Climate Craziness of the Week: Fictional movie inspires fictional climate modeling

From the UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON and the “lets study science fiction by using climate model fiction” department.

day-after-tomorrow

Could ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ happen? 

A researcher from the University of Southampton has produced a scientific study of the climate scenario featured in the disaster movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.

In the 2004 film, climate warming caused an abrupt collapse of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), leading to catastrophic events such as tornados destroying Los Angeles, New York being flooded and the northern hemisphere freezing.

Although the scientific credibility of the film drew criticism from climate scientists, the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state-of-the-art climate model.

Using the German climate model ECHAM at the Max-Planck Institute in Hamburg, Professor Sybren Drijfhout from Ocean and Earth Science at the University of Southampton found that, for a period of 20 years, the earth will cool instead of warm if global warming and a collapse of the AMOC occur simultaneously. Thereafter, global warming continues as if the AMOC never collapsed, but with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C.

This is a temperature anomaly in degrees Celsius after 95 years from the onset of an AMOC collapse. CREDIT University of Southampton
This is a temperature anomaly in degrees Celsius after 95 years from the onset of an AMOC collapse. CREDIT University of Southampton

Professor Drijfhout said: “The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal.”

Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years.

Professor Drijfhout added: “When a similar cooling or reduced heating is caused by volcanic eruptions or decreasing greenhouse emissions the heat flow is reversed, from the ocean into the atmosphere. A similar reversal of energy flow is also visible at the top of the atmosphere. These very different fingerprints in energy flow between atmospheric radiative forcing and internal ocean circulation processes make it possible to attribute the cause of a climate hiatus period.”

However, the study, which appears in Scientific Reports, says that the recent period of very weak warming cannot be attributed to one single cause. Most probably El Niño plays a role and possibly also changes in the Southern Ocean due to shifting and increasing westerlies.

Professor Sybren said: “It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Changes in ocean circulation must have played an important role. Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”

###

0 0 vote
Article Rating
183 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ShrNfr
October 9, 2015 7:54 am

I have a model that says that if large enough asteroid hits the earth, it won’t matter. Both this model and mine are as equally likely to happen withing the next number of millenniums.

Reply to  ShrNfr
October 9, 2015 9:43 am

i bought a model of Superman when i was a kid. the plastic was colored blue, but not “Superman blue”.even though the bottle of paint cost $0.15. my dad advised not to buy the paint. i should have bought the paint. blue is not always the correct blue.

ShrNfr
Reply to  scott frasier (@frasierscott1)
October 9, 2015 10:55 am

Sorry to hear that you blue it back then. Sounds like it still hurts.

Bryan A
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 9, 2015 12:13 pm

Seems to me that this last sentence
“Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.” (IOW Warming to begin again)
Should more probably read
‘The Greenhouse effect has counteracted Natural Variations for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”’ (IOW Cooling to begin again)

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Bryan A
October 9, 2015 7:29 pm

“Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”
… just another quote to file away and bring back in a decade or two for exhibition in the this-is-what-they-once-thought Department.
In view of the chaotic periodicity of current and ancient proxied global temperatures, it seems very foolish to me for anyone to believe that from this time forward, a linear fit to all future global temperatures will always be positive.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Bryan A
October 10, 2015 1:50 pm

He also mentions ‘..warming continues at its current rate..’ – what as in not all? The denial really now seems to be more from the warmists denying the flatlining temperature.

Reply to  ShrNfr
October 9, 2015 12:58 pm

At some point the Earth will be hit by a large asteroid unless we have a Star Trek future which would guarantee our safety. Failing that, we will get hit, it is just a matter of when….the laws of probability guarantee it.

Trevor
Reply to  pyeatte
October 13, 2015 12:57 pm

“[T]he laws of probability guarantee it”.
Please leave discussion of the laws of probability to people who KNOW the laws of probability.
First of all the laws of probability do not DETERMINE the probability of any event; they only CALCULATE (and sometimes only estimate) that probability. Does a calculator determine the sum of 1 and 2? Does a thermometer determine temperature? Does a scale determine the weight of an object? No, and neither do the laws of probability determine the probability of an event. And if they can’t determine the probability of an event, they certainly can’t make that event certain.
Second, by definition, in the study of probability, NOTHING is CERTAIN. In fact, UNcertainty is the very BASIS of the study of probability. There are no guarantees in probability. Anything that IS guaranteed has no place in the study of probability, and the laws of probability do not apply to it.
Third, it is the LAWS OF NATURE that determine the probability that a large asteroid will hit the Earth. But to the extent that the Laws of Probability can be used to calculate that probability, it is less than 1. It may be very close to 1. It may be “nearly certain”. It may be “virtually guaranteed”. But it is not guaranteed or certain.
Regards,
Trevor

Reply to  ShrNfr
October 9, 2015 8:36 pm

You have a point there… hahahah

October 9, 2015 7:55 am

TDAT has never been too popular in warmist circles really. It shows global warming with a catastrophic ice age, thereby confusing the public. Also it shows that there is no disaster to film really, if things get warmer, so the director and script writers had to get stuff freezing instead. Furthermore if warming causes cooling there is nothing to prepare for and we might as well emit as much CO2 as possible while the party keeps goiing.

DD More
Reply to  omnologos
October 9, 2015 8:54 am

See the top picture?
Statue Statistics –
Thickness of copper sheeting: 3/32 of an inch, the thickness of two pennies placed together.
Wind Sway: 50 mph winds cause the Statue to sway up to 3 inches and the torch up to 6 inches.
In the movie, the pretty lady got splashed over her shoulders with a tidal wave. Anyone want to calculate the odds the copper sheeting, supported on a Cast Iron frame, would still be in a recognizable shape?
http://staticmass.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/day_2.jpg
Another little problem, as the Liberty is positioned to faced the new arrivals coming by ship, her back getting hit means the wave came from New Jersey. But it is still good enough to base a ‘Climate Model’ on.

TomRude
Reply to  DD More
October 9, 2015 10:17 am

I always loved when the hero picks up his kid on the beach when the cold front lands and follows the car on the road…

Mike
Reply to  DD More
October 9, 2015 10:54 am

Professor Drijfhout said: “The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal.”

He talks like it actually means something, as thought it tells what may happen if the AMOC runs a moc.
He needs to start by finding a model that got even half way close to matching the first ten years of expolation before worrying about what it projects when extrapolated 50 or more.
At least he seems to recognise that climate models are better adapted to modelling fictional climate scenarios than what real climate will do.
Small progess there.

Joel Snider
Reply to  DD More
October 9, 2015 11:59 am

Jersey? I’m really resisting telling a Chis Christy joke here.

Menicholas
Reply to  DD More
October 9, 2015 12:33 pm

You mean the movie was FAKE!
OMG!
We been had!
LOL

higley7
Reply to  omnologos
October 9, 2015 11:45 am

TDAT had massive stories caused by high pressure centers. It’s simply not possible to have a vortex, like a hurricane, around out flowing air.

Menicholas
Reply to  higley7
October 9, 2015 12:34 pm

It is also not possible for air to descend and cool.

BFL
Reply to  higley7
October 9, 2015 2:01 pm

BUT the special effects were soooo cooool, especially the helicopter fuel and pilots in instant freeze….

Reply to  omnologos
October 9, 2015 3:01 pm

………” if warming causes cooling ”
Ever hear of a “Heat Pump”? this is a “Natural one”, I suppose. Need money to study the catastrophic phenomenon!!

Francisco
October 9, 2015 7:56 am

Hiatus?!?! He used the word hiatus?

M Seward
Reply to  Francisco
October 9, 2015 8:12 am

Its all right. He’s been sent for treatment and will not be using the term any more. It was a slip of the tongue, a brain snap if you like. Fortunately its treatable although the initial phases are debilitating and the medication does produce side effects.

