An eminent atmospheric scientist says that natural cycles may be largely responsible for climate changes seen in recent decades.
In a new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Anastasios Tsonis, emeritus distinguished professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, describes new and cutting-edge research into natural climatic cycles, including the well known El Nino cycle and the less familiar North Atlantic Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
He shows how interactions between these ocean cycles have been shown to drive changes in the global climate on timescales of several decades.
Professor Tsonis says:
“We can show that at the start of the 20th century, the North Atlantic Oscillation pushed the global climate into a warming phase, and in 1940 it pushed it back into cooling mode. The famous “pause” in global warming at the start of the 21st century seems to have been instigated by the North Atlantic Oscillation too.”
In fact, most of the changes in the global climate over the period of the instrumental record seem to have their origins in the North Atlantic.
Tsonis’ insights have profound implications for the way we view calls for climate alarm.
It may be that another shift in the North Atlantic could bring about another phase shift in the global climate, leading to renewed cooling or warming for several decades to come.
These climatic cycles are entirely natural, and can tell us nothing about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions. But they should inspire caution over the slowing trajectory of global warming we have seen in recent decades.
As Tsonis puts it:
“While humans may play a role in climate change, other natural forces may play important roles too.”
Full paper: The Little Boy: El Niño and natural climate change (pdf)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’ve been telling you all that for the past ten years with the additional proposition that the varying energy supply for those ocean cycles is caused by solar effects altering global cloudiness and thus the amount of solar energy able to enter the oceans.
wildeco2014
and I think nothing much will change until the big freeze sets in…
[the altering cloudiness having to do with substances formed TOA by a varying amount of the more energetic particles coming from the sun?]
Yes, in general terms. I’ m not sure which wavelengths or which particles have the greatest effect on the ozone creation / destruction balance in the stratosphere so as to change the gradient of tropopause height between equator and poles so as to change global cloudiness and thereby affect the ocean cycles but that doesn’ t matter at this stage.
The great thing is that recent work by others is substantiating my various hypotheses.
The highest energy UV rays both make and break ozone, to include all the UVC and most of the UVB. Least energetic UVB and all UVA make it to the surface, where they’re capable of penetrating oceans more deeply than visible light.
As is to be expected on a water planet, with an atmosphere so much less dense than oceans.
Yesterday Arctic sea ice grew. That might have been the turn for the year, although late summer or early fall losses are still possible, if there is a storm that piles up ice, as happened in 2010. If September 13 were this year’s low, then 2017 edged out 2010 for eighth lowest year, ahead of 2012, 2007, 2016, 2011, 2015, 2008 and 2010. Since 2012, Arctic sea ice has been growing, as would be expected given its cyclic history of waxing and waning, ruled mainly by oceanic oscillations, and not so much by an extra molecule of CO2 in 10,000 dry air molecules.
sixto
unless I am misunderstanding
– please help me right –
while the oceans’ T never get higher in T than about 30-35C
how come clouds are formed when the temperature of boiling water is 100C?
I surmised that clouds are formed because a tiny water layer on top of the oceans (TOO) gets heated to 100C. Now what type of radiation could do that and how could it vary so that a change in climate becomes visible? (mainly Gleissberg)
this is how I see things
lower magnetic force fields => more energetic particles being able to escape the sun => more ozone, peroxides and NxOx formed TOA => less UV coming in=> less heat TOO to form clouds, more heat escapes : it is globally cooling
Henry,
Clouds form because tiny condensation nuclei in the air attract molecules of H2O to form liquid water droplets. Water vapor condenses on the particle, forming liquid from gas.
Water doesn’t need to be boiling for vapor to evaporate from it. Boiling means that evaporation is happening rapidly throughout the whole mass of a liquid. Water molecules escape from the surface of water all the time, even when it’s frozen, in which case the vaporization is called ablation.
H2O is lighter than air.
PS: The water droplets in clouds can also freeze to ice crystals, too, of course.
