Are Scientists Preparing for a FlipFlop Back to Global Cooling Predictions?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The alleged weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation appears to be triggering a growing amount of speculation about abrupt cooling, like the plot of the movie “The Day After Tomorrow”.

Crippled Atlantic currents triggered ice age climate change

The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).

These currents, which today drive the Gulf Stream, bring warm surface waters north and send cold, deeper waters south. But they weakened suddenly and drastically, nearly to the point of stopping, just before several periods of abrupt climate change, researchers report today in Science. In a matter of decades, temperatures plummeted in the north, as the currents brought less warmth in that direction. Meanwhile, the backlog of warm, southern waters allowed the Southern Hemisphere to heat up.

AMOC slowdowns have long been suspected as the cause of the climate swings during the last ice age, which lasted from 110,000 to 15,000 years ago, but never definitively shown. The new study “is the best demonstration that this indeed happened,” says Jerry McManus, a paleo-oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, and a study author. “It is very convincing evidence,” adds Andreas Schmittner, a climate scientist at Oregon State University, Corvallis. “We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”

Another question is whether the AMOC—currently known to be in decline—could drop off suddenly today, as depicted in the 2004 movie The Day After Tomorrow, causing temperatures to plummet across northwestern Europe. Schmittner says the past provides an eye-opener. “It’s evidence that this really did happen in the past, on short time scales.” But McManus says that studies looking deeper into the ice ages have found that the 1500-year climate oscillations tend not to be nearly as strong during interglacial periods. “It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.

Read more: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-conveyor-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

The abstract of the study;

North Atlantic ocean circulation and abrupt climate change during the last glaciation

The last ice age was characterized by rapid and hemispherically asynchronous climate oscillations, whose origin remains unresolved. Variations in oceanic meridional heat transport may contribute to these repeated climate changes, which were most pronounced during marine isotope stage 3 (MIS3), the glacial interval twenty-five to sixty thousand years ago. We examined climate and ocean circulation proxies throughout this interval at high resolution in a deep North Atlantic sediment core, combining the kinematic tracer Pa/Th with the deep water-mass tracer, δ13CBF. These indicators suggest reduced Atlantic overturning circulation during every cool northern stadial, with the greatest reductions during episodic Hudson Strait iceberg discharges, while sharp northern warming followed reinvigorated overturning. These results provide direct evidence for the ocean’s persistent, central role in abrupt glacial climate change.

Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/06/29/science.aaf5529

Is the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation slowing? Models suggest it should be – but observation based studies have not found evidence of a slowdown.

Who else is speculating about abrupt cooling? One name which might surprise you is former NASA GISS director James Hansen. From Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous p3774;

Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.

Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.

Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …

Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

Naturally most of the climate scientists who make such predictions expect the cooling to occur over a relatively short timescale, before the ice melt forcing which causes the predicted cooling is overwhelmed by our continued sinful emissions of CO2. But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Jimmy Haigh

Who gives a toss, eh? As long as the filthy lucre keeps rolling in…

Goldrider

REPENT, ye sinnaz! There’s still time, before ye Perish by Fire and Ice! (There are SIGNS, in the Sun, Moon, and Stars) . . .
The more things change, the more they stay the same!

Hansen is just laying cover for the eventual demise of the global warming scare, ‘scare’ being the operative word. He still blames it on CO2 emissions since that way, the cooling scare still fits the narrative he had a large part in establishing.

RogrDane

Wonder if they will return all the money they bamboozled out of society?

The big issue on Global is that it is a machine to deprive us of our wealth and our rights. We find this in the EU already. The BREXIT just disclosed that this fraud was only for this purpose.

pt

Does one buy into anything Hansen to which he is associated?

during the “high water mark” of the last “eemian” interglacial ocean levels were apparently about 20 ft higher….would like to know where the extra water came from and how in hell did the polar bears survive…our present interglacial is long in the tooth and CO2 emmisions will gradually fade out over next 100 years….reglaciation will be the civilization killer…not global warming……save the world economy, the planet will take care of itself

It’s quite possible that the claim of a high water mark of 20′ higher than today is the product of confirmation bias since the error bars likely exceed +/- 20′. If it was nearly 3C warmer during the last interglacial and if the oceans were not 20′ higher, one of the scariest talking points disappears. Your point that the ice in Greenland and the Antarctic survived is highly relevant, if not the case, we wouldn’t have the ice cores to misinterpret.
The whole CAGW scare got its start when we noticed the correlation between CO2 and temperature in the Vostok ice cores. When it was discovered that CO2 concentration changes follow temperature changes, and not the other way around if CO2 drove the temperature, they needed different ammunition to scare you with (although even today, many warmists deny the measured temporal relationships in the ice core data).
The temperature reconstructions are somewhat tricky too and establish the temperature of the water that evaporated and which eventually became ice. This is ‘adjusted’ (homogenized) to represent the planet as a while. It could also be the case that a slight warming resulted in more tropical evaporation making its way to the poles and biasing the temperature reconstruction.

The prescription will be the same. The measures in the 1977 book “The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming Of The New Ace Age” are identical to the ones proposed for global warming.

And the doofus alarmists want to punish the deniers, how about punishing the scammers who are cashing-in from Global Hoax?

I’ll bet these climate crappers descended from the flat-earth brainiacs……

HillaryForPrison2016

100% Agree!

Most “climate scientists” are corrupt fools.

Marcs2

Earth has NEVER had unvarying climate in it’s entire geological history, simply it is either warming or cooling and never static .

Dave Bouve

Actually, the climate has been “relatively” stable for the last 5,000 years or so — unsurprising in any non linear system (you can eventually expect a string of tails in a series of coin flips if you go long enough). Variance may be the normal — the rare period of stability may be what allowed civilization to take root and flourish. Without drastic temperature swings driving nomadic wandering to find optimal sublimates to hunt or gather, mankind could stay put and use his time to create civilization. Just a thought.

waitingforcondo

Has the Holocene not experienced overall much warmer temps compared to the last 500 years? Hedging bets on which way they think it’s headed seems the most likely scenario.