Bert Walker
Reply to  Francisco
October 9, 2015 9:55 am

Right wasn’t that in the 1940’s? (sarc)
see: 2:50-3:22 [youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl9-tY1oZNw&w=420&h=315%5D

getitright
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 9, 2015 11:29 am

I had a record player years back that would stick on a track, much like Mr. Mair is so stuck on his track. It too was from the 40’s.

Pat Paulsen
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 9, 2015 12:21 pm

97%…awk…97%…awk Polly want a cracker!

empiresentry
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 9, 2015 12:40 pm

The preponderance of the data proves the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around the Earth.
It is no longer up for discussion.
The preponderance of the data proves that acidic oceans are blanching coral reefs.
It is not longer up for discussion…..regardless of the starfish destroying the reefs.
The preponderance of the data proves that industries dumping hazmat on the Border causes fetal tube syndromes and deaths.
It is no longer up for discussion…..regardless of the facts that folic acid prevents these deaths and no hazmat was found.
So refreshing to see another person stand up to this bogus crapola and actually has his facts in hand.
Thank you for sharing and many thanks to Cruz.
Cruz did A great job of “Race Horse Haynes” technique of having Meyers commit to ‘science’ and then cornered him. Cockroach.
Would have been nice if Cruz had taken apart the man’s default claim of 97%.

Mick
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 9, 2015 1:21 pm

I remember when the experts didn’t suggest Folic Acid supplements to prevent neural tube defect. They considered it unnecessary and against consensus. End of debate.

Reply to  Bert Walker
October 9, 2015 3:10 pm

97% of all climate scientists on earth ? I thought it was only approx 60-90 carefully handpicked scientists who actually are the 97% . When will these lies end .
The General public at large are totally unaware of the malfeasance perpetrated in their face day after day on Global Warming . And the shame is all the data proving the falsehood is readily available and relatively easily understandable by a moderately educated person especially if one can read and understand graphs . And this Mr Mair who did not supply a single intelligent answer or opinion may well have just have not turned up and just phoned it in for all the value he contributed .

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 9, 2015 7:01 pm

Mair kept turning around with a deer in the headlights look- like a grade school kid in a play who forgot his next line looks at the teacher for his prompt.
Just another activist for hire, pledging blind faith in anyone who supports the anti-humanist dogma.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 10, 2015 10:20 am

Oh!!! I remember him!!! He (or someone who looks like him), said that some island might tilt if we put too many troops on it. No wonder he can’t read a trend line rate of change, and likely does not know what a y intercept is either. But then isn’t the Sierra Club a spendy bar that serves phoo phoo drinks with umbrellas? I’m pretty sure 97% of the people would state that as a fact.

Aphan
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 10, 2015 10:41 am

Pamela, congressman Hank Johnson said that,

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Bert Walker
October 10, 2015 7:01 pm

I know. I was being very unpolitically incorrect.

Hugs
Reply to  Francisco
October 9, 2015 11:04 am

He meant to say “the so-called ‘hiatus’, which does not exist, since the OHC grows abated, were over now, if it existed.” Simple. You just remember to talk about the ‘hiatus’ in quotes. Professor made the mistake of not rolling his eyes up enough when he said ‘hiatus’ so the university press release missed the scare quotes.
BTW have you ever wondered what is a ‘press release’? Like you press, and then release? Isn’t that the normal case? You seldom press without releasing, right? A good typist does hundreds of press-releases in a minute.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Hugs
October 9, 2015 3:10 pm
DonM
Reply to  Hugs
October 9, 2015 10:22 pm

Every time I push on a door that is labeled “pull”, or try to pull on a “push” I am reminded of the farside cartoon … I have a deep affinity for the kid in the cartoon.

Alan the Brit
October 9, 2015 7:56 am

In my experience, people who are enwrapped within the academic world, are often sheltered from everyday reality. They may have a PhD or a professorship, but that doesn’t mean that much outside academia.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 9, 2015 10:52 am

An old story of the Agricultural Extension Service and academia interacting support your statement Alan. Milk producers came to a famous University and asked why their milk production was going down. Weeks later after much study and discussion at the University, the milk producers were called to a meeting and the first University speaker was from the Physics Dept. He said, “First, assume the cow is spherical…”.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 9, 2015 11:41 am

Maybe Dr. Sheldon Cooper is a realistic character after all…

Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 9, 2015 2:42 pm

“They may have a PhD or a professorship, but that doesn’t mean that much outside academia.”
You can take a moron and drag him though a university. You can even confer a PhD on him; but he is still a moron. (H/T Mencken)

rogerknights
Reply to  markstoval
October 9, 2015 11:48 pm

“Nature abhors a moron.”
—H.L. Mencken

dennisambler
Reply to  markstoval
October 10, 2015 2:38 am

“Nature abhors a moron.”
—H.L. Mencken
But they still publish them…..

James Bull
Reply to  Alan the Brit
October 10, 2015 12:24 am

I have 3 brothers in law one is the apple of his Mums eye and can do very little wrong, one is very clever and can baffle me when he starts talking and the third has a gift for the practical and seeing through problems, He described the second one thus after he had been doing some repairs.
“His common sense finishes at his elbows!”.
I think this may be true of many very highly educated people practical things just are often beyond them.
James Bull

TonyG
Reply to  James Bull
October 12, 2015 8:35 am

My father, who survived the Depression and fought on the front in WWII, worked with a lot of scientists who didn’t seem to understand practical everyday things. His term for them was “educated fools”

Jeff Alberts
October 9, 2015 7:59 am

Professor Drijfhout said: “The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates…”

So, at a rate of effectively zero. Yay! We’re not doomed!
Is he gonna return all that wasted grant money?

October 9, 2015 8:06 am

To bolster his credibility, our modeler opines that the current/hiatus/pause/data-heresy may be due to reduced CO2 emissions (since when?), volcanoes (secret ones as opposed to the ones known and measured), aerosols (even true believers have stopped beating that horse) or undefined changes in ocean circulation that cause theoretical warming to cause actual cooling.
I think there should be a psychological screening process for entry into the study of climate science: if you are incapable of embarrassment you may not do graduate work in climate science but must go directly into political science or a Vox.com internship.

M Seward
Reply to  Old Hoya
October 9, 2015 8:13 am

Or a quiet rural retreat with friendly nurses and a high security fence.

Joel Snider
October 9, 2015 8:11 am

Anybody think Hollywood will do a movie version of ‘State of Fear’?

LeeHarvey
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 9, 2015 8:21 am

They attempted a new film version of Atlas Shrugged, so a small part of me is still holding out hope.

Skidance
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 9, 2015 8:36 am

Additional news is coming. Sorry, I must be cryptic for now.

Matt Bergin
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 9, 2015 10:08 am

The two movies they did make of Atlas shrugged were terrible. If I hadn’t read the book I would not have had any idea what I was watching.

Skidance
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 9, 2015 2:31 pm

Part III was also made. At least they got Galt right–or nearly so. I wouldn’t call this trilogy awful, although it could have had much better acting, directing, budget, and script. A competent re-make would be interesting.
I’d really like to see “State of Fear” made into a movie.

Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 9, 2015 7:48 pm

Atlas Shrugged was a horrible movie, and not a really good book either, even though I agree with the principle it was trying to get across.
But imagine a producer who is told there is a new book by one of the top authors whose books have been turned into some of the most successful movies and tv shows of all time. I would think that producer would love to make a movie out this new book, but nobody seems to have shown interest when the book first came out, I doubt they will now.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 9, 2015 8:43 pm

I wonder why Crichton didn’t title the book “Climate of Fear.”

LeeHarvey
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 12, 2015 7:20 am

@ Mike –
Because the AGW scare is a product of the State, not of the climate.

