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

Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.
Graph from p3768 of J. Hansen et al.: Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms.

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
361 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 4, 2016 6:43 am

Global warming (aka climate change) is the religion of the stupid.
Sheep, lemmings, and Leftists are easily manipulated.
zazzle.com/firstprinciples?rf=238518351914519699

Tom Roberts
July 4, 2016 6:48 am

Al Gore predicted all along that Global Warming would cause glaciers to cover the N. American continent. Boy, it sure is warm, it’s minus 45 degrees today!
It’s not what idiocy you believe that matters. What matters is that you believe the official idiocy of the Demochit Party!

Tom Roberts
July 4, 2016 6:53 am

In the real world, Global Warming is something you use to bich out a white pig, when you’ve run out of anything else to bich out a white pig about. It has little other meaning!

July 4, 2016 6:54 am

Winter is coming.

PKato
July 4, 2016 7:00 am

Here is the bottom line: temperatures are going to fluctuate over time and nothing we do or don’t do will change much. We are ticks !

Professional Prophet
July 4, 2016 7:07 am

Odds are something is going to happen to the climate.

Tim
July 4, 2016 7:07 am

These climate scientists have entirely too much time on their hands. Perfect example is James Hansen who first warned in the 70s of a coming ice age, then warmed to global warming using his clown hockey stick theory. And of course global warming stopped years ago so the new scare became climate change and nobody can prove any of this is cause by human activity. I recently saw an episode of NOVA talking about climate change causing the movement of the continents as they had noted climate change through out the history of the earth has caused almost everything to make the earth as we know it to be today and of course the climate change causing this is completely natural. Unfortunately the lemmings listen to the fool scientists’ musings.

Pancho Perico
July 4, 2016 7:12 am

In order to stop global warming-cooling we need to ban all types of firearms in the hands of law-abiding American citizens. Also, establishing a global government controlled by bankers and big corporations will help. If everything fails, then we need to impose a stiff global tax on farting — the 1 percent billionaires would be exempted.

nameless
July 4, 2016 7:13 am

It ain’t climate change you gotta worry about.

T. Blackburn
Reply to  nameless
July 4, 2016 8:52 am

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!!!

rah
Reply to  T. Blackburn
July 4, 2016 12:07 pm

The “news” as in MSM will Always attempt to tell you only what they want you to “know”.

Reply to  nameless
July 4, 2016 6:26 pm

It’s the climate-changers, with their snake-oil climate nostrums, which — oh, by the way — will re-arrange many of the most basic relations of culture, commerce and society to conform to the demands of the New World Order.

Thomas Dalzell
July 4, 2016 7:14 am

If you’ve ever wondered how a crazy mania could happened, then look at how easily billions of people were fooled by GW … err, I mean CC. Seriously, look at how fanatically people believe this “science” with absolute certanity.
Also, notice that there is usually huge amounts of money and power at stake.
The only thing real about GW is the money and the power.
Never trust the NWO global elitists.

anonymitty
July 4, 2016 7:20 am

The sceptics read any revision or correction to the scientific account of how the extra CO2 figures to affect our climate as proof that scientists are just trying to pull one over on the general public so they can get more grants or world government or something.
Imagine the talking points if scientists dug in and insisted that the current understanding was correct and complete and not subject to revision no matter what further facts might intrude!
But science doesn’t work that way. Hence, there will be a continual stream of amendments and even differences of opinion as to the details of what we should expect. Within all this, it is easy to lose track of the basic fact that isn’t changing: the earth receives energy from the sun mostly in the visible wavelengths, and discharges energy to space not only by reflection, but by way of infrared. Everything that has a temperature radiates. The rate at which energy is discharged to space depends on both how easily IR gets from the surface past the atmosphere, and on how hot the earth is. To strike a balance, if IR is obstructed [by CO2] then the temperature must rise to offset that. This is why the earth is warmer than the moon, and with more CO2, it will be warmer by a wider margin.
Either that, or the energy from the sun that we do not void to space can, for a time, go to melting ice and warming deep layers of the ocean. How large that effect will be? We’re not sure. How long it can last? Until we run out of ice and deep cold waters.
But we cannot BOTH keep our ice caps and our cold ocean depths, AND our current surface temperature, while driving up atmospheric CO2 levels.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  anonymitty
July 4, 2016 9:34 am

” This is why the earth is warmer than the moon, and with more CO2, it will be warmer by a wider margin. ”
Of course CO2 doesn’t work in dry areas like deserts or Mars. I wonder what would happen if we added more water vapor to those places?

anonymitty
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 4, 2016 10:53 am

In dry areas, CO2 is effectively the only greenhouse gas worth mention. Even deserts are warmer at night than the moon in darkness. Now true, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas and a very important one. Humid areas don’t cool off as rapidly.
Why do mountainous desert areas cool off faster at night than low-elevation desert areas? The answer is that there is less air, and with it, less CO2, between the mountaintop and space.
More CO2, all else equal, means that less energy gets back into space. So the extra energy must go somewhere. Heating deep ocean water? Melting ice? Heating the earth’s surface? Pick at least one.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 4, 2016 11:36 am

Apparently you don’t live in Florida. At this time of year it is very humid and it stays very warm at night. However, in winter when cold dry air comes in from the midwest, we get radiational cooling and temps go way down at night. Or would you suggest that CO2 is a less at that time of year? No it is the difference in water vapor.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 4, 2016 12:03 pm

