Guest essay by David Archibald
A few years ago, Professor Humlum, Professor Solheim and myself mounted a meteorological expedition to Svalbard on the island of Spitzbergen, with the attendance of some others. The expedition was armed and sustainable, as reported in WUWT here. In that report, it was noted that “the fall in temperature of the Atlantic Ocean to the west of Norway from the peak in 2006 has been just as fast as the rise from 1990. When will the cooling stop and at what level?” Well, the cooling hasn’t stopped and the rate of temperature fall has steepened up. Meteorologist Paul Dorian has described the implications of this on his site Vencore Weather.
This is the current state of the heat content of the North Atlantic water column from Professor Humlum’s site climate4you. Firstly the location of the area measured:
The heat content updated to December 2015:
From its peak a decade ago, the temperature of this water column has fallen 1.0°C despite the fluctuations in the temperature of the air column above it. The rate of temperature decline has steepened up such that the levels of the 1970s cooling period will be reached by 2018.
Europe has just experienced snowfalls in late April. That is not so unusual. Three years ago there was snow in Europe in late May as far south as northern Spain and Italy. Snow in May will just become more usual to the point of being unremarkable. The North Atlantic’s heat content is no longer getting any help from the Sun with the F10.7 flux spending more time below 100, the breakover between heating and cooling, than above it:
As to the mechanism of the cooling of the North Atlantic water column when the atmosphere above it has yet to follow, perhaps a solar explanation is too simplistic. The scientific premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow is that global warming will cause a slowing of the Gulf Stream and in turn that will cause severe cooling. Unless we can get up-to-date data on the Gulf Stream that disproves that theory, can it be dismissed out of hand? Counter-intuitive though it might seem, it may be that the cooling of the North Atlantic water column is the only evidence that provides proof of the AGW theory. Perhaps it is time to question some long-held beliefs.
David Archibald is the author of Twilight of Abundance.
NOTE by Anthony: published refutations of “slowing of the Gulf Stream” has been discussed here and also here on WUWT, I see no merit to the claim that it is happening.
The way the heat content graph looks to me, I don’t see it plunging down to the depths of the levels of the 1970s (-.4 GJ/m^2) by 2018. If the decline keeps up its recent pace, I see that happening in late 2019 or early 2020.
So, 18 months later – what’s the diff if the medium term effects turn out to be similar to the 1970s. Meanwhile snow in the southern England freezing in Southern Sweden on the May long week-end.
Surely, must be CAGW.
Why does everyone assume that when they see something dramatic (relatively) that it must be once in a lifetime unique thing that therefore must be related to humans?
We have such limited data. The assumption should be that this is something that happens periodically for some reason. That this is probably not unique and has happened many times before.
We have many unexplained phenomenon in the climate. We do not understand the AMO/PDO 60 year cycle. We do not understand the 1000 year MWP/LIA cycle that goes back at least 5 – 8 thousand years.
When Hansen looked at the Ice ages he couldn’t think of anything other than Co2 to cause the change so he came up with a theory of massive amplification with 5x – 20x positive feedback. As bizarre as that seems it was accepted by a large number of people because they made bad assumptions and had little understanding of most of the climate.
Nature is always more complicated. I realize the best explanation is always the simplest but I believe there is a good chance that the ocean which has 1,000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere has something to do with these variations. There is “weather” in the ocean just like the atmosphere. Heat moves possibly in connection with periodic changes in undersea ridges and variations in gravitational effects. The sun has cycles. These things are assumed static. Biological phenomenon can cause periodic phenomenon but are assumed to be static.
We know that for 30 years during the down cycle of the PDO/AMO the temperature drops or is resistant to rising. It is likely this phenomenon is linked to the release of energy somehow in the latest El Nino. Even though it is an ocean away and the cycles of the AMO and PDO are linked somehow.
I have noticed the last two downcycles (now 3) in the PDO/AMO had a spike (El Nino) almost exactly halfway into the cycles. These spikes were followed by a downward trend which continued for another 15 years. How? I don’t know. Neither does anyone else. Does that mean it won’t happen again? The models are not based on phtsics as much as they protest they are. They are initialized and fudged constantly to match data. The PDO/AMO cycles stand out in the record so plainly it is hard to say that it is less consistent than the computer models.
Before we make these predictions we should understand the basics of our climate much better. Having this raw data may be a key fact to help us figure out what is going on but I seriously doubt we will find it has something to do with CO2.
WUWT has dealt with that previously. link It seems that the data does not support a slowdown in the Gulf Stream.
Most folks do not understand thermodynamics. Heat engines are powered by heat differences not heat per se. Ocean currents are heat engines. Since most heat engines used at room temperature have the source pretty doggone hot to get a reasonable efficiency, most folks think that it is necessary for something to be hot in absolute terms. It only need be “hot” in relative terms. You could get quite a descent efficiency out of an engine that is running at -50 degrees C if it could sink at -250 decrees C.
I read of a study of the sediments between the tip of Florida and Cuba. It appears that the Gulf Stream speeds up when warm and slows down with cooler, which makes sense in terms of water viscosity.
And your point as it relates to the article?
Exactly how much does 1C of temperature change, change the viscosity of water?????
The slowdown is due to less temperature differential and to changes in evaporation rates.
I have always thought that the gulf stream and other such equatorial-polar currents were just a simple consequence of the West to East rotation of the earth.
If the water stood still, the land on the Western edge of the oceans, would be rushing to the East, which would cause a pileup on the Eastern edges of the continents; and that pileup would be greatest at the equator, because of the increased rotational radius, so the pileup would be highest at the equator.
But water as we all know, runs DOWNHILL, so the equatorial pileup is going to split, and run downhill North and South towards the poles.
The acidity, alkalinity, salinity, density, temperature all have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
I have often threatened to reverse the rotation of the earth, so that we would have a warm Northward flowing current alongside the California coast, so all of the salmon would go away, and we would have all those tropical game fishes out in Monterey bay, instead of the boring fishes we now have.
Gulf stream does not depend on salinity or density gradients or anything else.
So long as earth keeps rotating in the same direction, the gulf stream will keep on flowing.
The moon assists in the process, by creating the sea level bulges opposite each other which exaggerates the tropical pileup.
G
Wind also causes ocean currents…..
George,
Forgive my ignorance, i’m just an interested “man in the street”, but all that you have said above just strengthens my skepticism about sea level variances being reported as a few millimetres here and there. I read those reports and think “they can’t be serious”.
You’ve got remember, that prior to warm industrial urban effluent and abundant dams, salmon also ran up many of the East coast rivers.
I look forward to Atlantic salmon runs again on the East coast since the rivers have cleaned up immensely over the last sixty years combined with some dams getting removed and others having fish ladders constructed.
Only changes in the rate of rotation would cause water to move around. Since the earth has been spinning at more or less the same rate for millennia, the water levels equalized millennia ago. The pilling up of water is due entirely to wind.
Even Wikipedia comprehends that “the Gulf Stream proper is a western-intensified current, driven largely by wind stress.” The Coriolis effect of the earth’s rotation simply steers flow in opposite directions in the two hemispheres.
That’s a lot of cooling. Combined with the Pacific heading into La Nina, things should get interesting. The cool mass of the oceans will soon over ride the fleeting warmth of the atmospere.
Plus, look at how cool the waters are going through Drakes Passage. This is a sea change as compared to the last 3 years which saw steady flows of warm anomalies moving through Drakes Passage, and up off of the east coast of South America….http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-61.19,-55.11,497
Sea change….I get it!
