From the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR)
New perspectives for long-term climate predictions?
This image shows a time series of solar activity (bottom) and the North Atlantic Oscillation in two model simulations, without (blue) and with (yellow) solar forcing. Credit, GEOMAR.
Are climate predictions over periods of several years reliable if weather forecast are still only possible for short periods of several days? Nevertheless there are options to predict the development of key parameters on such long time scales. A new study led by scientists at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel shows how the well-known 11-year cycle of solar activity affects the long-time development of dominant large-scale pressure systems in the Northern Hemisphere.
For their investigations the scientists used a coupled ocean-atmosphere model. In addition, this model includes an interactive chemistry module which can for instance cope with the effect of ultraviolet radiation (UV) in the upper atmosphere. This additional component seemed to be key to transmit the variations in the solar radiation which might have only a small direct impact on the earth’s surface, through a complex mechanism from the stratosphere (10-50 km altitude) to the lower atmosphere.
“We have carried out several experiments,” says Dr. Rémi Thiéblemont from GEOMAR, lead author of the study. “We conducted model experiments over a period of 145 years, with and without the influence of solar activity “, Thiéblemont continued. The sun’s influence could clearly be identified in the so-called North Atlantic Oscillation, which is roughly speaking the pressure difference between the Azores high and the Iceland low. The ratio between these two pressure systems often determines the weather in Europe over longer time periods, such as whether the winter months turn warm and stormy or cold and snowy. The researchers found a time lag between variations in solar irradiance and atmospheric pressure patterns of about one to two years, which can be explained by an interaction between the atmosphere and the ocean. By comparing the two experiments with or without solar activity, they were able to prove for the first time that the sun irradiance serves as a phase-lock for the North Atlantic Oscillation. With this context, an increase of the predictability of the decadal NAO phase can be expected.
“The fact that the circulation in the upper atmosphere responds significantly to the solar fluctuations, is already known”, Prof. Dr. Katja Matthes, initiator and co-author of the study from GEOMAR explains. “On one hand we can demonstrate with this new study how the transmission of the signal to the Earth’s surface and its interaction with the ocean works, and on the other hand we can show the importance of the chemical reactions for the coupling”, Prof. Matthes continued. So far, most global climate models have neither a sufficient resolution in the stratosphere nor interactive chemical components. “Although the solar effect on the North Atlantic Oscillation explains only a few percent of the total variance, the close relationship between solar activity and phase North Atlantic Oscillation is an important indicator to improve the predictability of climate variability”, Dr. Thiéblemont summarizes.
There is still a long way to go, for successful and reliable long-term forecasts up to a decade. Nevertheless, for successful predictions it is important to include solar fluctuations, Professor Matthes concludes.
###
Scientific paper:
Thiéblemont, R., K. Matthes, N.-E. Omrani, K. Kodera and F. Hansen, 2015. Solar forcing synchronizes decadal climate variability North Atlantic. Nature Communications, doi: 10.1038/ncomms9268.
Quel surprise.
And now for the inevitable and interesting discussion.
What discussion?
This new article from Notrickszone is likely an interesting addition to a discussion about the possible inputs of the 11-year-solar-cycle on the global climate:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/09/15/review-by-german-experts-show-that-even-the-11-year-solar-cycle-has-undeniable-impact-on-global-climate/#sthash.l1laoy5J.dpbs
I think I remember that some people here on wuwt claimed that they don’t know (or don’t accept) any data which shows an influence of the 11 year cycle on our climate. Well, maybe they were wrong?
The 29+ climate models, as outlined in AR5 chapter 9, do not appear to include a coupled solar cycle. Why?
The discussion should include the need for a WUWT reference page dedicated to the current state of of each model and their usage.
Finding something as simple as a mind map related to model design would be insightful!
Discussion: Consensus – how in the world can consensus exist if the models do not share common code related to Physics etc.? Where is the quantitative analysis related to shared code and it’s validity?
This is a very troublesome paper.
My attempt to filter annual data didn’t show anything like presented NAO + solar activity oscillation.
Then I attempted individual monthly data; only month of August data (frequently the warmest month in the N.H) shows something similar if de-trended using second order polynomial (quadratic) function.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOlpf.gif
“Troublesome” is a very flexible word.
Correct me if I’m wrong but you seem to imply that the paper is troublesome because its model results do not reflect real world data. I am guessing that you do not think it is troublesome because it upsets any apple carts.
Hi Bob (commie is fine with me too, I nearly was one, but got thrown out of the youth branch)
Troublesome, personally, since I have highest of regards for the Helmholtz Centre Oceanic research.
– I could reproduce their curve only for one month of the year (August), would have liked to see what they get from Mach to September at least (N. Hemisphere factor).
– As you can see from the graph below the effect goes in and out of sync with SSN, but they show only the last 60 years or so, the bit that nearly fits.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOlpf2.gif
Although it looks as a bit of ‘cherry picking’, it may not necessarily invalidate the results, since there is a ‘non-stationary’ correlation between atmospheric pressure and other climate indices. Effects of the ‘non-stationary’ correlation are far too often ignored and declared as an invalid scientific proof of a link. I happen to disagree and I do think that the better understanding of the ‘n-s’ correlation could be the key in solving number of problems that climate science is facing.
On any issue I will come down somewhere between Tommy Douglas and Ron Paul.
I also feel this kind of pain when I find myself in disagreement with those for whose work and judgment I have the greatest respect.
To me, “non-stationary correlation” implies a system that is not LTI. Shudder …
If I am convinced of anything it is that the climate is not LTI. I suspect that you are more right than those (seemingly the majority) who insist on analyzing the climate with tools that are valid only for LTI systems.
Climate system is most unlikely the ‘linear time invariant’ one, internal feedback time ‘constants’ are anything but constant.
I stopped reading after I saw in the caption, “two model simulations.”
Well so now we can do ” model experiments ” Izzat like finding out how many times I can twist the rubber band motor on my balsa stick and paper model Spitfire before the rubber bands break, or the whole frame collapses ??
And they can compress 145 years of experimentation into just a few minutes or hours.
Sure beats having to read a thermometer every day.
g
Or barometer as it happens.
I have much more faith in the pressure than temperature data, less dependant on the fineries of the immediate surrounding. Moving from one corner of the house to another doesn’t change much my perception of the ‘catastrophic’ future we are all facing that my thermometer occasionally shrieks at me.
Notably missing: any comparison between the model results and real measurements. They’re only seeing whether their model’s code for accepting an input labeled “solar” is doing something to the result.
Yup. As much as I think that the AMO is driven in concert with the solar magnetic cycles, it will take a lot more models that are able to predict accurately before I will believe any model. They may be a start to make a prediction, but if the prediction proves grandly wrong, there is something major that has been missed. See: GCM Climate Models for an example.
Guess what Warren, I stopped reading your comment after I read you’d stop reading before commenting.
?w=842
Yes, it’s models. Now they have realised that models that don’t account for stratospheric chemistry are deficient, they can stop being to certain that the earlier models have correctly attributed the strength of things link CO2 forcing or volcanic cooling, both of which are significantly over-estimated at present.
Next they may be able to account for the long-term cooling of the stratosphere following major volcanoes and their model will probably show a complementary surface warming.
And you never know , they may be getting somewhere.
At least they are looking. That is new and should be welcomed.
All models are wrong, some models are useful.
Just because general circulation models are cr@p is not evidence that all models are cr@p.
Models are used to help design circuits and build bridges. The difference is that those models are constantly tested against reality, and the models are adjusted when they fail to match up with reality.
