
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.
“Trends in the amplitude of the annual cycle of tropospheric temperature.
Trends are calculated over 1979 to 2016”
Much greater variability of Spring and Autumn maximum temperatures during the warm AMO phase.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/summaries/actualmonthly
Has anybody here an idea what LLNL is about? Ever had a retina scanned there? Well, secrecy is the motto. Just nearby Sandia Labs, even more secret. Why – nuclear fusion, high temps., minimum 100 million K. All that code developed for plasma, mhd, cfd put to climate use on their grid. The reaction is no wonder.
I really am seriously worried that code does not work for fusion either. Now that would be a national embarrasment. Without bomb testing NIF (laser national ignition facility) is critical to test the code. Maybe they are fed up with simulation garbage? Maybe mhd plasma self-organization has them blindsided – now cimate also? The baggage that creeps in with the maths – remember Einstein’s rejoinder :
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.
LLNL NIF has no visitor area anymore. Fusion is being badly downgraded – even Trump is doing nothing about it. There’s the famous story of visiting Soviet physicists telling US counterparts their fusion program was based on Riemann was classified afterwards and no US physicist alowed to discuss it! Secrecy on steroids.
Exactly Bertrand Russell’s objective – secrecy to destroy scientific progress.
Laser-induced fusion is a dead end for net power production.
The only thing that the NIF can do now is test some aspects of fission/fusion under aging bomb material conditions to verify the US nuke stockpile will do what it was originally designed and manufactured to do. This is part of the National Nuclear Security Administration’s StockPile Stewardship Program.
https://lasers.llnl.gov/news/experimental-highlights#energy_record
Nukes of course have high security requirements. There is also likely a TS effort underway to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. Think: smaller, less fission mass, more fusion bang for the buck. Making, purifying new plutonium has become a proliferation taboo, so we’ll probably have to do with what we have for a long time.
The only hope (for now) on fusion is the magnetic confinement approach being developed at ITER’s Cadarache, France facility.
“The ITER facility is expected to finish its construction phase in 2025 and will start commissioning the reactor that same year. Initial plasma experiments are scheduled to begin in 2025, with full deuterium–tritium fusion experiments starting in 2035.”
(from Wikipedia)
joelo
Thanks.
I won’t hold my breath for the full experiments.
Auto
“Remember back when climate alarmists were predicting warmer winters and shorter snow seasons?”
Ummm…. yes, and it went exactly the opposite way in my kingdom. I keep taking photos of those early and late snowfalls, noting the dates, the temps, the humidity levels – everything you’re supposed to to do keep some kind of records, and they all stomp his claims flat.
Mr. Santers and his ilk will never listen to facts. They are addicted to those charts they cook up out of whole cloth, because those ‘prove’ that they are right, even when they are wrong. And they act like this planet is an object the size of a pea, but that refers to their (blatant insults here). Compared to Jupiter, yes, Earth is quite small. Their concept of how such a dynamic system works is badly flawed by a complete lack of respect for it.
Climate “studies” like this one strengthen the climate science heartbeat – which is the difference between what climate “scientists” “find”, and reality.
Hansen: “Global temperature becomes an unreliable diagnostic of planetary condition as the ice melt rate increases”
If he thinks global temperature was ever a reliable diagnostic of anything, then he was never a scientist.
There is nothing like climate science to predict the taste of a pudding. Here we go pudding-heads:
UK suffers a wind drought!
https://www.iea-coal.org/weird-wind-drought-means-britains-turbines-are-at-a-standstill-2/
In the heat of summer, one of the hottest in living (if not historical) memory the wind did what, exactly, when the temperature rose? It stopped of course!
So is this a detectable fingerprint of human-induced changes in the weather system outside natural variation?
Wasn’t it this same Mr S who says storms and winds will increase when the temperature increases “because climate change”? Yeah…I thought so.
This windless summer heat is consistent with Hansen’s prediction of sudden cooling, and Trenberth’s warming, and Santer’s storminess and Mann’s hockey stick, and Gavin’s garter adjustments made when his (temperature) slip started showing.
How can we be sure that the person in the photo above is not Borat in a blue tie disguise, about to reveal that this whole CC thing is just another elaborate, sick joke made in bad taste?
Not only will Summers be hotter and Winters colder, but Spring and Autumn will be normal-er than ever before!
Way to move the goal posts yet again
Goodness, the goalposts have been galloping all over the landscape for a decade or two!
Auto.
The summers must be getting warmer somewhere else because here in central Indiana the Temps have been mild so far this year.
It’s been nice and cool here in Oklahoma this summer, too.
This time in the summer of 1936 in Oklahoma we had had about 30 days of above 100F temperatues, and would get another 35 days over 100F before the summer was over (65 days total, with about 30 days of that in a row over 100F).
We have had two days over 100F this year and it’s 88F outside right now and we just had rain (we hardly every have rain in July in Oklahoma).
