Guest post by David Middleton
Just when you thought the Arctic would soon be ice-free…
For thousands of years, parts of northwest Europe have enjoyed a climate about 5C warmer than many other regions on the same latitude. But new scientific analysis suggests that that could change much sooner and much faster than thought possible.
Climatologists who have looked again at the possibility of major climate change in and around the Atlantic Ocean, a persistent puzzle to researchers, now say there is an almost 50% chance that a key area of the North Atlantic could cool suddenly and rapidly, within the space of a decade, before the end of this century.
That is a much starker prospect than even the worst-case scientific scenario proposed so far, which does not see the Atlantic ocean current shutdown happening for several hundred years at least.
A scenario even more drastic (but fortunately fictional) was the subject of the 2004 US movie The Day After Tomorrow, which portrayed the disruption of the North Atlantic’s circulation leading to global cooling and a new Ice Age.
To evaluate the risk of extreme climate change, researchers from the Environnements et Paléoenvironnements Océaniques et Continentaux laboratory (CNRS/University of Bordeaux, France), and the University of Southamptondeveloped an algorithm to analyse the 40 climate models considered by the Fifth Assessment Report.
[…]
Don’t worry…
The original thermohaline circulation catastrophe beast.
So maybe the Russians won’t need all those ice-breakers they’re building.
The opposite maybe.
I interpret that to mean more ice not less. Maybe the Russians can make lots of money clearing the ice-bound harbours of Northern Europe. 🙂
Wake me up when the earth rotation rate slows down by one percent, on its way to reversing the direction of rotation.
That will give me time to tie up some tropical species flies to fish for tuna and mahi mahi in Monterey Bay, when the “gulf Stream” moves to the West Coast.
Then you chaps on the East coast better star tying some Atlantic salmon flies, because all your tropical fishes will have moved over here.
Thermohaline BS if you ask me. NO ! don’t ask me.
G
This would cause the Russians to need More Ice Breakers just to navigate the North Sea and to get goods through the English Channel. You would be able to Walk from Scotland to the Svalbard.
Oh Boy…Increased Polar Bear habitat
That is one of the reasons Russia invaded the Crimea…They need a warm water port…
Same reason that the Imperialist Soviet Empire invaded Afghanistan. Most may not remember this, but then US Pres Jimmy Carter’s intelligence (we all have our moments of sanity) told him that Pakistan (or SE Iran) was next (had to get there to get to the warm water, as Afghanistan is land locked), picked up the telephone (hope it was the red one) and called the Soviet premier, threatening a unilateral preemptive nuclear strike against Moscow if they ventured across the Afghanistan border. Isn’t it funny (sarc) how our national media never reminded the electorate about that. Interview of Carter, June 1997:
“I had no forewarning in Christmas week of 1979 that the Soviets were going to invade Afghanistan. … And I could see that the Soviet movement into Afghanistan was not an end in itself. The intelligence that I had from various sources, including within the Soviet Union, was that the Soviets’ long-term goal was to penetrate into access to warm-water oceans from Afghanistan, either through Iran or through Pakistan. I saw this as a direct threat to global stability and to the security of my own nation. I had several alternatives, one of which was military action, which I thought was out of the question half way around the world, with the powerful Soviet military adjacent to Afghanistan. So I exhausted almost all the other means that I had to put restraints on the Soviet Union. One of them was to issue a public statement that if the Soviets did invade either Pakistan or Iran out of Afghanistan, that I would consider this a personal threat to the security of the United States of America, and I would take whatever action I desired or considered appropriate to respond — and I let it be known that this would not exclude a nuclear reaction. This was a very serious and sobering statement that I made, and I relayed this in more private terms to Brezhnev, and encouraged him to restrain the Soviet forces and urged him to withdraw them from Afghanistan. … ”
Folks should copy this, as CNN keeps taking it down: https://web.archive.org/web/20080502023449/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/19/interviews/carter/
Same reason that the Imperialist Soviet Empire invaded Afghanistan. Most may not remember this, but then US Pres Jimmy Carter’s intelligence (we all have our moments of sanity) told him that Pakistan (or SE Iran) was next (had to get there to get to the warm water, as Afghanistan is land locked), picked up the telephone (hope it was the red one) and called the Soviet premier, threatening a unilateral preemptive nuclear strike against Moscow if they ventured across the Afghanistan border. Isn’t it funny (sarc) how our national media never reminded the electorate about that. Interview of Carter, June 1997:
“I had no forewarning in Christmas week of 1979 that the Soviets were going to invade Afghanistan. … And I could see that the Soviet movement into Afghanistan was not an end in itself. The intelligence that I had from various sources, including within the Soviet Union, was that the Soviets’ long-term goal was to penetrate into access to warm-water oceans from Afghanistan, either through Iran or through Pakistan. I saw this as a direct threat to global stability and to the security of my own nation. I had several alternatives, one of which was military action, which I thought was out of the question half way around the world, with the powerful Soviet military adjacent to Afghanistan. So I exhausted almost all the other means that I had to put restraints on the Soviet Union. One of them was to issue a public statement that if the Soviets did invade either Pakistan or Iran out of Afghanistan, that I would consider this a personal threat to the security of the United States of America, and I would take whatever action I desired or considered appropriate to respond — and I let it be known that this would not exclude a nuclear reaction. This was a very serious and sobering statement that I made, and I relayed this in more private terms to Brezhnev, and encouraged him to restrain the Soviet forces and urged him to withdraw them from Afghanistan. … ”
Folks should copy this, as CNN keeps taking it down: https://web.archive.org/web/20080502023449/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/19/interviews/carter/
The Great Game.
“Harfleag, harfleag, harfleag onward.
All in the Valley of Death rode the er.”
to quote another Nigel.
” CC Reader March 6, 2017 at 7:53 am – That is one of the reasons Russia invaded the Crimea…They need a warm water port…”
1) They already had a port there and 16,000 troops legally there
2) They didn’t invade (see point #1)
3) Of the 20,000 Ukraine forces stationed in the Crimea 15,000 defected in a matter of months.
4) The people of Crimea legally voted to rejoin Russia.
Face it. The USA ploy of overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine because they signed a sweetheart deal with Russia instead of taking the EU table crumbs backfired. You got out played badly.
In any tug of war between 2 elephants the rope loses.
” that the Soviets were going to invade Afghanistan. … And I could see that the Soviet movement into Afghanistan was not an end in itself.”