TonyG
Reply to  LeeHarvey
October 12, 2015 8:37 am

AS the movie was essentially a self-funded indie vanity project. Hollywood proper would probably never touch it. Definitely wouldn’t do it right.

MarkW
Reply to  Joel Snider
October 9, 2015 10:02 am

In one of the Tom Clancey movies they changed the Arab terrorists to a bunch of neo-Nazis, so I don’t hold out much hope that the movie version will have much resemblance to the book.

schitzree
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2015 1:10 pm

Before ‘Kingsmen’, I would have agreed that we’d never see true version of ‘State of Fear’ come out of Hollywood. Now…

chris y
Reply to  MarkW
October 17, 2015 8:28 am

The movie Interstellar also featured the ‘remarkable’ Dr. Mann.
So there is hope.

Reply to  Joel Snider
October 9, 2015 7:36 pm

No the writer of that book doesn’t have a good track record of his books being turned into movies or tv shows.
Opps sorry I guess his record is ok. Um, well then it must be because 97% of producers say global warming isn’t happening.

Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 8:13 am

Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”

Another prediction to watch.
Somehow natural variations have not done what they’ve expectedso far…
But it does ring of scientific authority, doesn’t it?

joelobryan
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 8:29 am

That statement is his Affirmation of Faith, a statement of fealty to the climate orthodoxy, so that he won’t labeled a heretic by the Church of CAGW religious police.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 8:44 am

I am much more likely to adhere to the cycles of past change when contemplating the possible future.
The model seems to be based on a linear speculation of the buildup of ‘the missing heat’ causing disruption of the AMOC.
Just tells me that the models will predict anything you program them to.

ferd berple
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 9:04 am

Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect
================
the IPCC tells us the natural variations are small – therefore the warming from 1980-2000 could only be due to CO2.
Now we hear that natural variation can overwhelm CO2 warming – which contradicts the IPCC – which means that the 1980-2000 warming could have been due to something other than CO2.
The problem for Climate Science is that the entire CO2 “proof” relies on natural variation being small. If it is large, then the modern warming may simply be due to natural variation and CO2 may play no role at all.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  ferd berple
October 9, 2015 10:55 am

Thanks, +1

Tim Crome
Reply to  ferd berple
October 9, 2015 11:49 am

Such simple logic and so true. Amazing the media and politicians don’t get it.

Tim Crome
Reply to  ferd berple
October 9, 2015 11:53 am

I wonder who paid for this fantastic piece of work, could it be UK tax payers? Good to see they’re geting good value for their money!

gymnosperm
Reply to  ferd berple
October 9, 2015 9:30 pm

The very existence of the CRAWL means that natural variations at least very nearly equal human CO2. There is no other possibility except that some other aspect of unnatural human combustion also counteracts human CO2. All the angles have been worked to death. None of them play. It boils down to the saturation of CO2.

chris y
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 9:44 am

James Hansen flip-flopped on this very point-
Back In 2003 When Climate Science Was Settled-
“As we shall see, the small forces that drove millennial climate changes are now overwhelmed by human forcings.”
Hansen et al., 2003 bulletin, Columbia University
More Recent Post-Hoc Settled Science-
“”The longevity of the recent protracted solar minimum, at least two years longer than prior minima of the satellite era, makes that solar minimum potentially a potent force for cooling,” Hansen and his co-authors said.”
Hansen et al., “Earth’s energy imbalance and implications”, 2011 bulletin, Columbia University
“The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing…The annual increment in the greenhouse gas forcing (Fig. 5) has declined from about 0.05 W/m2 in the 1980s to about 0.035 W/m2 in recent years.”
Hansen et al, 2013 bulletin, Columbia University

MarkW
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 10:03 am

A few decades ago, they were proclaiming that CO2 was so powerful that it would completely swamp all natural variability, which is why they didn’t need to worry about including them in their models.

Jimbo
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2015 1:25 pm

Not just a few decades ago. Here are the folks at ‘skeptical science’ 5 years ago.

Last updated on 11 September 2010 by Michael Searcy.
Theory, models and direct measurement confirm CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.
While natural processes continue to introduce short term variability, the unremitting rise of CO2 from industrial activities has become the dominant factor in determining our planet’s climate now and in the years to come.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120504001907/http://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-is-not-the-only-driver-of-climate.htm

Hivemind
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 6:13 pm

Somehow natural variations have not done what they’ve supposed to so far…
FIFY.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 7:00 pm

The statement seems to say that until about 50 years or so ago, there was no greenhouse effect, however inappropriately named. I wonder if he realizes how ridiculous that statement really is.

JimB
October 9, 2015 8:22 am

I don’t recall a study that has “witnessed” heat take-up by the oceans *that is based on actual measurements*. Am I wrong? Onset of senile dementia?

MCourtney
Reply to  JimB
October 9, 2015 8:30 am

Nope, you are right.
I was just about to make the exact same point.

Ian W
Reply to  JimB
October 9, 2015 8:36 am

You are not wrong. Indeed, the very expensive systems put in place have all shown that the oceans have not ‘taken up heat’ – so satellites and Argo Float data are discarded. However, there hare several hypotheses that posit heat taken up by the oceans. These hypotheses obviously take precedence over any mere observational science as they match preconceptions essential to continue the venal activities of climate scientists and politicians.

Retired Engineer Jim
Reply to  Ian W
October 9, 2015 8:59 am

But doesn’t “witness” imply “observe”?

MarkW
Reply to  Ian W
October 9, 2015 10:05 am

Not in post modern science.

Reply to  Ian W
October 9, 2015 9:20 pm

@retired engineer jim It does but AGW theorists have a retort to that : Who you gonna believe me; or your lying eyes!

Matt G
October 9, 2015 8:37 am

“Thereafter, global warming continues as if the AMOC never collapsed, but with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C”
The model means absolutely nothing until observations can back this up. We have proxy observations that show the temperature difference being up to ~8 c not 0.8 c. Why has the model suggested it is 10 x smaller than observed? If this was the case then there would never be enough energy moving North to come out of an ice age quickly or a decrease in energy to come into one quickly. The AMOC greatly affects most of the Arctic ocean too, so to show warming there no different from some areas of the world is not supported by any scientific evidence. Another major problem being hardly any difference between the Tropics and the poles, again no scientific evidence supports this.
There are many problems with the model graphic shown because ice cores and ocean sediments have shown changes in the North Atlantic region much larger. The UK has been greatly affected by the AMOC in the past and Greenland has shown huge changes with this. Yet we are to believe a model showing virtually no changes in Greenland, Scandinavia, Western Europe and Iceland.
Where is the evidence?

Curious George
October 9, 2015 8:38 am

They are all living in a fantasy land.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Curious George
October 9, 2015 8:58 am

Just another big stretch of the scientific envelope.

higley7
Reply to  Curious George
October 9, 2015 11:53 am

The above study is all fantasy as it ignores real world findings.
Studies of bottom sediments between Florida and Cuba have found that the AMOC slows down with cooling and speeds up with warming. Warmer water will evaporate more water into the atmosphere, increasing density more rapidly
Water viscosity also plays a role. Cold water, more viscous, slower flow; warm water, less viscous, faster flow. And not a model in sight.

Matt G
Reply to  higley7
October 9, 2015 12:21 pm

Just to say that’s the Gulf stream between Florida and Cuba not the AMOC.

menicholas
October 9, 2015 8:40 am

I believe I may apply for a grant to study if climate alarmism is a form of mental retardation.
There seems to be oodles of evidence mounting that it must be.

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  menicholas
October 9, 2015 8:54 am

I see climate alarmism as a form of ‘brainwashing’ or mass programming. The only problem is that some folks think analytically rather than emotionally and the whole movement is based on faith and guilt. Bounces right off folks who put things into perspective by informing themselves beyond the daily media blitz.