Carol Hadenough

Oh, my. The pesky natural phenomenon of “weather changes” rears its ugly head again. That’s the way God planned it, don’tcha know…

Honest Abe

Perfectly said!

its called a polar vortex from earth axis shift. a dalton minimum may occur again. climate changes all the time beyond mans willingness to accept. global warming is a farce at best.

you are 100% correct….its not complicated…it just takes a bit of a brain to realize this

When I was young and it knocked out the citrus crops in SW Texas and is S Florida, it was commonly called the Arctic, or Polar, Express.
Of course, that was before man-made it the “Polar Vortex.”

RNP47

I think the problem lies with our education system which does not promote critical thinking, hence we have a population which relies on it’s emotion rather than it’s thought.

JJ

Exactly!

Brian H

its
“it’s” = it is

Well said, Jimmy!

Andrew White

Oh God, that means its going to start warming again. ;^)

MichMike

Did you know that the personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprint being 50 TIMES the average of the other 99%? Not surprising to anyone. What surprises people is this means this small group is responsible for more than 33% of ALL U. S. CO2 emissions and were this small group to only emit 25 TIMES the average, OVERALL U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately (not over decades) 17%. Oddly, ALL the plans proposed and implemented allow this small group to continue their behavior unabated while financially hammering the lower income and middle classes, just for being alive. But it is an emergency, we are told (by the 1%). Maybe some of you AGW folks could explain this please? Should we all wait here for your explanation?

That’s right Jimmy, Global Warming or Global Cooling it’s still Climate Change, so in those famous words “what difference does it make”, just keep that money coming. Baseball players aren’t the only ones who can switch hit.

Quick… who do I give all my money too????? This terrible global cooling will devour us all!!!!!! PigBearMan will destroy all he is way worse then manbearpig.

ManBearPig, not PigBearMan.
I just had to look that up and I’m serial about it.

prjindigo

Now I’m wanting to have stored up a whole bunch of popcorn like the preppers were six years ago… just so I have a munchy while I watch this freak weather show.
The reason the Earth STAYS in a specific temperature range is because any time it leaves it violently reacts to go back. Homeostasis isn’t just a definition on a science test!

Being and Time

I thought it was a pejorative for those who wish no more “progress” to made on mainstreaming the LGBT agenda.

Mole

What a stupid statment.

mauser98

they are the same bunch…gimme free stuff

Jason

Ah, yes. That’s it! The LGBT is affecting our climate! Gluten, too. All this gluten is clogging up our jet streams and deep ocean thingies, so a good round of gay bashing and a gluten free diet is the answer to bring our global temps back down and usher in the next ice age. Do you have any idea how expensive ice is in Phoenix? It makes keeping the kegs cool more expensive than the keg of budwiser was to begin with…

emsnews

And this is why we now have severe shifts for the last 3 million years? The climate is most certainly NOT stable at all.

Bruce G Frykman

The climate is now so unstable it changes every day. One day the climate is warm and dry and the next the climate is cool and damp. Every day I now have to tune in to the climate channel on TV to see what the climate is doing today….gads its frightful.

Erich

…or caused by human actions, if the changes go back 3 million years. The earth is in orbit around a variable star.

Jack Nicholson

You’re confusing homeostasis – a property of living systems – with the more general and apt principle of dynamic equilibrium.

Jim Watson

Predict all possible outcomes and when one of them happens–voila!–you’ll look like a genius!

It might be a good idea to list all the possible outcomes that are incompatible with man-made climate change, so that the future climate can be checked against them. I have put a fair bit of time into this, and my list to date is as follows:

Jeff Alberts

It might be a good idea to list all the possible outcomes that are incompatible with man-made climate change, so that the future climate can be checked against them.

Obviously you haven’t been paying attention. NOTHING is incompatible with MMCC.
(If I need a /sarc, you need your sarc meter checked.)

list all the possible outcomes that are incompatible with man-made climate change
==========================
97% or all climate scientists agree that a funding cut would be the worst possible disaster.

Frederick Michael

I see what you did there with your empty list.

Mike Jonas, it took me a minute–I know, I know, I’m dense but that was funny!

JohnKnight

Mike,
My list is a bit longer . .
1: Hell freezes over

funny, you nailed it.

Sigmund

You win the comments prize for the week.

In the long term you cover your bets, in the short term you prove that you have no idea what you are talking about.
The conclusion is WE MUST ACT NOW ( before the game is up ).

Manfred

Okay, quickly then, you take stage left and I’ll go centre. Has the prompter turned up yet? Righto. Lights, curtain and …. aaaaccccccttttttiiiiiooooionnnnnnn.

No its a very specific prediction that has a signature pattern of cooling. Look at the maps.

Bruce G Frykman

Ahh the Jeanne Dixon effect http://skepdic.com/dixon.html rediscovered by “science”
What next daring prediction of “science:”
“If we don’t mend our ways future Islamic acts of terror ‘might’ occur!”

John Robertson

Yep classic government expert.
Predict everything,hope you cover what actually happens.
Claim credit.
Damn shame nothing you offered as “expert advice” was useful to anyone.

The 1500 year metronome isn’t ice melt, it is lunar tidal.

Sparks

A while ago I had convinced myself that lunar tidal influence was ‘the’ major factor, I understand it has a major role (more so than a rise of 50ppm in global CO2 that translates into a bazillion degrees in some minds lol) but to a lesser degree, the best results I have found that relate to planetary temperature is;
1. Changes in planetary orbits (including relativistic effects of time)
2. The suns Polar field rotation and reversal (and it’s interaction with planetary orbits)
3. Lunar Tidal change
4. Planetary Composition
One piece of the jigsaw which I have been researching for years is how the sun produces a rise and fall in planetary temperature and I have the answer now.
When Willis and Mosher and the like, quit beating a dead horse over TSI and sunspots and degenerating people doing important research into the sun’s role like a bunch methodological reductionists parading around in a derogatory fashion for the crowd (which is far from the sceptical concept I respect) I will openly and comprehensively reveal years of research that definitely explain the suns role in driving temperature on earth. now is not the time 😉
No ‘climate scientist’ could ever get the result I have, I know this because they would have got it by now if they were actually researching the suns role, the idea is that basic and falsifiable as I have already attempted to do and failed…