Additionally those models are of relatively simple and well understood processes.
As long as they are kept simple, models of the climate, or at least small sub-slices of the climate, can be useful.
I stopped reading at “We conducted model experiments…” If they can’t distinguish between model and reality, it’s pointless.
give it a go. please distinguish between a model and reality.
plato and others are waiting for you..
you realize of course that the idea the there are “models” over here
and “reality” over there… is a model.
Interesting, Steven, that you use the word “realize” to impute the suggestion that there is not difference.
OK. Some remedial education for you, simplified:
https://www.boundless.com/physics/textbooks/boundless-physics-textbook/the-basics-of-physics-1/the-basics-of-physics-31/models-theories-and-laws-195-6078/
“Law
A concise description, usually in the form of a mathematical equation, used to describe a pattern in nature
Theory
An explanation for patterns in nature that is supported by scientific evidence and verified multiple times by various groups of researchers
Model
A representation of something difficult or impossible to display directly”
Are you closer to understanding now the topics upon which you presume to comment out of apparently complete ignorance?
I realize that you can treat them as being the same or different.
I’m still waiting for her to defend her position.
I have not taken a position.
Nice try though
I love people who rely on book authority.
No book has ever been wrong
Ha-ha.
As you may yourself demonstrate, the best way to never be wrong is straight off the top of your head!
This is priceless. Steven Mosher saying that models are reality because reality is simply modeled anyway. I also love him for condemning appeals to published works. Let’s save these comments.
Moi non plus !
Another one for Willis to pull apart. LOL
You read it first in my ‘Chill:a reassessment of global warming theory (2009)’!
One – that UV light variability would eventually be found responsible for correlations to solar cycles; Two – there would be a link to ocean oscillations (the counter-theory being some kind of internal stochastic resonance dynamic).
Note however that this group assume solar UV will continue much as before….I doubt this. There are longer term cycles that may also be the result of UV flux and hence longer term solar variability (cycles). The changes in circulation that they talk about can result in blocking high pressure systems – there has been one in the North Pacific for more than a year now, probably responsible for the Californian drought and current global high temperatures (with help also from ENSO). A similar block in the North Atlantic in winter will lead to deep cold in western Europe.
There is a real potential now for global cooling in the next three years – as ENSO fades, as the pressure system in the North Pacific shifts, and a North Atlantic block builds up – and all this coincident with a declining solar cycle and low UV flux and negative AMO (which may be linked) – which will mean that the ‘pause’ is not only extended, but cooling evident from the year 2000 onward to at least 2018 and most likely 2030 if the next solar cycle is also low (as I suspect it will be).
We have a pretty good idea about what solar EUV variation has been the past 2.5 centuries:
http://www.leif.org/research/Reconstruction-of-Solar-EUV-Flux-1740-2015.pdf
(Say Leif, are you going to update your pages ever again?)
The solar quiet variations are proving to be a misleading proxy for EUV radiation.
Good read! I loved the part where you mentioned one of your own papers being mistaken.
UV radiation is not ” light “.
So just what is an ” internal stochastic resonance dynamic ” ?? Try simplifying that for us 4-H clubbers please.
g
Hey, that reminds me, where’s Paul Urlich been, haven’t heard from him recently. 😉
Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t light.
@Slywolfe:
Just because you can’t see it does not mean it can’t be seen… Birds have 4 kinds of cones and many can see UV. Bugs too. So UV is seen and is light… just not seen by us… Bird vision is a facinating thing, different from ours in many ways.
Some children and young adults can see ultraviolet ‘light’ down to wavelengths of 310 nm.
and fish
What then should I call the black light I use to find where the cats have peed?
The higher than visible light energy wavelength reflected off urea crystal detector?
How about the “Eeew, gross! Damn cats!” detector.
Often my words exactly, especially in closets, to include shoes, and behind couches. I am often led to question the entire enterprise of cat-keeping.
I grant that black lights do indeed shade into the visible zone, but the cat urine crystal activation is a function of the UV light right next to the visible.
IMO gamma radiation and X-rays are “rays” and not “light”, but UV and IR are still “light”. Classifying the EM spectrum might be a semantic issue more than a physical one, but the wavelengths and enrgies immediately before and after visible IMO ought to be considered light, and apparently are. Farther away beyond IR and you enter “wave” territory, starting with microwaves.
@@ LadyGia, Please we have cats,they are (welcome, needed) a big part of our farm . The last thing I want to do is look for pee (it tends to keep the mice away!).
Many animals, including humans, can “see” ionizing radiation.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/17630377_The_visual_response_of_the_purple_shore_crab_Hemigrapsus_nudus_to_ionizing_and_non-ionizing_radiations
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1293691.pdf
The first research on this (houseflies) was in the late 1890s shortly after Roentgen described the x-ray process. Russian researchers taught a blind person to read by cutting Cyrillic letter stencils out of sheet lead. Better stop here before getting further off topic.
Well Slywolfe you should explain that to the Committee on Colorimetry of the Optical Society of America; which is a part of the American Institute of Physics; and tell them that they are wrong.
Electro-magnetic radiation, which includes UV is a form of energy, and like all forms of energy is measures in units like joule, or watt for power (rate of energy flow) or watt/m^2 for areal density of power; etc.
” Light ” on the other hand is NOT a form of energy. It is a psycho-physical response of the human eye to stimulation by certain wavelengths of EM radiant energy, specifically in the 400-800 nm wavelength octave. In other words light is all in your head, just as smell and taste are. Noxious chemicals don’t emit some kind of aura that we can call a smell or odor. The chemicals themselves react with sensors in our mouth and nose to generate those signals that our brain registers as a warning signal.
And since it isn’t energy, it isn’t measured in energy or power units either, but in its own system of units and measurements of photometry; such as talbot, lumen, candela, lux and so on.
The units of photometry are linked to the units of radiant energy or power ONLY by reference to a standard human eye , calibrated over many years by a long history of experiment with human observers.
If you choose to ignore the correct terminologies used in various branches of science, you should not be surprised when others simply have no idea what on earth you are talking about.
I don’t make these decisions; they are generally agreed to by committees of experts who know what they are talking about.
I know it is fashionable these days to take words that have long recognized colloquial usage and meaning, and bastardize the meaning until the word is no longer of use in its original guise. If that suits you, then go for it.
Ignorance is not a disease; we are all born with it. But stupidity has to be taught.
g
NZ Willy, good suggestions about Lief updating his blog, he’s only about 100 + years behind the times. 🙂
If one is to understand earths ups and downs in temperate over time, the entire energy spectrum needs to be understood, that is not happening. The admission by the gurus that 95% of the universe is missing, is another piece of the puzzle. This huge energy source, could and most likely is modified and modulated by positions and harmonics of the planets , this energy and it’s modulation could explain why the sun has cycles, we are yet but babes in the woods in understanding our solar system let alone the big picture of the universe.
Some baby steps have been taken but we have a long way to go.
” light variability would eventually be found responsible for correlations to solar cycles”
Unless it turns out that any such “all or nothing” correlations are flawed, and all relevant factors and variations must be considered to get a complete understand of the solar (and every other) influence.
Oops.
That was me.
Both times.
Sorry.
It’s also a Pacific NW drought.
IMO the discovery by SORCE that the UV varies component of TSI much more than TSI overall should have sparked a lot of research. It didn’t because of the ruling cockamamie paradigm of CO2 as the control knob on climate, which is false on its face.
Sorry. Meant “that the UV component of TSI varies much more than TSI overall”.