I don’t think that you do “get it”.
Looking at the graph, the down turn happens since 2005 in the unfiltered data.
Josh Willis was the first to notice a lowering of OHC from 005 to 2006 and was ready to announce it at a conference when he got told by colleges to ‘get with the program’. He found a series of XTBs which were showing slightly cooler reading and, having deleted them from the database, got rid of the troublesome cooling.
The is no record of his being forced to do a similar search for XTBs which may be been warmer. It’s only the cooler data that is questioned and removed.
Maybe Prof. Humlum needs to hire Josh to find ‘erroneous’ cool data in the N. Atl too, and put and end to this contrarian nonsense.
Nonsense. There were two problems with the ocean data, one reading too warm and the other too cool. So your claim that “It’s only the cooler data that is questioned and removed.” is simply not true. See here for the actual story, and next time DO YOUR HOMEWORK so I don’t have to do it for you.
Seriously, folks, do your research before uncapping your electronic pens, because as the poet says,
“It wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An’ foolish notion:”
w.
“the F10.7 flux spending more time below 100, the breakover between heating and cooling…”
Is there a reference for this or is that a more speculative claim? Thanks in advance for anyone who can help me here.
It’s about right. I checked empirically the average sunspot number at which the ocean neither warms nor cools back in 2009, and found it to be around 40SSN. That’s close to 100 on the F10.7 scale. It’s also the long term average SSN since 1750, and it makes sense that the oceans would equilibriate with the solar long term average.
The AMO remained warm through the Gleissberg solar minimum of the late 1800’s. Further north in the Atlantic does not show the same degree of upper ocean cooling:
..If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything !
And if you cherry-pick coordinates for the extratropical North Atlantic, as Professor Humlum has done at climate4you (not the Atlantic as the title of the post states), it will also provide sought-after results. See my comment further down the thread.
Cheers.
Marcus May 2, 2016 at 10:14 am
Dag-nabbit their lying to us again marcus. The Head of the CIA just state a few days ago “No more water boarding”.
michael
I tried to make a water board. But it kept evaporating.
Did the Gulf Stream slow down during the mid-twentieth-century cooling period – when the N. Atlantic also cooled? If not, then that alone indicates that there are other possibilities.
Subpolar gyre, Labrador current, N. Atlantic drift current, Gulf stream, AMOC or an associated feature (I have no idea which) has been slowing down from the early 1900. It can be clearly seen in the first three graphs in this link
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAM.pdf
vukcevic, the graphs you linked do not represent the “Subpolar gyre, Labrador current, N. Atlantic drift current, Gulf stream, AMOC”, etc. You’ve compared sea surface temperatures from a not-listed dataset for not-listed coordinates to other variables whose sources and coordinates are also not listed…with some of the data filtered beyond recognition.
Mr. Tisdale
Thank you for your comment, you are absolutely correct.
N. A. SST the GSN and the CET, all three are well known and data are easily get at.
The Arctic atmospheric pressure I couldn’t find on line, emailed NOAA and got the file attachment back, so quoting email attachment as the data source is not of any help to anyone.
That makes it four out of five variables used, the last one, the volcanic eruptions, took a bit of effort (on my part) to assemble, and since I am in the process of writing a paper, all the sources including the actual data file will be published.
My interpretation is that there is a common constraint on all three variables, defining their multidecadal variability, indicated by a good mutual correlation.
I suggested that either Subpolar gyre, Labrador current, N. Atlantic drift current, Gulf stream, AMOC or an associated feature, I have no idea which since all of the above have some effect on the SST, is slowing down.
From the early 1900 the SST has been showing a progressive time delay, so naturally I consider that one of the above is responsible. Since I don’t know which might be the cause or how it might be affecting the SST delay, I consider it a bit of mystery, hence title “mystery of the north atlantic natural variability”.
I take it that you disagree with most or all of the above, but since you made the effort to look at the link, I thought it was only fair to respond as best as I could at this time.
Some time in past Dr. S. said that I “manufactured data”, it is possible that you meant the same but put it more politely, I do not wish to reassure you otherwise, if you happen to think so.
All the best.
m. vukcevic
vukcevic May 2, 2016 at 2:14 pm
I do not wish to reassure you otherwise, if you happen to think so.
is the above correct???
Did you mean this
I wish to reassure you otherwise, if you happen to think so.
It just did not sound right vuk.
michael
Hi there Mike
Yes, it is correct. I meant it as I wrote it.
I do not come here to tell readers what to think, even less to change their mind, if they have already concluded something or another. I look at data and if I find something of interest I post it, it’s up to readers to take it, leave it, ignore it or dispute it, or even suggest I “made up the data”.
vukcevic, I see you’ve failed to respond to my initial comment. Let me repeat myself:
You’ve compared sea surface temperatures from a not-listed dataset for not-listed coordinates to other variables whose sources and coordinates are also not listed…with some of the data filtered beyond recognition.
Or would you like me to rephrase that as a question?
Mr. Tisdale
Since it appears you didn’t recognise the SST graph (as it happens I often see it, or part of it in your articles) the data source
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/amon.us.long.mean.data
NOAA for specifics
CET – met office
GSN – SILSO
NOAA – Atmospheric pressure (apply in writing)
For volcanic eruptions see my comment further above, or compile data yourself.
LPF is 6db down at 30 years
Thanks for your interest, obviously you spotted something of concern in there, so it should be since the climate ‘science’ has obtuse views and interpretations of the Natural Variability in the N. Atlantic. The SST and CET as it is shown, are the last in the line.
Now, if of any further interest you should be able to reproduce graphs, opening another window into
“mystery of the north atlantic natural variability” as I call it.
” can it be dismissed out of hand? Counter-intuitive though it might seem, it may be that the cooling of the North Atlantic water column is the only evidence that provides proof of the AGW theory. ”
It can be dismissed out of hand otherwise AGW wins both ways, whether the Arctic melts or the Ice Age resumes. I understand that we are currently in a relatively warm Inter-Glacial that has given us a temporary break from the main story which is an Ice-Age that has been going on for at least the last 500,000 years. Is the Ice-Age officially over and what will stop us going back into one because it won’t be CO2.
More like 2.5 million years for when the latest string of ice ages commenced but the onset is a little smeared. I would call the onset closer to 2.7 but that is just my poor old eyes 😉
Stewart. I paid a bit more attention to the whole ice-age story and looking at the ice-core records it is alarming to see that CO2 does not prevent the end of the last 3 inter-glacials. We haven’t figured out why we are in an Ice-age and what causes the inter-glacials to start and end, but it sure doesn’t look like CO2 is the culprit. A resumption of the ice-age is really something to be feared. Not only the huge loss of habitable and fertile land but the loss of all the continental shelf fishing as sea level drops not by mm but 10s of metres. Lets hope this inter-glacial lasts a lot longer.
You don’t think Milliecycle conjunction reinforced by positive albedo feedback are responsible? (That’s the “conventional wisdom”, of course, though I’ve heard it disputed on occasion.)
Evan Jones May 2, 2016 at 5:29 pm
I’m only an amateur in this but why not. My uneducated guess is that the Ocean and Wind currents must also play a big part as huge amounts of heat and cold air are transferred horizontally around the planet. Here in the UK we get very large temperature ranges for any given sun position in the sky indicating that albedo is not enough but also neither is CO2. So a change in water and wind patterns could change whether the Poles behave like fridges or not? Anyway, from the small amount that I’ve read it seems that the equatorial regions are no cooler during an Ice-Age. You must also be aware of the other theories around interstellar dust clouds passing through the Solar System?