OK. And now you understood –
what next?
Well Gary 845,
You forgot to mention that in the late 1900s, The British took a hike up over the Khyber Pass, from “India” (as it was then) for the specific reason to stop the Russians back then from invading India for their warm water port.
Look up the history of a chap called “Lord Roberts, of Kandahar.”
He later was sent to South Africa to take control of the Boer War there. One of his subordinates was a chap named Robert Baden-Powell, who himself got Lorded later on, and who also founded The Boy Scouts. Baden-Powell (I think a General) was the Commandant of the garrison during the Siege of Mafeking, during that event. His Sunday flag (big Union Jack) eventually was routinely flown over Boy Scout Jamborees. The Boers, didn’t fight on Sundays, so GBP flew a great big flag on Sundays, that they didn’t shoot at. His smaller weekdays battle flag, got shot a few times, and has some holes with burned edges.
I grew up with that battle flag, in a suburb of Auckland NZ (for 9 years). Managed to trace the flag definitely to 1976, and was probably still in same place in 1989 at the latest, but is now lost. It might be in a local history museum, without anybody knowing what they have got a hold of.
Oh some soldiers of the NZ 4th and 6th army brigade (I think) were in Mafeking during the Siege; and apparently one of them “acquired” the flag, the way soldiers do that; and that’s how it came to be in New Zealand.
G
PS There used to be something called “The Kandahar Ski Club.”
It really is fascinating how the leftists will swallow any lie that assumes that the US is the guilty party.
Now you did it Gary…a phrase that should never be utilized in any sentence… “…Pres Jimmy Carter’s Intelligence”
They already had a warm water port on the Black Sea:
“Novorossiysk is a city in Krasnodar Krai, Russia. It is the country’s main port on the Black Sea and the leading Russian port for exporting grain.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novorossiysk
They wanted another warm water port The black sea is easily blockaded a few sunken ships would do it The strait through the Bosphorus is very shallow. and narrow and through Turkey to boot.
Since it came up…
Do remember that Crimea was Russian up until Khruschev, of Ukranian descent, gifted it to Ukraine, most likely illegally, but arguing with the head of the USSR not known for prolonging life…
So the population there and in the rest of Russia has thought themselves legitimately Russian.
They may have to consider shifting them a lot further south …
EnglischDeutschFranzösisch
2043/5000
The Russian thousand sassas from Sibria are also responsible for the North Atlantic Gyre. Lastly, Scott Pruitt met with the Russian thousand Sassas of Siberia and it was decided that the icing on the North Atlantic should be carried out to fulfill the Obamian agenda that the respective American president is responsible for the entire world climate. Since Trump had not been able to take part in such a world-wide role, the further actions with the Russian Ambassador were discussed in front of a kebler’s shop, as inaccurate sources from the FBI suggest. Sessions wanted to pay the ambassador the two dollars 50 cents for the kebab, as incredible sources reported further and thus made another case of corruption public. The Russian ambassador, however, noted that Sessions should have his two Dollars 50 Cent plugged in, because he was very sorry that there were Kebab kebabs in Washington, but not Yufka kebabs, which he personally liked. Thus the Trump administration escaped almost an impeachment, led by the already presumably always present journalists. So the conversation came to the wild rumors that the climate alarmists were starting out slowly from ammunition for the weekly prayers against the catastrophic consequences of climate warming. It was therefore proposed by the Russian ambassador, to begin the Icing of the North Atlantic with excavated permafrost from Siberia sunk in the North Atlantik Gyre and pushing it the European climate armist into the shoes. They would have predicted it, but without showing any evidence, also they should take it on their broath schoulders. So far the erroneous and still more inaccurate sources of the FBI. And now the blast to the last: Around, the corner was seen Bernie Sanders as he camouflaged with sunglasses and Arab whole body suit wildly straightening the Döner seller tried to clarify how a Yufka Döner had to face the Trump government finally still corruption. However, the kebab seller was no Arabic, he came from Turkey. And did not know what a Yufka Döner is for. Which Bernie Sanders did not know. Thus, to Trumps happiness, the impudence of the kebab seller and Bernie Sanders’ doubledoubled.
Chuckle…
It’s not just a model, it’s a model of models! Probably, it’s a bad model of bad models.
Nested GIGO’s… 😉
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013-1024×921.png
Some people actually take Dr. Spencer’s humorous comment (above in red) seriously, while ignoring Richard Feynman’s serious observation: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
It’s models all the way down
Well a model that doesn’t even agree with itself is not much use for anything. You can’t even depend on it holding up when used to line the bottom of a parrot’s cage. Sooner of later some sh** is going to fall out the bottom.
g
But, do two bads make a good? Probably not.
Not in the Russian language. Two bads are even badder …
“Doesn’t matter how beautiful the model, if she can’t walk the walk -she fails.”
“Doesn’t matter how beautiful the model, if she can’t walk the walk -she fails.”
Absolutely Great!
Doesn’t matter how beautiful the model –
the producers advice
“walk aggressive like being provoked”
Ahh the inherent dangers of stilletto heals
It’s news to me that a “Stilletto heals”.
Sorta like back alley surgery !
g
Should we encourage the public display of anorexic models.
Not tasteful, to my mind.
Auto.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
But three lefts do 🙂
Andy,
Annual observations/projection comparisons are now available up to end 2016 (courtesy Ed Hawkins):
What is your explanation as to why the historical hindcasting (ie., 2006 to 1985) is a much tighter spread compared to the spread of the forecastuing (ie., 2006 to 2026)?
What basic physics, or other identified factors, operate differently in the 20 years going backward, than they do in the 20 years going forward?
Reference where you got it from please.
richard verney – you ask “why the historical hindcasting (ie., 2006 to 1985) is a much tighter spread compared to the spread of the forecastuing”. Good question. The answer is that the models were tuned to match the past. The assumptions used to obtain the historical match are left in the models, thus giving a tight(ish) fit. For the future, there are only unknowns.
richard verney
“What is your explanation as to why the historical hindcasting (ie., 2006 to 1985) is a much tighter spread compared to the spread of the forecastuing (ie., 2006 to 2026)?”
___________________
I fear I have no such explanation Richard. I was just pointing out that recent observations are closer to model projections than they were in 2013.
Mark Luhman
“Reference where you got it from please.”