And at far less energy potential, one that is entirely swamped by something as simple as clouds or turbidity. Adding a tea cup of warm water to the oceans will not do much other than empty a tea cup.
Wrong.
The effect is demonstrable, amplified by the entire climate system, to include, air, land and sea. It’s also modelable, but I’d rather not go there.
A high energy fluctuation of 100% is far from trivial. It’s not just the immediate energy difference, but compounded over time.
Taking the time interval of the UV flux change just over the tropical oceans alone, let alone higher latitude sea and all land, and you’re looking at a forcing of which one molecule more of CO2 per 10,000 dry air molecules in a century is not a pimple on the posterior.
For recent example:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-paper-finds-another-solar.html
Way back in the 1950s it was recognized that the apparent color Temperature of the sun varied over time, with seasonal variations as well as less obvious time changes. It was surmised that the differences in color Temperature (the sun is a very commonly used natural EM radiation source) could be explained by changes in she short wavelength and UV received from the sun, either from changes in the sun, or atmospheric changes.
Among these changes one seasonal component was eventually recognized to be ozone holes.
So this isn’t any new discovery. There are references in standard Handbooks of Optics in chapters on natural EMR sources.
g
Lady says…”A high energy fluctuation of 100% is far from trivial. It’s not just the immediate energy difference, but compounded over time.”
==========================================
PLUS 10!
David’s Law. (-; “Only two things can change the energy content of a system in a radiative balance; either a change in input, or a change in residence time of some aspect of the energy within the system.”
The residence time depends on both the materials encountered, and the WL of the watt under consideration. In a recent post Willis asserted that the LWIR re-striking the surface, via back radiation, was equal to the SW striking the surface, sans the clouds presence. I maintained that while the watts may be equal, the SW created a greater overall energy within the “system” due to it longer residence time striking and penetrating the tropical SH ocean, up to 800 feet deep. ( the epipelagic Zone ) and some even deeper to 3000′
(Mesopelagic Zone)
I think a proper understanding of energy residence time as a universal factor in all thermodynamic processes is useful. I have, on the basis of residence time, questioned the veracity of Willis’s proposition that, if the watt per square meter down welling LWIR due to clouds, is equal to the same watt per square meter down welling SW , sans clouds, then they make the same contribution to earth’s energy budget.
I postulate that the SW radiation will enter the earths oceans to depth, having far longer residence time. I postulate that the LWIR will expend much if its energy in accelerating the water cycle, be lost in evaporation, and released at altitude, to be liberated by GHG molecules, the more numerous, the more likely to be quickly liberated from our “system” I assert that (as an example) 10 straight days of SW pumping into the tropical ocean, will accumulate for the entire 10 days, losing little to space; whereas 10 days of LWIR from clouds, will lose far more total energy to space. I postulate that the residence time of the WL of radiation, as well as the materials encountered, are the reason the residence time and total accumulated energy within the system varies, despite an equal wattage flow per square meter.
Lady Gaiagaia does not understand that the % of total solar irradiance UV contributes is far less than SW infrared and visible wave lengths in terms of energy available sufficient to result in a measurable change in something as large as the ocean. This means that the variation in these larger wavelengths (acted on by clouds and turbidity) would swamp any variations in UV, burying its tiny warming signal in the large noise of ocean warming. Again, a tea cup of warm water will not measurably change the temperature of a column of ocean water at any depth and is not cumulatively important in terms of ocean metrics. Period. End of discussion. Unless one believes in fairies or is deficient in mathematics. You pick.
Hi Pamela; I saw zero math in your post.
What is the cumulative daily energy difference at the ocean surface between, oh say pick any recent active solar cycle, and the current solar cycle. Divide that total difference into disparate W/L. Determine the earth (land-ocean-atmosphere) residence time of each disparate W/L. Multiply each disparate W/L daily energy by the particular residence time. Some you will multiply by one, for the residence time may be one day only, and primarily in the atmosphere. Some daily differences you may multiply by 3000 or more, as the residence time may be that long, or much longer. Now tell us the total energy gain over that one solar cycle. Now do the same over three active cycles vs. say three minimum cycles. What is the total difference in the earths energy?
It is similar to determining the oceans geo thermal heat total. The output s infinitesimal to solar energy, but to know how much geothermal heat is currently in the oceans, we need to know the mean residence time of the total geothermal output, which could be many hundreds of days.
Peter Taylor:
“There is a real potential now for global cooling in the next three years – as ENSO fades, as the pressure system in the North Pacific shifts, and a North Atlantic block builds up – and all this coincident with a declining solar cycle and low UV flux and negative AMO..”
The NE Pacific block was due to high SST’s in the region, if the North Atlantic had such a warm “blob” the AMO would be warm (positive) and not cold. Note that the Gleissberg solar minimum of the late 1800’s had a warm AMO throughout, driven by increased negative NAO episodes. Which is what also drives the increase in El Nino through solar minima, in the colder years of the Dalton Minimum in Europe (1807-1817) El Nino frequency roughly doubled. Piers Corbyn is another who has this backwards and expects less El Nino through the next 20 years.
The fastest cooling ahead globally is when the AMO turns fully cold again, and that won’t happen until the solar wind is much stronger again like in the mid 1970’s. Regional land cold extremes will be the worst through the next ten years of this solar minimum.
“Ocean currents affect the surface temperature of the oceans and thus the heat exchange with the atmosphere – eventually causing climate variations on the adjacent continents. The most evident is an oscillation with a period of 60 years. “Such decadal climate fluctuations are superimposed on the general warming trend, so that at times it seems as if the warming trend slowed or even stopped. After a few decades, it accelerates once again,” explains Prof. Latif. “It is important for us to understand these natural cycles, so that we can finally provide better climate predictions as well.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-07-marine-scientists-decoding-mechanism-long-term.html#jCp
Solar flux prediction 100 years ahead- a bit of nonsense.
Nice call Vuk. Admittedly at first I thought the post was from Dr S.
From the graph at the top it wasn’t entirely clear what the effect is. With a few min of cut and paste (ignoring their forecast beyond 2015) picture is a bit clearer.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAO+SSN.gif
NAO (with solar activity) is directly driven by sunspot cycles.
Not on your Nelly, says our resident Stanford Sun-Spot Solar Supremo.
Monthly NAO-Azores.
http://climexp.knmi.nl/data/inao_ijs_azo.png
Thanks for extracting that, it was not at all clear what they meant, now I get it.
Odd that only one “11-year cycles” is 11 years. That could screw up forecasts down the road.
Vuk,
It appears to be not so much a prediction as a loop of the past four cycles, repeating over and over.
Which is extremely doubtful to occur.
Most forecasts/predictions now call for the next cycle (#25) to be even weaker that the current cycle, or so I have been led to believe.
I welcome any other thoughts on this, whether pro or con.
First I would say that the authors of this paper (Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research is an important institution of the same rank of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) according to the criteria of some WUWT’s opinion forming personalities, are firmly in the ‘cyclomania’ camp.
I noticed cycle repeatability too, this is filtered low intensity undercurrent,almost unnoticeable in the actual longer term signal, however there is not much odd about that. In my research elsewhere I found that there is some sense to this, but the ‘every 4 cycle’ is a bit too fast. Temperatures have natural variability in 60-65 year which is six ( or according to this link three even) sunspot cycle. The NAO’s northern component appears to run a bit faster than the temperatures (non-stationary correlation) . The 40 to 50 year periodicity is present in number of climate indices, but it is much less prominent than the ~22 year (solar magnetic) or ~ 60 year AMO cycles. ‘Non-stationary correlation’ is poorly understood and as such ignored and declared as an invalid scientific proof of a link.