You’ve probably observed ablation in your freezer. It’s why ice cubes left for a while get smaller. And why water ice forms atop old ice cream.
Sublimation is why ice cubes disappear. Ablation is understood as evaporation.
Sublimation is ablation by vaporization. There are other ablative processes, but when it is by vaporization, it’s sublimation.
WE already knew this – here it is, without the disclaimers:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/14/pruitt-epa-will-review-politicized-climate-science-report/comment-page-1/#comment-2582659
[excerpted)
…, here is the plot by Bill Illis that shows the “spikiness” of the tropical temperature, which tracks and lags Nino3,4 temperature by ~3 months.
My simpler model, which has the same pattern, shows global temperature tracking and lagging Nino3,4 temperature by ~4 months. The cooling impact of major volcanoes in 1982 and 1991 is apparent.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
The mechanism is that increasing Nino3,4 temperature increases tropical atmospheric water vapour, the PRIMARY greenhouse gas, and the tropics warm, and the rest of the Earth warms ~one month later. ENSO variability drives Nino3,4 temperatures. Longer term, the integral of solar activity is probably the primary driver of global temperature.
Then there is incontrovertible observation that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from ~~300 to 800 years in the ice core record to ~9 months in the modern data record, on a shorter time scale. This suggest, like other evidence, that the sensitivity of climate to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very small, and global warming alarmism is nonsense.
In the modern data record, the velocity dCO2/dt changes ~contemporaneously with global temperature, and its integral atmospheric CO2 lags temperature by about 9 months. Other drivers of atmospheric CO2 include fossil fuel combustion, land use changes, etc.
If climate sensitivity to CO2 (“ ECS”) was significant, CO2 would not lag temperature at all measured time scales and this close relationship would not be apparent in the data record. I wrote the original paper on this observation in January 2008 and it is finally getting some attention. See the reference in my above post.
Not all that complicated, is it, for a “non-linear, chaotic, blah blah blah” climate system?
The complicated climate computer models used by the alarmist IPCC fail to model the aforementioned real observations, and assume that CO2 is THE major driver of global climate – this assumption is false and the models produce nonsense – there is no real global warming crisis.
Regards, Allan
Yes, the link to El Niño/ La Niña/ ENSO as modified by the other ocean cycles is clear to me but what changes the system balance overall?
I’ve been telling you all for some time that changes in global cloudiness change the balance between El Niño and La Niña so that a solar induced reduction in global cloudiness favours E Nino and atmospheric warming whereas a solar induced increase in global cloudiness favours La Niña and atmospheric cooling.
In both cases we see a stepwise change in global atmospheric temperatures from one positive PDO phase phase to the next in the case of warming and one negative PDO phase to the next in the case of cooling.
Many recent papers and recent real world observations are in line with my various hypotheses.
wildeco
One interesting hypo is that of Dan Pangburn, which suggests that long-term global temperatures correlate with the integral of solar activity, moderated primarily by the PDO/ENSO:
http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.ca/
And cloudiness correlates with solar activity – see Svensmark – that is the possible multiplier.
Agreed, but Svensmark doesn’t have a plausible mechanism for converting the effect of changing cloud condensation nuclei amounts to a change in the gradient of tropopause height between poles and equator in order to account for the observed changes in jet stream behaviour.
Only my ozone base hypothesis deals with that aspect.
Pangburn has noted the basic issue but has no hypothesis to account for it.
Currently, I have the only submitted hypothesis that fits observations.
wildeco2014 wrote: “Currently, I have the only submitted hypothesis that fits observations.”
Reference please?
More details:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/16/october-2016-global-surface-landocean-and-lower-troposphere-temperature-anomaly-update/comment-page-1/#comment-2342825
NOT A WHOLE LOTTA GLOBAL WARMING GOIN’ ON!