_____________
The chart is the annual update of IPCC AR5 Fig 11.25 and is produced by Dr Ed Hawkins, University of Reading: https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/
Forrest Gardener
“…1998 is now barely a blip.”
Indeed.
“Show us the predictions as they were at the start of the graph, not half way through.”
The dividing line between the hind-casts and forecasts is clearly shown on the chart.
“This is just making it up as you go along.”
No. All the model forecasts start in 2006. That’s more than 10 years ago.
DWR54,
Prior to the onset of the 2015 El Niño, the temperatures were tracking near or below the 95% confidence range. During the El Niño, the temperatures “spiked” to the middle of the confidence range. This is not an example of “recent observations are closer to model projections than they were in 2013.” The models didn’t forecast the El Niño spike.
David Middleton
“Prior to the onset of the 2015 El Niño, the temperatures were tracking near or below the 95% confidence range.”
That’s not a ‘confidence range’ as such David. It’s the spread of the model range.
“During the El Niño, the temperatures “spiked” to the middle of the confidence range. This is not an example of “recent observations are closer to model projections than they were in 2013.” The models didn’t forecast the El Niño spike.”
It’s agreed that they moved closer to the multi-model average. The models don’t seek to predict El Niño/La Niña events. For instance, they didn’t foresee the La Nina conditions that presided over the 2010-12 period.
But over a 10-year period you’d expect these things to average out a little. That’s what’s happened and observations are still well within the multi-model average.
The poster I was responding to posted a chart that excluded 3 full years of data, the most recent 3 years mind you. He/she then claimed that, based on this, the models were mostly wrong.
When you include the latest 3 years you see that the models are in fact doing reasonably well versus observations.
The gray area is the 5-95% range The gray lines above and below are the min-max of all 298 ensemble members. Technically, it’s a 90% confidence band, 5% falling above and 5% falling below.
HadCRUT 4.5 tracked at or below the bottom of the 5-95% from 2006 through 2014…
It only spiked to the middle of the 5-95% band due to the El Niño. Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño event, HadCRUT 4.5 spiked to the top of the 5-95% band.
Over the nearly 11 years of prediction run (2006-2016), the models failed miserably for 9 of those years. Over the most recent 2 years, it also failed miserably. The El Niño should have spiked to the top of the 5-95% band, as it did in 1999-99.
David Middleton
The HadCRUT4 data show the 95% confidence bands. The grey areas show the model ranges.
Mostly the best estimate value remained within the model range.
It could also be said that HadCRUT4 “only” dropped into the lower band due to the persistent La Nina conditions that occurred in the early part of the forecast period. Things have averaged out since and observations are now closer to the multi-model average.
During those years observations have not dropped outside the model range, even at the low end of the confidence margin. Bear in mind that HadCRUT4 is the coolest of the global surface temperature data sets. IPCC use a combination of several sets (blue lines on Ed’s chart).
9 out of 11 years tracking at the bottom of the 5-95% band and 2 years tracking near the middle, is not averaging out to a reasonable fit.
5-6 years at the top and 5-6 years at the bottom would be averaging out to a good fit.
The models are generally tuned to hind-cast the HadCRUT temperature series.
The observations are tracking on the edge of random noise (95% confidence range) 90% of the time. This is not even remotely close to the multi-model average.
DWR-
I’ve seen this graph before, but never actually looked at what it is telling the reader.
What is the meaning of “indicative”? Indicative?
What is the meaning of “assessed likely range” – does it mean what it appears to mean, that someone is “assessing” the model projections and deciding to pick what they like and don’t like?
How is it even possible for the lower edge of the “assessed likely range” (whatever that means) to be lower than the lower grey line, which appears to be the absolute minimum of “all RCPs, 298 ensemble members”?
On the surface, if I had to speculate about the meaning of such deliberately vague and evasive (and quite possibly deliberately meaningless) wording, I would have to say that those doing the “assessing” are just moving the range downwards so it looks as if it will be closer to what the HatCRUD numbers might be in the near future.
That is, it appears that those doing the “assessing” are conveying the message that they don’t actually believe the models are making valid projections. Without actually saying so, because that would raise the question as to what the real value of the models is.
David Middleton
Even using HadCRUT4 only, the coolest of the surface data sets, observations fell outside the lower 95% range on 3 out of the 11 forecast years. That’s 27%, not 90%.
Strawman. I said it was tracking at the edge of or below the lower 95% range 90% of the time.
The model ensemble represents the full range of relarive concentration pathway scenarios (RCP). If the models had any validity, the observations should track near the middle (P50) almost all of the time. If they did, it would be indicative that one of the mid- range RCP’s was likely to be correct. However, for 9 of the roughly 11-yr predictive run, the observations track near or below p95. The only time the observations track near p50, is during the 2015-16 monster El Niño. P50 is the model mean, the norm. The 2015-16 El Nino is not the norm. It is a p05 or p01 event. These conditions are only expected 1-5% of the time.
The models are totally invalidated by the observations. P50 global temperatures track P95 model outputs and P05 temperatures track P50 model outputs.
Regarding your incessant babblibg about HadCRUT4, the models’ training period is “tuned” to HadCRUT and the other temperature series are included on the chart and miss just as badly
Smart Rock
“What is the meaning of “indicative”? Indicative?…”
All of your questions are answered in the link to Climate Lab Book above. Basically these are terms used in chapter 11 of the IPCC AR5 report.
And the P05 of the “indicative” future observations tracks near the model P50, while the “indicative” P95 is tracking mostly below the model ensemble P100 (min).
The “indicative” band is predicting that the models will continue to fail miserably.
DWR54
“All of your questions are answered in the link to Climate Lab Book above.”
No they are not. None of these questions are addressed in the blog you linked to.
David Middleton
The indicative band is based on AR5’s interpretation of global surface temperatures versus the CMIP5 model range up to 2012, as far as I know. They were quite low then relative to the models at that time and the IPCC was acknowledging this.
When you say “the models will continue to fail miserably” I wonder what you mean? Observations have remained inside the CMIP5 model forecast range throughout, and inside the 5-95% for more than two thirds of the forecast period. As of 2016, observations were running above the multi-model annual average, even on the highest emission RCP (8.5).
No one is denying that the models have fallen below the multi-model average on most years over the forecast period, but given the above facts, they can hardly be described as ‘miserable failures’.