Latitude
October 9, 2015 8:58 am

with a globally averaged temperature offset of about 0.8°C.
…….can’t even measure it

Paul Westhaver
October 9, 2015 9:06 am

This is an example of the reason why I left the academic rat race. So many ” researchers” are mediocre hangers-on half wits who get old and end up looking “credible”. Tenure needs to be an ongoing process to root out these career know-nothings who seek celebrity. Science in the 21st century truly is an idiocracy.

Menicholas
Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 9, 2015 12:36 pm

+100

Reply to  Paul Westhaver
October 9, 2015 2:48 pm

Agreed. And thanks for the comment.

TonyL
October 9, 2015 9:07 am

Art imitates Life, Life Imitates Art.
Art Imitates Science. Art Takes Credit For Science.
I remember this stuff. It was all the rage, back on campus, in the late 1970s. Some talentless artist would mimic some new discovery from the field of science, and then claim “I Inspired Them”. It seems they were desperate to have some tie-in to the real world. Eventually, before the fad ran it’s course, they were taking credit for *everything* in both math and science.
The trouble was, no matter how obnoxious they were on a personal level, you were not allowed to hit them.
It was too bad, until then, I had respect for the Fine and Performing Arts. Music, dance, theater, one does not live by calculus alone.
It looks like this “research” was inspired by the arts, which,in turn, was inspired by “science”.
Maybe something got lost in the translation.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  TonyL
October 9, 2015 9:57 pm

“Some talentless artist would mimic some new discovery from the field of science, and then claim ‘I Inspired Them.’ ”
Reminds me Al Gore and the invention of the internet.

H.R.
October 9, 2015 9:13 am

From the article (my bold):

A researcher from the University of Southampton has produced a scientific study of the climate scenario featured in the disaster movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’.

Seriously; can anyone explain to me how this is in any way a scientific study?
All I’m seeing is a modeling exercise with movie-based inputs, using a model which has not been validated, which produces a result called a projection and not a prediction, which would be falsifiable. I think the word scientific is beginning to lose its original meaning.
I’m not being snarky, sarcastic, or snide. (Oooo! Sounds like a law firm, eh?) I just don’t see any justification for the use of the word scientific.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  H.R.
October 9, 2015 9:17 am

In a world where Beyonce lyrics are studied in college…anything is possible.

TonyL
Reply to  H.R.
October 9, 2015 9:18 am

As I explained, it is art, Scientific art.
Remember, in art, you can do lots of things you could never get away with in science. Art is more Powerful that way.

benofhouston
Reply to  H.R.
October 11, 2015 9:21 am

Just to take the devil’s side for a moment. It has some interesting hypothetical merit, though the movie tie-in seems nonsense made up for the press release. “What would happen if the jet stream stopped” is an interesting thought-experiment. Putting any more effort than a simple climate model would be wasteful (any change strong enough to stop the jet stream would have profound direct effects, making the calculation useless). However, it’s an interesting question that we now have an answer to.

troe
October 9, 2015 9:15 am

But the funny people are winning the public debate. Many of you will have done your homework over the years and can visualize the massive web of entities and money behind all of this (The moon landing happened and it was Oswald) Does human activity generated CO2 have a warming effect on the climate and what does it mean? That’s a scientific argument for the scientists to sort out. Is there an unprecedented coalition of business, environmental activists, and governments driving debate and policy? That is a political question and the answer is yes.
Since our opponents like to use the tobacco analogy lets use it to make a point. The lawyers and activist organizations who won the tobacco settlement in the USA banked millions in their personal accounts. Government realized billions in new revenue. Tobacco companies passed the costs to their customers. The customers continue to smoke one thing or another. It’s a powerful revenue generating model which is being consciously emulated by the alarmists.
The George Mason University based Center For Climate Change Communications is one of many places where all of the players mentioned above come together. 4C receives it funding from all of the usual suspects (yeah you are) The shot caller at this social club is Doctor Edward Maibach who previously worked the same scam in the public health communications field. This is also the outfit behind the RICO20 letter.
We, the skeptic community need to learn from the Chevron case. All of the major elements of the larger climate debate were in play and it seemed to be going against Chevron. It’s not finished yet but Chevron changed the narrative and scored an impressive legal win by pursuing an aggressive legal strategy. We need more of that in the worst way to encourage a healthy debate. The RICO20 letter gives us the opening to expose the entire racket using the legal process. This was a strategic mistake for a gang running it’s own racket.

Caligula Jones
October 9, 2015 9:19 am

I wish I were still studying history. I would LOVE to be able to do a scientific study of Raquel Welch in “1 Million Years B.C.”. You know, for the science and stuff.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
October 9, 2015 8:02 pm

What a great movie, because I and my brother were too young to see it, my mother sat through it twice, she hated it.
Actually, I think the dialog was a bit weak.

Reply to  Caligula Jones
October 9, 2015 9:28 pm

Funny you should mention that I was wondering if in the virtual world all those climate scientists doing what they like most in front of those posters of Raquel or Marilyn would consider it to be equivalent to the real experience of actual sex with the real actual women?

Ralph Kramden
October 9, 2015 9:21 am

“lets study science fiction by using climate model fiction” Sounds like a good use of the taxpayer’s dollars to me.

Dave in Canmore
October 9, 2015 9:46 am

Wish I could get paid for playing make-believe. Time to end this nonsense by having actual oversight. The days of endless tax dollars being taken and flushed without anyone auditing what we get for our money have to end.
How have we got this far with no ROI audit on billions of dollars spent on this kind of “research”?

Reply to  Dave in Canmore
October 9, 2015 2:24 pm

Dave in Canmore: We can ALWAYS count on you to keep your viewers/listeners/readers attached to sanity. It’s too bad you’re the only one crying out in the wilderness!

Matt G
October 9, 2015 9:47 am

Professor Drijfhout said: “The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal.”
The AMOC never recovered back to conditions like now for 100,000 years during at least the last 4 major ice ages until reached the inter glacial periods in between. The Yonger Dryas recovery took over a thousand of years, but the climate was already moving towards the current inter glacial period back then. Present global warming rates of last 40 years are only ~0.1 c per decade, so wouldn’t be warm enough to match the 0.8 c offset for at least 80 years. (based on this model, but not supported scientifically whatsoever)
“Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years.”
The heat flow is back to front and the AMOC doesn’t change to slight temperatures, but mainly affected by changes in Arctic ocean and salinity difference between it and North Atlantic ocean. The AMOC related with the AMO shows the smallest periodic cycle of around ~64 years, where both cool and warm modes develop.

Marcus
October 9, 2015 9:57 am

Help Save The Planet !!! Slap an Alarmist in the head until they wake up to reality !!!!

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Marcus
October 9, 2015 3:18 pm

It appears theirs is a virtual reality.

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 10:11 pm

Where’s a telephone!?

MarkW
October 9, 2015 9:59 am

1) The AMOC moves heat from the tropics poleward. If the AMOC were to shut off, it might cool down the poleward regions, but wouldn’t it also warm the tropics?
2) You would have to melt all the ice in Greenland over a decade or so in order to halt the AMOC, current projections have the Greenland ice sheets melting over the next 10K years of so.
3) If the Arctic sea ice were to melt, this would increase the AMOC, not halt it, as the absence of ice causes more heat loss and more evaporation from the arctic waters.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2015 10:34 am

Based on Willis’ work, I’m guessing that the tropics are about as warm as they can get. I believe what you would see is a broadening of warmer waters moving north. If shutting off the AMOC didn’t completely shut down the Gulf Stream, I’d say that Britain and points north might get quite a bit warmer as a result.