My main concern is that this cycle is present only in one month (August see above ) of the year, and should have been stated as such.
Well, it does put two more “spheres” into the models, stratosphere and heliosphere.
The elephant just wiggled his trunk!
That would make seven.
Anyone care to make it eight.
Going once, going twice …
I will see your seven, and raise you a contracting thermosphere.
“Although the solar effect on the North Atlantic Oscillation explains only a few percent of the total variance, ”
Say what? So the solar effect is very, very small. But we already knew that.
Will we see an obvious call for more funding for the authors?
Oh yeah, there it is:
“There is still a long way to go, for successful and reliable long-term forecasts up to a decade. Nevertheless, for successful predictions it is important to include solar fluctuations, Professor Matthes concludes.”
I’ve been covering the same ground since 2010.
Latest version here:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
Stephen, Professor Lu of Waterlu agrees with yu.
http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/~qblu/qblu_website/Research_files/research-I.pdf
The Meridonal jet actually causes more severe weather events on the planet due to increasing the zones interaction with warmer and colder atmosphere over a larger area of the planet. This is actually the reason why more clouds are formed. This integration of warmer and cooler air makes blocks difficult to shift. These persistent blocks over the same areas contribute towards severe weather over weeks, instead of just days. Highlights why they blamed some of the heatwaves and cold winters over Europe in the past recent years due to climate change (global warming), yet it was actually the meridonal jet.
“What is the role of the global ocean circulation in low-frequency climate variability in the North Atlantic region? More than 50 years ago, Bjerknes suggested that the character of large-scale air-sea interaction over the mid-latitude North Atlantic Ocean differs with timescales: the atmosphere was thought to drive directly most short-term (interannual) sea surface temperature (SST) variability, and the ocean to contribute significantly to long-term (multidecadal) SST and potentially atmospheric variability. Such a relationship is also suggested by a number of global climate models in which the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) plays a major role in driving multidecadal SST variability.”
http://www.geomar.de/typo3temp/pics/2015-03-30-heat_flux_01_ab0fc465ed.jpg
Just goes to show that it’s not climate running amok, it’s AMOC that is running the climate. 😉
Your link is not working, ren.
http://www.geomar.de/en/service/
“With some anticipation climatologists now watch the current development in the Pacific, because a strong El Niño is once again predicted for the second half of 2015. “However, we are also interested why a previously predicted strong El Niño failed to develop to full strength in 2014,” says Professor Latif, “such developments help us to check our models against reality and to generate better projections in the future.”
http://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/fuehrt-der-klimawandel-zu-super-el-ninos/
Professor Matthes is right. It is important to include the sun.
I think first the past needs more conclusive understanding wrt solar influence on the climate before achieving “forecasting up to a decade”. N’est ce pas?
John
Forecasting the future helps us to confirm whether we do or do not understand the past.
Anyone can tune a model to fit past data. It’s when we check to see if the model continues to fit new data as it comes it, that we can determine whether the model, and hence are understanding comes close to the mark.
MarkW,
Do you think fitting models to past data is the same as physical understanding of the phenomena in the Earth Atmospheric System (aka:climate)? Or is fitting models to past data ‘curve fitting’ not necessarily requiring physical understand of the physical phenomena?
For a fundamental science perspective, it seems to me that a key is understanding where curve fitting may be supportive only.
John
When solar activity enters a prolonged minimum period of activity look for a negative AO/NAO.
nao july -3.17
Fitting, again. What one would love to see in any or all of these curve-fitting theories is a provable prediction, or mechanism subject to measurement or observation. But then I’m an Oxfordshire housewife with only a housewife’s grasp of such things.
Rhoda,
Your mistake is presuming that “climate science” is about common sense or getting anything right.
It is about money, prestige, funding, etcetera ad nauseum.
You see, “predictions are hard, especially about the future.”
“Climate science”, not so much.
Menicholas
With all due respect, I submit Rhoda’s mistake was assuming “climate science” is actually science. Other than that, she pretty much nailed it.
Well said, but I would suggest “testable” rather than “provable” prediction.
To be science, an hypothesis must make predictions capable of being shown false, as rarely can a fact be “proved”, as in either math or court evidence.
Prove can mean test. Aberdeen Proving Grounds?
Chip,
Which is exactly why I try to always enclose the phrase in quotation marks, to denote that the words do not mean what they imply via the normal usage of the individual words.
I started to explicitly say just what you said, but wanted to keep it “Short and Sweet”.
( Which is also one of my favorite David Gilmour tunes.)
[Please add some words explaining posted links. Thanks. ~mod.]
Otay.
The song has some lyrics which I thought nicely encapsulated part of the discussion here, and did so better than I could explain with my ho-hum writing ability.
It’s interesting mathematical work. However, it still ends up as a “We took this out and it broke our model” method. That’s not a valid tactic for evaluating whether something is real.
That said, the evaluation of lag between solar activity and the NAO is a good one, though I wonder why they would need a model for that, as it’s a historical analysis, and it appears that they properly qualified their results, and it does provide a suggestion for a causal link.
While it seems like a likely reasult and I agree with the general tone and direction, this isn’t evidence. Just because it makes your model fit better doesn’t mean that an effect or connection is real.
Calling a model simulation an experiment is stretching things a bit much.
They are experimenting to see what their model will do. As long as they don’t think they are experimenting to see what the climate will do, there’s no harm in it.
If the model ends up doing something similar to observed data ( and at the same time ) it may be an interesting experiment. If it does something different to what observations show ( and at the same time ) they can put it in a box with all the other models produced over the last 30 years.
Depending on who’s paying for it. Your money? Knock yourself out. My money? I’d rather it be invested in say non-stable plasma fusion techniques. Well, that’s MY choice at least.
Peter
not really.
its a term of art. when we did war gaming simulations they were called experiments.
nobody ran around and shouted that they were not really experiments.
semantic arguments are beneath you rud. you have more impressive points to make
“They are experimenting to see what their model will do. As long as they don’t think they are experimenting to see what the climate will do, there’s no harm in it”
It would seem to be of more use and predictive value if, instead of entering a repeating series of identical solar inputs, it instead posited such things as “If the next solar cycle is very weak, having characteristics a,b, and c, then the NAO will under changes A,B, and C, and the climate of such and such regions will experience alterations x. y, and Z.”
That (or some such analysis) would be useful, predictive, falsifiable and, hence, scientific.
IMO.
“They are experimenting to see what their model will do. As long as they don’t think they are experimenting to see what the climate will do, there’s no harm in it”
It would seem to be of more use and predictive value if, instead of entering a repeating series of identical solar inputs, it instead posited such things as “If the next solar cycle is very weak, having characteristics a,b, and c, then the NAO will undergo changes A,B, and C, and the climate of such and such regions will experience alterations x. y, and z.”
“If instead the next cycle is particularly strong and intense, with characteristics d, e, and f, then the NAO will undergo changes D E, and F, and the climate in noted regions will instead be altered by X, Y, and Z”.
That (or some such analysis) would be useful, predictive, falsifiable and, hence, scientific.
IMO.
Hmm, seems I double posted. Mods. if you could please snip my first post above?
Ah Steven, “when we did war gaming simulations they were called experiments.” Ah no! They’re called war plans such as Rainbow 5, but I get your point.