[excerpt}
Bill Illis has created a temperature model that actually works in the short-term (multi-decades). It shows global temperatures correlate primarily with NIno3.4 area temperatures – an area of the Pacific Ocean that is about 1% of global surface area. There are only four input parameters, with Nino3.4 being the most influential. CO2 has almost no influence. So what drives the Nino3.4 temperatures? Short term, the ENSO. Longer term, probably the integral of solar activity – see Dan Pangburn’s work.
Bill’s post is here.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/23/lewandowsky-and-cook-deniers-cannot-provide-a-coherent-alternate-worldview/comment-page-1/#comment-2306066
Bill’s equation is:
Tropics Troposphere Temp = 0.288 * Nino 3.4 Index (of 3 months previous) + 0.499 * AMO Index + -3.22 * Aerosol Optical Depth volcano Index + 0.07 Constant + 0.4395*Ln(CO2) – 2.59 CO2 constant
Bill’s graph is here – since 1958, not a whole lotta global warming goin’ on!
My simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly is:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
Data: Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.
Here is the plot of my equation:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
I agree with Bill’s conclusion that
THE IMPACT OF INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 ON GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS SO CLOSE TO ZERO AS TO BE MATERIALLY INSIGNIFICANT.
Regards, Allan
My previous simpler equation using only the Nino3.4 Index Anomaly was:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15
Here is the plot of my previous equation, without the “Sato” index {“Aerosol” optical depth):
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1106756229401938&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
It shows that much or all of the apparent warming since ~1982 is a natural recovery from the cooling impact of two major volcanoes – El Chichon and Pinatubo.
I added the Sato Global Mean Optical Depth Index (h/t Bill Illis) to compensate for the cooling impact of major volcanoes, so the equation changes to:
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC, ~four months later) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex
The “Sato Index” is factored by about -8 and here is the result – the Orange calculated global temperature line follows the Red actual UAH global LT temperature line reasonably well, with one brief deviation at the time of the Pinatubo eruption.
Here is the plot of my new equation, with the “Sato” index:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1443923555685202&set=a.1012901982120697.1073741826.100002027142240&type=3&theater
Data:
Nino3.4IndexAnom is at: http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/indices/sstoi.indices
UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) Temperatures http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Sate Global Mean Aerosol Optical Depth at 550 nm https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/strataer/tau.line_2012.12.txt
Minor correction to my formula – it’s a timing thing.
UAHLTcalc Global (Anom. in degC) = 0.20*Nino3.4IndexAnom (four months earlier) + 0.15 – 8*SatoGlobalMeanOpticalDepthIndex
It is clear. There is no man made global warming. All is natural. It is just that not everyone wants to believe / understand it.
And why did Prof. Tsonis publish his critical study through the GWPF?
Did he try to publish in a climate journal and get pushed aside by the usual angry exclusionist review process?
Very good question. I hope someone will ask him that — and publish his reply, here.
Prof. Tsonis has published lots of critical articles questioning different aspects of climate change, some of them highly cited.
See here:
https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=08WqCSgAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
Pat,
One would suggest that this “study” was not published in a peer reviewed journal because it completely lacks substance. There is no evidence for any assertion, no suggestion of how the oceanic oscillations might affect the climate, no suggestions as for the magnitude of the effect. And we are meant to take his word for it about when the systems are coupled and when they are not. The “study” does not even shown that there is a correlation between the oscillations and the temperature it just plots graphs and claims they look similar.
If people on this blog were to be as critical about this “report” as they are about anything published in favour of global warming then they would be having a field day ripping it to shreds. Instead we get nonsense like “read the conclusion” rather than read and study the report and try and see if it is right.
jerry, you seemed to have missed about 80% of the discussion on this page. Care to start from the top and work down?
At least Tsonis put ” ” around “pause” …..
Stopped — STOPPED — STOPPED.
To use “pause” is careless thinking/writing …..
or…..
an intentional supporting of the AGWer’s agenda…..
AGWer: Of COURSE it is a “pause!” Warming will resume any second, now. We KNOW this.
