in the room
If any of you looked at the video I posted and sat through it you’d be back here saying… wait a minute…
but no. you make the arguments you are comfortable making. arguments you heard before. arguments the warmists WANT you to make. You’re avoiding the arguments they have amongst themselves.
Get off your high horse, Steve. You know as well as I do that there is no way to accurately model climate with the current level of knowledge. If you don’t know this then you need a little education on “elephants”.
Since it can’t be precisely modelled then, guess what? Assumptions are made. All I did was demonstrate how a wrong assumption could lead to increased sensitivity without the need for a specific parameter.