The Quaternary Ice Age has been going on for 2.6 million years. Interestingly, the Artic Ice Cap is itself only 3 million years old. So the Ice Age began right after the Artic cap formed.
What happened is that warm water from the Pacific used to pass between North and South America and feed the Gulf Stream with warmth, which it took up into the Artic. When North and South America met 3 million years ago and the Isthmus of Panama was formed, that warm water was cut off. Now it just sloshes back and forth in the Pacific and we call that the El Nino/ El Nina ENSO.
The Gulf Stream became cooler and the Artic glaciated. Why it is now a cyclical event.. an Ice Age… is still a mystery. Something must be warming up and cooling down the Gulf Stream in a way that corresponds to the glacial/interglacial cycles.
Considering the position of the continents and the current northward drift of all of them, it’s highly probable this Ice Age may last for tens of millions of years like the previous ones.
“The scientific premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow is that global warming will cause a slowing of the Gulf Stream and in turn that will cause severe cooling. Unless we can get up-to-date data on the Gulf Stream that disproves that theory, can it be dismissed out of hand?”
Their idea is that melt water from the Arctic will slow the overturning, but during a slow AMOC, the Gulf Stream speeds up, and is then warming the North Atlantic and Arctic instead of overturning.
http://www.rapid.ac.uk/
Low MOC events occur during negative NAO/AO episodes, while increased forcing of the climate increases positive NAO/AO, so if anything AGW should speed up the AMOC.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-5-6.html
Sorry, but that should be “the science fiction premise..” That movie had zero to do with science.
I have to argue that movie didn’t even come up to the standards of Science Fiction, and remains firmly rooted in the science Fantasy genre. If they want a real science fiction movie based on Climate Change, I would suggest using heavyweights in the genre and pick up rights for Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn’s novel ” Fallen Angels. I did find their use of the theatrical theme of the lone-wolf under-dog winning out against the establishment consensus an interesting choice for the warmist movie “The Day After”.
I would suggest using heavyweights in the genre and pick up rights for Larry Niven, Jerry Pournelle, and Michael Flynn’s novel ” Fallen Angels. I did find their use of the theatrical theme of the
lone-wolf under-dog winning out
against the establishment consensus an interesting choice for the warmist movie “The Day After”.
__________________________________
No consistent, workable scenario needed for doomsday predictions.
Any however unproven narrative, CAGW as any other, may find followers:
Robert Silverberg ‘Man’s best friend’.
The next question that nobody asks, including the the people who claim global warming causes more snow… where did all that cold come from?
Cold does not “come” from anywhere. Only heat has a source. The universe is cold except when heated.
Of course, lol, somebody turn on the air conditioning. It must be that cold heat. Or an abundance of no source of heat. By any calculation, the amount of latent heat released during a snow storm is huge. Since the heat is retained by the co2, it makes it impossible for it to snow. Children just won’t know what snow is…. tsk, tsk… was it explained to me like that? , let me think… yep. What happened? I’m looking at french winemakers trying to save their vines from an abundance of no source of heat. Who would have thought 20 years after the great predictions of run a way greenhouse house effect, and no we didn’t slow down co2 emissions, that there’d be frost in France in may?
“Where did all the cold come from” is a succinct way of phrasing the imbalance, should be clear to anyone. Warmer air will evaporate more sea water; the humid air then goes somewhere else and can come out as rain. But then it often turns to snow, which requires more heat removed than was originally gained over the ocean. Something’s not in balance. Hot can’t make cold.
The source of most of the coldness in the world is most likely my ex.
Cold does not come from anywhere…my eye!
One day it’s 70 F and the next there is 18 inches of snow on the ground. Just magically appeared. And has been there for the last 4 days… the revised edition of the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that heat comes from cold… I forgot to ask, does that make the cold, colder? I am not kidding I have conversations that are like this. Serious ones.
The next question that nobody asks, including the the people who claim global warming causes more snow… where did all that cold come from?
I think the point has something to do with warming (but not to above freezing) plus increased precip. Probably not invalid, but overhyped, like most of this. And they never seem to point out the negative nature of this particular feedback.
“where did all that cold come from?”..
A question Otzi would have asked as he was skipping through the spring flowers of the Tyrol.
Well he probably wasn’t skipping as someone has shot him with an arrrow.
He sat down among the spring flowers, it snowed and it stayed “snowed” for 5300 years.
That’s climate change for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ötzi
One of the “authors” of the “Day after Tomorrow” fictional story, was Art Bell who used to be famous for his “Dreamland” popular Sunday evening radio fiction show. George Noori now keeps that show going to the extent it is ongoing.
g
We see similar patterns with SSTs in that same area.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/the-north-atlantic-keeps-getting-colder/
SSTs there are back down to 1980s levels, and the area of the cold blob has been steadily growing recently.
Sounds to me like natural AMO processes
Agreed. This is likely natural variability. Sure, we do have a weak cycle at the same time, but it is likely the change in AMO would have produced this result anyway. I tend to take things from Archibald with a grain of salt. But I do believe we are in for interesting times with PDO and AMO both in cool phases at the same time combined with a weak solar cycle.
Yes, thanks
It looks like atmospheric phenomena to me, too. If warm dry air has been entering the area evaporation rates will increase and the ocean below will cool (the cooling tower phenomena). Bear in mind that if the northward ocean flows at the surface decrease then southward deep water flows must also decrease to conserve mass. The resulting change in heat content is ambiguous. I would suggest surface evaporation as a possible cause.
The heat content graph looks to me like it shows the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation. The AMO combined with other multidecadal oscillations (PDO and multiyear-smoothed ENSO) contributed about .2 degree C to the rapid warming from the early 1970s to a few years after 2000. The downswing of these caused the pause, which started a few years after 2000.
AMO is still positive. It has started to drop from its peak.
OK, so warming makes it colder, we have heard this before. So what happens if the Gulf Stream slows down? The Gulf Stream moves heat from the tropics northward to colder areas. Without the Gulf Stream, heat will build up in the Caribbean, Then, either the heat finds another way out, which you would notice, or the Caribbean gets hotter, which you would notice.
Did anybody notice anything?
I love warmist arguments, Warm makes it warmer, Warm makes it colder, Warm is bad.
Beware of Big Climate. Big Climate makes everything More Badder.
AKA the Organized Clime Syndicate.
and every morer badderer.
It is a tad warm here in Fort Myers this morning.
So there is that.m
Good argument.
hey, he asked if anyone noticed anything.
Just tryin’ to be helpful.
Sheesh!
Regardless, if you take a dip in the ocean off NYC before July, you’ll freeze your tosies off.
But, ah, that September warm. I remember sitting astride a surfboard just beyond the breakers (back in the days when there was a hell of a surf) when suddenly the bluefish hit and the mackerel were leaping in sheets all around me. Miraculous sight. Looking back on it, I was lucky not to get my toe bit.
@ Evan Jones… grew up in San Francisco. That water is also fairly cold much of the time.
I just wonder if there are any sea surface temperatures for the North Atlantic older than 1950, as it looks like a partial cycle in temperatures on the graph given. The time frame is too short to tell, though.
the gulf stream is not slowing down it’s moving .. instead of passing greenland/the uk it’s [arcing south] and moving over to portugal /africa .some how it’s being blocked is this normal ??