The models represent the full range of RCP scenarios…
P50 would be the model mean. Half the model runs predict more warming and half less. This would be a mean from the worst case scenario RCP 8.5, often referred to as “business as usual” to varying grades of mitigation scenarios (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6.0).
If the model ensemble had predictive skill, the observations should track around P5o. During the predictive run of the model, HadCRUT4.5 has not *tracked* anywhere near P50…
Prediction Run Approximate Distribution
2006 P60 (60% of the models predicted a warmer temperature)
2007 P75
2008 P95
2009 P80
2010 P70
2011-2013 >P95
2014 P90
2015-2016 P55
Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño, the observations spiked above P05 (less than 5% of the models predicted this). During the 2015-16 El Niño, HadCRUT only spiked to P55. El Niño events are not P50 conditions. Strong El Niño and La Niña events should spike toward the P05 and P95 boundaries.
The temperature observations are clearly tracking much closer to strong mitigation scenarios rather than RCP 8.5, the bogus “business as usual” scenario.
I call it a “miserable failure” because if I drilled 11 wells and 9 of them only resulted in P70-P95 reserve additions and only 2 came close to the P50 numbers, it would be a miserable failure.
The red hachured trapezoid indicates that HadCRUT4.5 will continue to track between less than P100 and P50. This is also indicative of a miserable failure of the models and a pretty good clue that the models need be adjusted downward.
DWR54 writes
Climate model output should be compared to climate (ie trends) not weather (ie a year or two)
It’s Adorno “Domination of Nature” idea. Whatever happens its the capitalist Western World fault! Having a radical change of society will stop climate change? 🙂
Nature is apathetic about what terrestrial species can inflict on it. Nature simply adapts to the paradigm. That might play out as ten thousand years of natural, glacial erasure of the evidence of humanity’s brief existence, for all we know.
They developed an algorithm to give them the answers they wanted
Why do you make that baseless claim? Rapid cooling will really mess up the hype.
Well that’s an understatement. It will turn the whole game on its head.
We’ll be glad that the Guardian urged us to “keep it in the ground” , we’ll be needing all the CO2 we get.
The point is that whether it warms, or cools, they now have their bases covered. It’s still CO2’s fault.
Climate change! They began the shift to cold during the pause to keep the cash growing, of course. When you’ve covered heads and tails with your models how can you lose?
And the 95 % confidence range. Which in medicine and space would usually mean the difference between life and death. I would be worried, however, if they wanted to introduce a 97 percent confidence range. For then this would be the proof that they were completely crushed.
The green blob has about much creativity as a Hollywood producer–the new remake of a monster movie (based on existing materiel).
I thought Greenland was cold this year with lots of snow. Does this mean when the Sun comes out this Spring and Summer it all melts and Europe is
toastin trouble?With the Solar Minimum approaching, there have been numerous theories put out calling for another Maunder Minimum event, so maybe that’s the headline? There have been plenty of graphs put up in WUWT articles and comments showing areas of the world warm up and cool down over time. When you live north (or south) of 45 deg, you might expect pretty cold weather during the winter from time to time.
v’
Exactly. All that snow has to melt to keep the statistics, so North Atlantic is in trouble.
In climate science all changes are bad. So many peoble is involved that someone would find a reason to why it is bad, and no one would raise any questions about that.
I love these headlines.
It should be ‘Scientist fears…’ but the ready availability of the comma gives them an out.
Camelot – The theme song of the climate controllers.
He’s either drunk or got beat up in a bar fight.
g
Met him (and Liz) on a movie shoot. My mum was their server in the motel dining room for a month or two. (A place where I ran switchboard and admissions desk). He drank more than any fish…Though not in any bar fights…
A great guy, trapped in an inadequate reality where even Liz could not rescue him. She truly loved him (and was a wonderful person herself. ) Both of them knew that fame was fickle and not the foundation of reality. But Liz handled reality better than Richard, who escaped bordom in drink.
It was a special thing to have known them, even if briefly. My mum would kid Richard, and he loved it. Both from the UK in a foreign place. That she wasn’t intimidated by them made both Liz and Richard happy. That she was smart and clueful was, I think, a delightful change for them. Kind of entertaining banter with dinner and no worries. A bit of a feeling of really being off stage and just regular folks having dinner. Richard requested her after the first dinner, and Mum glowed about it. Just three people being real and relaxed and a comfortable dinner experience.
Me thinks thev’re seen the writing on the wall, & the “warm” grants drying up, so need to start applying for the “cold” grants…………….keeps the salaries, expenses, pension-plans all fully funded, floor a fluid transition from one to the other!!! Not an eyelid will be batted!
They’re trying to prove that even if it cools, it was still CO2 that done it.
Allan, the writings on the wall are ready for reading on a brick wall with
http://www.doitinhebrew.com/Translate/Default.aspx?txt=quadruples&kb=US%20US&l1=en&l2=iw&s=1
Allan, the writings on the wall are ready for reading on EVERY BRICKS wall with
http://www.doitinhebrew.com/Translate/Default.aspx?txt=quadruples&kb=US%20US&l1=en&l2=iw&s=1
what can you read from
https://www.google.at/search?q=red+bricks+wall&client=ms-android-samsung&prmd=ivmn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=uGtNLtjW_j3SrM%253A%252C1D6GErnJJFvOvM%252C_%253B_K8jiTqF9ZURNM%253A%252Cu8burKE1-4IO3M%252C_%253BeLigH3bXZeLKkM%253A%252CSFwiU1HBoCma5M%252C_%253Bx6Sf2O7FuDgPgM%253A%252CMBAnYzKAS51vbM%252C_%253BYbAP6wKBhyvq8M%253A%252Ckq_o0C6IYUs0vM%252C_%253Be9qDlC5WCuLd-M%253A%252C5vXLl3r-1iOAvM%252C_%253BfcjvJlXxispM1M%253A%252CRvhNzT7JcARE-M%252C_%253BJ3fl7pxUolb9mM%253A%252CId5VB78n5yAt3M%252C_&usg=__9GxlAdvAPgwJis5AUH3jZaUrAHM%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzt8HsxMLSAhVDDZoKHWGxBVYQ7AkILg&biw=360&bih=559
The study itself is more serious. You can find it here: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14375
From the Abstract:
“17.5% of the [CMIP5] models (7/40) project a rapid SPG cooling, consistent with a collapse of the local deep-ocean convection.