Sparks,
I’ve always considered that tidal effects from the gas giants affect the output of the fusion core as the shape of the core is stretched and squeezed (gravity works at the speed of light), yet it take a very long time for the energy produced by the fusion core to make its way to the solar surface obfuscating the precise correlation. This leaves a series of compression waves between the core and the surface corresponding to the past tidal influences that acted on the Sun’s fusion core. When Jupiter and Saturn are on opposite sites of the Sun, the tidal forces are minimum, the core is most spherically symmetric and the most efficient. When aligned on the same side, core becomes less efficient and its output will change. It wouldn’t surprise me if there was a 1500 year periodicity where Jupiter and Saturn were both aligned on the same side at the perihelion/aphelion of both orbits.
Most of the stars we observe in the Cosmos are variable and gravitational influences could be why there is such a wide range of luminosity variability and periods. The Sun’s variability is just at a smaller scale.

co2isnotevil,
There is a tidal effect from the Giant planets on the sun, although gravity from orbiting planets does not have the effect on the sun by stretching and squeezing the suns core, Gravity skims the surface. (but that is only gravity, there is a lot more)
Gravity does not work at the speed of light, the speed of light is relative to gravity.
Another interesting point you have raised, is that it takes a long time “for the energy produced by the fusion core to make its way to the solar surface” Maybe this has been a sticking point for you? This is not true, I believe this comes from a a disputed calculation (red herring) that a photon takes from 40.000 to 170.000 years to leave the suns core and reach the surface. The fact is, polarities are instantaneous, there’s a very distinct difference between a “trapped photon” inside the sun and the fact that a polarity exists, the flow of magnetic force doesn’t travel the same as a photon, it is a force of attraction and repulsion (on a scale relative to our own) in terms of the suns poles and the flow of energy from one point to the other by way of E=mc2 (<–) is an intense energetic differential, and it travels instantaneously from the core to the surface.
A gravitational tidal effect from the planets acting upon the sun actually has a role, and it is a very interesting one as an indicator.

Unicorns done it.
I have proof.
And nobody can disprove it.
We could share a nobel…just think

Ccvasquez

You forgot one immensely important lunar effect….. werewolves.

T. Blackburn

As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

Jimmy not THAT jimmy

Nobody really gives a ratt’s ass what you think. And chicks won’t dig it either.

Recently came across an Astrophysics Theory confirmed by observation of the Suns activity. The story referenced the Journal Nature. Have done nothing to confirm it as it was of little importance to me. You might want to check it out. Whatever this activity is will precede a three decade period of Global Cooling which in turn will effect Regional Weather patterns.

@Steven Mosher,
I hear that you’re the resident expert on Unicorns, do they cause spikes in ENSO? obviously el nino and la nina drive the planetary temperature anomaly, the CO2 unicorn that you believe in because sightings are up from 350 to 400 can not and do not cause El Nino, and the argument that you’ve been making that Unicorns done it (even with data) has been disproved over and over ad nauseam 😉

Have a look at this Lunar graph purely out of interest, notice that all the talking points are there? Look at the date!comment image

H

E.M., greetings from Berlin. H

T. Blackburn

Before one can ask if there is global warming or global cooling one must first establish what is the norm!!! How can we determine climate change if we don’t have a established reference point?

TG

Warmist will blow hot or cold in the mildest breeze any which way for a free paid for climate conference (As long as it’s not in Detroit) and another further study grant.

Jimmy not THAT jimmy

Easy on Motown, man.

David Smith

Or Scunthorpe

Jtom

“It would suggest that this kind of thing isn’t so likely to happen today,” he says. On the other hand, he adds, “In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”
There is a wealth of evidence that Greenland had less ice during the MWP than today. Until it melts at least to the same extent, it would seem we have little to worry about.

Greenland is not currently melting:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif
Please prove it.

Mark - Helsinki

J. Philip Peterson
July 2, 2016 at 9:24 pm
You kinda just disappeared after asking for proof

Mark Luhman

Me Kan She the link is worthless, it discuss seasonal melt, the real question is what has Greenland done in the last few thousand years and is the trend down or up, quit frankly like most things, we don’t know! Because how and what we are measuring has only started in the last thirty years even if it that long. We know the melt in the medieval warming period was greater because some of the settlements are now just coming out from under the ice that was deposited in the little ice age. We don’t know that Greenland even looked like before the Vikings settled it.

Hugs

Currently? Currently it is -60 C somewhere, and +35C somewhere. That’s weather.
Greenland is nor ‘melting,the surface gains more mass each year than what melts.
Greenland might loose some mass from fjords, but even that is insignificant at 200 year scope.

JaneHM

Regardless of what is or isn’t happening now, Greenland margins did retreat during the MWP a thousand years ago.

Bruce G Frykman

Can you wake us all up when the Norwegians resettle the southern tip of Greenland to take up dairy farming again?

Jtom, the first rule for call center agents, encyclopedia salesmen and climate alarmists is, stick to the script. When you try to wing it you run into problems and you lose the sale. Or your funding.

Frederik

jtom you forget the holocene optimum where it was even warmer then during the MWP…. on greenland they found shorelines of 6000 years ago that did prove the arctic was nearly completely ice free during summers….

robert_g

Currently, it is only a few sverdrops in a bucket, at most

When the albedo increases, the energy reflected back into space increases, the energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface decreases and the atmospheric temperature decreases.
When the albedo decreases, the energy reflected back into space decreases, the energy absorbed by the atmosphere and surface increases and the atmospheric temperature increases.
The energy must then move, i.e heat, through the atmosphere per Q=U*A*dT.
As the atmosphere cools more clouds and ice form increasing the albedo leading to more cooling etc. a positive feedback cooling loop.
Could it be that simple? Why not if it explains the observations.

RP

Nicholas Schroeder:
Could it be that simple?
I’m afraid not. It ignores evaporation and precipitation rates.
If you consider the complete water-cycle as a whole I think you’ll find that you are looking at an overall negative feedback, not a positive one.

Kjb2001

It better be a negative feedback loop or we’re all screwed!

Philip M. Smith

We no longer have a complete water cycle. Urban sprawl has dangerously interrupted the replenishment of our ground water!