Are you familiar with the Japanese war games prior to “Midway?” How a group of young “Turks” placed the US Carriers northeast of midway? In the game the young Turks sink two Japanese carriers. The Admirals objected, saying there was no way the US carriers could be there. The little wooden toys were turned back up and the game restarted. They lost four instead of two carriers in one afternoon, and the war.
A model is only a model. it is only as good as the information put into it. All of us know this, If the people behind the model say it needs work, believe them. Give them their heads and let’s see what they do in the future.
Michael
I see two wiggles under each other, is there also a statistical correlation that exceeds 30%?
Well, there you go…
“they were able to prove for the first time that the sun irradiance serves as a phase-lock for the North Atlantic Oscillation”
It is the sun stupid.
>> I wonder why they would need a model for that
You people are seriously confused and pseudo-scientific. Every equation or group of equations IS a MODEL of reality. There is no conceptual difference between F=ma and this author’s model. In fact, F=ma ranks lower since it has been defined to be true. It predicts nothing.
You people complaining about adjusting a model to better fit observation implying that there is something wrong with that are also criticizing Einstein for adding terms to improve Newtonian models for gravity.
Viking,
You’re right, there are many very useful models. But climate models are not among them.
“You people are seriously confused and pseudo-scientific. Every equation or group of equations IS a MODEL of reality. There is no conceptual difference between F=ma and this author’s model.”
Yup..
nobody here gets that F=MA is a model
nobody here gets that F=MA is a model
I guess you didn’t read my comment right above yours.
There are models, and there are models. F=ma is a very useful model.
Mr Mosher, please stop the generalizations. Many of us here, I suspect, have spent much of their career developing models of the form F=ma. In my case, developing dynamical models, they were all derived from F=ma. And we spent a lot of time and money verifying / validating (take your pick of the words) them against historical, measured, data. We didn’t curve-fit anything – either the model agreed with the data, or we figured out what was wrong with the model and fixed it.
nobody here gets that F=MA is a model ????????????????????
Is it that you want to come and sneer at the entire readership of the blog? Why?
Or, is it that you elect to respond only to the (admittedly tedious) spitballs aimed at models simply because that’s all you have to say?
Hmm… there is a difference…
Climate models do not work.
Isaac’s F=ma model does and quite well.
Not all models are equal and many are not even useful. I think most here know the difference Steven but I am getting the distinct feeling that it is you that does not.
No, it isn’t.
Perhaps if you had studied science instead of English, you’d know the difference between a model and a formula or equation.
It is preposterous to imagine that a physical equation based upon observation is equivalent to a GIGO computer game, designed to “show” what its programmers want it to show, with ridiculous assumptions not in evidence.
Your semantic mutations are just another example of the baleful, corrupting influence of climate pseudoscience on real science.
Steven,
In the language of science, F=MA is actually a “law”, not a “model”. Specifically, it’s the second of Newton’s three laws of motion.
It appears that physics was not among the courses you took in high school or college.
No difference? Really.
When I was at school many years ago (it was the start of nuffield science) we had little trucks towing ticker tape and friction compensated tracks where we could show that for a certain set of masses and accelerations F=ma was predictable. We then extrapolated and found that on a huge scale F=ma could be applied to planetary motion within the limits of our crude measurements (using a shilling, plastecine and a piece of dowel to estimate the diameter of the moon for instance)
We were taught at that time that at a quantum level this might not always hold true. I don’t know whether it has been falsified yet. And it only works in Aristotelian space. We were taught to question. We were given the limits and caveats. We were taught that extrapolating beyond the data was fraught without confirmation by observation.
So I think no difference is a bit strong.
@dbstealy
” F=ma is a very useful model. ”
It’s not a model, it is a formal definition of F (“force”). It is not the same as our informal, intuitive notion of force. It merely states that we can use the term “force” to denote the rate of change of momentum (Latin for ‘motion’).
In fact the term “force” is unnecessary in physics (cf. Hamilton’s “forceless physics”). We could merely substitute “rate-of-change-of-motion” for every occurrence of “force” with no loss of meaning (because there is no other formal definition to compare it with).
Perhaps you are conflating F with “forcing”, which is indeed a fuzzy concept:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/08/temperature-and-toa-forcing/#comment-1929763
Cool, I get a chance to be pedantic as well, like Mr Mosher…
pedantic, adj: 1.ostentatious in one’s learning. 2.overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.
ostentatious, adj: 1. characterized by or given to pretentious or conspicuous show in an attempt to impress others. 2. intended to attract notice.
Actually, it’s not F = ma; it’s actually F = d/dt (mv), or the time rate of change of momentum, and only then for v much less than the speed of light (i.e. no relativity concerns).
F = d/dt (mv) = m * dv/dt + v * dm/dt (for v << c)
which reduces to F = ma only when mass is constant (i.e. dm/dt = 0). As an example, for rockets, which are important in my profession, dm/dt is definitely not zero and can't be ignored.
Models all the way down…
“In fact, F=ma ranks lower since it has been defined to be true. It predicts nothing.”
Wait, what?
For one thing, it has not simply “been defined to be true”.
It has been observed and measured to be true under every possible macroscopic (and non-relativistic) circumstance, from the extreme to the ordinary.
It has predicted correctly what will happen in every instance where such predictions have been properly made.
It predicts everything from where a rocket will go and how fast it will get there to how the planets will alter the trajectory, to where a artillery shell will land under various conditions, to how hard a basketball must be thrown, and at what angle, to make the basket that wins the championship, to name a very few specific everyday examples.
It allows one to accurately deduce any of the three terms if the other two are known
So what do you mean, Mr. Explorer?
Menicholas, thank you for asking. Mass is a property of a physical body which determines the strength of its mutual gravitational attraction to other bodies, its resistance to being accelerated by a force.
IOW, as time goes by, humanity’s idea of Mass becomes less certain, yet the strongest definition is m = F/a. So, it’s no wonder that F=ma, since m was defined to make it true.
There are models, models, models models, and models and more models.
We have models. F=ma;
We have models. computer models/simulations
We have models. …of airplanes, dogs and cars etc
We have models. …of ideas, like this sentence
We have models. Heidi Klum
We have models. Chevy Corvette
…
There are more.
The language of science uses a limited aspect of the ideas of model. Science borrowed the term from ..english. & latin.
Thinking is not limited to the limits of scientific language.
I think we all know what definition of “model” of the 30 definitions, is pertinent.
Troll alert?
hmmm maybe.
Viking:
Up to a point, what you say is reasonably accurate. However, the model F=MA only explains the “what happens”, not the “why it happens”.
Unfortunately, the “climate science” dudes (an awful of whom appear to be anything but STEM scientists) tend to claim “models” explain both the “what” and the “why” (e.g.: general relativity & gravity).
All models are not created equal and that’s the basis of the argument.
It would be nice and a lot more valuable if more resources were devoted to the why question instead of the what questions. That is when some progress will be made in gaining a little understanding.
YHGTBSM!
F=MA predicts so much that it can be relied upon to predict the behavior and effect of moving projectiles from thrown rocks, shot bullets and rockets leaving earth’s gravitational field.
Warmunistas apparently suffer some kind of derangement syndrome.
>> Warmunistas apparently suffer some kind of derangement syndrome
You are also confused about who is a warmer in this play. I’m way more anti-AGW than you could ever hope to be. You and others here appear to be reduced to automatically ridiculing every scientific paper that comes along in terms that are attacking the heart of science itself.
In this case, the author appears to be connecting solar activity to earth’s climate. This is certainly not supporting AGW theory. And people like you attack it in some kind of Orwellian 2-minutes of hate against the essence of science itself, namely modelling reality with sets of equations.
