
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study by Ben Santer which claims that climate change is strengthening the heartbeat of the world’s climate, making winters colder and summers warmer.
Climate change strengthens Earth’s ‘heartbeat’ – and that’s bad news
By Chelsea Gohd, Space.com Staff Writer
…
Climate change is much more than rising temperatures and melting ice. In a new study, scientists from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and five other organizations show that human action significantly affects the seasonal temperature cycle in the troposphere, or lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere — the layer that we live in where weather occurs.
…
In this new study, scientists examined seasonal temperature cycles in the troposphere and observed the profound impact humans are having on the atmosphere and our seasons. Most notably, the researchers found that because of carbon dioxide emissions, Earth’s seasonal “heartbeat,” or the contrast between hot summers and cold winters, is becoming stronger.
…
“Our results suggest that attribution studies with the changing seasonal cycle provide powerful and novel evidence for a significant human effect on Earth’s climate,” Benjamin Santer, LLNL climate scientist and lead author on the new work, said in a statement.
…
The abstract of the study;
Human influence on the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature
Benjamin D. Santer, Stephen Po-Chedley, Mark D. Zelinka, Ivana Cvijanovic, Céline Bonfils, Paul J. Durack, Qiang Fu2, Jeffrey Kiehl, Carl Mears, Jeffrey Painter, Giuliana Pallotta, Susan Solomon, Frank J. Wentz, Cheng-Zhi Zou
We provide scientific evidence that a human-caused signal in the seasonal cycle of tropospheric temperature has emerged from the background noise of natural variability. Satellite data and the anthropogenic “fingerprint” predicted by climate models show common large-scale changes in geographical patterns of seasonal cycle amplitude. These common features include increases in amplitude at mid-latitudes in both hemispheres, amplitude decreases at high latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere, and small changes in the tropics. Simple physical mechanisms explain these features. The model fingerprint of seasonal cycle changes is identifiable with high statistical confidence in five out of six satellite temperature datasets. Our results suggest that attribution studies with the changing seasonal cycle provide powerful evidence for a significant human effect on Earth’s climate.
Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6399/eaas8806
Ben Santer is one of the more colourful climategate characters. He rose to fame after his email threat to beat the cr*p out of Pat Michaels was uncovered in the Climategate archive.
But there are plenty of other entertaining Santer emails. My personal favourite Santer climategate email is 1231257056.txt, in which he expresses outrage at having to release data and method to “scientific competitors”.
…
1. In my considered opinion, a very dangerous precedent is set if any derived quantity that we have calculated from primary data is subject to FOIA requests. At LLNL’s Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI), we have devoted years of effort to the calculation of derived quantities from climate model output. These derived quantities include synthetic MSU temperatures, ocean heat content changes, and so-called “cloud simulator” products suitable for comparison with actual satellite-based estimates of cloud type, altitude, and frequency. The intellectual investment in such calculations is substantial.
2. Mr. Smith asserts that “there is no valid intellectual property justification for withholding this data”. I believe this argument is incorrect. The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper – and the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above – are integral components of both PCMDI’s ongoing research, and of proposals we have submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). Can any competitor simply request such datasets via the U.S. FOIA, before we have completed full scientific analysis of these datasets?
…
Source: Wikileaks
The latest Santer effort is interesting in the context of other climate predictions. Remember back when climate alarmists were predicting warmer winters and shorter snow seasons? The most impressive effort of the “warmer winter” cycle of predictions, in my opinion, is Dr. Trenberth’s prediction of warmer, shorter winters AND more snow in midwinter.
Does global warming mean more or less snow?
Kevin Trenberth
January 30, 2015 9.43pm AEDT…
Going forward, in mid winter, climate change means that snowfalls will increase because the atmosphere can hold 4% more moisture for every 1°F increase in temperature. So as long as it does not warm above freezing, the result is a greater dump of snow.
In contrast, at the beginning and end of winter, it warms enough that it is more likely to rain, so the total winter snowfall does not increase. Observations of snow cover for the northern hemisphere indeed show slight increases in mid-winter (December-February) but huge losses in the spring (see snow cover figure above.) This is all part of a trend to much heavier precipitation in the United States (see figure below), especially in the northeast.
…
Read more: https://theconversation.com/does-global-warming-mean-more-or-less-snow-36936
Former NASA GISS director James Hansen went the other way with his scientific crystal ball, he produced a 2016 prediction of an imminent sharp drop in both Summer and Winter temperatures, followed by runaway warming.
… Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases. Global energy imbalance (Fig. 15b) is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate. Our calculated present energy imbalance of ∼ 0.8 W m−2 (Fig. 15b) is larger than the observed 0.58 ± 0.15 W m−2 during 2005–2010 (Hansen et al., 2011). The discrepancy is likely accounted for by excessive ocean heat uptake at low latitudes in our model, a problem related to the model’s slow surface response time (Fig. 4) that may be caused by excessive small-scale ocean mixing.
Large scale regional cooling occurs in the North Atlantic and Southern oceans by mid-century (Fig. 16) for 10-year doubling of freshwater injection. A 20-year doubling places similar cooling near the end of this century, 40 years ear- lier than in our prior simulations (Fig. 7), as the factor of 4 increase in current freshwater from Antarctica is a 40-year advance.
Cumulative North Atlantic freshwater forcing in sverdrup years (Sv years) is 0.2 Sv years in 2014, 2.4 Sv years in 2050, and 3.4Sv years (its maximum) prior to 2060 (Fig. S14). The critical issue is whether human-spurred ice sheet mass loss can be approximated as an exponential process during the next few decades. Such nonlinear behavior depends upon amplifying feedbacks, which, indeed, our climate simulations reveal in the Southern Ocean. …
Read more: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf
Lucky climate science is settled, otherwise all these apparently conflicting climate predictions might cause real confusion.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Everybody help me remember, please.
There was a huge issue with one of the IPCC reports, SAR (second, 1995) if I recall.
The intro to the “Scientific Basis” Chapter 8, contained
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
and
“When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. “‘
The text was duly peer-reviewed and agreed upon. Then at the last minute Santer deleted the above lines and inserted the text below:
“The body of statistical evidence in chapter 8, when examined in the context of our physical understanding of the climate system, now points to a discernible human influence on the global climate.”
This, of course, changed everything and turned things right on their head.
So it seems Santer has been banging on about the “human fingerprint” for quite some time.
I dont understand why every climate scientist on that report didnt resign en mass.
The proper thing to do would have been to fire Santer, and remove his wording. Giving up and walking away isn’t the answer.
Many did. Something like 400 IIRC. It was at that point that the composition of the IPCC changed from mostly top scientists to mostly those who needed the publicity and footnotes in their CV’s.
The incompetence of the IPCC leadership and the bias exerted by the lead authors undermined the authority of their products that many ‘serious scientists’ no longer wanted to be associated with them.
These ad hoc ‘revisions’ also plague the ISO standard writing process. One can find text, objectionable to the experts and repeatedly refused, included in a final product “because it is needed”, according to the Convenors, meaning, they have a plan up their sleeve that is not viable without the expert-rejected text. Sound familiar?
“So it seems Santer has been banging on about the “human fingerprint” for quite some time.”
More properly described as “lying”.
Thanks for describing how Santer lied about Climate Change in AR4 and it’s connection to human CO2. He completely changed the meaning of AR4.
Why would anyone listen to Santer now?
The promoters of CAGW consist of many liars.
In other news… thermometers getting more precise.
Gawd, Susan Solomon’s on this crap. How come Peter Gleick didn’t get a cameo role?
The human-caused signal just appeared in 2018 then? So what was all that blather about pre-2018 again ??
Yet another WTFIUWWUWT violent distortion of a serious, high quality, peer-reviewed, thorough, scientific paper. This blog has devolved from its ignominious start to the level of the Infowars blog. No sense of shame by Anthony Watts the editor. This blog has become merely tabloid trash. I give up.
i think you belong at ‘skepticalscience’
Don’t go away mad. Just go away,…
Don’t let the door hit you as you leave.
“serious, high quality, peer reviewed, thorough, scientific paper”
From the article:
[ The synthetic MSU temperatures used in our IJoC paper – and the other examples of derived datasets mentioned above – are integral components of both PCMDI’s ongoing research, and of proposals we have submitted to funding agencies (DOE, NOAA, and NASA). ]
‘Synthetic’ temperatures and ‘derived’ datasets are integral components of serious, high quality research?
Concern troll is concerned.
There is no doubt in my mind that winters were colder and summers hotter ( and drier ) in the 1970’s than they are now. But when you tie that to CO2 increases, as opposed to natural patterns of temperature change, that’s something else entirely. Springs on our 100 acres, fed by rainfall and marshes, are a good indicator of average rainfall, and they were always near dry by the end of summer. But not in the last 30 years or so. Not until now.
oh dear = another vanity beard setup.
All he’s missing is his dunce cap and Harry Potter wand.
Climate predictions reminds me of predictions of bitcoin price. When it is rising there is joy joy joy and when it is falling there is doom doom doom but it always seems to oscillate around a not very changing yet slowly rising central point.
More basis to reject the AGW nonsense. His reasoning is completely flawed.