(…)
This event occurs in 45.5% of the 11 models best able to simulate the observed SPG stratification. Thus, due to systematic model biases, the CMIP5 ensemble as a whole underestimates the chance of future abrupt SPG cooling, entailing crucial implications for observation and adaptation policy.”
WR: I still have to read the article, but in fact the abstract states that in the CMIP5 there were more ‘tastes’ to discover than ‘warming’. Remarkable.
Are they saying the science isn’t settled?
Will wonders never cease!
They are 97% certain that they might be right 45.5% of the time.
How much more settled can scientific predictions be?
OMG they say almost 50% chance because 45%of the chip models say so. As if this can be determined using a bundle of useless models. Their math department down the hall could have advised them of this incompetent application of statistics.
The Gulf Stream is not “pulled” north by sinking thermohaline circulation waters, it is “pushed” by the prevailing winds and confined by the continental margins that are mid-depth.
The Gulf Stream actually starts right next to Africa at the equator and it ends, effectively, in the Arctic Ocean basin next to Svalgard and north of Russia (it still pushes farther north than this).
http://cff1.greenatom.earth/uploads/2016/07/11144937/gulf-stream-map_1big_stock-830×488.jpg
The exact same currents exist in the Pacific with the Kuroshio current, in the south Atlantic with the South Atlantic Gyre/Brazil Current and in the Indian Ocean with the Agulhas.
Do climate models predict the winds will slow down?
I think the Coriolis deserves a shout out on this one.
Exactly. It is the rotation of the Earth that provides most of the energy to drive these currents. Unless CO2 starts causing the Earth to slow down it is unlikely we will see any big changes.
That said, we have probably already passed the peak of the current AMO cycle which is likely driven by these currents. So, the North Atlantic will likely see a general cooling for the next few decades. Could this be an attempt to blame the natural AMO cycle on human emissions? It gives them a nice out. The cooling will lead to more ice in the Arctic as well. The true believers will accept anything.
Pse. Without movement we have no Coriolis EFFECT. So we need a driving force first, before the Coriolis effect can do its turning magic.
Walter,
Some “science ?” to confirm your claim.
I assume the frictional drag from the atmosphere creates a differential velocity between the the surface of the earth and the surface of the seas which has a significant impact on the currents? see below, I am impressed that the earth surface at the equator has such a large calculated velocity 1040 mph.
Co·ri·o·lis ef·fect
ˌ
an effect whereby a mass moving in a rotating system experiences a force (the Coriolis force ) acting perpendicular to the direction of motion and to the axis of rotation. On the earth, the effect tends to deflect moving objects to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern and is important in the formation of cyclonic weather systems.
An object on the Earth’s equator travels once around the Earth’s circumference. This is about 24,901 miles (40,075 kilometres) per day. To calculate speed, Mr Kadish divided that distance by 23hr, 56m, 4s to reach the figure of 1,040 mph.
Richard M.
v’
It’s a lot simpler than that.
Earth (Land) rotates from west to east, so sunrise is in the East.
Moon and sun hang on to water and create a bulge which travels east to west vis-à-vis the land.
So an equatorial water bulge rushes westward at close to 1,000 MPH. That’s a hell of a lot of (mv^2) / 2.
Water bulge slams into eastern shores, and (mv^2) /2 > mgh so the KE of the westward rushing water is converted into an even taller pulse of water; higher than the oceanic equilibrium tidal height.
When water bulge can go no further to the west, it must come crashing down from that mgh pulse.
Only place to go is to fall off to the north and to the south, both of which are closer to the center of the earth and have higher gravity.
So the water runs off north and south from the equator along Eastern continental shores.
So that ain’t gonna stop until the earth stops rotating.
G
The Coriolis effect is entirely a consequence of the conservation of angular momentum. It effectively steers a mass moving meridionally on a rotating globe away from a straight line trajectory. There is no such effect in purely zonal trajectories. The effect vanishes at the Equator and is maximum at the poles. In a strict dynamical sense, it is a fictitious “force.” In no sense is it a driving force that can initiate motion, as is often mistakenly assumed by geophysical amateurs.
If the temperature difference between the equator and the poles decreases, then the winds will slow down.
I think that is what is being observed
Yes. But, 95% of the observed wind speeds are wrong… 😉
JustAnOldGuy,
there was an interesting comment on WUWT –
why not nuke Panama to get a thermo exchange between Atlantic and Pacific – to prevent Tornadoes?
OK with me if you can prevent civilian collateral damage.
They don’t need to predict it. Winds are already slowing down.
http://www.bluehill.org/climate/annwind.gif
It is a general phenomenon.
Vautard, Robert, et al. “Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness.” Nature Geoscience 3.11 (2010): 756-761.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/J_N_Thepaut/publication/51997212_Northern_Hemisphere_atmospheric_stilling_partly_attributed_to_an_increase_in_surface_roughness/links/0912f50c59d1cb5257000000.pdf
“Surface winds have declined in China, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, the United States and Australia over the past few decades1–4. The precise cause of the stilling is uncertain.”
Might be an additional problem for wind energy.
I trust that account of this is taken when applying for a license to build a windfarm. It certainly has a bearing on the value for money of any subsidy being given.
Here’s something I’ve always wondered about but been afraid to ask ’cause I’m sure it fully qualifies as a ‘dumb question’. Wind turbines get their energy from the wind so do they diminish the wind’s energy? If we built enough of them would we seriously impair the flow of energy through the atmosphere? Go ahead, laugh and point at me. I don’t care.
JustAnOldGuy –
nothing wrong with the question ‘does it have an impact on wind energy’
Yes it has a negative impact on wind energy.
Good question – waiting for an answer.
If the atmosphere were to exhibit laminar flow, a lot of windmills could conceivably slow down the surface layer.
However since the atmosphere is turbulent, slowing down the surface layer would cause more mixing with the layer immediately above the surface layer. As a result any slowing would be extremely hard to measure. As a seat of the pants wild guess, I would suspect that if we could put a windmill every 1000 feet over the entire surface of the earth (including the oceans), it might slow down the winds by a mile or 2 per hour.
That’s ground level winds would slow down. Since the temperature difference between the equator and the poles still has to be equalized, the same amount of air would continue to move. The layers above the surface layer would just have to move a little faster to compensate for the surface layer moving slower.
JustAnOldGuy,
but then we’ll have the old eqilibrity – no more tornadoes but falling back out of interglacial to full glaciation.