Technically, the Moon is warmer than the Earth, or at least the part of the Moon in equilibrium with the Sun is warmer than the part of the Earth in equilibrium with the Sun.
The Earth spins fast enough, relative to the Sun, that the entire surface can be considered as being in thermal equilibrium with the Sun. The Lunar day is so long plus is has no atmosphere to redistribute warmth, only slightly more than half is in equilibrium with the Sun at any one time, moreover; its albedo is about 0.12 compared the the Earth’s average albedo of 0.3. So rather than an average input of 239 W/m^2 for the surface of Earth in equilibrium with the Sun, the average total forcing for the surface of the Moon in equilibrium with the Sun is about 600 W/m^2 corresponding to an average temperature of about about 320K which is the approximate average temperature of the bright side of the Moon.
Identifying what’s in equilibrium with the Sun is also important for understanding Venus. Unlike Earth, where the surface (solid surface above oceans and top of oceans) is in direct thermal equilibrium with the Sun, it’s the top layer of the Venusian clouds that are in direct equilibrium with the Sun.
The ‘temperature’ of a body is not the temperature of an arbitrary Gaussian surface enclosing that body, but is the temperature of the specific surface in direct equilibrium with the Sun. Consider the Earth, whose solid surface below the deep oceans (about 2/3 of the planets solid surface) is at about 0C and if we considered only the temperature of the Earth’s solid surface, the average would be far lower than is currently stated. The mass of the Venusian atmosphere is the same order of magnitude as the mass of Earth’s ocean, so its surface has more in common with the solid surface of Earth below its oceans than the specific surface of Earth in equilibrium with the Sun and whose temperature we care about.

Ken
July 4, 2016 7:20 am

It just stuns me that the self proclaimed global warming experts don’t really have a clue about the sun. This recent sunspot disappearance is my case in point. An eleven year sun cycle has vanished. That cycle was cast in stone. Who’s to say there isn’t a 40,000 year sun cycle that runs the ice ages? Or a 10,000,000 year cycle that runs mass extinctions?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Ken
July 4, 2016 11:38 am

Sun cycles average 11 years or so. Most are between 9 and 13 years.

David
July 4, 2016 7:29 am

Cooling, warming doesn’t matter. The solution to anything of course is international communism.

July 4, 2016 7:37 am

that is why the have the Term” CLIMATE CHANGE” they are covered either way.
climate change has been going on for millions of years. If wasn’t for climate change Washington DC would still be under ice

saturn
July 4, 2016 7:49 am

Well, there has been something like 27 ice ages and more will come so they are bound to be right at one time or another. However, there is no proof whatsoever that the current warming/cooling/neither is man-made.

July 4, 2016 7:58 am

By 2060, I will be dead. Odds are, my kids will be dead. The grandkids will just have to take care of themselves.

July 4, 2016 8:01 am

“Global Warming” is so 2000’s. It was then replaced by “Man-Made Global Warming” which was then replaced by “Man-Made Climate Change” when none of the actual data supported warming at all. Let’s just call it what it IS, “Climate Change”. And guess what, we can’t do anything about it, nor should we try. Gore has egg on his face, he is an emperor with no clothing. They talk of a “penalty” for “Man-Made Climate Change DENIERS” I say we have a penalty for “Man-Made Climate change BELIEVERS.

Higbee
July 4, 2016 8:04 am

The dinosaurs got killed by the ice age. We found remnants of their big, honking,’ SUV’s alongside their fossilized bodies!

skep41
July 4, 2016 8:06 am

This is serious! We need to take action NOW! Raise taxes and increase government control of the economy…those are the only things that the weather responds to. We should get every Really Smart Really Rich person on a private jet immediately and they should lay down a trail of black smoke to meet in a super-expensive resort so they can co-ordinate Saving The Planet with ‘donations’ to The Clinton Crime Family Foundation while they plot new strategies to indict The Deniers for conspiring to destroy the planet. Even the definition of ‘Settled Science’ will have to be changed from an expedient that achieves the same results every time to a threat to ‘settle’ the hash of anyone who doubts that the Gubmint can fix the weather by canceling human rights. We need action. For The Children!

Bob
July 4, 2016 8:06 am

Please see suspiciousobservers.org for real scientist. See also a short video that addresses the 97% bull. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOGt3OzTXBs

July 4, 2016 8:10 am

….Weather fluctuates…always will…

DJG
July 4, 2016 8:13 am

“We did not know that the circulation changed during these shorter intervals.”
And there should not be the slightest doubt that there are many other things scientists don’t know about climatology. But that doesn’t stop them from making climate predictions. They say that as long as they’re doing the best they can do, we should believe what they say and do what they say– even though they may well say the opposite later.
Scientists are like liberals– they expect to be judged by their intentions and their credentials, not on their actual abilities.

zombietimeshare
July 4, 2016 8:13 am

“Freeze or fry, the problem is always industrial capitalism, and the solution is always international socialism.”
~~Dr. Malcolm Ross

Tim
Reply to  zombietimeshare
July 4, 2016 8:36 am

They don’t tell you the socialist countries are always the worst polluters; air, water and verbal.

Quark
Reply to  zombietimeshare
July 4, 2016 8:54 am

Could not have said it better myself.

July 4, 2016 8:14 am

Circumlocutions, triple-plus, double-speak, fancy talk for another day in paradise.
The job of maintaining deceit must pay quite handsomely, but I digress out of turn.

Bob
July 4, 2016 8:21 am

Why is my comment not posting?