Science Realist: How do you KNOW this?
AGW: Models.
SR: In other words, you don’t know this.
So since 1940 we have Ben in a cooling phase
Which if course resulted in record high temps
Wtf ???
The globe has been a warming phase since c. AD 1690, ie during the depths of the LIA in the Maunder Minimum, but remains in a long-term cooling trend of more than 3000 years. However since the end of LIA in the mid-19th century, there have been both warming and cooling cycles within the secular warming trend. There was a warming cycle in the 19th century, then a cooling cycle across the century boundary, then a warming cycle c. 1915-45, then a cooling cycle until the PDO flip of 1977, then a natural warming cycle of about 30 years. The “Pause” was the transition from warming to cooling.
With the heat blown off by the Super El Nino of 2015-16, the cooling should be in evidence during the next two decades or so. Arctic ice is already growing, having bottomed in 2012.
Sounds about right. We seem to be in a fairly neutral phase right now (the pause). Ice is growing and the Arctic regions will soon change over from a marine climate to frozen wasteland mode. That is where the bulk of the warming has been felt and where it will soon go away. Trapped under Arctic ice for another 30 or so years.
Yup. The cycles are roughly 30 years, but it’s not quite that regular, as various factors are at play.
We do know for sure however that the postwar cooling cycle ended in 1977, with the dramatic PDO mode switch.
I think the Tsonis paper would benefit from a long and detailed technical appendix, including mathematics and computational details.
Consider this: A network is a system of interacting agents.
In their subsequent network, what does “interacting” consist of? Presumably heat transfer, but how about mass transfer? How mathematically do they represent, and then how computationally do they compute, the “interacting”?
And this: To answer these questionsWang et al. split the network of four modes into its
six component pairs and investigated the contribution of each pair during each synchronisation
event and in the overall coupling of the network.51
and
synchronisation was associated with an increase
in coupling strength.
What exactly is “coupling”, how is it represented mathematically, and how is it computed? Further on, how are changes in “coupling strength” represented mathematically, and how computed?
In pharmacokinetics and the analysis of biological oscillations (examples cited by Tsonis), the mathematics are a system of differential equations, and the “coupling” is represented by the scaled value of one state variable being included in the derivative of at least one other. A change in coupling strength can be represented by having the “scaling” in my preceding statement be a function of yet another state variable (e.g. expression of a gene, or temperature of the system.)
You might say that the paper whetted my appetite for more detail, but I’d like his summary of all the math instead of having to read all of the cited papers.
Distinguished Dr. Anastasios Tsonis had to wait until going emeritus to publish this important result, and not in a standard journal. Even after writing a conclusion that paid obeisance to and genuflected toward the Great God CACA of human sacrifice.
Shows how degraded, debauched and corrupt “climate science” is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasios_Tsonis
Quoted here:
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/30/un-climate-change-models-warming.html
Andy wrote: “These climatic cycles are entirely natural, and can tell us nothing about the effect of carbon dioxide emissions. But they should inspire caution over the slowing trajectory of global warming we have seen in recent decades.”
However, none of these chaotic phenomena explain why decadally averaged GMSTs are now at least 0.7 degC warmer today than during the pause from 1950-1970. There is no precedent in the instrumental period suggesting that multi-decadal variability is this large. (You can’t go back to warm and cold periods like the LIA and MWP and find changes this large, but we don’t know if they were unforced variability like the ENSO and AMO.)
More importantly, EBMs afford roughly the same ECS and TCR for many different periods: the individual and combined decades from 1970 to 2010 (Otto) and the 65 and 130 year period used by Lewis and Curry. EBMs assume that all warming is forced warming. If multi-decadal variability (chaotic like ENSO, or oscillatory like AMO) were the most important player in warming, different periods would produce different estimates for climate sensitivity.
Because the hemisphere’s are asymmetrical, and the oceans distribute their water vapor asymmetrically, and land responds differently than ocean to water vapor and sun.