RP,
Philip,
The unambiguous evidence of net negative feedback from the hydro cycle is weather. Hurricanes leave a trail of cold water in their wake (i.e. cooling) and encompasses the entire water cycle in a localized region. If the net feedback from water was positive, Hurricanes would leave a trail of warm water in their wake.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics has something to say about this as well, since weather is the manifestation of a global heat engine that uses water as its refrigerant and a heat engine can not warm its source of heat, which of course is the surface of the ocean.

Eustace Cranch

Positive feedback runs to the rails VERY quickly and either sticks there or destroys its own mechanism. By your theory Earth should be a frozen snowball with no way to come out of it.

lysolmotorola

It actually was, at one point. Thank god (or any other substitute) for volcanic action or it wold till be Ice Ball Earth.

Franko K.

How about prosecuting the warmers e.g. Hansen and PSU’s Prof. Mann if there is global cooling – even if they then are older farts?
Search “Global Warming Skeptic Responds To Massachusetts AG’s Subpoena: ‘F**k Off, Fascist”
The debate goes on.
Search “Another Climate Alarmist Admits Real Motive Behind Warming Scare”
and “climatechangereconsidered”
From search Report: “There is no 97 percent global warming consensus”
“To be part of the “consensus” one need only agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet “to some unspecified extent” — both of which are uncontroversial points.”
“Almost everybody involved in the climate debate, including the majority of skeptics, accepts these propositions, so little can be learned from the Cook et al. paper,” writes Montford. “The extent to which the warming in the last two decades of the twentieth century was man-made and the likely extent of any future warming remain highly contentious scientific issues.”
Obama’s puppet Loretta Lynch admitting to investigating potential prosecution of deniers must have been studying burying witches at the stake in medieval times denying climate change. Search:
“Two irrational responses to climate change: Witch hunts and denial”

Burying????

So cooling will actually be due to global warming? Nice thing if you can get away with it.

Gentle Tramp

Exactly – with this trick they can use any kind of climate trend as a proof for their anti-CO2 religion. Never mind if we have further warming or a change into a cooling phase: In both cases they are always right and fossil CO2 has to be the culprit. Consequently, this belief system is a mad sort of anti-monotheism: they don’t believe in one positive divine being but in one common devil (= fossil CO2) who is to blame for everything…

tony mcleod

You two will really have to make an effort to catch up.
The possible mechanism has been understood for decades: fresh, less dense, Arctic melt-water disrupting the global current conveyer belt by spreading out in the North Atlantic disrupting the warming effect the north east flowing Gulf stream has on northern Europe.
Raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling. Does that make sense?

Gentle Tramp

Hi Tony
Thanks for your critical comment but you misinterpret the real point of my remarks.
Of course do I know the orthodox hypothesis for the Younger Dryas event (though there are some other possible reasons) and I would not exclude the possibility for such a climate phenomenon if there would be really such a strong warming during the next several centuries as some of the extremer IPCC proponents claim.
But at the moment and for the next decades there is no sign for such strong melting of the Greenland ice-shields as would be needed for this. But nevertheless, alarmists like you will use this excuse if the temps for the Northern Hemisphere might cool down due to the cooling AMO and a possible further waning of the solar activity and magnetic field in the very next years.

tony’s explanation raises a question—if raising of global temperatures can cause localized cooling, in reality, it look precisely like what we have now: weather that is averaged over 30 year intervals and called climate. Unless one looks at the statistical construct called “global average temperature”, there appears to be no difference between hypothetical raising of temperaures and current weather and climate. If we lacked computers and statistics, could we even imagine there was a difference?

JJB MKI

@tony:
More climatic epicycles, with even less observational evidence.

tony mcleod

Seems the jury is still out (and may remain so) as to whether the observed slowdown of the AMOC is climate related or cyclical.
Gentle Tramp you may know more about the YD event than me. I merely described it as a “possible mechanism”.

David A

What “observed” slow down?
If SL was higher within the last five thousand years, why did this ice age crash not already happen?

PA

Exactly – with this trick they can use any kind of climate trend as a proof for their anti-CO2 religion.
Well, it is actually worse than that. They are claiming that the earth is a chaotic climate system that they can’t predict – but it is going to get dangerously warmer sooner or later.
The global warmer theory has gone from pseudo-science to fortune-telling. Their future prediction now is the sheath of all possible outcomes. When your prediction is that there will be climate in the future – the likelihood of being right is very high but the value of your insight is very low.
This is in the “sun will come up tomorrow” class of prediction.
Further, if they are right the 1°C target won’t be reached by 2100 so it is pointless to do anything about global warming.

TA

From the article: “The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades.”
Don’t you first have to prove that humans are spurring ice sheet mass loss? I have seen no evidence of this. Have you?

Justanelectrician

Is the dilutive effect of Greenland icemelt just a negative feedback to the AMOC? If so, won’t the process reverse once the AMOC slows enough that the ice sheets start growing?
(Icemelt => dilution => slower AMOC => high lats colder => ice formation => saltier/denser water => faster AMOC => high lats warmer …)

Peter Yates

The android called Data from ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation’ explains one of the main difficulties when working with complex systems (such as the global climate). .. https://youtu.be/gQx07iKX3NA

markl

When are people going to catch on to this ongoing charade? Or have they already?

Cold in Wisconsin

Um…..no…..

Eustace Cranch

There’s no dissuading people from ideas they WANT to believe.
“…a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”
-Paul Simon

Don Easterbrook

“Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).”
This statement is not true–hundreds of radiocarbon and beryllium isotope dates of glacial deposits in both hemispheres now show that glacial conditions were synchronous in both hemisphere during the last Ice Age. This undercuts the basic premise of this study.

Steve M. from TN

“This undercuts the basic premise of this study.” You’re too generous, this would falsify the premise.

ShrNfr

Yup. And they show that the Medieval Warming Period, etc. was not just a single hemisphere effect either. Odd how they skipped over that, now isn’t it?
The timing of the AMO in phase with the solar magnetic activity, and hence TSI, leads this guy to think that our dear old personal variable star has more to do with this than CO2.

joelobryan

Indeed, as the Holocene comes to close, things will get dicey. T Spikes for a centiry or so both ways.
But whatever happens, iChirch of Climate Change dogma says it must be the result of man’s carbon energy sins.

tony mcleod

Your dogma seems to be suggesting the opposite.

gnomish

are you THAT tony mcleod?