The evidence doesn’t support Santer’s claim. If you go to my analysis of the BEST temperature data [ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/08/11/an-analysis-of-best-data-for-the-question-is-earth-warming-or-cooling/ ] one can see in Fig. 1 that the difference between the average high and low temperatures was decreasing until about 1985, and only then started to increase some. However, it still is nowhere near as high as it was in the late-1800s.
This argues against the extremes of seasons becoming greater.
Well, it does seem to show that the extreme ends are getting farther apart, but not by much and not as much as they used to be. You said it yourself.
Jeff
Agreed.
Also, I note the graph begins in the 1870s.
Whilst I am sure the meteorologists of those days tried very hard to get accurate readings, I suspect – without a n y research – that there were fewer sites observing in the last quarter of the Nineteenth Century than there were in – say – 1970.
By eye – there was more (shorter term) variability then, which might be related. Or not.
Auto
Auto,
Admittedly, BEST shows larger error bars for the early data. But, they considered it fit to publish. It is, after all, all that we have.
Jeff,
The takeaway here is that what Santer is claiming only seems to be happening since about 1985, yet the claim is that AGW has been happening since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That is, the recent change is not typical of the warming episode, and does not fit the hypothesis of what is causing warming. Santer is not supported by the historical data, and there is no explanation forthcoming from alarmists.
About all they’ve left out is ‘Wetter’ and Snowier.
My bold.
All just words trying to sound sciency. Like advertising of the early 90’s used the sell-all word “total” and until recently used “clinically proven”, today “technology” is the advertising buzzword and implies any argument against their position is futile because “..even our janitors wear white coats”.
Likewise, “evidence” isn’t proof, and certainly not if predicted by a model that outputs whatever’s input. It’s just a mirror. Even less so again by using the weasel-word “suggest”.
This “study” is yet another fund-grab to produce little if anything but destructive propaganda and there’s a high statistical confidence that they’ll be allowed to continue doing this.
“today “technology” is the advertising buzzword”
Yeah. My mouthwash has “technology”, not a formula.
Color me skeptical on this latest hypothesis.
Here is a summary of the bizarre “science” of the CO2 priesthood:
CO2 is the “Miracle Molecule”.
Increasing atmospheric CO2 causes:
– warming where it is warming
– and cooling where it is cooling
– and no change where there is no change in temperature
– and wilder weather when that happens
– and less extreme weather when that happens
– and no change where there is no change in weather extremes
– and human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria…
My formal review of this paper follows:
“Mr. Madison, what you just said is the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone is this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
🙂
Sounds like Santer has shadowboxed himself senseless. i.e. Even more senseless than his early climategate days.
That mighty magical CO₂ molecule causes hotter weather, colder weather and a lot of tepid or mild weather in between…
Did Santer fail to cover some of his climate bets somewhere?
Perhaps next week it’ll be drier weather with more rain and snow while the thunderclouds play hide and seek looking for the missing tropical hotspot?
What is more likely, is that Santer is doing CYA for the upcoming winters if the AMO stays negative.
:large
I guess they’ve given up on the tropical tropospheric hotspot as the finger-print of CO2 AGW. Apparently now a “heartbeat” of colder and hotter due to TheMagicMolecule. Can’t be wrong about that since climate is always naturally changing.
Ben Santer could not be more wrong. He has it exactly backward. Greenhouse gases deposit more heat to cold regions than they do to warm regions. This is true if the difference in temperatures is due to time (night vs day, or summer vs winter) or due to geography (tropic vs mid-latitudes vs sub-polar regions). The Modtran computer code affords an easy verification. The same addition of GHGs applied to sub-arctic summer compared to sub-arctic winter shows greater temperature increase in the winter.
One can also check out Joe Bastardi’s writings on this matter. He notes that it is harder to add heat to a warm substance than to a cool substance.
For GHG absorption it may be considered that such an energy boost to single molecule is transfered to the surrounding molecules by heat transfer: molecular collision (normal conduction) or by re-radiation. In the conduction case the amount of heat transferred is proportional to temperature difference and in the re-radiation case to the 4th power of temperature difference. Cool substances have greater temperature differences than the warm ones.
That is why after so many years these “climate scientists” have managed to say everything and its contrary as a proof of CAGW.
Why do I get the feeling that in Climate Science the lyrics to Oh Susannah would pass peer review?
It rained all night the day I left
The weather it was dry
The sun so hot I froze to death
…
“The model fingerprint of seasonal cycle changes is identifiable with high statistical confidence in five out of six satellite temperature datasets.”