If you lived in the path of the breeze blowing water vapor off a 100F cooling tower, and the wind changed direction, your average temp would change significantly.
That’s all it is. Just big pools of water that move over long periods.
Micor6500: Redistributing heat on the surface via winds merely moves heat around on the surface and won’t change GMST. Exchanging heat between the surface and deep ocean CAN change GMST without any radiative forcing. This is unforced or internal variability. ENSO is a classic example.
However, if internal variability were a major player in 20th century climate change, estimates of ECS and TCR from EBMs would vary. (The influence of the 65-year AMO was eliminated by Lewis and Curry, by analyzing only 65-year periods.)
No, you’re wrong Frank, land responds to the same air temps different that water. Air temps over water don’t rise as much as over land. And the hemispheres are asymmetrical. It’s part if the reason global warming only happened in the northern hemisphere.
And EBM’s if they use the same wrong physics, are wrong too.
micro6500: No, you’re wrong Frank, land responds to the same air temps different that water. Air temps over water don’t rise as much as over land. And the hemispheres are asymmetrical. It’s part if the reason global warming only happened in the northern hemisphere. And EBM’s if they use the same wrong physics, are wrong too.
Land has a lower heat capacity per unit area than the ocean, so its temperature changes more slowly.
A few bloggers seem to think that land temperatures have barely risen in the SH, but I haven’t found their arguments very convincing. It isn’t warming in Antarctica because the GHE doesn’t operate there. (The GHE depends on temperature falling with altitude, and there is relatively little fall for most of the year in Antarctica.) For the most part, SH temperature is ocean temperature.
Energy balance models (Otto 2013, Lewis and Curry 2014) calculate ECS from forcing, observed warming and observed ocean heat uptake (Argo). It is a slight exaggeration to say that the only physics involved is conservation of energy, so they don’t use “wrong physics”.
I don’t think it capacity per say, but conductivity, and that water circulates. But you then go to prove my point, when you measure each hemisphere they respond differently to the same energy input. So when the oceans themselves move warm water from the southern hemisphere to the north, GMST goes up.
Because that warm water causes the land temps to go up, as compared to colder water.
This is also evident in land air temps where the jet stream runs, as that helps set where the boundary between tropical air vs subpolar air masses. For me, that’s air from the gulf vs Canada, but it makes a 10-15F difference in temp. And just changing the ratio of those air masses over land will also change GMST.
I think from the rest your post we agree.
It was about 10 years ago that the first new college grads I knew came out spouting their convictions of CAGW. I researched for myself back then and came up with the sun and the oceans drive the climate, not us. Now I am thoroughly sickened at the time people waste on this matter which is a non-matter!
Where in the study does it say that ocean cycles “May Be Behind Most Observed Climate Change”? I only see it stated that ocean cycles may have played “a role” in climate change or ” largely responsible for observed decadal climate variability”. Similar concepts but definitely not the same thing.
sixto
thx for ur comment
trying to warm my pool, I find you cannot heat water more than 32 [at the 1000 m altitude here]
so there is a point when the evaporating increases and draws so much energy that it does not matter if you put more heat into the pool.
your suggestion leaves me to think that most clouds are formed at night, i.e. when it cools, when the sun does not shine. Hence you sometimes see vapor coming off my pool when the air is cooling. Yet, the defining rate of evaporation in the oceans would still be the heat content of the first 50 or 100 cm, or even 200cm, not so/?
which radiation provides most of that heat of the first meter?
Henry, here on warm clear days, we get cumulus clouds forming in the day, and disappear in the evening.
It depends on humidity levels. Humid air rises into altitudes that are cooler due to the lapse rate change. That moisture has to find particulate at dew point or lower. That varies with relative humidity.
A variety of factors affect the evaporation rate, to include temperature, pressure, humidity and wind.