Link, please.
bazzer1959 May 2, 2016 at 10:48 am
You could look yourself
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-26.74,50.18,689
Are those significant cold pockets causing the block?…http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-56.60,19.91,497
I’d say yes, they come from the strong, colder then usual Labrador Current, if if does what it did last year it’s about to become more pronounced as the ice retreats towards Summer extents.
There is no explanation I can find other then meltwater, which doesn’t explain why this continues through the winter months….
It seems the scientific community sees N Atlantic ssta as detail rather then a solid subject whose mechanics are worth studying/publishing?
Hello Mr Rider 🙂
hey cid 🙂
i have my own theory and it has to do with the sun and antarctic melts ..but i’m still looking .. if the pacific go’s really cold this year i’m on a winner ..
The warming’s not over until the fat canary sings.
Do you mean the Goracle in a new movie proclaiming AGCooling – Ice Age?
From its peak a decade ago, the temperature of this water column has fallen 1.0°C despite the fluctuations in the temperature of the air column above it. The rate of temperature decline has steepened up such that the levels of the 1970s cooling period will be reached by 2018.
If it continues.
Thank you for the essay. That is worth watching.
The North Atlantic’s heat content is no longer getting any help from the Sun with the F10.7 flux spending more time below 100, the breakover between heating and cooling, than above it:
How solid is the evidence that 100 is the breakover between heating and cooling?
..Wait a minute !! Didn’t Al Gorry Baby say the ENTIRE Earth was a Fireball, and we were all going to burn in the fires of HELL ?
That was one of Rev. Al’s divinity school sermons.
“Three years ago there was snow in Europe in late May as far south as northern Spain and Italy. Snow in May will just become more usual to the point of being unremarkable.”
I hate statements like this, when they are made with no (real) context and no supporting hypothesis / data. It has exactly the same weight as “snowfall is now a thing of the past”. Why does a colder ocean mean more and longer snow? My understanding is that as oceans cool they are less likely to give up moisture, drying the air out.
Anyone who lives in N Europe can tell you there is plenty of moisture in the atmosphere here, we can easily lose a bit!!!
It could end up being a case of energetic merdional flows and rex blocks. For some this would result in late season low elevation snow however the systems bringing it would tend to be moisture starved. So, it may also mean drought of much of Western Europe.
The real truth is…it’s pretty darn complicated.
http://wetter.tv/news/oesterreich/nasser-mittwoch/3.647.911
RAPID has identified a significant slowdown in AMOC from 2004-2014, but the latest data shows that the slowdown has slowed. RAPID does not show a slowdown in the Gulf Stream component of the MOC. The ‘warming causes cooling’ theory is highly speculative and probably more at home in disaster movies than scientific studies.
We know that the AMO is cyclical. We are fairly certain that low solar activity contributes to regional cooling in the North Atlantic. We have both things happening right now. No need to invoke the AGW bogeyman to explain the current precipitous drop in N Atlantic SSTs.
Besides, the ‘warming causes cooling’ hypothesis rests on freshwater hosing which may have been a feature of early Holocene N Atlantic cooling events but it seems less implicated in more recent N Atlantic Cold Events. A paper recently examined hosed vs. unhosed forcing of the AMOC and concluded:
“Here, we take advantage of a global coupled ocean–atmosphere model that exhibits spontaneous, unhosed oscillations in AMOC strength, in order to examine how the global imprint of AMOC variations depends on whether or not it is the result of external freshwater input. The results imply that, to first order, the ocean–ice–atmosphere dynamics associated with an AMOC weakening dominate the global response, regardless of whether or not freshwater input is the cause.”
http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/cp-2015-141/
Has the latest data recovered September 15 been publicly released yet??
Also, the Labrador current has been strong and anomalously cold for some time now and does appear to be interrupting the gulf stream heat transport north east. At this moment in time the SSTA look very similar to this time last year when huge cooling could be seen down the GS.
Personally I feel the existence of a cold strong LC during the winter months discounts meltwater runoff as a single cause, however there does appear to be something of significance happening in this junction?
When the climate changes you will not see it tomorrow, or even the day after that. Frosty fingers of ice won’t pursue you to that library with the magic doors that keep cold out, and wonderful windows that hold heat, and yet let sunlight in.
Bernie May 2, 2016 at 11:12 am
All true Bernie, but we will see it in ski resorts staying open later and later each season. (That is as long as we still have seasons) which means good stock investments If publicly held.
See a silver lining in every snow storm.
Jokes aside, has it clicked with anyone that it has been exactly two hundred years since the year without a summer. And we don’t know for sure what caused it and how it manifested it self on a day to day basis.
These late frosts and snow storms could just be ho-hum typical variations. Or we could be seeing a repeat of two hundred years ago. And no I am not very concerned over a one year blip. The world economy is much more advanced and dispersed to be dangerously effected by a repeat, if it were to occur.
michael
Wavier jet stream tracks with more clouds allowing less sunlight into the oceans.
That will be amplifying the normal cyclicity of the AMO.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/01/is-the-sun-driving-ozone-and-changing-the-climate/
…Well, from all the comments above, I can only postulate that there are more unknown unknowns than there are known unknowns !! ..IMHO ..
Exactly Marcus! It’s like driving on an unfamiliar road with no map. You can’t just head East and assume you’ll end up East of where you started because the twists and turns are unpredictable. Nobody knows when the temperatures of any part of the Earth are going to start trending in a different direction in the future because of something we don’t understand. Using science to predict the future is more in the realm of metaphysics than science.
Hoyt Clagwell
” You can’t just head East and assume you’ll end up East of where you started because the twists and turns are unpredictable.”
You have obviously never driven through Kansas?:)
Actually Richard, I discovered that principle driving through Connecticut. Kansas would seem to be a bit more predictable. 😛
Nonetheless, I probably wouldn’t choose west.
Marcus May 2, 2016 at 10:58 am, Hoyt Clagwell May 2, 2016 at 11:28 am
Both of you are correct. Another analogy would be following a “snowbird” at the wheel of a geezer-pleaser on a Arizona highway. Nothing more unpredictable- signaling left to go right along with sudden explainable stops. Makes life interesting and keeps one on their toes.
michael
decades of time and effort ,billions spent on research , yet here we are none the wiser.
Sure we are. In a nutshell: The basic premise seems real, but the amount of warming is much smaller than feared (and has actually been shown to be net-beneficial, so far).
That’s where “we” started out, isn’t it? A small effect?
“…but the amount of warming is much smaller than feared…”
Feared by whom? I say it was all a big fat conjob, and am not in the least impressed by those who cant accept the potential that that’s what has been going on . . Stat/math guys might be clever about some things, but detecting con artists does not seem to be one of them . .
Oh, I think these guys actually believe the things they believe.
“Oh, I think these guys actually believe the things they believe.”
Well, you’re not going to get an argument about that from me . . it’s a tautological statement . . But I meant the guys with (our) Big bucks to pour into this “feared” potential, and the Big megaphones to accuse those who aren’t all that afraid, of being crazy, antiscience, dangerous, unpatriotic, etc etc.
When La Nina hit’s, what are the best estimates/range of new past surface temperature adjustments required to keep the cAGW fear narrative alive and bust the new ever longer pause ??