Matt G
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2015 11:46 am

After AMOC collapse the Tropics warm up slightly (~1 c) for a period before cooling long term about 3 c with difference overall around 2 c. Most of the warming occurs in the Tropical Atlantic where the Gulf stream still flows. The AMOC failure prevents heat moving North of Western Mediterranean, so these places drastically cool. The UK cools hugely with polar ocean waters eventually on it’s western side. The Greenland ice sheet had survived previous collapses of the AMOC after the warm inter-glacier periods in the past.
The AMOC collapsed completely through the entire periods of the major ice ages. The UK has only known to have Ice age conditions when the AMOC has collapsed since they began about 3 million years ago. It now becomes obvious that the AMOC is a critical cog between ice ages and inter-glaciers. Nobody knows what extent triggers the salinity changes to cause the collapse of the AMOC. The AMOC did speed up a little during recent decades where Arctic ice had declined.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  MarkW
October 9, 2015 7:18 pm

According to Carl Wunsch, you’d have to stop the planet rotating to stop the AMOC.

Matt G
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 10, 2015 9:04 am

You have to stop the planet rotating to stop the Gulf stream which is also wind driven, East to west in the southern hemisphere and west to east in the northern hemisphere. The AMOC is solely caused by the salinity difference between the Arctic ocean and the North Atlantic ocean that causing sinking and drives the current.

Marcus
October 9, 2015 10:12 am

I have been a ” Climate Change Denier ” for years ….Finally, at my last meeting of CCDA ( Climate Change Deniers Anonymous ) , I realized that yes, the climate does change NATURALLY !!! All is forgiven !!!

Resourceguy
October 9, 2015 10:17 am

The reach for vita filler material is strong. A number of older Nobel laureates commented in recent years that they would probably not have achieved tenure based on the modern rules of volume-based academic output.

TomRude
October 9, 2015 10:17 am

Glaciation is a subtle form of global warming.

Marcus
Reply to  TomRude
October 9, 2015 10:28 am

The warmer it gets , the colder it gets !!!! Liberal ” fact “…ask Gory !!

Resourceguy
October 9, 2015 10:18 am

Save the planet—watch a cheap movie.

Marcus
Reply to  Resourceguy
October 9, 2015 2:14 pm

DESTROY the planet – make a cheap movie !!

Harry Passfield
October 9, 2015 10:43 am

Every time I hear of people referencing TDAT movie I point them to the fact that Gore used the CGI of the calving glaciers in that film for his Inconvenient lie Truth.

Grey Lensman
October 9, 2015 10:49 am

You cannot halt a current.

ShrNfr
Reply to  Grey Lensman
October 9, 2015 10:58 am

At least that is the current thinking on the topic.

MarkW
Reply to  Grey Lensman
October 9, 2015 3:55 pm

An electrifying observation

Bill Illis
October 9, 2015 10:50 am

Three ways to stop the AMOC:
– stop the Earth from rotating so that there is less wind and less wind-driven ocean currents;
– change the properties of water so that it is the same density regardless of its temperature; or,
– take the atmosphere away so there is no wind-driven ocean currents.
Which one did they model exactly

Dawtgtomis
Reply to  Bill Illis
October 9, 2015 3:26 pm

Bill, you forgot to assume the magic heat transfer powers of CO2. That’s the engine that drives the model.

Resourceguy
October 9, 2015 11:00 am

All roads lead to the carbon tax, by order of the emperor.

dog
October 9, 2015 11:05 am

It’s as if they have no concept of continental drift and that all of the continental plates have remained static since the begining of life…wait a second, has any climatologist factor in plate tectonics? Oh yeah, we don’t yet posses a reliable thousand+ year dataset yet.

dog
Reply to  dog
October 9, 2015 11:12 am

Not a thousand years, but more like a million. On a geological time scale the climates of every landmass has shifted to just about every imaginable degree. Why these nut cases assume that it should remain static is beyond reason.

chris y
October 9, 2015 11:20 am

Nature, letter to the editor, NATURE, VOL 428, 8 APRIL 2004, pp 601.
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/naturegulfstreamltr.pdf
Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns
“Sir:
Your News story “Gulf Stream probed for early warnings of system failure” (Nature 427, 769; 2004) discusses
what the climate in the south of England would be like “without the Gulf Stream”. Sadly, this phrase has been seen far too often, usually in newspapers concerned with the unlikely possibility of a new ice age in Britain triggered by the loss of the Gulf Stream. European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream’s existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both.
Real questions exist about conceivable changes in the ocean circulation and its climate consequences. However, such discussions are not helped by hyperbole and alarmism. The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream any time soon — within tens of millions of years — has a probability of little more than zero.
Carl Wunsch,
Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02139, USA”

Tom O
Reply to  chris y
October 9, 2015 12:01 pm

The Gulf Stream may exist because of the wind and rotation, but it’s course shifts as well. So the question of what would the weather be like if the Gulf Stream shifted to a more southerly direction than it currently is due to changes caused by heavier cold water discharge from the polar region still is a valid consideration. “One size fits all” arguments tend to be less useful than intended. Conditions might well be able to arise that would shift the stream closer to Spain, as an example, and what would that change affect the UK climate? That it will still flow towards the east is a given, but how far towards the north is not.

AndyJ
Reply to  Tom O
October 10, 2015 1:17 pm

AMOC shutoff will trigger the next glaciation of the Quaternary Ice Age. Global warming will end. The planet ges colder, the Artic Ice Cap grows, and last time a mile thick sheet of ice covered all of the British Isles. The UK wouldn’t have a climate.

Matt G
Reply to  chris y
October 9, 2015 12:07 pm

I’ve notice people now getting mixed up with the Gulf stream and the AMOC.
That is true for the Gulf stream, but the AMOC is not the Gulf stream. The Gulf stream delivers warms waters that the AMOC moves northwards towards the Arctic ocean. Wind driven current’s on the planets surface and Earth’s rotation are not South to North. They are West to East and if they followed this path ocean currents move from Canada to Spain.

Bill Illis
Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 12:49 pm

The winds at the equator blow East to West. The Gulf Stream really starts next to Africa at the equator.
It then runs up against the continental shelf of South America (a good current needs 200 metres of ocean depth), gets diverted north along the coast into the IntraAmerican seas, then into the Gulf of Mexico (forming a loop most of the time), then it flows between Florida and the Bahamas, then it follows the continental shelf of North America …
Throughout the first half of the Gulf Stream’s journey, it is driven by the East to West Trade Winds and the momentum of all that water coming in from behind and confined by the ocean depths that are at least 200 metres deep.
Then, right after the Florida coast, it starts to move toward the NorthWest now, driven by the primarily southwest to northeast winds. It gets all the way to north of Norway where it starts to cool off but continues flowing into the Arctic Ocean basin, spending a good 10 years moving around until it encounters some thick sea ice somewhere in the middle of the Arctic basin and it starts to cool down to -1.5C or so and gains some extra salt content from the fresh sea ice above and it starts to slowly sink to the very bottom of the Arctic Ocean basin 4500 metres down because it is now the coldest, densest water there is on the planet.
This is the AMOC now.
After spending 300 or 500 years at the bottom of the various Arctic ocean basins. it starts to get pushed out of the basin and actually overflows at the Denmark Strait Overflow and Faroe Bank Channel Overflow and the Labrador Sea channel. It is the most dense water and it actually overflows like a waterfall even though it 500 metres deep at the restrictions channel. After falling another 3000 metres in this biggest on the planet waterfall, it continues flowing south at the very bottom of the Atlantic ocean until its starts to over-ride the even colder, denser water from Antarctica at at 20S.
That is the Gulf Stream and the AMOC. Wind and cold water under the sea ice in the middle of the Arctic ocean.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 1:42 pm