This was on Drudge: http://www.torontosun.com/2017/09/13/canada-now-investigates-climate-denial
Dave, the upside is that this appeared in the toronto sun. Nice little opinion piece (if they can dish it out, they had damn well better take it)…
BTW, aren’t you “on” the UP rather than “in”? (☺)
One researcher made the observation that the original radametric calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 are too great by a factor of more than 20 because the calculations do not take into consideration that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of 1.2 degrees C we are looking at a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than .06 degrees C which is a rather trivial amount. Then there is the question of H2O feedback which the AGW conjecture assumes a positive feedback causing a gain on the order of 3. But the AGW conjecture ignore’s the fact that besides being the primary greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in our atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate. A more realistic gain factor caused by H2O would be 1/3 which would yield a climate sensivity of CO2 of .02 degrees C which is even more trivial. This all assumes that there is a radiant greenhouse effect however; a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere in the solar system. Hence the radiant greenhouse effect is really science fiction so a better value of the climate sensivity of CO2 would be 0,0 degrees C. So what ever is causing climate change, it cannot be CO2.
And the lapse rate has actually declined. The troposphere is warming at a rate which is 50% less than the surface (to the extent the surface numbers can be believed). The wet lapse rate has declined from 6.5C/km to 6.4C/km.
I see rh dropping in the data.
The atm can’t hold the amount of water vapor it’s carrying and it’s getting bled off.
If the Sun isn’t keeping up with its warming, you might see something like this as it tries to restore equilibrium.
Which of course is totally contrary to the AGW hypothesis, in which the atmosphere must warm more and more rapidly than the surface.
Hence, by cooking the books, NOAA, GISS and HadCRU show their falsified hypothesis even more wrong.
There is perfect correlation between the 5 x 30-yr PDO warm/cool cycles and global temp trends during the 30-yr cycles since 1850.
The current PDO cool cycle (stated in 2008) has so far not shown a global cooling trend due to the El Niño spikes of 2009/10 and the Super El Niño of 2015/16.
Once the 30-yr AMO cool cycle starts in earnest around 2019, the coming La Niña cycle ends in about 12 months, and solar cycles continue to collapse, I’m confident the current PDO/AMO cool cycles will lead to at least 30-years of cooling as they always have since 1850:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1850/to:1880/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1880/to:1921/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1921/to:1943/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1943/to:1977/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1977/to:2005/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2005/trend
LMAO @ur momisugly SAMURAI …… ” perfect correlation”
…
There is no such thing.
So kind of the troll to finally show on this thread. (it was beginning to get dull around here)…
So you admit there is ‘no such thing’ in claims about CO2?
Mark-San:
5 out of 5 times, the PDO warm/cool cycles followed global temperature warm/cool trends over the duration of the PDO cycles as is clearly seen in the posted graph.
The current PDO cycle will soon make it 6 out of 6…
Cheers.
At about 10:30 in the video https://youtu.be/LOGt3OzTXBs , Professor Judith Curry said it all. (This was when she was still at Georgia Institute of Technology) —
No one is denying that El Nino plays a role in climate change but the headline here is trying to make out that they are the main factor not AGW which is a pile of BS.
There are going to be some very big ‘abnormal events taking place and modeling is helping to show what we can be expecting in the future:
https://phys.org/news/2017-09-climate-classification-account-potential-existential.html
Ivan,
Got that backwards. AGW as the main climate driver is BS. That evidence-free assertion has been repeatedly shown false.
Sorry you got that backwards. AGW is true and climate scepticism to be false based on rather obscure science e.g. solar radiation, earth growing cooler etc
This scientist makes so.e interesting observations. Instead of wasting time debating whether AGW exists, US politicians should be focusing on how to mitigate it as ROW is doing. Trump is no dummy – US will probably not exit IPCC agreement in the long run.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/17/us/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-climate-change-cnntv/index.html
From YOUR link,Ivan is this awful torrent of words:
“A new study evaluating models of future climate scenarios has led to the creation of the new risk categories “catastrophic” and “unknown” to characterize the range of threats posed by rapid global warming. Researchers propose that unknown risks imply existential threats to the survival of humanity.