You are the Frickin #$%@ anti-science warmer, because if you truly believed that AGW was false, you would have full confidence that SCIENCE will disprove it.
Lady G,
like I said in my purposely pedantic post above, F=ma isn’t true for rockets…
For a
theoryhypothesis that is regularly opposed by the mainstream, it sure does seem to have legs. GKThey realize that the next decades will be very telling of the heliospheric effects on climate. They are forced to deal with it.
They are making a testable hypothesis on a time frame that most of us will be alive to see it.
That at least is an improvement.
The top chart suggests that all these forcings are oscillatory. If we were to paste a line of global surface temperatures on that figure we’d see that it showed a strong warming trend.
For instance, everything in the top chart is pointing downwards since 2013, yet global surface temperatures are hitting all time highs in 2014 and now 2015 (with 2016 also likely to be very warm).
The only reasonable conclusion from that observation is that the warming wasn’t caused by solar activity.
“All time highs” means ‘Hotter than two years ago.”
I really really despise these lies about how ‘hot’ it is compared to the past.
I was specifically referring to global surface temperatures, emsnews. By that I mean surface temperatures as measured by instruments. These are indeed hitting all time highs. Likely it was much warmer in the distant past.
My point is that we can’t blame the sun for the recent observed warming. The top chart in the above post clearly shows this.
The point is that temperatures are as high as they’ve been throughout the history of the AMO record. And even when the AMO was negative temperatures were still climbing. The AMO/Solar activity link cannot explain RSS/UAH observations let alone GISS or CRU.
Give me the date for the beginning of this ‘record’.
If it is more than 200 years ago, we have no direct data. Comparing temperature data from satellites and other instruments with say, tree rings, is mixing apples and oranges. They are not the same. And at no time has world temperatures been higher than the Medieval Warm period.
emsnews,
How odd that you consider a global surface temperature series that starts in 1850 to be unreliable because it has “no direct data”, when it is based entirely on direct instrument data.
Yet you then confidently assert that “at no time has [sic] world temperatures been higher than the Medieval Warm period”; which is a period for which no direct data exists.
You can see my problem, can’t you? You can see your own blatant inconsistency here, right?
DWR,
Lamb (1965) quotes the CET and Manley’s Medieval reconstruction thereof in centennial and fifty-year temperature averages in degrees C thusly:
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology
Elsevier Publishing Company, Amsterdam – Printed in The Netherlands
THE EARLY MEDIEVAL WARM EPOCH AND ITS SEQUEL
800-1000 9.2
1000-1100 9.4
1100-1150 9.6
1150-1200 10.2
1200-1250 10.1
1250-1300 10.2
1300-1350 9.8
1350-1400 9.5
1400-1450 9.1
1450-1500 9.0
1500-1550 9.3
1550-1600 8.8
1600-1650 8.8
1650-1700 8.7
1700-1750 9.24
1750-1800 9.06
1800-1850 9.12
1850-1900 9.12
1900-1950 9.41
The five decades 1950 to 2000 came in around 9.6, so the Modern Warming Period, even with bogus “adjustments” by the MET, is still cooler than the hottest 200 to 250 years of the Medieval WP. At 15 years into the next five decade period, the cooked book CET is averaging around 9.7. It might hit 9.8 before the next 35 years are out, as in the first half of the 14th century, but then again, Central England may cool off along with the rest of the planet in coming decades.
Note also the spectacular warming in the early 18th century, coming off the LIA depths during the Maunder Minimum. It lasted longer, had greater amplitude and rapidity of rise than alleged warming in the late 20th century.
Also note that from about 1945 to 1977, the world cooled despite rapid CO2 rise.
CAGW was born falsified.
Unfortunately, surface temperature readings aren’t worth cr@p.
The error bars for them are in the range of 5C to 10C, so using them to determine anything is an exercise in stupidity.
On the other hand, the satellite measurements confirm that for the last decade or so, there has been a slight cooling.
Surface temperatures come with an error margin of around 0.05C; not 5 to 10C as you suggest. So 10 to 20 times lower than what you think.
Satellites estimate the average temperature of the lower troposphere, which extends from the near surface layer to around 10 km into the sky, depending on latitude. You might say that satellites measure the temperature centred at around 2 miles in the sky, globally.
Most of us live at the surface. So surface temperatures tend to be our most relevant dataset.
The witch doctors who create the data sets claim that it has an error range of 0.05C. That’s a lie, and they know it.
1) Even modern sensors are only accurate to within 0.1C, your error bars go up as you aggregate date, they don’t go down.
2) As Anthony’s work showed, even in the US, which has the best sensor network in the world, over 70% of the sensors, because of micro-site issues aren’t accurate to within 5C.
3) Because of UHI and other issues, those sensors are actually less accurate than that.
4) Less than 5% of the world’s surface comes even close to being adequately measured, while 3/4ths of the world’s surface is close enough to unmeasured that the difference doesn’t really matter.
I stand by my contention that we don’t know the true state of the earth’s temperature using the ground based system within 5 to 10C. And that’s being generous.
Liars like your so called climate scientists, not withstanding.
“If we were to paste a line of global surface temperatures on that figure we’d see that it showed a strong warming trend.”
DWR54, that depends on what scale you choose for the temperature. If you make it in hundredths of a degree, it will look quite strong. Using a scale that spans the daily variations of temperature it will be virtually flat.
Vuk, any chance of overlaying global temp on your distilled graph?
“global surface temperatures are hitting all time highs in 2014 and now 2015 (with 2016 also likely to be very warm).”
Are you seriously that oblivious to the shenanigans that are being perpetrated wrt the surface data?
Are you actually of the opinion that the numerous alterations to the surface data have somehow now been altered to perfection, to the degree that anyone can say that 2015 is the “hottest year EVAH”?
The mere suggestion is beyond laughable…it is ludicrous.
And, moreover, ignores that the alterations are an ongoing series of unannounced events, so whatever the “data” says now is not what it will say next year, or at any time beyond that.
And that these supposed corrections to the actual measured reading just happen, by some incredible and statistically impossibly coincidence, to almost exactly match the increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
In other words, the alterations have been used to force the historical temperature measurements to mimic the preconceived notion that CO2 is the control knob for the temperature of the atmosphere:
Besides for all of that, your statement that we all live on the surface so those are the only numbers that matter is likewise completely ridiculous and at odds with the suggestion that the surface temperature graphs represent reality, since they include measurements and projections of the surface of the ocean, where no one lives. The surface “data” sets likewise include vast areas where projections and homogenization are used to arrive at numbers which are incorporated into the set, and are likewise uninhabited…such as the continent of Antarctica, the vast amounts of mountainous terrain, and the desert areas of the globe.
And how useful is it, in any case, no matter what else you choose to believe, to conclude that the globe is warming by using thermometers that are concentrated in areas undergoing rapid and continuous urbanization and other alterations?
Link to sources of the above graphs:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/the-definitive-data-on-the-global-warmingclimate-change-scam/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/15/new-claims-murky-global-warming-statistics-are-guessed-at/
RSS land.
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/rss-land/from:1950
DWR54,
I almost forgot the most silly thing you said, when you said what you said, silly one that you are.
You said that “surface temperatures are hitting all time highs ”
HAH!
You have a lot of homework to catch up on, sonny boy, as the current period of warming, which has followed the LIA, is far cooler by a lot (that is a scientifical term meaning “more than a little bit”) than each of the previous Holocene warm-ups. See here:
Now hit the books, young man. I expect you to catch up on all of this material before beddy-bye time.