The best estimate is… if it ain’t enough, they will adjust it some more.
They already wore out the elastic. (And the scientific community knows this.)
“The scientific premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow is that global warming will cause a slowing of the Gulf Stream and in turn that will cause severe cooling. Unless we can get up-to-date data on the Gulf Stream that disproves that theory, can it be dismissed out of hand?
Yes we should, null hypothesis. The cooling happened in the 50s and 70s, the IPCC say only since 1970 humans have had an impact. LIA?
That movie plot is nonsense. Dismiss it out of hand right away as it is not supported by any scientific body of work
So global warming will cause warming until it is disproved by cooling but cooling proves global warming (if you consider a movie plot)
R
O
F
L
Yes, when “Because science” is not a strong enough argument, well then break out the big gun: “Because Hollywood”.
It all comes down to “because observations”.
Eventually.
I will remind you that warmistas do not like to do research that involves going outside.
It tends to be hot and cold and wet and dry and snowy and rainy and not very air-condition out there.
David Archibald, Professor Humlum’s graph is not representative of the North Atlantic as a whole. The coordinates of 30-65N, 60W-0 represent only a portion of the extratropical North Atlantic. Some might say Professor Humlum cherry-picked the coordinates, considering the increase of subsurface temperatures west of 60W from 2007 to 2015. See the following trend map for that period.
For the depths of 0-700 meters and for the coordinates typically used for the North Atlantic (0-70N, 80W-0, used by NOAA for their AMO data), there has been a slight decline in the NODC-based subsurface temperatures since 2004, roughly
-0.05-0.1 deg C based on a linear trend (not shown).Also, for the ARGO era, starting in 2005, the NODC-based data to 2000 meters for the North Atlantic (0-70N, 80W-0) show a slight increase (not decrease) in subsurface temperatures.
Cheers.
PS: Your headline reads Atlantic, not North Atlantic. For the Atlantic as a whole (60S-70N, 70W-20E), the NODC subsurface temperature data indicate a flattening of the warming since the early 2000s, not a decline, for the depths of 0-700 meters:
Thank you Bob. Your comments put the issue in the proper perspective.
Many thanks.
What is really interesting is to overlay temperature and currents at different levels. Have been working on that to see how the “Blob” formed and dispersed. So many gyres, sub-gyres and dispersion so as to make it very difficult except for someone good at fractals. The surface currents and temperatures are quicker than the deeper ones.
My bias as a skeptic of CAGW is to hope for a linear drop in the AMO to further bolster the clear failure of the IPCC models and their proclivity to over predict warming by up to 300%. However I must agree that to expect a pure decadal linear trend in positive and negative ocean events is countered by the observations.
Look at this AMO chart. Notice the sharp counter to trend movements in each cycle, up and down. Looking at the current AMO downtrend, there is no reason to expect a consistent linear down trend either. Bob Tisdale’s different Atlantic charts confirm this. The PDO likewise does not follow a smooth sine wave, and has not remained in negative mode as most appear to think.
However their are many reasons to expect a cooling trend to follow the pause other then the short term spike of the recent El Nino.
Look at the AMO chart again and notice that the main cooling (The .4 degrees that used to exist on GMT graphics) does not come until after the peak of the down cycle. Likewise the 1940s warming blip (late erased as outlined in the climategate emails) did not max out until after the peak of the up cycle. So, given some time for the PDO and AMO to synchronize in a cooler mode, plus the low solar activity and the vanishing blop, I would expect to see a clear drop in GMT.
When following Oldenborgh et al. (2009) http://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/43930/os-5-293-2009.pdf?sequence=2 one should use the area 25…60N; 70W…7.5E . for the AMO index. In the paper they justify this choice with the prevention of ElNino- Teleconnections in the tropical atlantic: “inclusion of the tropical Atlantic would confuse the issue.” This makes sense to me… And the OHC 700 of this area is very similiar to this one:
.
The correct data: 25…60N; 70W…7.5W
sorry
“Counter-intuitive though it might seem, it may be that the cooling of the North Atlantic water column is the only evidence that provides proof of the AGW theory.”
Sorry but I can’t see how this even remotely even relates to CO2/CAGW theory.
1958: CO2 @ 315ppm. Anomaly at roughly 0.0C
1990: CO2 @ 355ppm. Anomaly still at roughly 0.0C, but rise in anomaly starts
2006: CO2 @ 385ppm. Anomaly peaks at +1.1C
2015: CO2 @ >400ppm. Anomaly back down to 0.0C and heading down.
If an 85 ppm change in a trace gas can shut off the Gulfstream we’ve got problems. So I predict the headline will be: “CO2 Shutting Down Gulfstream! Polar Bears and Harp Seal Pups Hardest Hit “
Chilemike: Which temperature anomaly is now back to 1958 levels?
But really isn’t this the next logical step in CAGW Theory? They’re too invested to throw in the towel if it actually cools a bit, so it follows that if they can make bad models that show catastrophic warming they can also make bad models that show catastrophic cooling, too. After all, it’s what they do for a living, so soon CO2 will be causing the next ice age.
Global cooling was their original scare tactic.
Weather too normal – CO2 responsible!
Won’t somebody think of the children!!!
I’m convinced, at least with the first chart. But then I was already convinced. It’s too bad ocean cycles don’t move faster to stop the Climate Con game.
Nothing personal either to the author or Bob Tisdale but you have to believe the ocean heat content data to even have this argument. Sorry OHC is probably the least trustworthy data out there. IMHO it’s right up there with “ocean acidity” data. This is liars poker.
+1
It looks more like a 1947-style hiccup than the AMO turning:
http://tinypic.com/r/2j9s9l/9
– I could be wrong though 🙂
Here is the same chart with a fitted sine wave:
http://tinypic.com/r/nnl5b4/9
looks as if we are still near the top of the AMO cycle (if the past behavior anything to go by).
David, thanks for your work. I fear I saw no support for this strange claim:
Say what? You are claiming that if the F10.7 flux is below 100 the sun doesn’t heat the earth, it cools it???
Regards,
w.
Willis, as per Tallbloke above, sea level falls when the flux is below 100 and rises when it is above 100. That is due to thermal expansion and contraction, and thus heat content. I thank Tallbloke for a very succinct explanation of a simple subject. Now comes the real reason which relates to how the piece was structured. I needed something solar to bridge over to the idiotic movie so I that I could end up saying that the cooling of the North Atlantic is the only physical evidence of AGW. Never pass up an opportunity to put the boot into the warmers. I hate what they have done to science – the corruption of the Royal Society for chrissakes! We are going back to the Dark Ages and we don’t have thorium molten salt reactors yet. With respect to the Sun, there is progress underway. I have a co-authored paper coming out in August showing that the solar cycle is due to the interaction of Jupiter and Saturn with the effect of Neptune and Uranus being additive or subtractive from time to time. This is what I set out to do ten years ago and soon I can go to my rest with respect to climate.
Anyone who reveals his own bias towards published researchers such as you have with this comment, “Never pass up an opportunity to put the boot into the warmers…” should have his work scrutinized for bias.
One of the easiest ways to demonstrate bias in your research is the fact that you refer to Tallbloke’s conjecture that flux anomaly has the energy necessary to expand or contract a very large body of water. It does not have that kind of energy.