Walter Sobchak

Rubbish, the currents are driven by the Corriolis. They won’t change much unless Velikovsky was right.

I agree that the Gulf Stream was always flowing due to the Corriolis and the winds and the confining continental margins.
But there is another issue to consider, sea level.
There would have been times that sea level was too low to allow the Gulf Stream flow path next to Florida. The ocean was not deep enough at times to allow a full Gulf Stream flow. There would also have been choke-points on the western side of Cuba which stopped it.
A good ocean current like the Gulf Stream needs to have at least 200 metres of ocean depth to flow properly and times when sea level was lower, there was simply not enough ocean depth in these two spots.
There would have been times in the ice ages, when the Gulf Stream changed course and flowed around the outside of the Caribbean Islands. I don’t know why no one has talked about this before but it clearly had to have happened.
This disruption and course change probably took decades to establish itself.
This is a far more logical explanation for Greenland temperature instability in the ice ages. (Although I will note that the North Atlantic sea surface temperature reconstructions do NOT show the big changes that the Greenland ice core borehole models show.)

This is an area barely talked about for some reason that baffles me.
I have read of indications that generally during the MWP time frame that the Gulf stream that is currently flowing towards the southern British isles now was flowing more towards the Mediterranean region.

Matt G

The Gulf stream changes direction in the North Atlantic ocean when the North Atlantic becomes much colder not too dissimilar to Greenland.
North Atlantic marine sediments have been found many years ago now to show ocean temperature constructions that change suddenly with big changes, similar to the Greenland ice cores.
“Our new findings are the strongest evidence so far that Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are imprinted in marine sediments of the North Atlantic ocean. The temperature shifts, especially in V23-81, occur on millennium timescales and have asymmetric shapes, sharp boundaries and strong amplitudes (up to a change in temperature of ~5 C), features which characterize the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jean_Jouzel/publication/230891708_Correlations_between_climate_records_from_North_Atlantic_sediments_and_Greenland_ice/links/00b7d525ca5295c2a8000000.pdf

Bill Illis

Found a map of sea level at the Last Glacial Maximum which i have annotated. The Gulf Stream would have been diverted right around all of the Caribbean Islands at the LGM starting at the South American coast because sea level was too low. (But sea level was not as always as low as at the LGM during the ice ages so there would have been other times when it held the current course).comment image

Matt G

I acknowledge the low sea level around Caribbean, but it was a result of the ice age not the cause. If any thing this may have helped towards getting out of an ice age because shortening the Gulf stream with less detours, would have likely only strengthened the flow towards the North Atlantic ocean.

EW3

Time to start spending billions on global cooling !

This is BS. The cooling will be due to weak solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.

emsnews

Yes, that great big heating element in the sky is the thing that makes it hotter or colder here on our little rock circling this heating source. And lots of people don’t want to believe this! Never ceases to amaze me.

higley7

Think interns of water viscosity. When the Atlantic cools, the Gulf Stream slows and logically Europe and New England cools. When the ocean warms, the system speeds up and delivers more heat to the north. The idiot warmists want to claim that a bit of fresh water from melting ice will stop this flow, such that warming slows the flow and cooling accelerates the flow—the opposite of whet is observed. As the above record indicates, melting ice had nothing to do with the thermostat effect of the AMOC.

I may be getting cynical in my old age. What I see is manufactured evidence that if we don’t stop global warming soon, Greenland melt will trigger global cooling. This plays well into the great push for stopping global warming. Think tail and dog going in circles. One might think that this is all planned because many of these researchers are simply different divisions of the same bureaucracies. Someone is doing the master planning. I’m not sure there is anything like an “independent” scientist in the government lot. If university-based researchers want money, they, too must play the game.

What, exactly, are “sverdrup years”?

A sverdrup it a unit of measure of water flow.
1 sv = 1,000,000 cm^3/s
1 sv*yr = a very big number.
60 * 60 * 24* 365 * 1,000,000 = 3.1536e013 cm^3
1 sv*yr ~ 13,140 olympic sized swimming pools.

typo cm^s/s ?
1 sv = 1,000,000 m^3/s
1 million cubic metres per second
http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/o4s/gl/c/img/current_transport.png

Yep… Cm should be m and a whole lot more olympic sized swimming pools.

Dr.Dietrich E.Koelle

If one considers the past history of the different climate cycles then the extension to the future results in a decreasing global temperature trend for the next 300 years down to some 13.2°C. This is not a forecast,
however more realistic than theoretical computer models based on assumptions.

RoHa

The ice is coming back. We’re doomed!

Mark - Helsinki

Cooling is the death of AGW, no matter how they try wing it

Jon

Beware AGC is coming!

tony mcleod

So warming would be verification?
No, I didn’t think so. “Theyist” are evil and always wrong.

William R

Yes, warming at rates higher than observed since LIA would be at least strong confirming evidence. But if you huff and puff that catastrophic warming will happen, and it doesn’t warm (or even cools), then well…what is a logical person supposed to think? Don’t bother answering, you don’t qualify.

tony mcleod

It’s got to work both ways.
If there is no CAGW then well and good, if there is we could all be right royally screwed (or not of course).
Anyone for Roulette?

David A

The evidence strongly supports that the observed warming is primarily net beneficial and at best 1/2 to 1/3rd the IPCC models predicted warming throughout the troposphere. How much of that warming is natural, (primarily a result of disparate rates of energy release and absorption from the oceans and solar changes with un-quantified effects on cloud formation and jet streams) and how much is due to the increase in CO2 is unknown, but the beneficial effect of CO2 on plants is known and natural cooling cycles have overcome much higher CO2 levels many times in earth’s past.
Right now reduce atmospheric CO2 to 280 PPM, and you will instantly create the “catastrophe” you fear, as global starvation and resulting wars would be certain.
Just because a human being can conceptualize an idea of “catastrophe”, does not mean that the political and economic structure of the world must change to their ideology. This is particularly true when the means and method of forcing humanity to bend to the will of alarmists to “save the world” are known to be entirely ineffective in reducing GMT to any major degree, but certain to create global political conflict, potentially ending in real human tragedy. (See the EU for a current example and their threating hardball approach to G.B. where they may very well cause the negative economic results they predict)
It is also rather pathetic that the proposed solution to CAGW just happens to mimic the same goals of political tyrants throughout history; central authority national or international government demanding tyrannical power over others. Why is anyone surprised that if politicians can tax the very air you breath, they will?