Assuming land roughness hasn’t changed much (didn’t read it), roughness would seem to apply to the ocean. Wondering if they realize ocean roughness is caused by wind.
Roughness definitely does affect surface winds. Just go to nullschool and check out surface winds over land and water. While winds regularly rip over the oceans at surface level (regardless the chop), you must scroll up a few hundred millibars to see equal wind over land.
The objection here is to the typical lack of critical thinking skill. Assuming they agree that the land surface has not increased significantly in roughness, ocean roughness in their world would be a negative feedback to surface wind speed. Perhaps, when the rollers achieve the altitude of mountains.
Javier:
Thanks for posting that information.
The “Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness” determined by Vautard, et al., is consistent with an assessment many of us have been asserting for decades. That assessment is as follows.
1.
If the globe warms then little warming can be expected near the equator and relatively much warming can be expected near the poles.
(There are several reasons for this but notable is that the Earth loses energy to space by radiation proportional to the fourth power of the temperature of the radiating surface: so, hottest regions lose most heat).
2.
Therefore, if the globe warms then temperature difference between the equator and the poles can be expected to reduce.
3.
Much evidence indicates that the globe has been warming from the Little Ice Age for centuries.
4.
Hence, it is likely that the temperature difference between the equator and the poles has been reducing for centuries.
5.
Winds are driven by temperature difference.
6.
Hence, it is likely that that globally winds and associated storms have been reducing for centuries.
(Which is consistent with the observations of “Northern Hemisphere atmospheric stilling partly attributed to an increase in surface roughness” reported by Vautard, et al..)
7.
And, any future warming of the globe induced by any cause is likely to produce additional global reduction to winds and associated storms.
Richard
Gymnosperm,
They assume precisely the opposite, that the increase in trees (due to greening, land use changes and other factors) causes wind stilling, however their calculations show that this can only partially explain the measured stilling.
I don’t find their work particularly convincing, but it describes a phenomenon that is taking place at least in several places of the Northern hemisphere, that is not being properly studied. I agree with other commenters that the most likely explanation is a decrease in the equator-polar thermal gradient. From Scotese 2015:
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/meridional-profiles.png
We are in icehouse conditions (number 6), but any displacement upwards means a less active meridional transport, less active atmosphere, and less extreme weather events (except heatwaves). It fits observations.
Doing climate research trying o stay within the bounds of the CO2 hypothesis is like fighting with a hand tied to the back. They are not likely to get too far with their explanations.
If … if there is declining wind speed, then there is a dynamic in planetary atmospheric science that the further you are away from the sun, the faster the wind speeds.
I don’t know whether these things are real and are just adding confusion to the settled science. What does that mean, the orbit of the earth is closer to the sun or the sun expanded ?
I think climate models may be a bit like Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. “What sort of answer did you have in mind?”
Wind turbines will slow the wind speed, and also cool the air too, further reducing the Carnot inefficiency .
g
Bill, does the rotation of the earth not assist this current?
YES !! 100% in fact.
G
Let me see now … the globe warms up until it cools down. And it’s all our fault, not because it hasn’t happened before, but because it was never before predicted to happen so quickly. It’s not that change is bad, but it is the rate of change which is alarming. I suppose 97.325% of publications that mention anything about the rate of climate change in the abstract of their peer-reviewed articles demonstrate that the geologic evidence of global climate has sufficient resolution to support the unprecedented forecast rate of change due to human emission hypothesis.
Always worse than we thought it was. I suppose writing these papers is much like movie making. To be effective the audience must suspend its disbelief for a short period of time. This is the relaxing effect we feel sitting in the dark staring at the screen. Unfortunately at some point we started making public policy based on “The Wizard of Oz”
It is much more likely that, rather than stop, the Gulf Stream will push further West into the Davis Strait when the Florida and NC coastlines change due to rising sea level. That will take a long time, but the result will be vaguely self-accelerating. When the Gulf Stream warms Greenland instead of Europe, it will (eventually) melt all the ice off the island and it will change into a temperature climate. Baffin Island will similarly be warmed. This sill raise sea levels faster than they are rising now so humanity may still be around to experience it. Certainly Canadians will be pleased.
Sorry Europe, you had your millennia. Now it is Greenland’s turn. Nunavut will have alluvut.
“Nunavut will have alluvut.” – GROOOOAAANNN. You win the daily “dry humour” award.
In a world of rising sea levels that may become the most popular vein.
“new scientific analysis” = “computer models”
Would these “scientists” go to the trouble of designing and coding these models on computer time they probably have to buy only to announce “well, this round of models show no catastrophic events in our near future, sorry”?
The evidence is gaining on the AGW crowd so you can expect more “scientific analysis” in the future and all of them will come with a new catastrophe of some sort.
The computers are bought for them with tax dollars (or € or £ or ¥ or…). That is the whole point. No panic, no new toys…
so why did the viking call greenland GREENland and not WHITEland ??
hs any warmista come up with some answer or do they all still feign tone deafness
The Vikings got into PR trouble recruiting settlers for Iceland because of the name Eric the Red gave it. They decided to call the next land ‘Greenland’ to emphasize the farming, not the massive ice sheet just to the North. Those who carried on to Vineland probably did better in the long run, but no doubt married into the local gene pool and disappeared from view. They did leave some runes, fortunately, so we know they were there.
The Vikings probably brought corn to Scandinavia. It was known before Columbus because the Masonic temple in Scotland has maize carved into the decorations, and it was finished in the 1450’s, long before the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria went West.
Tony Heller’s place is a very good one to get the lowdown on the “it’s worse than we thought” scam.
Matter of fact Tony’s place is fantastic “The deplorable climate blog” is what he’s nicknamed it for the moment.
One curious change I’ve seen in the North Atlantic has been the persistent warmth of the gulf stream from around North Carolina to Iceland and beyond. Now, we know the gulf stream is warm but on anomaly maps it is showing as warmer than average. What could be driving this warmth for such a long time?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Why would this thin little strip of water be so warm? What could be feeding it? This has been going on for several years. It certainly is feeding a lot of warm water into the Arctic right in the area where we have seen the biggest loss of sea ice.
Note the picture displayed is 6 months old but when you click on it it will show the same warmth in the same place right now.
That’s an easy one. global warming is increasing the meridional heat transport, that outside the tropics is done primarily by the atmosphere and two currents, the Gulf Stream and the Kuroshio.