No soup for you!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/01/ice-core-data-shows-the-much-feared-2c-climate-tipping-point-has-already-occurred/
Menicholas, thanks for that insightful graph and link to Ed’s site. Quite informative – not restricted to UK or European readers:
https://edmhdotme.wordpress.com/
Menicholas,
DWR54 is a troll of the ‘I don’t live in the lower troposphere, do you?’ kind.
© John Hughes over at The Register:
http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/20421/
Do you live in the lower troposphere? I don’t.
Do you “measure” temperature by examining microwave radiation from a satellite then running huge spaghetti FORTRAN programs to calculate a number? I tend to use a thermometer.
It is the latest warmist technique to divert attention away from satellite measurements of temperature.
Of course, it never dawns on them that they actually do live in the lower troposphere. Personally, I always thought they lived under rocks.
“The only reasonable conclusion from that observation is that the warming wasn’t caused by solar activity …” (DWR54 1:45 pm).
==============================
http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20and%20TropicalCloudCoverISCCP.gif
“A 3 percent cloud cover change corresponds to a radiative net change of about 0.5 W/m2 … which may be compared with the IPCC 2007 estimate of 1.6 W/m2 for the total effect of all recognized climatic drivers 1750-2006, including release of greenhouse gasses from the burning of fossil fuels …
… the amount of direct solar radiation received in the Equatorial regions presumably is important for both the global sea surface temperature and the global air temperature. In this context, the amount of tropical clouds is likely to represent an important control on the amount of direct solar radiation reaching the planet surface near Equator, from where the heat might be at least partly redistributed to more extensive parts of the planet surface by ocean currents and advecting air masses. The diagram above lends empirical support to this inference. The period until around year 2000 was characterised by generally increasing global air temperature and decreasing tropical total cloud cover. Following 2000, the stable or even slightly decreasing global surface air temperatures associates with a small increase in total tropical cloud cover …” (Prof. Ove Humlum, climate4you – Climate & Clouds).
Seriously, the only place we need to watch carefully to tell if the planet is going to be colder or hotter is Hudson Bay. All Ice Ages began there, the most ice from the Ice Ages collected there (northern Alaska had zero glaciation, for example).
If Hudson Bay doesn’t melt in summer, we are seriously in trouble. If it gets colder longer there, we are in trouble. Temperatures in California don’t matter one whit. Droughts in California have nothing to do with the entire planet. It is local.
But Hudson Bay does affect the entire planet! This is the key to everything.
In the SOL experiment, a statistically significant warming with a maximum of 0.9 K is observed near the tropical stratopause (3–1 hPa≈45–50 km) at lag −1 year of the NAO-based composites (Fig. 3a). This positive temperature anomaly arises from increased solar ultraviolet irradiance during solar cycle maximum phases, which leads to additional heating due to ozone absorption in the upper stratosphere and more ozone production in the mid and upper stratosphere through the photolysis of oxygen28. A secondary warming anomaly of 0.8 K appears in the lower equatorial stratosphere (~70 hPa or 20–25 km). Although less well understood than the direct upper stratospheric response, this secondary warming could arise from adiabatic warming13 combined with increased ozone heating29 due to a deceleration of the Brewer-Dobson circulation. The two temperature responses to the 11-year solar cycle are in reasonable agreement with reanalyses30, 31. Consistent with the 11-year solar cycle/NAO lagged relationship (Figs 1 and 2), the maximum temperature response in the stratosphere due to 11-year solar variability leads the NAO by 1 year. Conversely, none of these typical solar signals is observed in the NO_SOL experiment which instead shows a seesaw of positive (negative) temperature anomalies in the middle tropical and subtropical stratosphere (20–3 hPa) in winter (Fig. 3b).
Did they find something?
michael
None of this explains the global temperature trend over the last century – or even over the last 30 years. The AMO index has wiggled around some calculated mean but is generally trendless. It might explain shifts in weather patterns – particularly in the NH – but it tells us nothing about energy accumulation in the climate system.
The fact that there may be some link between solar activity and the AMO is irrelevant as far as any influence
that greenhouse gases may have.
Actually it;’s not true to say the AMO is trendless but the trend only exists because SSTs have risen. I suspect there is some confusion between cause and effect.
You’re wrong.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/esrl-amo/from:1979
There’s a very good match between the AMO and warming global temperatures over the past nearly 40 years using satellite.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/esrl-amo/from:1979
There is still a good match between the AMO and cooling global temperatures from nearly 80 to 40 years ago using surface.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1940/to:1979/plot/esrl-amo/from:1940/to:1979
The AMOC cooling and warming every few decades is what causes global cycles of roughly 30 years warming and 30+ years cooling. This cooling and warming cycle is detected throughout history and the recent warming from the 1980’s has been down to it. Only way a AGW signal can be seen is if the next cooling phase has warming instead. The alarmists will do there best to tamper with surface data to try and make sure it does warm. The satellites will try and keep them less dishonest, but their agenda has become increasingly noticed.
I do not trust any of the surface data with it increasingly reducing cooling between the 1940’s and 1970’s and increasing the difference between the 1940’s and 2000’s. This has been going on for decades that much, that I don’t think there is even hardly any difference.
The warming of the AMO since 1995 was driven by increased negative NAO episodes, due declines in solar plasma forcing. Given that increased CO2 forcing according to the IPCC should increase positive NAO, the decline in solar is very much overwhelming any effects of increased CO2 forcing.
http://snag.gy/HxdKY.jpg
Are climate predictions over periods of several years reliable if weather forecast are still only possible for short periods of several days?…..
….no, predicting climate is easier
Not even close to being true. When predicting weather, you don’t have to worry about any of the climatic feedbacks and the interactions between the various “spheres”.
Before you can predicting climate you have to be able to understand all of the interactions. Unfortunately, we don’t. Not even close. We can try again in 100 years or so.
Mark, predicting small incremental long term trends….is a lot easier than predicting tomorrow’s weather
They just make a big deal of it…..
BTW…..right now, they are both crap
You realize that some weather models (the best ) are used as GCMs?
Further you dont need to know all the interactions, just the important ones.
A good number of GCMS get the global temperature right to with 1C.
that on a 150 year prediction.
weather models suck way more than that. Last year I used GFS for 14 day forecasts..
looking at every day for 200 locations… errors greater than 1C were rampant.
Stephen Mosher:
No. They deliberately picked the simplest weather models for GCM’s.
I can say with some confidence that, here in Florida, next summer will be very hot and humid, with frequent and near daily widespread thunderstorm activity.
And so will the next year, and the year after that.
With perhaps more certainty than I can say it will rain very hard in Fort Myers on Friday.
But, can I say whether next summer will be rainier than average?
The year after that?
Ten summers from now?
I am not sure exactly what is implied by these statements wrt whether weather is easier of more difficult to predict than climate.
The paper could be valuable, but it wont get very much attention. It lacks the maybe, possible, could be looming catastrophe if you don’t do anything or investigate more.
The RSS data set will have enough data to see 11 year cycles in 1979 + 11*4 = 2023. That’s not too far off. And RSS captures temperatures in the upper atmosphere. So if there’s an 11 year cycle that affects the upper atmosphere, it’s either visible now in the RSS data (if it’s very large signal) or will soon be visible if it’s a medium-sized signal.
As far as seeing 60 year AMOC cycle, we have to wait till at least 2099 assuming the signal is large.
Peter
I haven’t read the paper yet, but do they isolate their characterization of the stratospheric chemistry relationships?