My advice is for you to spend more time finding other holes in your own conjecture instead of putting “the boot into the warmers”. That is what a real scientist does. No stone is left unturned in an effort to disprove their own theory. In my opinion, neither side does a very good job of this. So rise above the rabble. I challenge you to post other weaknesses in your theory right here and now.
archibaldperth May 2, 2016 at 4:32 pm Edit
I don’t believe that for one minute. Citation? I note that Tallbloke didn’t provide one either, but then that seems to be a habit of far too many “It’s the sun, stupid” folks …
w.
The point is not that the oceans warm or cool as a direct result of changes in solar flux but rather that solar flux variations are a proxy for another aspect of the sun’s influence that does affect Ocean Heat Content.
Such as global cloudiness via changes in jet stream behaviour arising from upper atmospheric chemistry changing the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles.
Stephen Wilde May 3, 2016 at 2:57 am
Actually, the point is that neither you, nor Archibald, nor Tallbloke have provided a scrap of observational support for the claim that sunspot related variations (e.g. TSI, cosmic rays, solar wind, global cloudiness, etc) are affecting the ocean temperatures.
Certainly the second graph in the head post above doesn’t show a solar component, or there would be six peaks in the temperature corresponding to the six sunspot cycle peaks since 1955. Since such peaks do not exist in Figure 2, clearly the sun isn’t the reason for the changes shown there.
w.
WUWT is a journal of record. Pioneering research started last decade:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/07/archibald-on-sea-level-rise-and-solar-cycles/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/03/quantifying-sea-level-fall/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/22/back-testing-the-solar-sea-level-relationship/
Perhaps you want something with more equations? Nir Shaviv described the oceans as a calorimeter in this paper:
http://www.sciencebits.com/newver/files/articles/CalorimeterFinal.pdf
Peak oil was a bit delayed by the US shale oil boom. But this generation has seen peak sea level as we enter the TSI flux abyss of Solar Cycle 25 and the end of the Modern Warm Period.
Thanks, David, but I didn’t ask you to shower me with studies. Here’s what I questioned:
I asked for a citation to that, not for a history of your failed attempts to establish a solar connection.
Please stop handwaving and provide ONE citation to the above claim. I’m not about to dig through miles of your cryptic prose trying to find it.
w.
I have tried very hard to please you, Willis, very hard. But I have fallen short yet again. If only your standards weren’t so high! My bad!
archibaldperth May 4, 2016 at 7:55 pm
I asked for one simple link to a claim you made. Stop pretending my standards are too high. If you can’t provide one pissant link to a claim you made, your standards are too low.
w.
Why can’t we just toss some floats and make most of the cooling go away?
Like a real grown-up climate scientist. (sarc)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
Didn’t NASA drop buoys and detect a slight increase in the AMOC
Was that only the upper warmer layers?
Potsdam said it is slowing down (sinister down) using temperature, never left the office
They found an increase of about 0.001C. Which is fascinating since it’s about 2 orders of magnitude below the sensitivity limits of the equipment they were using.
“… about 2 orders of magnitude below the sensitivity limits of the equipment they were using.”
Which means, the 0.001 figure is far more likely to be incorrect, than to be correct . . and that, in my book, is a form of lying.
re “Counter-intuitive though it might seem, it may be that the cooling of the North Atlantic water column is the only evidence that provides proof of the AGW theory.“.
This is not “the only evidence that provides proof of the AGW theory”. There are absolutely masses of bits of data that are consistent with AGW theory, just like this one [assuming this one is correct, I haven’t checked it]. For example, the Arctic is warming, the stratosphere is cooling, and there was recently a big storm in Fiji. But bits of supporting data don’t prove a theory. A necessary condition to establish (not prove) a theory is absence of contra evidence. So for AGW theory, you need to look also at the non-warming of the Antarctic, the failure of the tropical troposphere to warm faster than the surface, and the dwindling storm rate outside Fiji.
For AGW theory, there is so much contra evidence that in any rational assessment it has already failed.
[NB. I used the words “AGW theory” as used in the original article. But “CAGW hypothesis” would be more accurate.]
This is related to the cycle of the polar vortex (weakness) and lower pressure drop over the North Atlantic.
http://geo.phys.spbu.ru/materials_of_a_conference_2012/STP2012/Veretenenko_%20et_all_Geocosmos2012proceedings.pdf
Doesn’t everyone know that “the missing heat” is hiding in the oceans? This article has simply exposed more data that need adjusting.
There really isn’t any surface on the ocean to re-radiate infrared into the atmosphere for CO2 to trap and re-radiate, water is fairly effective at taking care of transport of any heat input into the atmosphere on its own. This means that a combination of particulate interception and upper layer re-radiation of infra-red by CO2 and water vapor blocks the energy from getting to the ocean’s liquid mass and the heat input goes down. Since heat travels up we’ll always have warmer water right at the surface but this would explain the FlopENSO.
Storm’s a commin. Big one.
It is still high pressure over the Arctic Circle.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_ALL_NH_2016.png
This is a huge stretch, IMO. Most modeling is warming the N atlantic again in the coming 2 years as there is alot of back and forth in the transitional phases as the AMO does shift. As far as “help” from the sun.. why do people not understand that we have had 200 years of strong sunspot activity that if you wish to buy the whole solar cycle activity, would have to have a stored response in the form of warmer oceans. The initial response of low solar, may be reduced easterlies in the tropical Pacific due to less radiation ( there is a remarkable link to el ninos and around the time of solar mins) and more el nino, releasing stored heat that Trenberth thinks is from GHG’s but I think would be the natural by product of high solar. I think we are putting to many eggs in one basket. Plummeting heat content. One would hope so, it couldnt get much warmer
Joe Bastardi May 2, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Thanks, Joe. Citation? I’ve never found an El Niño/solar link, but that doesn’t mean one doesn’t exist.
w.
Joe, as an example, the R^2 of the relationship between monthly sunspots and monthly Nino3.4 index, at the lag that gives maximum correlation (24 months), is a pathetic 0.003, with a p-value of 0.30 … like I said, I’ve never found a significant correlation between El Nino and sunspots at any lag.
w.
Mr. Bastardi
Thanks for the comment, I’m sure that great majority by far, appreciates and value your contributions. Solar variability and consequently the climate change aren’t going away any time soon, whether we like it or not.
“…the temperature of this water column has fallen 1.0°C despite the fluctuations in the temperature of the air column above it.”
If I understand John Christy (UAH) correctly, he has argued that this is why NOAA using night sea air temperatures to adjust the SST upwards to break the dreaded “Pause” is totally unsupported by temperature buoys measuring both air and water temperatures. There is a disconnect between the two.
The scientific premise of the movie The Day After Tomorrow is that global warming will cause a slowing of the Gulf Stream and in turn that will cause severe cooling.
The slowdown in the gulf stream is not “caused” by global warming. It is caused by the chaotic oscillatory dynamics of ocean circulation. The AMO is simply the oscillatory speedup and slowdown of the gulf stream.
Weather is of the atmosphere, climate is of the ocean. In regard to the gulf stream slowdown, the phrase “don’t believe anything till you hear the official denial” has never been more apropos.
Menicholas May 2, 2016 at 3:45 pm
The source of most of the coldness in the world is most likely my ex.
Cold does not come from anywhere…my eye!
+10000
Please no Day After Tomorrow, fantasy.
The cooling which we are currently observing has happened before and occurs cyclically. This is a holistic problem. There is only one solution that explains all of the observations.