T. Blackburn

As a scientist I have noticed that on the news when subjects that I feel I’m a expert on are discussed the news nearly always gets it wrong… so how can I believe the news on those subjects I am not an expert on? I’ve learned over my career that power and money can and will sway the interpretation of data and in some cases the manipulation of data. One claim that I hear is (there is an overwhelming consensus of scientist that man is causing climate change). You probably have not heard of the OISM petition, in which over 31,000 US scientist have signed stating that: There is no convincing scientific evidence that humans have or will cause climate change. Now our “masters” are even considering criminal charges against those who do not believe. As a scientist one of the fundamental premises is to always have an open mind but to always question established theory. Test Test Test!! And when your results do not match your theory, question your theory don’t change your data to match your theory!!!

Christopher Hanley

“… a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop …”.
===================================
It wouldn’t matter, it would be an impossible narrative to sell under those conditions to a public desperate for plentiful cheap reliable energy.

I know I must be frightened but of what?

John Silver

Only of fear itself.

temperatures shall drop. Poulos has proven it in a recent paper.
.
http://opagos.tumblr.com/post/146358209620/documentation-of-the-solar-activity-variations-and

Tom in Florida

I guess “proof” is in the eye of the reader.

Poulos has answered to the critique that tidal forces from orbiting planets are very weak to produce any visible effect to sun
http://opagos.tumblr.com/post/146837451515/dimitris-pouloss-answer-to-the-critique-that

Tom in Florida

The Sun’s rotation period varies with latitude on the Sun. Equatorial regions rotate faster than polar regions. The equatorial regions rotate in about 25 days. The regions at 60 degrees latitude rotate in about 31 days. Polar regions rotate in about 36 days.

Javier

The cooling has to come accompanied of a slowdown of AMOC, and be of regional nature, otherwise it is of not use to Hansen’s hypothesis. Very difficult conditions to meet indeed. A global cooling wouldn’t cut it.

In the real world where the data is even modestly scrutinised, not the kind of imaginary mal-constructed number series, as the so called global temperature is, the CET data is among the best or perhaps the best long term data set we have.
The most recent data shows that the short term average temperature has followed the fall in the solar activity with about five years delay. It may be of some concern that this is the sharpest fall since 1870.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET2015.gif
here I used 11 year (solar cycle length) low pass filter, but a very similar result is obtained by 11 year moving average, the LPF processing is preferable since the moving averages introduce some minor artefacts.

Michael Carter

Vukcevic – thanks
I did not know what CET temp meant. I found this:
“The Central England Temperature (CET) record is a meteorological dataset originally published by Professor Gordon Manley in 1953 and subsequently extended and updated in 1974, following many decades of painstaking work. The monthly mean surface air temperatures, for the Midlands region of England, are given (in degrees Celsius) from the year 1659 to the present.
This record represents the longest series of monthly temperature observations in existence. It is a valuable dataset for meteorologists and climate scientists. It is monthly from 1659, and a daily version has been produced from 1772. The monthly means from November 1722 onwards are given to a precision of 0.1 °C. The earliest years of the series, from 1659 to October 1722 inclusive, for the most part only have monthly means given to the nearest degree or half a degree, though there is a small ‘window’ of 0.1 degree precision from 1699 to 1706 inclusive. This reflects the number, accuracy, reliability and geographical spread of the temperature records that were available for the years in question.”
I can see that its value is in the length of time within the record. What is you view on the “precision of 0.1 C” from 1722 onward” How is this possible in the 18th and 19th century?
A question for statisticians: If enough stations, over enough time, are measured to precision 0.5-1 C, can the mean be calculated to 0.1 C? Stupid question?

Mr. Carter, thanks for your comment
The Central England Temperature (CET) records cover the triangle London-Bristol-Liverpool. Yes, I would agree that 0.1C accuracy for the early records as the result of averaging from number of meteorological stations may appear problematic. However from the climate change point of view, when data are further averaged over period of years as in the graph above these errors make very little difference.
I did a following test: all monthly temperatures before 1900 rounded to the nearest degree C, than calculated annual average (using monthly weighted values), than calculated 11 year average to one decimal point, the result for all practical purposes was identical to using the officially quoted values, to calculate the same average.
The UK met office changed their method of the CET annual calculations to using monthly weighted values in January 2015 after my personal urging them to do so, outlining the advantages of the method.
The CET data are available from here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

typo: then

Michael Carter

Vukcevic – thanks

T. Blackburn

Before one can ask if there is global warming or global cooling one must first establish what is the norm!!! How can we determine climate change if we don’t have a established reference point?

No melting, fewer minerals for the oceans. No El Nino and no occasional Big Dusts from inland Australia mean fewer minerals for the ocean. Phytoplankton need their vitamins. All meant to happen. What goes around etc…
Just enjoy this warm moment in the Holocene before we get clobbered by a Bond Event or Laki-scale eruption. (We can put our climate experts to work wiping down solar panels, more as punishment than help.)

AZ1971

So true. There are many more natural disasters with higher catastrophic effects than pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. A large San Andreas Fault earthquake in the L.A. basin, or Laki-style eruption, or landslide from La Palma in the Canary Islands, have the potential to collapse entire economies of nations around the world. These are the “known unknowns” that should be researched for survival’s sake, much more than trace atmospheric gases.

The Storegga Slides, with tsunamis, occurred a mere 8000 years ago. And Northern Europeans now worry about a bit of chill coming off things?

Mike McMillan

“In most interglacials, Greenland didn’t melt … and Greenland is currently melting.”
How could they possibly know what went on in “most” interglacials? We have a good chunk of Eemian ice left over from the last one, which was for 4000 years warmer than this one, but as far as I know there ain’t nuthin’ left up there of the prior interglacials.