Would the one exception be the satellite temperature dataset from UAH which is the only one that both sides trust?
https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/trends-in-the-seasonal-temperature-cycle-bear-human-fingerprint/
“There is an interesting exception that doesn’t show this pattern: the University of Alabama at Huntsville dataset, which is run by Roy Spencer and John Christy (two of the small handful of vocal contrarian scientists who reject or downplay human-caused climate change). That dataset looks totally different in the Antarctic. ”
********************************************************************************
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha I was right. I did some further digging . Check the website above where the comment came from. THIS MEANS THAT THE WHOLE STUDY IS BOGUS. It is behind a paywall and looks like it will stay behind a paywall. Doesnt matter. It is bogus because the other 5 temperature data sets are bogus. The only temperature dataset that both sides trust is UAH and that is where the global warming battle will be fought from now on.
Santer et al…. will never quit trying until their funding gets cut off. Don’t they realize that they can’t keep this hoax going on much longer? The climate will rear its ugly cold head and it will be soon (all indications 3 years max) be all over. However another big downside(other than increased inflation because of carbon taxes) to this is; we have to keep fending off these bogus studies and claims for another 3 years. How tedious; but sometimes its fun to laugh at the claims.
“In this new study, scientists examined seasonal temperature cycles in the troposphere and observed the profound impact humans are having on the atmosphere and our seasons.”
Even if they observed actual changes in the seasonal temperature cycles, how do they conclude that the impact is “profound,” let alone that humans are the cause? Have they observed the changes long enough to rule out the possibility of a natural multiyear cycle? Or are they just letting their biases draw their conclusions for them?
We’re definitely the cause of seasonal temperature cycles, because we continue to let the seasons change right before our eyes without doing anything about it.
I can’t wait for the summer Climate Change™©® again, but the downsides are that my lawn grows faster and I can’t mow it naked.
In the period of the sun’s minimum there will be extreme temperatures in summer and winter. This is due to the decline in the temperature of the oceans’ surface and the weakening of winds. This will reduce the amount of water vapor in the air that relieves temperature fluctuations. A dry winter in medium latitudes is a cold winter.


That’s how it is now in Australia, where in the winter the minimum temperature has dropped this year.
Atlantic can not create a hurricane.

So the forecast of 5 to 9 (two already formed and disintegrated, not counting that one that went north to my kingdom) is not going to happen this year?
I wonder how that will affect winter snows/storms, and next year’s crop season. Hmmm….
You can see, after the amount of ice in the Beaufort Sea, that winter will attack early in North America.
http://masie_web.apps.nsidc.org/pub/DATASETS/NOAA/G02186/plots/4km/r01_Beaufort_Sea_ts_4km.png
never say never.
Hurricanes are complex and have multiple factors in their genesis.
I certainly hope there are no strong storms this year, but we are at the very early start of the serious part of the season.
The hurricane did not develop because of the solar minimum and a weak jet stream in the North Atlantic.
Was it Ben Santer who rewrote the conclusions of an early IPCC report that turned around the conclusions of the report?
Yes, Santer changed the wording from “no evidence of humans causing climate change” to “yes, there is evidence humans are causing climate change”. Quite a change, wouldn’t you say?
You can’t trust anything Santer says about CAGW. He’s a proven liar.
So is he responsible for the whole climate change fiasco? Especially as the government officials who have run with the carbon dioxide reduction policy seem to just read the ‘summary for policymakers’.
He added the attribution statement to the Second AR in 1995 SPM after the other authors had already left town (Madrid). Quite unethical.
Santer is a proven, unethical computer hacker. Nothing more.
He lives on rent-seeking climate modelism at DOE LLNL. For his paycheck, he looks for “finger-prints” of CO2 climate change, always finding something new to grasp on to. His CC “fingerprints,” that with the passage of time and deep scrutiny, evaporate like the morning dew in under the sun. He moves ever on to find more ethereal fingerprints.
AGW…. The “Hotter, colder wetter, drier, lower, higher, Hypothesis of everything. Also cures baldness and hemorrhoids….. Roll up! Roll up! Get your bottle of Snake Oil fresh…. or slightly old.
Clearly it doesn’t cure baldness. Mann, Schmidt, and Hansen are cases in point.
Jeff,
Perhaps, if virtual baldness is considered, and the use of unicorn droppings, plastered to the mentioned skulls for a month or so – with a result, in their dreams, of heads of hair like the Beatles . . . .
Then, possibly, it might cure baldness. In some dreams . . . .
But haemorrhoids – way above my pay-scale . . .
Auto
So more ex-post facto arm waving to distract people from their failed past predictions.
That’s the magic of predicting absolutely everything that might happen: you get to be right all of the time. And the MSM never cares one jot that the latest story contradicts the previous story.
Heartbeat is “too strong”, Mother Gaia needs to take her BP meds? And the prescription is…
Stop burning fossil fuels, we need more socialism!