The Atlantic ocean cooling due to the increase in surface winds which causes increased evaporation cooling and due to the increased low level cloud cover, both of which are caused by the interruption to the solar cycle.
http://www.geo.vu.nl/~renh/pdf/Renssen-etal-QI-2000.pdf
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
Climate science is chock full of urban legends. Urban legend theories are theories (mechanisms) which are repeated when there is obvious data and logic that supports the assertion that the theories in question are completely incorrect, not part of the solution.
Solar cycle changes are the cause of past cyclic climate change and were the cause of the warming in the last 150 years.
1. The discrete thermal halone ocean conveyor theory has been proven incorrect by ocean float data. The discrete thermal halone conveyor started with a picture that Wally Broeker without proof. Ocean float data shows only 8% of the flow in the North Atlantic fallows the Broeker conveyor path. Therefore changes in the fresh water flow cannot interrupt the North Atlantic drift current and changes in the North Atlantic drift current do not affect ocean current flow in the Southern Hemisphere.
2. Basic analysis shows the heat transferred by the North Atlantic drift current is three times less than heat is transfer from summer warming of the North Atlantic current. A complete interruption to the North Atlantic drift current therefore cannot cause the cyclic warming and cooling of Europe and Greenland Ice sheet.
3. The warming in the Southern Hemisphere is simultaneous with the warming in the North hemisphere. If ocean currents where the cause of the warming there would be roughly a 1000 year lag.
4. When the Southern hemisphere, the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the Northern hemisphere warm, the Antarctic ice cools. This phenomena is called confusingly the Polar see-saw (see Svensmark’s attached paper). The Antarctic ice sheet cools as the albedo of that ice sheet is greater than the albedo of clouds. Therefore an increase in cloud cover over the Antarctic causes warming of that ice sheet rather than cooling. The albedo of the Greenland ice sheet is low than the Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet is not isolated by a polar vortex and hence unlike the Antarctic ice sheet follows the temperature of the surround ocean.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-source-of-europes-mild-climate
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0612145v1
WA
The Atlantic ocean cooling due to the increase in surface winds which causes increased evaporation cooling and due to the increased low level cloud cover, both of which are caused by the interruption to the solar cycle.
Why the atmosphere-centric view of ocean heat? How can the ocean be dependent on atmospheric processes alone for changes in heat? 99% of climate heat is in the ocean. Ocean circulation changes, both in terms of equator to pole heat transport and deep vertical mixing, are more than enough to generate changes in heat distribution.
It takes decades or centuries for heat exchange processes at the ocean surface to make any difference at mid or lower ocean depths.
Remember – atmosphere is about weather. Climate is about the ocean.
One or two mentions of sunspot cycles.
The SC4 for April 2016 in the ‘classic’ numbers has fallen to sunspot count of 27, currently graph only available here
SSN graph
see subset graph to the bottom right.
For ‘new’ Svalgaard numbers plot you need to look elsewhere.
SC24 started late, some of us (included myself, December 2003, published Jan 2004) forecast low values which proved to be correct.
Subsequently one or two pundits were forecasting the long SC24, but as graph shows it is more likely to be a short one. On number of occasions Dr. S. warned that the SC4 is not conforming to what is expected, he even wrote a paper on the subject, and he could well be right.
vukcevic May 3, 2016 at 2:14 am
Vuk, without a link to the forecast that’s just unsubstantiated boasting … I have asked you over and over to link to to the claims that you make, and over and over you think you can get away with just opening your mouth and letting something come out.
I don’t plan to stop calling you on this BS, so unless you want to be embarrassed over and over again, how ’bout you join this party we call SCIENCE and start making a habit of backing your claims up with something more than your empty words?
w.
Mr. Eschenbach
If you click on the link, and look at the graph, there is a link to the CERN website, for you to follow.
I’ve just got Mr. Tisdale concerned about the N. Atlantic ‘oscillations’ closely linked to solar and volcanic activity, in addition to Dr. Svalgaard’s and occasionally your concerns, it’s no surprise that the solar ‘gnats’ have become endangered type of a fruit fly around here.
Enjoy your sailing, looking forward to the your Pacific stories.
Calm seas and bon voyage.
Thanks, Vuk, but why would I want a link to the CERN website? I specifically asked for a link to your forecast, not to CERN.
w.
Mr. Eschenbach
CERN server has my paper dated 8 Jan 2004 (link to it is on my graph)
there you will find the equations. I’ve been through this with Dr. Svalgaard many times since about 2008, and if you expect me to go through it again for your benefit forget it. You kindly qualified it as ‘BS’ and I have no objections to your vies and opinions.
I am off to the south of France, day after tomorrow early morning, and while there I take rest from bloging, in meanwhile I’m concentrating on getting some writing done on
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAM.pdf
Have a nice time over there.
Bye.
.
vukcevic May 3, 2016 at 5:05 am
Thanks, Vuk. I went to the page you linked to, but what I found was a graph that says “Vukcevic Formula 2003”. Unfortunately, the page was put up in 2011. It also is not on the CERN server, so I have no clue what you are referring to.
JUST GIVE ME THE DAMN LINKTO YOUR FORECAST ITSELF!!! I’m sick of dicking around digging through your rubbish looking for some gem. If you have a link to a contemporaneous report of your prediction, fine. If not, don’t bother me. I’m not interested in one published in 2011.
This is why I generally don’t answer your posts. You are most unwilling to link to whatever your latest rant is about. Much against my better judgement I tried to follow your three-stage path to your purported forecast … my mistake. Won’t happen again.
w.
You originally commented on ‘this graph’.
I refereed to ‘this graph’.
CERN link is on ‘this graph’.
and this graph is ‘this graph’.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
I hope you got it
Here is the CERN server link , which appeared on the my SSN graph with a link monthly posted on WUWT for number of years
http://cds.cern.ch/record/704882?1
and here is part of screen shot from the CERN web page
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CERN.gif
which clearly displays my name Vukcevic, M.A and the date 8 Jan 2004
I refuse to answer any more easy questions, go ahead ask something more difficult.
Mr. Eschenbach throws mud at my name and I’m trying to help him ?!
Can it get more ridiculous ?
I suppose not, but it is a good laugh.
vukcevic May 3, 2016 at 2:51 pm Edit
I went to the page you refer to and there was nothing about CERN on that page that I can find … so thank you for finally DOING WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE FROM THE START and providing the actual link to your paper.
Look, jerkwagon, you provided a link that went nowhere, you were too arrogant or too lazy or something to actually link to the document, and now you want to whine about me accurately describing your actions?
Next time, just provide the link and you won’t get your stupidity pointed out. You STILL haven’t provided a link to your actual document … for those who don’t want to go around Vuk’s merry-go-round, the paper is here.
Here’s your whizbang result:
Part of the time it predicts half the number of sunspots that actually occurred … part of the time it predicts twice the number … and most of the time it has the timing wrong. If you call that a success, I’m glad you’re not my weatherman …
w.
This just gets better. Vuk posted up a graphic containing what he said was a 2003 forecast here. Since that page was published in 2011, I asked for a citation to his original forecast, and after many requests, he sent me to a paper at CERN.
Here’s the beauty part. The formula in his CERN paper is
where Ax is the year.
But in his 2011 publication, the formula is similar but very different, viz:
I’ve put the changes in bold.
So no, Vuk, that is NOT a “2003 forecast” as you claim. Your 2003 claim was similar, but far from the same.
w.