The reason for NH instability and oscillation contrasting with SH stability and smoother, slower transitions is well established oceanography. The NH has more land and more complex ocean shapes and this leads among other things to the AMOC. The AMOC contains a positive feedback involving salinity, and in the context of the dissipative quasi-chaotic ocean system this positive feedback leads inevitably to spontaneous nonlinear oscillation.
The salinity positive feedback works as follows: the gulf stream brings warm and high salinity water to the north east Atlantic from the Carribean. In the Norwegian sea thus water is rapidly cooled, where its higher salinity gives it exceptionally high density causing it to sink to the ocean floor, forming the cold bottom water downwelling that drives the THC. This bottom cold water flows south, which impells the contrary surface flow of warm water northward, that is, reinforcing the gulf stream.
This positive feedback leads to rapid excursions of strong gulf stream which warm the NH high latitudes. These excursions are ultimately terminated by Greenland melt freshwater interrupting the downwelling.
In contrast to this NH instability, the larger SH oceans and glibe-encircling southern ocean isolating Antarctica lead to slower more stable oceanography. This contrast is clearly sern in these proxy reconstructions of temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica:
http://s12.postimg.org/9ctilkusd/NGRIP_NEEM_EDC_Global_135kya.png

Sorry for the iphone fat finger typos

Michael Carter

A useful summary – thank you

J

What was that massive warm period 120 to 130 thousand years ago?
Man, that was hot !
Good graph, puts things in perspective.

What was that massive warm period 120 to 130 thousand years ago?
It’s called the ‘Eemian’. Much warmer than now. But CO2 was much lower, therefore CO2 can be disregarded as a major cause of global warming.
We see that current global temperatures are nothing unusual, and that the real threat comes from global cooling:comment image

SAMURAI

When natural AMO and PDO ocean cycles both are in their respective 30-yr cool cycles from 2020, and as natural solar cycles continue to crash, I expect to see many more spurious papers and predictions from the warmunists suggesting manmade global warming is causing global cooling, rather than admitting the painfully obvious that the CAGW hypothesis was a complete and utter failure, and the biggest and most expensive scam in human history.
Unfortunately, there will be many Lefitsts that will continue to believe man is a scourge upon the earth, and will gleefully accept any alternative weather explanation as long as man is the cause of all calamity…

You could be correct Sam.
The global warming alarmists have utterly failed in every prediction they have made.to date, but that will not likely stop them from trying to spin their new falsehood that “global warming really means global cooling”. The warmists’ deceitful conduct to date predicates their false response.
The warmists’ honest response should be that global temperature is INsensitive to increasing atmospheric CO2, and they were completely wrong in their scary predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming due to fossil fuel combustion.
I wrote in an article in the Calgary Herald published on September 1, 2002, based on a phone conversation with Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson:
“If (as I believe) solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
This now-14-year-old global cooling prediction is looking increasingly probable, plus or minus a few years. Global cooling will not be caused by atmospheric CO2 – the cause will be entirely natural.

Frederik

just like the global warming we see now is entirely natural, seen the fact the LIA ended only in 1850-1900 (depending which source).
this whol cycle MWP- LIA – current warming corresponds with the holocene “bond events”: the LIA was a sudden drop of 2-2.5 degrees that lasts 300-500 years followed by a slow recover during 250-350 years. (with cyclic ups and downs in this recovering event)
so if we reached now an anomaly of +1°C, that would be entirely normal as either way which starting point you take: we’re roughly “halfway the warming cycle of that Bond event.
At the current rate, with the cyclic warming and cooling we would reach the permanent + 2°C mark somewhere around 2140 – 2180.
this is without science to back it up except all the very interesting articles and findings posted here on WUWT: when i connect the dots, i suspect if solar cycle 25 will be as weak as they forecast it, the AMO and PDO will flip both negative in the coming 5 to 10 years, we may see a 0.5 to 0.7°C drop. that if everyhing goes well in synch, then if solar activity will turn back up to the levels in 1900, it will rise again sharply with a positive amo and PDO.
lots of warmists forget that even with the much adjusted data we are now on a top of a warm cycle and just reaching the +1°C anomaly mark. it will go down for the coming 30 years. this last el nino was perhaps the warmest episode for a long time to come. unless the coming 5 years we would see another strong el nino, we aren’t going to see any “hottest year ever” s for a while…
unless they torture the data to make it worth that we are living in the adjustocene….
so seen this bond event, we are half way

ozspeaksup

yesterday I read the item at breadnbutterscience that this item contains
I found it staggering the listing of the scale of disasters way back when due to mostly…cold
it also mentions the crossover of the wind currents.
http://iceagenow.info/little-ice-ages-bring-famine-disease/#more-18416
now imagine the outcries and the insurers going broke if this was to happen in todays times.

They know the AMO will soon turn cold, which will at the very least ensure that the 18-year pause extends for another 30 yrs.
They need to prepare the ground for that.

tony mcleod

Evil “theyists”. Whether its turns hot or cold they are evil.

William R

When you stop using your already falsified predictions as an excuse to implement world socialism, then perhaps fewer people will think you are evil.

JohnKnight

tony,
“Whether its turns hot or cold they are evil.”
What planet are you from? On mine, evil people controlling/exploiting vast populations is not at all unusual, it’s pretty much normal.

tony mcleod

I’m still trying to work out exactly who some of you guys think “they” are. You’re going for socialists William?
Socialist scientists I guess?

markl

tony mcleod commented: “…I’m still trying to work out exactly who some of you guys think “they” are….”
A common question begging an answer. Whether AGW is real or not the amount of effort and money directed to promote the narrative is massive and must come from somewhere. Personally I think “they” are mostly willing or naive useful id*ots, environmentalists, carpet baggers, crooks taking advantage, well funded NGO’s, and some wealthy patrons who have succumbed/been persuaded to the Marxist/Socialist meme after they acquired their money through Capitalism and now think their legacy (or perhaps penance) is to back a One World Government to save us. Well organized, funded, protected, and directed. Take your pick.