“The winds at the equator blow East to West. The Gulf Stream really starts next to Africa at the equator.
It then runs up against the continental shelf of South America (a good current needs 200 metres of ocean depth), gets diverted north along the coast into the IntraAmerican seas, then into the Gulf of Mexico (forming a loop most of the time), then it flows between Florida and the Bahamas, then it follows the continental shelf of North America …
Throughout the first half of the Gulf Stream’s journey, it is driven by the East to West Trade Winds and the momentum of all that water coming in from behind and confined by the ocean depths that are at least 200 metres deep.
Then, right after the Florida coast, it starts to move toward the NorthWest now…..”
All correct to here and I was describing from once the Gulf Stream moved North towards eastern parts off the North American continent. The Gulf stream goes no further North than here where it becomes the North Atlantic drift that is driven North by the AMOC. The winds only mainly move NE from here to due this drift and would without it blow West to East from here instead via the Canary current towards Spain. This is what was observed during ice ages when there was no Northward moment of the ocean current above the line between the Gulf stream and the Canary current.
http://americasfirstentrepreneur.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Gulf-Stream.gif

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 2:32 pm

The equivalent in the Southern Hemisphere if it behaved the same way with no AMOC or North Atlantic drift, would lead to a current moving SW down the side of South America. There is no current here because no sinking or AMOC equivalent is moving it this way and behaves like it would without it. The South American currents are behaving like the equivalent Northern Hemisphere current with the Gulf Stream moving towards the Canary current. This behavior occurs about 90% of the time in the NH during ice ages.
http://api.ning.com/files/KwywHD30nZ8S9LC1uELtO6ewvL-gXIThptHfXpiHnLjrCQ-yQHx3xADtBeZ8*7TgNwvD6KxXghNy*qXkicGBgPmnSFXKmCw0dInDgA6ugG0_/gulf_stream.gif

Bill Illis
Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 3:31 pm

Those are not the “real” sinking regions. The coldest densest water is at the bottom of the Arctic Ocean basins are seen in this 3D image. All throughout the basins, the water is mostly about -1.5C.
http://90-north.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/bathymetric_map_Arctic_Ocean.jpg
It originates under the sea ice throughout the Arctic Ocean basin. As more bottom water accumulates from above into these basins, it overflows the choke points or the canyons shown above the 3D map. But it takes hundreds of years to do so in various basin.
http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0012821X15001442-gr001.jpg
It eventually reached and overflows three main choke points to become the Atlantic Ocean Bottom Water or the deep current part of the AMOC. The temperature of the water overflowing here is -1.0C.comment image
The largest overflow occurs at the Denmark Strait Overflow.comment image
Climate science does not understand the how the AMOC and the Gulf Stream actually works so they should just stop trying to model it for one thing.

Matt G
Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 4:44 pm

Agree Bill, good images.

Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 6:04 pm

@ Bill Illis…I noticed that around 3 weeks ago there was a break in the lower portion of the flow after it reaches the east coast of South America. The main flow at that point splits with a good portion of the flow moving eastward back towards Africa. To my mind that would have to have an effect of lessening the warmth and strength of the Gulf Stream as it flows towards Europe. Am I remembering that right, or has there always been a substantial back-to-the-east flow of current after the Stream reaches South America?

Wu
October 9, 2015 11:26 am

Next study: can pigs fly?

Sun Spot
Reply to  Wu
October 9, 2015 12:38 pm

Yes they can for short periods of time, if catapulted correctly. Send money so I can model this.

Sun Spot
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 9, 2015 12:41 pm

Pig flying hiatus ends at apogee, but my model is inconclusive. Send more money for a more powerful computer so I can model/miss-calculate in more depth.

H.R.
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 9, 2015 12:51 pm

No, Sunspot. You don’t need a more powerful computer. You just need money for a bigger catapult.
.
.
.
P.S. Mind the orbiting International Space Station, please.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  Sun Spot
October 9, 2015 6:03 pm

Oh F##K! SOMEBODY PLEASE call NORAD!
michael
ps I don’t want to be over-crowded down here!

higley7
October 9, 2015 11:42 am

“Professor Sybren said: “It can be excluded, however, that this hiatus period was solely caused by changes in atmospheric forcing, either due to volcanic eruptions, more aerosols emissions in Asia, or reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Changes in ocean circulation must have played an important role. Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”
Not one word of this is backed up by anything real. Complete speculation and unfounded assumptions. WOW.

Reply to  higley7
October 9, 2015 5:32 pm

Oh jeez. I read “Soybean” instead of “Sybren”. I am guessing I will remember his name for the future now. 😉

Tom O
October 9, 2015 11:54 am

And the saddest part it that his work was probably paid for by a government grant.

Chris Hanley
October 9, 2015 12:33 pm

‘… the scenario of an abrupt collapse of the AMOC, as a consequence of anthropogenic greenhouse warming, was never assessed with a state-of-the-art climate model …’.
Why “anthropogenic”, surely any warming natural or human-assisted would have the same result therefore there must be lots of historical evidence for the process Professor Drijfhout describes.
“The planet earth recovers from the AMOC collapse in about 40 years when global warming continues at present-day rates, but near the eastern boundary of the North Atlantic (including the British Isles) it takes more than a century before temperature is back to normal …”.
What’s “normal”?
What the good professor is describing sounds like a self-limiting system.

Gary Pearse
October 9, 2015 1:21 pm

The take home here is that alarmists are indeed not only worried by the “pause” but growing unease that it could be the beginning of a catastrophic cooling period. When you fear for your easy, high paying jobs you cast about for plausible soupcons of warming causes icy cold. You start off with a situation accompanied by the scary graphic of New York buried in snow as a trial balloon to see how colleagues and useful fools react to it on the internet and twitter.
The big protest in Quebec about global warming in a deep snow cold spring after the coldest winter since records began shows that useful fools are already lined up. This work was not intended for fun but to twig other scared alarmists into pursuing similar research so when it happens, it’s already been covered by the ‘scientists’. This is Nobel Prize stuff.

wildlandjeff
October 9, 2015 1:49 pm

Do Sharknado next! Do Sharknado next!

October 9, 2015 2:19 pm

We are all carbon based, thus subject to Carbon Taxes.
Now on to the building of the new Pharaoh’s new Pyramid’s.
You will obey tax slaves.

Gunga Din
October 9, 2015 2:22 pm

Hey!!! Al Gore used a CGI scene of a glacier having calves in his little disaster movie, “An Inconvenient Truth”.
If Al said it’s all real then it must be.
(Maybe we should change CGI, “Computer Generated Imagery”, to CGT, “Computer Generated Truth”?)

Sandy In Limousin
October 9, 2015 2:29 pm

Interesting choice of colours for the Temperature Anomaly map. Where Red is ~+4’C and Yellow is ~+12’C giving the impression that the world is burning up in this model.

Marcus
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
October 9, 2015 3:20 pm

Funny how that always happens !!! LOL,…

MarkW
Reply to  Sandy In Limousin
October 9, 2015 4:00 pm

I’ve always loved the ones where even zero is colored light red.