Our planet is warm due to two things: the planet’s core is very hot still unlike say, the moon, and the local star, the Sun heats our planet up nicely due to our oceans and atmosphere which holds in the heat enough to allow life to thrive here.
We know for a fact that the sun isn’t all that steady state and the latest solar cycle is particularly weak and the next one is expected to be even weaker and all global warming worries that are now called ‘climate change’ for political reasons because this is not the ‘hottest year evah’ not even slightly for the last 200 years much less, 2,000 years.
All this means that the entire discussion is becoming crazy. It isn’t real.
The Met Office has just told us via the BBC in the UK that a very cold winter similar to 2010/11 is about to hit us because of cold waters in the north Atlantic …..but, lest we get the wrong idea, the rest of the world will be very hot.
Of course it will. We knew that.
Sign’s do suggest a average/cold winter for the UK with the PDO, AMO, El Nino and cold ocean waters in the north Atlantic with recently half active declining sun activity.
Closest years since 1900 to match these scenario’s are 1905/06 and 1940/41.
The last winter to have a strong El Nino and positive PDO was 1997/98, but there are some differences this year that single it out from a very mild winter in the UK like back then.
The last winter to have similar solar activity, but towards increasing cycle, AMO and El Nino (not strong) was winter 2010/11. There are a few differences this year though compared to back then.
100%
As for the rest of the world being very hot…I think she forgot about a few areas in her insightful analysis.
You can always trust the Met to lie their butts off.
Hail Britannia! 🙂
At least they are starting to look in the right area and beginning to understand that the weather has a key role to play in climate change. Long term high pressure blocking during the winter months over the northern Atlantic and northern europe would soon bring about climate change to europe. Weather or not if the northern Atlantic is running warm or cool.
This idea that the sun has something to do with temperature and climate is breathtaking.
Yeah, Pat Ch, who would have thought the sun might have such an influence!
A professor, a long long time ago told me that when you are studying a system, you just might want to take a look at the input signal, just saying.
How old is this knowledge of the sun and moon cycles?
When man first had enough brain power to know he had sun burn.
Long, long, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggg ago.
Then better with say Chaco Canyon and the rounded rocks leaning up with circles and arrows to show the way.
http://www.nps.gov/chcu/index.htm
Past this deal of the old ones, the study becomes the study of chaos.
Thinking you can know chaos means you know nothing.
*scratches head and rubs chinny-chin-chin*
And Stonehenge…
This looks like the autocorrelation that occurs between two windshield wipers on the school bus wired to two separate motors. Eventually they coincide and eventually they are opposite. In addition, adding a small signal to a very strong one is of no value to me, for obvious reasons. For me, I just don’t see much here in this paper.
Maybe to you, but not to anyone who has studied statistics.
I have studied statistics at the graduate level and have published research.
Then, what’s your problem?
I don’t have a problem with 0.1% solar variation causing a 0.1 degree C change measured by top of the atmosphere change in w/m2 from solar maximum to solar minimum. And I don’t have a problem understanding that a part of that solar spectrum, the UV part, if it were the only part impacting Earth’s atmosphere, would have even less of an effect in shaping Earth’s temperature trends. Intrinsic variations, with Earth’s own capacity to reflect, absorb, store, and variably release solar warmth is tremendous. Add our long term wobbly changing course around the Sun and you have more than enough reason for temperature trends up, down, and otherwise, short term, midterm, and glacial term. Does CO2 increase when warmth increases? File that under duh. A warmer Earth begets more CO2 exhaling flora and fauna, nearly at pace with warming.
Present a cogent argument against direct measures and observations.
If we extend your windshield wiper analogy to the science and art of love, perhaps we never fall out of love, and falling in love is but a random and ephemeral syncing of two swinging pendulums.
And if, indeed, we apply it to all of life, we might be left with the sad and inescapable conclusion that there is no past, and no future, that life is one long ever-present “now”, and everything is an illusion.
She never loved me and life ain’t even real!
As ‘row, row, row your boat’ so gleefully illustrates. ‘Life is but a dream’….
Answer this: Describe how animals that mate for life, find each other and stay together, even some dying if one member succumbs to life’s march towards death before the pair can no longer procreate. One caveat: Understand that higher primates are, in general, not monogamous, but instead have one dominant male who does duty with females. That is not to say I think this works in the way we live today, but I would imagine such arrangements were typical of cave life.
The way I see it, the model output is a hypothesis. Now, the hypothesis must be proved by comparison with data. (Actual data measured of the climate.)
The model input must correspond to actual changes in the sun, then.
Exactly.
“There is still a long way to go, for successful and reliable long-term forecasts up to a decade.”
…but we can tell you with 95% certainty what will happen in 100 years.
8:30 minutes ago the sun exploded! the co2 magic dust camp, “yea we won!”
//kappa
“Are climate predictions over periods of several years reliable if weather forecast are still only possible for short periods of several days?”
Hopeless. What they should be looking at is solar effects on the NAO at down to daily scales, i.e at the scale of weather variability. And not by UV variability but by the solar wind (see Brian Tinsley’s papers). Forecasting such solar forcing of atmospheric teleconnections at the noise level, and extrapolating from that how the oceanic modes will respond, is the only effective way to forecast future climate states.
The funniest thing here is, the sun and suddenly change gears and act differently! Note that no Ice Age ended slowly, all ended very, very abruptly. And very messily with sudden total freezes and secondary sudden melting episodes that were quite explosive in nature. With vast floods, for example.
By the way, humans (and pre-humans) in Africa barely noticed all of this since glaciation didn’t trouble the continent very much at all. It was just alterations between kind of wet and cool and quite warm and dry.
It appears we have several commentators who are in need of education on this subject of UV variation and its ability to measurably affect ocean temperatures, and by absorption and transfer, atmospheric temperature trends. The breadth of total solar irradiance contributes at most a fraction of Earth’s temperature variation. The effects of intrinsic weather pattern changes and climate regime shifts simply buries the effects of solar irradiance:
“…global surface temperature warms ∼0.1°C as solar irradiance increases ∼0.1% from the minimum to the maximum of recent solar activity cycles [Lean and Rind, 2008, 2009].”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777/full
The UV spectrum is a fraction of that. Even if you say there is a cumulative effect, it would be impossible to parse out from the very noisy and poorly measured global data, whether it be local, regional, or globally averaged.
http://spgftp.ucsd.edu/People/Mati/2003_Ahmad_et_al_UV_radiation_SPIE.pdf
If you have disagreements with me, don’t bother. Instead present a cogent argument against the articles I have linked to.
That’s right, Pam. Never bother trying to debate. Just refer them to one of your opinion leader’s articles. Easy way out for a smug little person who will eventually be proven to be wrong………
No, just no. Have they eyes? They get one flat wiggle with a lag that doesn’t help the overall fit. Everything else varies from phase to antiphase. Just like the Milankovitch stuff (absent the unexplained period shift).
The problem with the climate realists camp is this.
The global warming alarmists are united behind one key body, namely, the United Nations (which has global influence over the left wing media, politicians and government paid/funded climate scientists, to help push their IPCC climate lies).
Which unifying body represents the climate realists? There isn’t one. Is it therefore any surprise that governments don’t get to hear the truth about the climate? For example, Obama recently presented his climate lies speeches in Alaska, yet nobody knows his rhetoric was lies.
It is studies like this one about solar influence on climate that should be distributed across the world to all governments and media and science academies. Yet there is nobody doing this although I recognise the efforts of the NIPCC.