JohnKnight

tony,
I’m pretty sure it’s people with enough money/power to select a given scientific hypothesis they see as useful for controlling/exploiting vast populations (like the CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis obviously is) and hype the hell out of it. Which ones exactly by name is not particularly relevant to me. There’s always bound to be some arrogant and ruthless ones among the hyper-wealthy elite of this world, it seems to me. And don’t get me started on the incredibly low probability that all people with degrees in some scientific realm are incorruptible angels or saints . . please ; )

JohnKnight

markl,
” … and some wealthy patrons who have succumbed/been persuaded to the Marxist/Socialist meme …”
I feel it wise to remember, always, that the idea of socialism/communism is a fine way to convince many people to agree to handing over sweeping powers . . to people who will, once they have the sweeping power, institute whatever they feel like. It doesn’t have to actually be socialism/communism as advertised.

tony mcleod

markl you may well be right.
However when you look at the resources of the powerful vested interest whose business model is threatened existentially by limits placed on the emission of CO2 and those resources and power are magnitudes greater then on the balance of probabilities I have to disagree with you.

markl

tony mcleod commented: “…when you look at the resources of the powerful vested interest whose business model is threatened existentially by limits placed on the emission of CO2 and those resources and power are magnitudes greater then on the balance of probabilities I have to disagree with you….”
Except the “vested interest(s)” haven’t actively attacked the AGW meme…..have they? Those “vested interests” have donated more money to the AGW causes than the skeptics side…..no? And “maginitudes greater” is questionable when you consider many entire nations are supporting AGW. In fact the absence of the “vested interests” in the debate has been conspicuous and only a propaganda point manufactured by the alarmists.

David A

Tony, says, “resources and power are magnitudes greater then…???
===============]
Then what Tony?
Where is your evidence that fossil fuel companies “A” are controlling the narrative, and B, have more financial backing then the combined resources of all Governments pushing CAGW alarmism?
Leif S asked for names of who “they” are. When I provided dozens of names he then changed the subject.
The great irony is that politicians demanding greater tax revenue (and political power over others) from society via the CAGW scam would, were they successful, very shortly economically destroy the source of their revenue. This has been repeated by central governments over and over throughout history. (See Brazil for the latest example)
Another irony is governments gain far more profit from fossil fuels then the companies actually doing the work, and it is now dawning on their dense minds that wind and solar companies will fail to generate any net tax revenue without massive increase in energy billing rates. Raising the cost of energy to this degree would of certainty put those societies on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, and yet again the wealth they desire to accumulate would end in tragedy. Wash, rinse and repeat for every society that turns to central authority and control of people and economies. The “invisible hand” is real and rooted in human nature, and statists ignore it at societies peril.

triper57

Reminded of something said a long time ago.
“”There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to
govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
Noah Webster

have their cake and eat it too

David A

Paul H says, “They know the AMO will soon turn cold, which will at the very least ensure that the 18-year pause extends for another 30 yrs.”
=======================================
Indeed, just as Mann was well aware that the AMO and PDO was taking a positive turn in the 1980s. The magicians trick is dependent on hiding the cause.

Johann Wundersamer

Models predicting the future are the way to riches – provided the right future is predicted
Seemingly with climate change models any future does it, right or wrong.

[snip – an ALL CAPS rant -mod]

nobodysknowledge

I`m not impressed by any soothsayer talking about climate.
There are some established facts. There have been some energy uptake, and som ocean heating. Shorter timespan than 60 years is of no interest whwn we are talking of climate change.
And I think heat storage in oceans will counteract all global cooling of timespans more than 60 years.
So let`s improve statistics for the last 250 years, and take some conversation from that.

Jerry Henson

Stabilize the world’s temperature. Remove the Isthmus of Panama!

emsnews

Yes indeed, I have mentioned this in the past. The Ice Ages coincide with that change in circulation. Previous, small changes in solar energy output didn’t do much but cool down somewhat, our planet.
Now, it spins out of control with vast ice sheets whenever the stellar output of energy slacks off a tad!

ulriclyons

Low MOC events occur during negative NAO/AO episodes, and negative NAO/AO drives a warm AMO and Arctic.
http://www.rapid.ac.uk/

“But a fallback prediction of imminent abrupt cooling does conveniently make it rather difficult to falsify anthropogenic climate theories based on temperature alone, should global temperatures suddenly drop.”
difficult but possible. since amoc is just a heat distribution system it neither adds heat to the planet nor removes heat from the planet and so those who want to prove AGW under cooling conditions in europe must show a heat balance in which the earth is still gaining heat net of changes in ice and snow albedo effects if any.

RH

There have also been more stories about noctilucent clouds being caused by human generated CO2 and methane. Wanna bet the next part of the story will be noctilucent clouds cool the earth?

ScienceABC123

I look at the graph from 1850 to 2016, I see minor perturbations, that’s history. I look at the graph from 2016 to 2200, I see perturbations that are magnitudes of order greater than those of 1850 to 2016. I’m going to have to go with ‘my gut’ on this one, “They currently don’t understand the climate enough for their projections to warrant consideration.”

Bruce Cobb

Oh look, these “scientists” have just added a new brand of lipstick to the CAGW pig! How refreshing.

SMC

Meh, CAGW theory has covered all the bases. Warming or cooling, it’s all Man’s fault.

Dr. Strangelove

“evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous”
This is just an alarmist spin of James Hansen. What it means without the spin is Greenland glacier melting is a negative feedback that mitigates global warming. When North Atlantic cools it will cool Greenland and reduce glacier melting. AMOC will stabilize. There will be no runaway cooling nor runaway warming. It’s not dangerous

tony mcleod

Fingers crossed Dr Strangelove.

Robert W Turner

This study found that variability in heat transport of the AMOC warms and cools the North Atlantic. The currents brought more warm during warm periods and transported less warm water during cold periods. These are shocking revelations, next they’ll discover that charcoal and ash often appear after fires.

n.n

The scientific domain is infamously limited through the application of the scientific method. Scientists need to stop conflating logical domains, substituting models/estimates for physical systems and processes, and restore a separation of the scientific from the philosophical.

Todd F

Now wait, if it cools even a bit and even for a short period, the failure of the AGW hypothesis will be trumpeted by its opponents. But if the cooling might be caused by weird, mysterious, cyclical ocean currents then this conclusion is forestalled. Being on both sides of a debate means never being wrong.

Bruce Cobb

Reading comprehension FAIL. Try again.

Matt G

It has already failed at the rate that so called needs action taken and now over a few decades there are no signs this positive feedback from CO2 gases are there at all. 40 years is plenty long enough to show it’s FAIL and this period is almost up.