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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

361 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
atilla thehun
July 4, 2016 8:24 am

Translation (for all the slow-witted desciples of Gore): They don’t know.

Tim
Reply to  atilla thehun
July 4, 2016 8:32 am

But they do know how to make money from it.

Scott Tapley
July 4, 2016 8:29 am

Oh, please. We all know people are responsible for climate changes…not natural balance of natural forces.

Tony
July 4, 2016 8:39 am

It’s the sun baby.

Pondboy
July 4, 2016 8:44 am

Here is another theory to climate change. As the moral imbalance ( includes religion) continues its global decline the earth feels the growing negatives and reacts accordingly.

Prelusive007
July 4, 2016 8:47 am

This will all eventually be known as Global Bull S – – – .

Williampenn
July 4, 2016 8:51 am

We should be far more worried about Islam than global warming, despite Imam Obama’s rants to the contrary.

Yaspar Kyashed
July 4, 2016 9:18 am

The second word should be “supposed” not “alleged.” Words have meanings.

John Scheetz
July 4, 2016 9:22 am

O.K. guys which is it? Cooling or Warming? I guess they will say anything as long as they can defraud governments and gullible celebrities for more research money to keep themselves in luxury cars and expensive mistresses. Keep on pimpin’ global weather scientists.

blenderrecipes
July 4, 2016 9:28 am

Shorter: Climate Truthers don’t have a clue

MCW
July 4, 2016 9:36 am

So will someone tell me once and for all, what id the best temperature for the globe? No one seems to know, and I mean NO ONE!.

T. Blackburn
July 4, 2016 9:36 am

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?

T. Blackburn
July 4, 2016 9:37 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!!!

July 4, 2016 9:39 am

Lots of big words….Send more money to ALGORE

Jack
July 4, 2016 9:45 am

Climate change is a bunch of nothing. You have to know this due to the fact that the so called experts don’t know if it is heating or cooling. A whole lot of scientists that want to make money on an uninformed society world wide. It is like Chicken Little, the sky is falling.

Jason
Reply to  Jack
July 4, 2016 4:53 pm

Nah, I’ve been watching the statistical analysis that they’re calling science despite the fact that the scientific method calls for a lot of controlled experimentation before a hypothesis even becomes a theory. The climate IS changing. It’s always changing, only now it’s changing in ways they didn’t expect it to change because they don’t understand the forces that drive it nearly as well as they thought they did. The idiocy is that rather than devote our resources to preparing for what looks to be inevitable, they think for some reason that we’re responsible and they can stop it. It is vanity, pure and simple. It might doom a lot of people in the end.
That being said, there are good reasons to do some of the things they’re trying to accomplish. Their methods are foolhardy, their reasoning is flawed, and the idea of rushing headlong without first examining the path ahead is insane. Getting away from importing oil is probably a good thing. Algal bio-fuels could do that with current technology and a section of the desert we don’t use anyway about the size of maine. You don’t hear too much about it because it’s not electricity, solar, or wind. It doesn’t use all kinds of crazy patentable technology that will make some billionaire even richer. In fact, some people are already running their diesel pickups of of it using algae grown in their back yards. A gasoline drop-in replacement, biobutanol can also be made, but that gets to be risky for the back yard tinkerer. Nuclear is another good thing to think about, especially since we have so much waste that could easily power a set of breeder reactors for decades renderibg that waste SO much less dangerous to store. These are just two things, but the time scales and reasons for doing so need to be more based on reality, not some overhyped scare that we’re bringing about the end of the world.

Jasonn
July 4, 2016 9:46 am

Proof positive that Liberalism is a mental disorder.

July 4, 2016 9:57 am

These clowns better be careful, Loretta Lynch will have them all jailed for denying global warming!

July 4, 2016 10:03 am

Since we don’t know what’s going on, why don’t we toss scores of trillions of dollars we don’t have at the problem, and give the government more control over our lives in the process?

Ken
July 4, 2016 10:11 am

We have the AMOC possibly heading to a cooling trend. We also have the sun at a very low point in the sunspot cycle. What is the combined effect?

jo jo dancer
July 4, 2016 10:23 am

Someone please smack the “author” of this “news article” that CO2 is NOT POLLUTION.
GAWD it’s like I’m taking crazy pills!!!

Jeffk
July 4, 2016 10:24 am

Ice also evaporates and doesn’t always melt. Are they confusing sublimation when humidity and temps drop, with melting when they increase? The way to tell is by looking at temperature trends. Antarctica loses ice at its central land mass as it gets more frigid. Then ice mass increased in the seaside area as colder air expands over humid areas there — and wrongly called “melting like ice cream” while getting colder.

Mark
July 4, 2016 10:27 am

Where is the grant money! That is all that really matters. Wild warming or crazy cooling, the more dire the more cash to stuff into computer models.

TexasTeaFinder
July 4, 2016 10:28 am

Using the word “scientist” any where near the idea that we are experiencing man-caused climate change is a joke. Is the climate change occurring? Yes. Is it man caused? No, there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE, scientific or otherwise, that it is man-caused. Money grabbing P.T. Barnums are all these people are – a disgrace to the idea of “science” and to the scientific community. Shameful.

jason
July 4, 2016 10:46 am

So what is the proper label to put on the “deniers” now.

Richard
July 4, 2016 11:02 am

The bottom line is it is all about money, how much money can they steal from the taxpayers

Verified by MonsterInsights