October 9, 2015 2:48 pm

I quote:
“Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”
So its natural variations now that have been holding greenhouse effect at bay! But not to worry, it is all over now. Mysteriously he knows it as a fact but is not telling us how he got to find it out. Does it not bother Herr Professor Doctor Sybren Drijfhout that such “natural” variations took over and had enough power to stop the anthropogenic greenhouse effect? It would make a whole lot more sense if he recognized that “natural” variations are the only ones that actually do exist. The very existence of the current hiatus as well as the one in the eighties and nineties he does not even know about is sufficient to prove that. Speaking of natural variations, one of the most significant that happened in recent times was a sudden warming of the Arctic (Kaufman et al,, Science, September 4th 2009) at the beginning of the twentieth century. This was after two thousand years of slow cooling . No one expected it and no one knows why it happened. Now there is something for the alleged “Arctic experts” to explain to us but no – they have lost all curiosity about natural science and are quite happy to stay with the discredited greenhouse theory. Quite a few papers have come out tracking the progress of the resulting Arctic warming but they all sidestep the issue of what caused it and start their observations when the sea change is over. But that warming is still going on and provably it cannot be caused by the greenhouse effect. You do make reference above to global warming continuing despite the AMOC failure, another lazy approach to origins. That is simply impossible because it may be demonstrated that the alleged global warming does not exist. There are numerous ways to prove this, the easiest being refutation of Hansen’s claim in 1988 that he observed the greenhouse effect himself. The technically easiest way to understand the absence of global warming is to use the observed properties of the ‘pause’ or ‘hiatus’ of warming that has now lasted for 18 years. What is happening is that there is no warming and yet atmospheric carbon dioxide keeps increasing. This is contrary to the predictions of the Arrhenius greenhouse theory which is thereby rendered invalid and belongs in the waste basket of history. This does bot mean that we do not have a greenhouse theory. We do and it is called MGT (Miskolczi greenhouse theory). It predicts what we see: addition of carbon dioxide to air does not cause warming, precisely what is happening today. . It came out in 2007 and its predictions were so unpalatable to IPCC that it was promptly blacklisted. MGT explains what our climate is doing, what it has been doing, and what we should expect it to be doing. It can handle more than one greenhouse gas at once where Arrhenius is limited to just one, CO2. According to MGT carbon dioxide and water vapor, both greenhouse gases, cooperate to create a joint absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87. When more carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere this increases the optical thickness. And as soon as this happens water vapor reacts by diminishing and raining out until the original optical thickness is restored. Miskolczi showed in 2010 that that the optical thickness of the atmosphere remains invariant when carbon dioxide increases by as much as a factor of two. When no other natural influences are actively causing temperature changes MGT is responsible for creating a hiatus. In view of all this any theory that incorporates the effect of the greenhouse effect is simply wrong. That is just what is wrong with the current theory that these people are trying to foist upon us.

Marcus
Reply to  Arno Arrak (@ArnoArrak)
October 9, 2015 3:21 pm

And those ” Natural Variations ” will disappear when it’s convenient !!!

indefatigablefrog
October 9, 2015 3:59 pm

Which film is he going to study the “science” of next?
I would suggest, the Lord of the Rings trilogy. Or perhaps Harry Potter.
Although, they may be a little advanced.
How about the science of the teletubbies.
They appeared to have adopted wind turbines. And yet one of the characters was a vacuum cleaner.
It’s an interesting parable, K.E. of moving air converts to K.E. rotational energy to Electrical Energy to K.E. rotational energy to K.E. moving air.
Many people miss these subtler details.
Where’s my huge grant?
Wait a minute, wasn’t he that bloke who was discovered with his trousers down in L.A. receiving pleasure?
But later the hooker who was involved revealed that that one trick made her ONE MILLION DOLLARS.
And THAT, is why everyone these days is trying to be a hooker.
Whether it’s this guy, with his voodoo cargo cult analysis, or Stephan Lewandowsky, or John Cook.
You just need to pull that ONE TRICK, that sucks in the world’s attention.
And then life is very easy indeed.
Meanwhile, honest people are struggling to fix their cars or pay their rising electricity bills.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 9, 2015 4:01 pm

And yes, I did use the word, “suck” intentionally.

Mike the Morlock
Reply to  indefatigablefrog
October 9, 2015 6:27 pm

indefatigablefrog
If they were to study “Lord Of The Rings” They should also do a bit of reading on the Somme, Tolkien was in WW1
michael

Another Ian
October 9, 2015 4:18 pm

Meanwhile one trick from the real world?
An interesting development in time for the Paris-ites
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/10/09/green-reverse-denmark-abandons-climate-change-targets-scraps-electric-car-subsidies/

Pamela Gray
October 9, 2015 4:35 pm

The author writes, “Interestingly, the effect of atmospheric cooling due to an AMOC collapse is associated with heat flow from the atmosphere into the ocean, which has been witnessed during the climate hiatus of the last 15 years.”
Witnessed is way too strong of a word. Modeled would be more accurate. The statement likely has its beginnings in the supposed energy imbalance and the fact that the amount of warming expected by the models cannot be found, so it must have disappeared into the abyss of the oceans. What is not mentioned in that tome is the fact that IF the amount of warming that was expected had gone into the oceans it would have disappeared into such a vast entity without a single trace, even if we had actual 6:00 news footage of the transfer event. And it would not have come back out to demonstrably warm anyone’s backside ever.
State a fable often enough and it shows up as a fact in someone’s writings. Drives me ratshit BATTY!!!!

Dahlquist
Reply to  Pamela Gray
October 9, 2015 9:22 pm

Pamela
That’s called “sweeping it under the rug”. That damned “heat” has an almost human intelligence and quality in its ability to stealthily creep into hidey holes in the abyss. (Wishful thinking maybe?).

James at 48
October 9, 2015 4:39 pm

I’ve got a disaster scenario, is everyone ready for this?
Here it is.
The scenario is not unlike The Day After Tomorrow. But unlike The Day After Tomorrow, this scenario is not only real, it is inevitable.
This scenario is the end of the interglacial. No human caused “sins against the environment” required. Blame Gaia.

October 9, 2015 5:01 pm

If CO2 is a forcing its effect on temperature must be according to the time-integral of the CO2 level or the time-integral of a math function of the CO2 level.
The Phanerozoic eon, 542 million years of life on land, demonstrates CO2 has had no effect on climate. The 97% match 1895-2012 between the 5-year moving average of measured average global temperatures and average global temperatures calculated using Equation (ii) in the paper at http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com also demonstrates that CO2 has no effect on climate.

Matt G
October 9, 2015 5:06 pm

Modelcomment image?w=2784&h=1860
Proxy (About half these values at first after a period, becoming these during the coldest part of an ice age.)
http://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/1060/gifs/iceage.gif
Not much difference is there.

taxed
Reply to  Matt G
October 9, 2015 6:50 pm

This temperature map of the ice age screams to me that the ice age was a largely weather driven event.
Because the pools of cold across the NH are just where l would expect them to be if the cause of the ice age was down to the weather.

Matt G
Reply to  taxed
October 10, 2015 9:12 am

The cold pools across the NH are expected where they are if the North Atlantic ocean was all land.

taxed
Reply to  Matt G
October 10, 2015 11:34 am

Matt G
No just that the weather had the leading role in the formation of the ice age. This temperature map suggests to me that during the peak of the ice age. There was frequent blocking in the North Pacific with ridging going up towards NW America. Which lead to frequent out breaks of cold Polar air down across North America. Where over in Europe the cold pool was set up by frequent patterns blocking highs over the Greenland to northern Europe area and with low pressure sitting over northern Russia. Which would lead to blasts of Polar air moving down across the NE europe/NW Russia area. Which then would be drawn across europe due to the blocking highs. lt also suggests that the jet stream would often split due to this blocking over europe. With part of it pushing up into the Arctic and then moving down across NW Russia, and a other part taking a zonal southern tracking path across europe. But which would take a more NW path once it was flowing across Russia.