Those two currents would be the Northern Hemisphere players. The phantasy of “global” warming brooks no cherry picking of hemispheres. Either it’s global, or it ain’t.
What Northern Hemispheric oceanic and atmospheric warming actually in evidence does is REDUCE the gradients you suppose to be driving meridional circulation.
Look, the problem is at least three dimensional. Carbon dioxide is an exceptional molecule. The more we put in the atmosphere, the more its radiative absorption is concentrated closer to the surface, and the more its radiation to space is concentrated at the tropopause and above. CO2 is exceptionally sociable. It pervades the entire atmosphere even as it pervades unsaturated water every chance it gets.
What happens when you warm the bottom and cool the top?
Convection.
On average over time yes, but during and after strong El Niño periods an unusual amount of heat is produced in the equator rising the gradient. This heat goes everywhere, it is radiated to space at the tropics, it is transported by the atmosphere elevating tropospheric temperatures above surface ones, and it is also transported by oceanic currents. After it has already disappeared from the equatorial sea surface it is still moving through the system for about a year or so. It might be related to the unusually warm Arctic temperatures this winter.
“Why would this thin little strip of water be so warm? What could be feeding it? This has been going on for several years. It certainly is feeding a lot of warm water into the Arctic right in the area where we have seen the biggest loss of sea ice.”
It could be warm breezes off the North American continent. The warm wind blows and warms the water underneath it. Then the water gets to the big cold blob to the east and cools off.
During glacials, heat backs up in Florida and the gulf as the current slows (so head to Florida when the UK freezes) per a peer reviewed paper that looked at tree pollen and lake sediments.
That the current is strong and warm right now, suggests the globe was hot in about 2005… which it was. Speed is the missing bit though. Warm and slow is cold bad news for Europe.
The pacific takes 18 years for equatorial heat to reach Alaska, so figure that until about 2018 we will have a warm Alaska. Europe and the Atalantic are smaller, so I’d expect the cooling to show up any time now.
18 years? Wow. I would have guessed at a decade or less. Learned something new today. Thanks.
Also note its tendency to go into the Davis Strait. If the ice clogging the top end of Greenland were to melt, the Gulf Stream may well prefer to enter the Arctic Ocean, not terminate near Spitsbergen.
Climate science.
They make it up as they go along.
That would be “Climate Seance” wouldn’t it?
“The paradigm that the potential for NA abrupt changes mainly depends on the fate of the AMOC is clearly incomplete”
Disclaimer first sentence of discussion. They seem fixated on a notion of disrupted “convection” in the subpolar gyre. This muddled concept ignores that convection does not exist in the “haline” component. For salt there is zero tendency to ever rise. They worry about freshwater melt which is actually cooler than the water beneath and increasing the tendency for convection, but for lack of haline gravity.
Convection in this context is the tendency for water warmed at depth to rise. Radiation from the atmosphere warms only the first few microns of the surface. This top down warming has offsetting effects on density (and convection) as it increases evaporation and saline density, while at the same time decreasing thermal instability.
If the AMOC/Thermohaline/Conveyor belt actually exists (it can’t be measured), Berenyi Peter has explained many times, it does not work as a heat/salt engine. If it exists, it gets driven, likely by winds. As Bill Illis points out above, these guys need to get out and learn about wind.
v’
/sarc I complement for you.
Imo the THC is gravity driven by the brine that sinks to the deepest party of the ocean basins. While water is in contact whith the floor it is warmed by the 100 mW/m^2 geothermal flux. This warmed water has to be transported to the cold parts at the surface. At least 1 W/m^2 has to be exchanged with the atmosphere, otherwise the deep oceans warm up. They been cooling down the last 84 million years.
http://www-pord.ucsd.edu/~ltalley/sio210/Global_circulation/schmitz_ldt_overturn.jpg
That’s an interesting approach. The one watt to the atmosphere seems easy. Crustal heat flux is highly concentrated in the southern Pacific and Indian oceans.
I have always been amazed that flux along the ridges doesn’t show up at the surface. It must be because salinity has a greater influence than temperature on the density of water at warmer surface temperatures.
The one watt to the atmosphere can only happen at the ~10% of the oceans surface that is cold enough to allow bottom warmed water to reach the surface. 100 mW/m^2 is an average. It includes the high flux areas afaik .
More relevant : since the deep oceans have been cooling down for the last 84 million years, every J that was added to them at the ocean floor has to be lost somehow to the atmosphere again.
GF alone during that time accounts for ~ 60 times the total ocean heat content.
Once you realize that the DEEP oceans are completely warmed by geothermal energy, the climate becomes less complicated. (No GHE needed, only some insulation by the atmosphere)
Imo all heat from magma etc. at a few kilometers below the surface will be “diluted” well before it can reach the surface. The small GF doesn’t have a change at all, unless you believe in back conduction ;-). Only magma erupting just beneath the surface should show up as an increased surface temperature.
It is likely to cool, imo, but not for the reason they are claiming. On February the 13th I asked a question on FB wondering whether the rapid uptick in the ENSO regions was exaggerated. Two days later it dawned on me to take a look at the graphs which I had used in the past to determine temp shifts in ENSO, up or down. In doing so, I then saw that I should have seen the spike coming. I replied on the 15th at FB “….Joseph Fournier …I should have taken a look back at the data which I have used in determining ENSO region changes over the last several years. Right there in front of me, my data source show what should be a warm spike occurring now. If my supposition is correct, then this should extend into March at the latest before declining and heading back to negative conditions. Also, the regions should stay negative at least until around Sept/October of this year, before another warm spike sets in. Now this should be very interesting as it should either verify or disprove my entire contention on the matter of having some ability to forecast future ENSO conditions….”
So as of yesterday 3/5/17, Tropical Tidbits showed a sudden shift back to cooler from the warming in the regions over the several week period with a further cooling surge today. My supposition was that the warming spike would last no longer than March, and now that is exactly what has happened. Note that I expect to see a similar short upward spike later towards the end of the year as described above on 3/15/17.
FWIW NASA has a page with a high-res video, including underwater topography, with density data and it looks nifty when full-screened, and it’s the whole globe, with some rotation
the caveat is “The actual flows in this model are based on current theories of the thermohaline circulation rather than actual data.”
There is likely to be a cooling, but nor for the reasons given in the above study. Three weeks ago on February 13th I made a comment on FB wondering why the sudden warming in the ENSO regions occurred. I was questioning the reliability of what was being shown on the different ssta charts. Two days later it struck me to take a look back at the graphs which I had used in the past several years when attempting to forecast shifts in the ENSO regions, up or down.
That led me to make this comment on the 15th of last month, “….I should have taken a look back at the data which I have used in determining ENSO region changes over the last several years. Right there in front of me my data source show what should be a warm spike occurring now. If my supposition is correct, then this should extend into March at the latest before declining, and heading back to negative conditions. Also, the regions should stay negative at least until around Sept/October of this year, before another warm spike sets in. Now this should be very interesting as it should either verify or disprove my entire contention on the matter of having some ability to forecast future ENSO conditions. ..”
As of yesterday Tropical Tidbits shows a sudden change back to cooling in the ENSO regions both in the ssta and sst charts. Now to see if there is a similar short uptick later this year as I stated above.
Climate change will cause serious warming… or it will cause serious cooling… or it will cause the globe to warm and cool at the same time. Whatever happens, it’s going to be catastrophic, so give us lots of money so we can make it even worse.
Of course – if global warming makes it colder, then radiative heat loss from a colder northern hemisphere will reduce significantly (t^4, remember) so the world will get much hotter due to the cold.
Richard M – could undersea volcanic activity be at play for this tongue of warmer water? And please don’t give the alarmists ideas like CO 2 is slowing the planet’s rotation down, they need absolutely no encouragement as things stands. Lunatics …taking over..asylum etc etc.
A model meets reality
reminds on
https://www.google.at/search?client=ms-android-samsung&ei=5NC9WJuZNaba6ASL5IXYDg&q=stall+stall+airline+mh+&oq=stall+stall+air+line+mh+&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.
Is that your prediction?
“Climatologists … say there is an almost 50% chance that a key area of the North Atlantic could cool suddenly and rapidly” So that means there is also a 50% chance that it won’t happen. In other words they have no clue what will happen.
Bingo! GIve that man a see-gar.
There you go! You can only get a grant if you haven’t already said what will happen! That’s why all the models are out to lunch. If they get one to work they all have to pack up their crayons and go get real jobs.
“’Climatologists … say there is an almost 50% chance that a key area of the North Atlantic could cool suddenly and rapidly’ . . . In other words they have no clue what will happen.”
Technically, they only say that in an imaginary computer-simulated climate, there is a 50% chance of virtual cooling in a “key area” of a virtual North Atlantic, in a virtual future. How these probabilities translate to the real world is . . ., well it’s . . . .come to think of it there’s nothing at all meaningful in the 50% number.
I just knew before reading that it was those dumbos at the Uni of Southampton again. One day they’ll manage to read this post from Richard Seager….
http://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/
“A few times a year the British media of all stripes goes into a tizzy of panic when one climate scientist or another states that there is a possibility that the North Atlantic ocean circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is a major part, will slow down in coming years or even stop. Whether the scientists statements are measured or inflammatory the media invariably warns that this will plunge Britain and Europe into a new ice age, pictures of the icy shores of Labrador are shown, created film of English Channel ferries making their way through sea ice are broadcast… And so the circus continues year after year….
The Gulf Stream-European climate myth
The panic is based on a long held belief of the British, other Europeans, Americans and, indeed, much of the world’s population that the northward heat transport by the Gulf Stream is the reason why western Europe enjoys a mild climate, much milder than, say, that of eastern North America. This idea was actually originated by an American military man, Matthew Fontaine Maury, in the mid nineteenth century and has stuck since despite the absence of proof.
We now know this is a myth, the climatological equivalent of an urban legend. In a detailed study published in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society in 2002, we demonstrated the limited role that ocean heat transport plays in determining regional climates around the Atlantic Ocean….”
“A few times a year the British media of all stripes goes into a tizzy of panic when one climate scientist or another states that there is a possibility that the North Atlantic ocean circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is a major part, will slow down in coming years or even stop.”
Yes. Stop.
I sense a serious fear in the pro-AGW crowd that they now feel they need to explain a dramatic cooling event and still be able to blame it on CO2. Maybe they know they are wrong and things are about to get very cold?
+1
“For thousands of years, parts of northwest Europe have enjoyed a climate about 5C warmer than many other regions on the same latitude. But new scientific analysis suggests that that could change much sooner and much faster than thought possible.”
For thousands of years? Perhaps about 10k years when we entered the current inter-glacial. So, if this inter-glacial ends then this is human induced while all the previous 20 or so inter-glacials ended naturally?
This study reminds me of the old proverb about a dog returning to taste its own vomit: The climate hypesters seem to have a menu of scary stories they revisit again and again over time. Dangerous warming, coral reef die off, sea level rise, polar bear extinction, Droughts, Floods, storms, blizzards, no winter, heavy winter, intense rains, light rains, more pack ice, less pack ice; all are topics the climate hypesters have profited from by writing scary faux studies. It is long past time to find a way to ridicule and satirize these climate clowns.
“…researchers, now say there is an almost 50% chance that a key area of the North Atlantic could cool suddenly and rapidly, within the space of a decade, before the end of this century.”
“All probabilities are 50/50 – either a thing will happen or it won’t.”
Mark Twain
The whole ‘thermohaline circulation’ idea is rather shaky. Ocean currents are driven by the temperature difference between the tropics and the polar regions. Salt has very little to do with it, or rather, any gradient in saltiness is the result of the circulation, not its cause.
I thought the rotation of the earth was the elephant in the room. No?
I’m worried. There’s ‘almost a 50% chance’ that something that may or may not be bad ‘could’ happen 80 years from now.
But it’s worse than they thought ! .. / sarc/ .. it’s always worse than they thought. I should have been keeping a list. I don’t know how we are still alive !
If I have time tonight maybe I’ll look more carefully at this “study” but at first glance, and particularly reading through pages 5-6, it looks like these guys just mined the ensemble model results to find a metric that was correlated with rapid cooling, found one (lower SS stratification), limited the ensemble to weed out models whose present-day SS stratification was higher than observed, and like magic, found that the remaining models were more likely to predict rapid cooling than the ensemble as a whole.
In other words, they just adopted a procedure that was guaranteed to produce the results they wanted.
The AMO is patient, but it will bury you.
From the scientists that gave us man made globull warming. Science has a long way to go before I believe any of their studies. Good luck stopping world wide circulation on the bottom of the ocean.