These categories describe two low-probability but statistically significant scenarios that could play out by century’s end, in a new study by Veerabhadran Ramanathan, a distinguished professor of climate and atmospheric sciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego, and his former Scripps graduate student Yangyang Xu, now an assistant professor at Texas A&M University.
The risk assessment stems from the objective stated in the 2015 Paris Agreement regarding climate change that society keep average global temperatures “well below” a 2°C (3.6°F) increase from what they were before the Industrial Revolution.
Even if that objective is met, a global temperature increase of 1.5°C (2.7°F) is still categorized as “dangerous,” meaning it could create substantial damage to human and natural systems. A temperature increase greater than 3°C (5.4°F) could lead to what the researchers term “catastrophic” effects, and an increase greater than 5°C (9°F) could lead to “unknown” consequences which they describe as beyond catastrophic including potentially existential threats. The specter of existential threats is raised to reflect the grave risks to human health and species extinction from warming beyond 5° C, which has not been experienced for at least the past 20 million years.”
It is all SPECULATION!!!
Ok. I thought the word ‘modelling” would wind you all up. But how else are you supposed to predict the future without theoretic modelling. Everyone does forecasting – the big corporates especially – to plan for the future. Predicting AGW rates/scenarios/impacts is no different.
ivankinsman,
How else to predict future climate? Study the past. There you will find no evidence of tipping points from a warm regime (interglacial) to a substantially warmer one. But you can make your PlayStation models tell you whatever you wish to hear.
@ur momisugly ivankinsman September 16, 2017 at 11:17 am
Everyone does forecasting – the big corporates especially – to plan for the future. Predicting AGW rates/scenarios/impacts is no different.
And what “big corporates” would maintain it’s self in business if it followed forecasts that were shown to be so poor at prediction? Climate models are just glorified encoded guesswork with a little verification, or validation, and a very, very poor track record their ability to predict much.
P.S. I’ve just watched a video of the CFS’s 6 monthly weather forecast and as the commentary says something like — “the first 2 months have some merit, the rest is just for fun.” which is so true. https://youtu.be/PNC9bi18gX4
I doubt the climate model could do better.
Ivan,
Predicting AGW rates could not possibly be more different from economic and business forecasting.
AGW is not even measurable, and predicting its nonexistent effects has always been shown laughably wrong. How did the forecasts of global cooling from the 1970s work out?
‘they’ being the oceans.
“In the past, this decadal variability was ‘modeled’ as a tug-of-war between aerosols and carbon dioxide effects. The argument was that in times when aerosols were ‘winning’ …”.
============================
Carbon dioxide is ‘well mixed’ in the atmosphere whereas industrial aerosols are mostly confined to the NH.
As has been pointed out many times, unlike the NH, the SH temperature hiatus 1940 – 1980 cannot be attributed to industrial aerosols:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1900/mean:12/offset:0.05/plot/hadcrut4sh/from:1940/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4nh/from:1900/mean:12
I don’t know what the current explanation for the opening gap between NH and SH from ~2000, it will probably be ‘adjusted’ away in due course.
Interesting Paper…
But really is it a surprise? Recall this is a planet about 71% of which is covered in oceans the average (I know, I know….averages tell you nothing) depth of which is 12,000ft ie 2 miles give or take.
Couple the above with variations (no matter that they are small, the impact of very small changes can be very significant over long cycles) in insolation and other really long term variables eg Milankovitch cycles, and you have a recipe for layer upon layer upon layer of cycles.
Sometimes the cycles harmonise for anomalous peaks or troughs, sometimes they cancel out. When there is absolute proof that 400ppm of CO2 can do anything (let alone anything significant) to climate, call me….