Quite a contrast, wouldn’t you say?
Which year was more extreme 1936 or 2018? It’s not even close. And we should keep in mind that 1936 wasn’t the only hot year in that decade, all the years in the 1930’s were very hot. We haven’t had a hot decade like that since. The decades of the Twenty-First Century don’t even come close.
Probably we should expect some local/regional variation in warming rates, though. Looking at the broader picture should show a warming trend if the theory is right. According to UAH satellite, air over land regions of the northern hemisphere warmed at a rate of +0.15C per decade during summer (June, July August) between 1979 and 2017. That’s a total warming of about 0.6C for NH summers since 1979. So if it hasn’t warmed particularly in summer where you are, it must have warmed more elsewhere: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
“Global energy imbalance is a more meaningful measure of planetary status as well as an estimate of the climate forcing change required to stabilize climate.”
Yes, for when actual temperatures aren’t cooperating. Makes it easier to claim the following:
“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.
”
How convenient. The “heat is hiding in the oceans.”
These people have no shame.
Santer is defining “signals” again. And, of course, this paper is pay-walled. This drives me nuts.
I’ll have to fall back on the old arguments, again. It’s still a logical fallacy to define a correlation as causal, What is this new “novel” signal detection mechanism? What patterns in normal variability are proven to happen ONLY when humans add CO2? How exactly, does Santer subtly tease out the human attribution signal, which I hear can be very hard to detect and prove?
I wanted to read about how all his new, NOVEL ideas have been published and discussed and have held up under many attempts to falsify them. But of course, I can’t, because it hasn’t, and although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, this appears to be another case of a logical fallacy (post hoc ergo prompter hoc) married to a bald assertion (Eureka, I found it) married to a tendentious CO2-presuming climate model by one of the high priests of CAGW.
If someone with access could please post a link to the full paper, that would be great. I assume taxpayers funded this, and so we’re entitled to read the thing for free, or under fair-use terms as a news or educational item.
If I ever met a Ben Santer paper in a dark alley, I’d like to smash it’s premise right in the kisser (that last part is a joke, ah say a joke, son – Foghorn Leghorn).
When Santer refers to “synthetic” temperatures, does “synthetic” have the same meaning as imaginary, false, fictional, mendacious? Is he saying the outputs from his precious climate models are as good a representation of real world climatology as cheese wiz is a representation of French Brie?
Poor Ben Santer…
Or how to turn paleoclimatology on its head to justify his own modeling existence and ideology.
It is been shown that a rapid mode of circulation coincides with cooling periods and indeed brings more contrasted weather.
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf
Was it possible they heard not? Almighty God! –no, no! They heard! –they suspected! –they knew! –they were making a mockery of my horror!-this I thought, and this I think. But anything was better than this agony! Anything was more tolerable than this derision! I could bear those hypocritical smiles no longer! I felt that I must scream or die! and now –again! –hark! louder! louder! louder! louder!
“Villains!” I shrieked, “dissemble no more! I admit the deed! –see the clouds go diddley-doo! The vortex goes doodely-dum! The oceans eddy and gyre! and here– here! It is the beating of the hideous seasonal climate heart!”
“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him. Very tempted.”
–Ben Santer 2009
EXPERT ANALYSIS: This is some serious BS !
To prove it, allow me to show you my “synthetic data”, immune to FOIA (since it is “synthetic”, which means “created” with artistic talents that I do not wish my competitors to infringe upon).
Is there anything that ‘climate change’ can’t do?
Climate Narcissist is a real thing now. The debate has ended.
“Synthetic MSU temperatures”
The word “synthetic” sums up climate science.
The argument that mid-winter snowfall ( does that mean Dec.21st?) will be heavier because warmer air holds more moisture is just plain stupid. Warmer air is also that much further from it’s condensation and freezing points. By this logic, mid July should see the highest snowfall of the entire year!
How stupid are we supposed to be, to accept this crap at face value?
Very good and knowledgeable article, thanks for it,
Too bad no one beat the cr@p out of Ben Santer. He’s full of it.
I remember when Edmund Muskie was running for president and was asked: “Senator, you have been accused of being wishy washy. Is that true”?
“Well…yes and no”.
Was hoping Mosher or Stokes were here to help clear things up, as they usually do.
Even Stokes and Moshe arent going to come here to shill for this BS. Planetary temperatures are not a suitable metric indeed. Its colder in some wintry places and hotter in other summery places – definitely a powerful signal of misanthropic global warming. If we dont clean up our act fast, wintery pla es will get even colder and summery places even hotter.
Clearly something like this explains a looming crisis of global warming with rapidly cooling oceans. Theyve been quiet about dropping ocean temperatures until now, likely praying for it to stop. Didnt Maxwell Smart hedge his bets with “Would ypu believe…”