Mr. Eschenbach
Number of points you should have known before rushing into tirades:
You need to understand that sunspot time line is not the same as the polar field time line
Read Dr. Svalgaard, he is an expert on both, what you linked to is the polar fields, and what you are talking about is the sunspot formula, two very different things !
The next thing you failed to understand, there are two formulae, one describes periodicity the other amplitude, the projected SC peaks are at or near cross-sections of two, you just looked at one half.
Dr Svalgaard and people who looked at it understood this important point and it is always shown very clearly on the sunspot graph
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN.htm
Dr Svalgaard at least knew what he was talking about, not sure you do, but that is not of my concern.
People (see Wikipedia entries) who looked at and thought it had some value are:
Dr. Joan Feynman NASA-JPL astrophysist (sister of Richard, with whom I still occasionally correspond) – advised on overcoming publishing problems in 2003.
Professor Dr. Antony Hewish radio astronomer, Nobel Prize for Physics 1974 – neutral, since no mechanism of any kind can be validated at any time in the future.
Professor Dr. Eric Priest – Royal Society, Solar Physics Hale Prize 2002 (not even Dr. Svalgaard has one of these) – positive, at my behalf entered into correspondence on the subject with the NASA’s solar scientist Dr. Hathaway.
Dr. David Hathaway, NASA – on balance negative, on account of proposed mechanism, but at the time he was predicting for the SC24 to be the strongest ever cycle.
After all of the above, why I should take seriously whatever you come up with, but I had a laugh or two. You wouldn’t have been sent on a merry go round, if you had some sense to read what was written in first place, and what you were commenting on, despite the inappropriate language you used.
Mr. Eschenbach
I enjoy creating, some of it is good, some not so good, but the aim is to contribute, taking away or destroying is not my obsession. Despite all the fun, I have no intention to continue with the subject, regardless of what you may come up with next. Calm seas and a fare well to you and your sailing friends.
m.a.vukcevic
Vuk, I made two simple points. You have strenuously avoided both of them.
1. Your claim of a 2003 prediction was bogus. The citation you gave for it showed a very different formula, on a page created in 2011.
2. Your fit of your formula to the data was horrible. I’ll show it again, since you seem to want to ignore it:
Rather than respond to either of those evidence-based criticisms of particular claims, you went off on a rant about how various people thought your ideas were wonderful, and that there were many things I don’t understand … so what?? Seriously, do you think that is relevant???
Your opinion of me is meaningless. How much I do or don’t understand is meaningless. How many people think you are Mr. Wizard is meaningless. Those issues are all designed to distract people from the two gaping holes in your claims that I pointed out above.
You tried to pull a fast one, Vuk, and claim that you made a prediction in 2003 that you did not make. How about you deal with that instead of whining about me and what an idiot I am. I may be an idiot, but I’m not misleading people with bogus prediction claims and models that hardly fit the data at all. Start by talking about that and you might convince some people. Until then, you’re just dragging red herrings across the trail to try to send the conversation somewhere, anywhere except to points 1 and 2 above …
w.
This is for benefit any other readers still left around.
Mr. Eschenbach has confused two different things , he needs to learn difference between sunspot count and instrumental measured data for the polar magnetic field, next he needs to learn something about their relationship. Reading Dr. Svalgaard’s papers is recommended, than he might understand what the formulae mean.
He made his judgement about me from the date when my web-page was created in 2011.. I had web-pages on NTL.com and vukcevic.co.uk, long before. Just to show how wrong he is here is a screen-shot from now defunct web-blog SC24.com darted July 2009
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/19July2009.gif
included is the start of an email from Dr. J. Feynman (sister of Richard) well known JPL Nasa’s solar scientist, author on numerous papers, note the date 16/06/2003
No scientist of her stature would bother to write an extensive email if she thought the formulae I devised were ‘junk’.
Mr. Eschenbach can comment on anything he likes, but before rushing and accusing people, it is advisable to check the facts. Someone else might consider apologising, but I don’t expect it on this occasion.
The above is an attempt not only to discredit my early work, but to discredit me as a person and consequently whatever has followed that early work. The direct link between solar activity and climate change is demonstrated in my post further below, but no way anyone can challenge that.
Attempts to write out solar influence on the climate change are doomed to failure !
I am off for 2-3 weeks, and when I go away I just don’t bother about blogs.
vukcevic May 4, 2016 at 9:53 am
Vuk, you’re hilarious. Your new reference to a 2009 version of your forecast that you gave us complete with a graphic has a THIRD version of your formula. Obviously, you’ve successively retuned it as you went along, while falsely claiming that it is a 2003 formula … but you still have not responded to either of my two points above.
Not only that, but instead of responding to my two points, again you’re whining about how confused I am … SO WHAT? My knowledge and actions are not the issue here, yours are.
w.
Learn about the relation between sunspot count and polar field. If you know what you are talking about, you would realise that only two important numbers there are the orbital periods 11.862 and 19.859 .Everything else are normalising factors, of no great consequence, but since you are trying to throw mud, you busy yourself with trivia. On occasions it may have been a typing error, as polar field graphs are regularly updated (between 20 and 30 times a year, dependant on the Stanford data) and formula is rewritten on the graphic. When you learn what it means, we can have meaningful discussion, but all what you said up to this moment is inconsequential and waist of your time. I have not invented anything, just described how solar system was arranged during the last 3-4 billion years ago. Substance and not trivia is fundamental to science,
Plot graphs in your comment of May 3, 2016 at 9:20 pm, and you will see where you went wrong, it is actually funny, you even put some numbers into bold to show they are different.
OF COURSE THEY ARE DIFFERENT, you had no idea what you were talking about !
Do yourself a favour, read Svalgaard on polar field observed intensity relationship to the sunspot count, stop wasting your time.
Now back to the more important matter of the N. Atlantic
Number of well informed contributors to this website maintain that solar activity effect on the climate change amounts to about 0.1 C. I am not so well informed, and not easily convinced by anyone’s views, I go and do my own thing and form my view.
N. Atlantic SST is available from 1850s onwards, but there are uncertainties regarding the earlier data.
Central England temperature has far more accurate data and goes back to 1660.
Dr. Svalgaard & co tell us that the sunspot group number GSN is a more reliable metrix than simple SSN. Despite some reservation towards Svalgaard’s ‘new’ GSN numbers they will be used in this short analysis.
To ascertain any effect of the solar activity on the longer term climate change I compared rate of change in the average GSN to the CET. For averaging I used a low pass filter since it gives more accurate results than a moving average.
Since the ‘new’ sunspot date has lost most of its up-trend and the rate of change by its nature tends to eliminate trend, I de-trended the CET data to obtain a more fair comparison as shown in this graph.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/G&C.gif
(click on the graph to enlarge)
Data used are
GSN: http://sidc.oma.be/silso/DATA/GN_y_tot_V2.0.txt
CET: http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
for the LPF response see the graphic inset.
From the graph above we can see that the solar effect varies from time to time, with respect to our dear sun, despite being the beginning and the end of it all, there are other factors, one of them being volcanic eruptions.
Strongest solar effect was just after coming out of the Maunder minimum and amounts to almost 1C, while the average is more likely to be around 0.5C. These values are based on highly smoothed data by the LPF, in reality the value could be somewhat greater. So much for the 0.1C limit to the solar influence.
I do not consider ‘global temperature anomaly’ index as having much value in relation to the real world I happen to live in, you are welcome to disagree, but I’m sticking to what I think to be right.