Until then the CAGW due to CO2 is simply a HUGE scam, perpetrated as a scare story (like the CFC scam attempt of 30 years ago) to keep the sheeple herded. I’m no conspiracy theorist, but one really does have to wonder whether there is anything in the tinfoil hat brigade’s arguments about the motives behind Agenda 21 etc.
This CO2 scam is going to run out of steam one way or another. Mother Nature will see to it. The only good thing that will have emerged from it is that perhaps serious Papers like this one will have advanced our very limited knowledge of a very complex “system” – shame it couldn’t all have been done in a dispassionate, thoroughly, rigorously, scientific way.
NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
A recent paper emphasizes the importance of the Millennial Cycle and supports my earlier forecasts of a coming long term cooling .
Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1, *, Carl-Otto Weiss2
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
ISSN: 1874-2823 ― Volume 11, 2017
Year: 2017
Volume: 11
First Page: 44
Last Page: 53
Publisher Id: TOASCJ-11-44
DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
“Abstract
The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 – year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 – year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.”
The paper also states “……G7, and likewise the sine representations have maxima of comparable size at AD 0, 1000, and 2000. We note that the temperature increase of the late 19th and 20th century is represented by the harmonic temperature representation, and thus is of pure multiperiodic nature. It can be expected that the periodicity of G7, lasting 2000 years so far, will persist also for the foreseeable future. It predicts a temperature drop from present to AD 2050, a slight rise from 2050 to 2130, and a further drop from AD 2130 to 2200 (see Fig. 3), upper panel, green and red curves.”
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract:
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
The forecasts in Fig 12 of my paper are similar to those in Ludecke et al.
It is well past time for a paradigm shift in the forecasting methods used by establishment climate science. The whole dangerous global warming delusion is approaching collapse
Norman Page
interesting comment you made about your new paper due..
yet it does not seem a reply to some of us here who know there are other solar cycles as well
most notably
Schwabe 10.7 years
Hale 22 years (= 1 full solar cycle)
Gleissberg (currently at 87-88 years as I can confirm from my own results, although long term it could be ca. 100 years as it seems to skip a min. or max. every now and then, hence we had medeviel warm period and a LIA
DeVries ca. 210 years, you claim it is now 190, based on what specific analysis?
Eddy ca. 1000 years – everyone seems to agree on that!
Suess (questionable as it could be related to DO events)
De Bray ca. 2450 years , which you do not mention at all, presumably because you only looked from 0-2000 AD?
I would appreciate your comment on my summary here.
The trends of the natural cycles and usable forecasts of the timing and amplitude of the cooling which has been underway since 2004 can be captured rather simply by convolving the millennial and 60 year cycles.
See Figs 2 – 12 at
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
The key thing to note is the peak in the millennial UAH 6 temperature cycle at about 2003 in Fig 4 which correlates with the millennial peak in the solar activity natural cycle at 1991 +/- ( delay is due to the thermal inertia of the oceans) Fig 10 .The is a variable delay between the solar activity peak and the peak in other variables.
I suggest the delay between peak solar activity and minimum sea ice volume = 21 years
Good examples of the inflection point can be seen in Figs 11 and 12.
Don’t be distracted by the recent El Nino .
The UAH cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.
Dr Page, if I might differ with the use of thermal inertia describing these longer cycles of ocean warming. The thermal conductivity of water is fairly fast, weeks or a month or two, at least since it’s not isothermal.
The bigger delays you’re discussing are cycle delays, the time it takes for the warm pools to cycle into some current and start to run their course through the climate system as it tries to cool.
How do human bodies cool themselves, when they are really hot?
Sweat. Little drops of water.
Temperature regulation by water. Imagine that.
As living beings that regulate body temperature via water, we also regulate breathing via CO2, to say nothing of the fact that our very existence is carbon based.
Is the CO2 narrative dead yet ?
It’s disappointing that Tsonis relies upon GISS global anomalies to characterize periods of positively and negatively trending temperatures, which are then tied to various oceanic cycles largely visually instead of analytically, using proven system analysis methods.