Matt G
Reply to  taxed
October 10, 2015 12:19 pm

Once the AMOC collapsed and the North Atlantic ocean become cold enough for ice bergs to survive.
That is very good assessment that would generally fit in with pressure patterns around Northern Hemisphere. Not just over northern Europe had blocking highs, but also Scotland too during the coldest depths of ice ages with significant drying of the climate over there. The jet stream was much further South between the Gulf Stream and Spain describing the zonal southern tracking path, sometimes moving North towards the UK or further South towards North Africa. The low pressure systems would generally be expected to move towards western Russia from the southern UK or Spain.
The Siberian high was much larger than now, where there were no glaciers detected in Northern/central Siberia because it was extremely dry. There was little sign though the jet stream might push up to Arctic via Western Greenland and move down across NW Russia because how cold it got there, this couldn’t have happened very often. That’s because the jet stream of course is a boundary between polar air and tropical air. There was little sign any tropical air got much further North than NW Russia or Greenland, due to how much colder they were. With Scotland being extremely dry also suggested the jet stream even failed to reach here majority of the time.

taxed
Reply to  taxed
October 10, 2015 3:12 pm

Sorry l meant to say that the jet stream would have taken a more NE not NW path across Russia.
Am not so sure that the Siberian high was much larger during the ice age. l think it was more of a case that the blocking more more westwards towards europe due to increase of low pressure settling over northern Russia. Because this set up would explain the cold pool over NW Russia. As cold Polar air is pushed south over this area, but with warmer air coming up from the south across Russia further westwards. l believe the lack of ice sheets over the eastern half of Russia was in large part due to the lack of cold through out the year, due to this weather set up. Now what leads me to think that the jet stream did push up towards the Arctic at times during the ice age, is the big swings in temp across Greenland. As this is just what l would have expected had the blocking highs at times formed more over towards Greenland. So pushing up warmer air from the south up across Greenland.

Matt G
Reply to  taxed
October 11, 2015 7:02 am

The jet stream may have taken a more NE path across Russia from Spain/England region, but northern blocking across Europe can be often associated with Siberian high when moved further west. With northern blocking being dominant would also suggest Siberian high presence more common. There would have been a jet stream push at times during the ice age towards the Arctic highlighting the big swings in temperature across Greenland. Just that during the coldest periods central Greenland especially was extremely cold and dry, indicating no or very little jet stream presence. Warmer air pushing up towards Greenland from Gulf stream region and eastern parts of North American for example happens much more commonly now. When the main jet stream during the ice ages was moving across Gulf stream regions towards Southern Spain there were far less opportunities for the other alternative, with a much different change in the North Atlantic pressure pattern being pushed about 2000-2500 miles south.
http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gary_Clow/publication/248797622_Temperature_accumulation_and_ice_sheet_elevation_in_central_Greenland_through_the_last_deglacial_transition/links/0a85e52f3d6b321a55000000.pdf

ChrisDinBristol
October 9, 2015 5:50 pm

Aaagh. . . Alma Mater. . . Nooooo!

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  ChrisDinBristol
October 9, 2015 6:50 pm

Well, feel sorry for me then. I went to Bristol. Home of the Lew Monster and his bogus surveys.
I would recommend staying as far away as possible from that godforsaken place…

Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 6:11 pm

So their rule of thumb is warming is always anthropogenic and cooling is always natural variation. Got it.

indefatigablefrog
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 9, 2015 7:53 pm

Durr…how long did it take you to work that out?
AND, a storm, hurricane, sea surge, big freeze, heat wave, drought (etc) that happens is proof of extreme weather. but an absence of such a phenomena for a record period is not of any interest at all.
AND, a record low arctic sea ice is proof of climate change, but a record high antarctic sea ice is proof of climate change.
AND, if a major climatologist questions the “consensus” on climate change then she is only expressing her personal opinion, but if a non-scientist spouts a load of crap at a conference of insurance professionals then he is making a newsworthy public pronouncement.
etc etc.
In short – heads they win, tails we lose.
But, hell, even if the “science” IS utterly shoddy, we may yet discover that CO2 emmissions really ARE going to lead us towards therma-geddon.
Maybe, somebody should try doing some real science so that we can figure out whether there really might be a possibility of that happening.
But frankly, I have no idea how a person would embark upon such a task!!

AndyJ
Reply to  Dawtgtomis
October 10, 2015 1:25 pm

Yes, they intentionally reject that the most warming during this interglacial occurred when man was in the neolithic and bronze ages.

Louis Hunt
October 9, 2015 8:19 pm

So if it warms, it will be due to global warming. But if it cools, it will also be due to global warming unless the cooling continues for more than 40 years. Do I have that right?
The only other thing that could happen is for temperatures to stay about the same as they are. If that happens, will they still be able to fit that into their theory and claim we’re all doomed? I wish they would tell us if there is anything that could happen that would not be a cause for alarm. They won’t do that because they have no idea what’s going to happen next, and their paychecks depend on keeping us alarmed. So they have to be able to paint whatever happens with the climate as potentially catastrophic. If we’re not alarmed, we’ll find better places than climate research to spend our money. And that, in their minds, would be the biggest catastrophe of all.

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Louis Hunt
October 10, 2015 3:27 am

“The only other thing that could happen is for temperatures to stay about the same as they are. If that happens,”
you get a rising trend in temperature ad infinitum:
‘correct’ the current temperatures up and the past ones back down.

AndyJ
Reply to  Louis Hunt
October 10, 2015 1:27 pm

What’s next is a glaciation. They won’t make any money telling people they’ll have to eventually evacuate Canada.

Mike the Morlock
October 9, 2015 8:32 pm

for a break
billy J
we didn’t start the fire. enjoy
michael

Greg Cavanagh
October 10, 2015 3:23 am

All he’s doing is demonstrating that the model is programmed to heat up.
He hasn’t demonstrated what he thinks he has.

mwhite
October 10, 2015 4:50 am

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34486757
A message from the eemian interglacial.
“Some of the bones, found in Victoria Cave in the dales, date back more than one hundred thousand years, when these creatures roamed northern England.”

herkimer
October 10, 2015 7:06 am

“Natural variations have counteracted the greenhouse effect for a decade or so, but I expect this period is over now.”
This statement alone show how little the paper’s authors know about what is happening to our climate and what may lie ahead.
Here is what is still happening and likely to continue for the next many decades . The global land areas are continuing to cool or flat. These climate troughs last for 30-40 years
• Global -0.02 C/decade (flat)
• Northern Hemisphere -0.05 C/decade (flat)
• Southern Hemisphere +0.06 C/decade (flat)
• North America -0.41 C/decade (cooling)
• Asia -0.31 C/decade (cooling)
• Europe + 0.39 C /decade (warming)*
• Africa + 0.08 C/decade (flat)
• Oceania + 0.07C /decade (flat)
*The European warming is due to warming of one year only(2014) The temperature anomalies for the period 2005-2013 were also flat (- 0.02 C/decade)
Global Land Winter temperature anomalies have been trending down since 1997 or 19 years for all regions of the globe
• GLOBAL -0.01 C/ decade (flat)
• NORTHERN HEMISPHERE -0.09 C/decade (flat)
• NORTH AMERICA -0.54 C/decade( cooling)
• ASIA -0.49 C/ decade(cooling)
• EUROPE -0.05 C/ decade (flat)

Alan McIntire
October 11, 2015 6:34 am

I actually DID speculate about science fiction weather in Larry Niven’s “Ringworld”. Aliens with a super technology created an artificial ring, with high walls to hold in the atmosphere,, orbiting a star about the same luminosity as our sun at the same distance as our earth. There were large panels orbiting above the ring to give the inhabitants of the disc a day and a night. What kind of climate would the residents of the ring have? There wouldn’t be seasons unless the ring bobbed above and below the plane of orbit.
There wouldn’t be hadley circulation- how would sailboats operate?- I guess there might be a day/night differential in land/sea heating as on earth, with winds blowing seaward during the day and landward at night. Would that be enough to provide plenty of rain, or would “Ringworld” be mostly desert?
I’ve been wishing I could read something on Ringworld’s climate from someone who actually knew some meteorology.

Bruce Cobb
October 11, 2015 8:39 am

Speaking of climate fiction, I hear Disney will be coming out with a new animated film called “Boiled”. It will have a princess (of course) with CO2-fuelled thermogenic powers, along with a prince, and odious characters aligned with Big Bad Oil and Evil Skeptics who care only about money, not saving the planet.
The kiddies will love it.

%d bloggers like this: