June 25, 2019
by Kevin Krajick, Columbia University
The tropical Pacific Ocean (Australia and South America in gray, left and right). Top map shows what climate models say sea-surface temperatures should be doing in response to rising greenhouse gases, including pronounced warming of waters along the equator. Bottom map shows what the waters are actually doing; the equatorial waters are remaining relatively cool. Credit: Seager et al., Nature Climate Change 2019
State-of-the-art climate models predict that as a result of human-induced climate change, the surface of the Pacific Ocean should be warming—some parts more, some less, but all warming nonetheless. Indeed, most regions are acting as expected, with one key exception: what scientists call the equatorial cold tongue. This is a strip of relatively cool water stretching along the equator from Peru into the western Pacific, across quarter of the earth’s circumference. It is produced by equatorial trade winds that blow from east to west, piling up warm surface water in the west Pacific, and also pushing surface water away from the equator itself. This makes way for colder waters to well up from the depths, creating the cold tongue.
Climate models of global warming—computerized simulations of what various parts of the earth are expected to do in reaction to rising greenhouse gases—say that the equatorial cold tongue, along with other regions, should have started warming decades ago, and should still be warming now. But the cold tongue has remained stubbornly cold.
This troubles many scientists, because the cold tongue plays a key role in global climate. For example, it affects the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, a natural cyclic strengthening and weakening of the trade winds that causes cooling and warming of the eastern Pacific surface every two to seven years. ENSO is the world’s master weather maker; depending on which part of the cycle it is in, its echoes in the atmosphere may bring heavy rains or drought across much of the Americas, east Asia and east Africa. Whether the cold tongue warms will likely affect weather across huge regions. Resulting shifts could affect world food supplies and outbreaks of dangerous weather. But our predictions of those shifts rest on climate models.
HT/Willis E
But the models are settled science, relied upon by the UN and many national governments to influence decisions involving trillions of dollars.
Thus, the observations of nature must be wrong.
Yes! Big Oil climate deniers are towing icebergs from the Antarctic Ice shelf into equatorial waters to confuse the scientists. Ohhh those EVIL oil junkies !! There can be no other explanation
Don’t worry, I’m sure they will soon adjust the observations to better match their models. Then the science can once again be settled.
That’s right , if reality does not match the Computer Models , that were made by some GODs , then something is not right , even if one is tight there in front of it , but the computer CAN NOT BE WRONG
Money , money money
Hmmm GIGO comes to mind ….
I’m gobsmacked. The models can’t account for the “tongue”. I’m surprised the Left hasn’t taken this opportunity to find it sexist for such obvious use of anatomy not normally seen uncovered.
Just a matter of time
I’d noticed the ENSO Meter dropping back towards neutral lately.
yeah I HAd a whoop and a grin when i saw that, Aus needs a decent winter rain this yr. lets hope she hangs round a while
its been raining now for a month or so – long may it continue! It has also been very cold in between the rain events – BOM predicted a warm dry winter in Victoria – we now have a cold wet one. Say no more.
Brisbane is cold and wet much like it was years ago.
Melbourne resident. Many rainv events with colder temps in between. Clearly, the most unmistakable weather sign existing that anthropogenic global warming is upon us.
A more reasonably colored SST anomaly map than what is usually presented (including here @ WUWT):
https://vortex.plymouth.edu/sfc/sst/anomaly.html
Take a look at what CDAS shows for the 3.4 region, …
The climate computer models are worthless nonsense – end of story.
This issue is discussed in my recent paper.
Excerpt – this is important:
5. UAH LT Global Temperatures can be predicted ~4 months in the future with just two parameters:
UAHLT (+4 months) = 0.2*Nino34Anomaly + 0.15 – 5*SatoGlobalAerosolOpticalDepth (Figs. 5a and 5b)
Note the suppression of air temperatures during and after the 1982-83 El Nino, due to two century-scale volcanoes El Chichon and Mount Pinatubo.
Much of the atmospheric warming from ~1982-1996 (blue trend) was a recovery from the two major volcanoes – Nino34 SST’s (purple trend) cooled slightly.
I discovered this relationship in 2016 and published it, originally without the Sato correction as:
UAHLT = 0.20*Nino34SSTAnomaly + 0.15
I then found that Bill Illis previously had developed a better model, and I added the Sato correction that accounts for major volcanoes. Sato data was only available to 2012.
Reference:
CO2, GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE AND ENERGY
by Allan M.R. MacRae, B.A.Sc., M.Eng., June 2019
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/co2-global-warming-climate-and-energy-june2019-final-.pdf
[excerpt]
The climate models are disproved based on precedence – “cart before horse” and all that.
This fact has been clear since MacRae2008. Sorry to spoil the party.
More excerpts:
Global warming alarmism, which falsely assumes that increasing atmospheric CO2 causes catastrophic global warming, is disproved – essentially, it assumes that the future is causing the past. In reality, atmospheric CO2 changes lag global temperature changes at all measured time scales.
…
6. The sequence is Nino34 Area SST warms, seawater evaporates, Tropical atmospheric humidity increases, Tropical atmospheric temperature warms, Global atmospheric temperature warms, atmospheric CO2 increases (Figs.6a and 6b).
Other factors such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, etc. may also cause significant increases in atmospheric CO2. However, global temperature drives CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
More excerpts. See also Willie Soon’s Calgary presentation below:
10. I wrote in an article published 1Sept2002 in the Calgary Herald:
“If [as we believe] solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.”
I will stand with this prediction – for moderate, natural cooling, similar to that which occurred from ~1940 to the Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1977, despite accelerating fossil fuel combustion and atmospheric CO2. Similar cooling occurred from ~1945 to 1977 as fossil fuel consumption accelerated.
I now think global cooling will start closer to 2020. The following plot explains why (Fig.10).
I hope to be wrong, because humanity and the environment suffer during cold periods.
Fig.10 – Apparent Coherence of Total Solar Irradiance, Sea Surface Temperature and Lower Tropospheric Temperature, interrupted by the 1998 El Nino
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/pmod/offset:-1360/scale:0.2/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1980/plot/uah6/from:1980
“The climate computer models are worthless nonsense…”
Excerpt – this is important:
Completely false, they help billions of people every day.
Btw did you read the paper?
Weather reports are useful, climate reports not so much.
Sure, and you’d expect they are being improved all the time, but because they aren’t perfect they’re useless? Thats a sure sign science is MIA and blinkered ideology has a firm grip.
“they are being improved all the time”
As a matter of fact not. At least not much. At least in Europe forecasts are good about 48 hours in advance, somewhat useful up to 5 days, beyond that the prediction skill is essentially zero. This does not apply to precipitation where ECMWF is useless beyond 24 hours, invariably predicting much more rain than actually occurrs. This is so consistent that there must be some basic error in the physics.
Loydo – your comments suggest that you have no scientific education, and are functionally innumerate and possibly even illiterate.
You confuse climate models with weather models. You make unsupported statements without any data backup. You write drivel.
Your educators have failed you. If you are older than ten, go back to school and start again.
Allan, Someone else brought up weather models, not Loydo. You should apologize.
@ Jeff Alberts …I had similar thoughts as Allan wrote as I read down to Loydo’s comments. Would have written a similar comment to Loydo except that Allan did a fine job with his comment.
Loydo seldom if ever gives his reasons or observations to back up his thoughts. Note that he makes no attempt to respond directly to Allan’s ideas.
“Completely false, they help billions of people every day.”
Unless Loydo is talking about weather reports, I don’t understand how a climate report can help billions of people every day. So it has to be weather that he’s referring to.
“climate computer models are worthless nonsense”
This kind of black and white balderdash is merely your opinion. You might also hold the opinion that all weather forecasts are worthless nonsense with equal validity, afterall they are also wrong sometimes. Everyone is entitled to their opinions but we should also seek to have those opinions challenged so we remain aware that they are just opinions and that opinions change.
Speaking of education…
Quoting and citing yourself is not science. Its also a bit weird, as is all this name-dropping, bombast and pronouncing of certainties in a public blog. Opinionated certainty is a delusion, now write it out a hundred times.
tty June 27, 2019 at 3:20 am
“they are being improved all the time”
As a matter of fact not. At least not much.
I would challenge this tty. I would contend they are improving at about the same rate as Moore’s law. Go back even 10 or 15 years and the accuracy of the 3 day forecast was worse than today’s 7 day forecast. I would like to be corrected a meteorologist if I am wrong.
Wow, Loydo actually believes that climate models are the same as weather models.
Is there anything she knows that is actually true?
Climate models are based on weather models.
A major difference is that weather models are updated with fresh data every couple of hours or so. Were they not, they’d go wildly astray from the real weather within less than a day.
Climate models can’t be updated when they’re making projections of future climate. So, when they go wildly astray, there’s no fix.
No, weather models take current conditions and try then try to walk those conditions forward a couple of days to see what happens.
Climate models take a set of assumptions and then try to figure out what the average weather (climate) would be under those conditions.
Other than both attempting to use the same basic physics, there is no connection between the two.
They’re built around the same physical models, Mark.
Forecast models go astray partly because the initial conditions are incomplete. Of course, they will always be incomplete, as it is not possible to instantaneously sample the entire atmosphere. The other reason they are worthless after a period of time is that each calculation on the initial conditions introduces a small error, which compounds with each successive iteration.
Climate models are a little different as they are not attempting to iterate time steps as much as processes, but they are still subject to the same limitations of calculus and differential equations. Small errors are introduced with each iteration of the process. But the biggest limitation of the climate models is there incompleteness. The processes they are modelling are not well understood, and there are important processes that are not even being modeled, partly because the are unknown and partly because they are ignored. In other words, we really don’t understand climate change much at all, so we can’t really model it.
Climate models are nothing more than self-fulfilling prophecy, programmed to produce exactly what the climate modelers believe. The models don’t tell us anything about the future. They only reveal how wrong the models are in the present.
Climate models have helped a few people abscond billions of dollars.
Other than that, providing jobs for incompetent academics, and giving green NGOs leverage to get money and power, climate models haven’t done anything at all for anyone.
Questions:
How do greenhouse gases warm the ocean waters?
How deep does this warming occur?
MarkW is correct. CO2 acts like a blanket (absorbs some of the radiant heat emitted by the sea surface and re-emits some of it back downwards) so the ocean surface cools a bit slower than it otherwise would have – a slightly warmer surface warms the subsurface. No hairdryer required.
“and re-emits some of it back downwards”
No, it does not.
Vibrationally excited CO2 in the lower to mid troposphere collisionally decays. It does not re-emit radiation downward or upward.
The warmer atmosphere due to CO2 (if that indeed does happen) is because of the greater kinetic energy.
You are wrong Pat Frank, any molecule that can absorb a photon, can emit the same photon. It will emit that photon in any direction, some of which will hit the surface. I’m surprised a chemist like you doesn’t understand this.
Pat Frank incorrectly states: “The warmer atmosphere due to CO2 is because of the greater kinetic energy.”
…
Pat Frank does not understand how a GHG works. The atmosphere is warmer because the CO2 retards cooling by IR emission.
But only by 0,04%
In about as much as the rapid evaporation would cool the thermosphere.
Sam: In answer to your questions:
1) Well they don’t. At least in pragmatic terms. GHGs purport to increase downward IR radiation; but only a little. In fact by about o.6%. so it maybe considered negligible.
2) The overwhelming amount of the downward radiation ( circa 341.5 Watts/ sq.m) gets absorbed in the Latent Heat due to evaporation which, with the vapor being lighter than dry air rises up into clouds and beyond for dissipation and does not warm the ocean.
A small amount however penetrates to somewhere around 1 or 2 metres (My guess so probably wrong) depending on the state of the water; but this has to struggle through the mists and clouds first, generated as above.
The temperature rise due to this depends on the specific heat of the liquid water.
Compared with the depth of the oceans, again this very small. Try boiling a pan of water using a blowtorch on the surface and you won’t get much joy; so perhaps you get my drift?
Hope this helps.
Regards Alasdair
As a matter of fact IR does not penetrate 1 or 2 meters, not even 1 or 2 millimeters.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_vibrational_spectrum.html
Heatimg oceans with warm air is like heating a swimming pool with a hair dryer.
Warm air doesn’t heat the ocean, instead it slows down how quickly the heat put into the oceans by the sun can escape.
Not much. the ocean is 999 times as capacious as the atmosphere. The ocean is the dog. The atmosphere is the docked tail of the dog.
Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant.
Wait…I think you have identified natural water cycle variation, not AGW of the oceans. The key question is how can such a tiny increase in total atmospheric CO2 by the addition of fossil-fuel sourced CO2 be responsible for additional ocean warming? Those little CO2 molecules from fossil fuels do not have enough energy available to detectably raise ocean temperatures beyond natural variations.
The question was, if how can a warmer atmosphere result in a warmer ocean. I answered that question.
Whether CO2 is capable of more than a trivial warming of the atmosphere is a completely different question.
except, the oceans are warming first and the atmosphere second. hence its not the atmosphere causing the oceans to warm.
Warm air causes more evaporation,
thus more ocean latent heat removal,
thus more cooling.
Warming never causes cooling. Warming can only cause a thermometer to rise. Once the “warmth” has dissipated temeratures will reduce back to where they were.
Just for you fred, I have patent for a perpetual motion airconditioner – it uses warm air to cool the house.
“Global Warming May Trigger Winter Cooling”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/01/global-warming-may-trigger-winter-cooling
That is completely different from the questions Sam was asking. Nothing to do with winter.
“How do greenhouse gases warm the ocean waters?”
They don’t, but they do retard cooling – as in humid nights are generally warmer than dry clear ones because more heat is being trapped near (radiated back towards) the surface.
Loydo June 27, 2019 at 1:03 am
“How do greenhouse gases warm the ocean waters?”
They don’t, but they do retard cooling
——————
but the sea surface is not a glassy static layer that only the top molecules get heated by lwir radiation. the heated surface is always being mixed by wave action.
Loydo, you arent an engineer – you can use heat to run an absorption refrigerator.
https://home.howstuffworks.com/refrigerator5.htm
Loydo, you were the one said “Warming never causes cooling.” 😉
“you can use heat to run an absorption refrigerator”
Heat from burning fuel?
Being an engineer you’d know perpetual motion machines don’t need fuel.
You have obviously never encountered a gas- or kerosene-operated refrigerator.
Hmm, your fellow religionists seem to disagree with you. Apparently global warming is responsible for most of the record cold we’ve seen the last few years.
Actually, you can cool an area by adding energy to an active system. The trick is that while overall the energy contained my go up, it doesn’t have to go up in all areas. If the heat is used to transport water vapor around, as in convection cells, then you can pick up heat in one area and dump it off into another area, say high up into the sky where it can more easily radiate into space.
So as others have pointed out, adding energy to the atmosphere is like adding gasoline to an engine – it can perform work (or in this case, move heat around).
Those old NG, propane or kerosene operated refrigerators are still sought after by those persons who have camps or cabins back in the woods or on remote lakes. With good lighting and refrigeration ya have all the “comforts of home” ….. when away from home.
Loydo,
“Cooling” is defined as a loss of heat. It therefore cannot cool unless there is first heat to be lost. Logically then, warmth does indeed lead to, or cause, a greater loss of heat. Which we call cooling. Your contrariness extends to the illogical. That’s probably why you believe this utter bullshit of a hypothesis.
Oh dear poor Lloy-doh !
Your lack of education is showing
Evaporation causes cooling of the surface of the ocean,
measured and observed.
But I doubt you have ever done a days real work in your life, to actually know this.
A warming ocean is why storms happen. A storm sucks up the humid heat and transports it to the upper atmosphere, where it is released into space. Check out the number of storms that happen around the equator.
Robert of Texas June 27, 2019 at 7:02 am
Actually, you can cool an area by adding energy to an active system… The trick is that while overall the energy contained my go up, it doesn’t have to go up in all areas.
Yes you are right Robert. But I was referring to an “all areas” like fred’s “ocean”. I made the comment because there seems to be a view amongst some that “warming causes some effect (like water evaporating of ice melting) and magically the result is an overall “cooling”.
And 1.5 mm more rain per annum, as has been recorded. Models are useless when they fail to predict reality.
The water has to warm before evaporation can increase.
Or the wind has to pick up
Or the air has to become drier
Only the top tiny fraction of a mm.
Evaporation drags latent heat from the top 2-3mm to enable this evaporation.
ffs, go and do some learning !!
Once again, true, but not relevant to the question.
Yes, evaporation pulls heat from the water, nobody has ever disagreed with that.
MarkW
As a non scientist, it would seem to me that time is only dependent on the temperature difference between the sea and the air.
i.e. Surely the suns heat escaping from the ocean does so at a consistent rate. The time difference to achieve equilibrium would only depend on the difference between the temperature of the two, e.g. the first 0.5C of ocean heat escaping to the air would take one third of the time for 1.5C to escape to the air?
If the air is warmer than the ocean water, then heat will flow from the air into the water. That is, unless the laws of thermodynamics have been repealed.
If the air is warmer than the ocean water, then heat will flow from the air into the water.
With respect Geoff this is where the confusion begins. “Heat” only flow in one direction but IR photons go both ways – just more of them (or more energetic photons) from the warmer body to the cooler and less in the other direction – a net flow. A layer of photon emitting CO2 (or water vapor) laden cooler air can’t heat up the warmer ocean surface beneath it, but the net flow might be less compared to say dryer air or cooler air, so slower cooling than otherwise would have been the case.
Another case where AGW caused them to change the term to Climate Change and possible also cooling.
And the only theory associated to Climate Change, it has no other basis in theory.
Hair dryer/swimming pool is bad analogy. Hair dryer causes air to move (internal fan) which is a confounding variable. One needs warm air motionless above the water in the swimming pool.
“State-of-the-art climate models predict that as a result of human-induced climate change,
And here I thought is was the result of trace gas increase as the cause… silly me. The picture in that statement provides makes a mess out of causality. Sort of climate change is happening “as result of climate change.”
Or maybe its just an admission that GCM’s really are only doing what they are programmed to do, that is create a desired “climate change” result — a tautological structure.
In regards to the “Pacific cold tongue,” they will just ignore its presence (non-absence) just as they ignore the absence of a hotspot in the tropical mid-troposphere. The failures of the models are so many, that if they started taking one failure seriously (like any other discipline would), their entire alarmist narrative would collapse, because everything is built on the climate model outputs. The GCM outputs are the single Big Pole holding up the entire climate change circus tent. Bring that down, and the entire climate circus tent collapses on itself.
Re: “human induced climate change”.
This statement assumes the cause and affect in a single statement.
But I think it’s just lazy language and lack of understanding on the part of whoever wrote it.
You’ve just diagnosed the entire AGW phenomenon, Greg C.
“Part of the Pacific Ocean is not warming as expected, but why?”
Obviously because the assumptions and suppositions upon which these ‘State-of-the-art climate models’ guess at how these things work is incomplete, or just plain wrong.
Yet politicians are willing to waste $£€trillion ‘battling cAGW/climate change™’ based on these inaccurate models of what our climate does not do. Are all national politician so caught in the UN lies and political sophistry that they can not see that this is so very wrong?
The politicians think that the computer jockeys who run the models are scientists. Simple category error.
Also the big problem here with models is a deeper problem of the “double ITCZ” they usually create.
This has been a subject in the past here at WUWT:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/17/lamenting-the-double-itcz-bias-in-cmip5-climate-models/
And its no surprise that most of the problems with the models creating that situation is probably ……. (drum roll)….. …. CLOUDS.
Link between the double-Intertropical Convergence Zone problem and cloud biases over the Southern Ocean
https://www.pnas.org/content/110/13/4935
“we find that cloud biases over the Southern Ocean explain most of the model-to-model differences in the amount of excessive precipitation in Southern Hemisphere tropics, and are suggested to be responsible for this aspect of the double-ITCZ problem in most global climate models.”
The models basic inability to model clouds without hand-tuned parameters is their fundamental flaw. (Besides the fact that they are error propagation machines).
The GCMs can’t actually model clouds, so they “parameterize” them. IOW, a totally fungible fudge factor.
The GCMs model Planet GIGO, not Earth. Planet GIGO exists to justify funding, not to make realistic predictions of the future of our real planet.
Actually it is possible to model at least convective clouds and precipitation with surprisingly good fidelity, but only for very small areas on account of the very high resolution needed. To do it for the whole world in a GCM will take a computer about 10^12 times more powerful than any now existing and about 10^6 times more accurate initialization and geographical data. Don’t hold your breath.
Speaking of clown shows…. I’m trying to watch the DNC debate right now, type comments, and eat dinner and drink a beer. I could manage all that pretty well if it weren’t for my regular fits of “gagging” separated by hysterical laughter.
What is painfully obvious is NBC and Lester Holt (the moderator) have clearly decided Pocahontas Warren is to be the DNC candidate when the dust settles next June, the new Anointed One (A1), just as BO was the A1 in 2008, and HRC was the A1 in 2016.
I mean I gotta say she is the most intellectual and educated of that group, and being a trained lawyer who had to teach Harvard Law kiddies how to litigate in a court room helps her immensely. Personally I’d love to see Trump face-off with a Massachusetts liberal Socialist in the General election. Becasue that usually turns out well for the GOP.
It will be interesting to see when the debate is over what the statistics are of talk time between candidates in that debate. Pocahontas clearly will have the most, but how much will be interesting.
The other statistic I’d like to see Post-Debate is how many times candidates used the word “green”, as in green jobs, green technology, green energy. It’s gotta be in the hundreds.
They are trying desperately to put the “green” veneer back on their skinned-Red watermelon after the GND roll-out debacle.
Green as in naive… estimates, predictions, solutions.
I’m shocked.
Booker and Beto both went 1 and 2 in minutes talking tonight, 10.9 and 103. minutes respectively. Warren was 3rd at 9.3 minutes.
I was trying to type and eat at the same time, so I guess I only heard Warren’s preaching.
see the whole time speaking results here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/politics/who-spoke-most-at-democratic-debate-june/
Tomorrow night’s debate will be even more fun with Creepy Joe Biden trying to form coherent sentences for more than a few seconds with the scowling Socialist Bernie giving him the stink eye.
They not only have smoked too much green but have apparently drank the bong water as well.
“The other statistic I’d like to see Post-Debate is how many times candidates used the word “green”, as in green jobs, green technology, green energy. It’s gotta be in the hundreds.”
As my old grandma used to say …
“So, green they’s cabbage looking.”
and if you ask her to explain …
“Taught so hard they’ve lost all the sense they is born with.”
Just as additional warming is cause for additional cooloing. Mankind was defined by a realization of a power greater than himself.
When that is lost (as in the case of many Democratic candidates) De-evolution is evident in the event was a bad egg. Mankind is on the precipes of becoming ape again.
And now we got President Trump trolling NBC for their technical problems in the “debate.”
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1144064520152739840
Funny!!!
Joel, in case you didn’t know, this site is about science, climate, and interesting things. Your post about politics sucks.
The politicisation of this website predates the election of Trump. Many articles are shameless shilling, debunkable by anyone with a vague level of relevant knowledge.
As long as you know the political bias of this site, you can adjust your mindset.
There are still enough straight science articles to make it worthwhile visiting regularly.
This from the guy who refers to the US as being uber capitalist?
Geoff,
Climate change is nothing now but a drive for political power by the Left. The politics of socialism are deeply embedded in that drive for power.
They’ll frighten children, deprive the world of affordable energy, and bring on a global genocide via starvation and war for that power.
I’ll not ever apologize for laughing at them and ridiculing them at any opportunity. So I could care less what you think about me or my politics.
“Climate change is nothing now but a drive for political power by the Left. The politics of socialism are deeply embedded in that drive for power.”
That sums it up nicely.
We cannot talk about CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) now without talking about politics and those promoting this fraud.
Excellent posts Joe and Tom.
Note that every very-scary prediction by the global warming alarmists has failed to happen – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record – 100% wrong!
Tom wrote:
“Climate change is nothing now but a drive for political power by the Left. The politics of socialism are deeply embedded in that drive for power.”
That sums it up nicely.
We cannot talk about CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) now without talking about politics and those promoting this fraud.
Joel O’Bryan
Less than 10% of the worlds population are scientists so have no clue about the science of climate.
Everyone is allowed a political opinion (well, except in some isolated cases).
That’s how the left stole a march on the subject, they talked politics and engaged everyone they could.
Time is over for talking science with these turkeys, we should have been talking politics a long time ago. Even if we persuade every scientist on earth CC is a scam, that’s still only 10%.
HotScot: Perhaps 10% are science majors, but most of those graduates couldn’t explain anything having a physical basis. Compare 7,500 physics graduates per year against 115,000 psychology baccalaureates. Then, considering how superficial the college education actually is; students who do not do a great deal of thinking and research beyond courses and homework generally don’t “problem-solve” very well. I recognize there are a number of psych majors who can explain quit a lot physics just as there are some physics graduates who cannot, but you see my point. There are very few people who have the basic education combined with experience, and further research and thinking, to handle problems beyond the trivial. Most people parrot what they view as reliable sources. I remember very well how ignorant I was even after a cum laude physics B.Sc. and doing very well on the GRE advanced test–not a total idiot, but close.
Allan: Tom wrote:
“Climate change is nothing now but a drive for political power by the Left. The politics of socialism are deeply embedded in that drive for power.”
Actually Joel wrote that.
HotScot – June 27, 2019 at 6:27 am
Whether you “talk back” via talking PC (politically correct) science or PC (politically correct) politics, …… it makes no difference whatsoever because their eyes and their mind are averted away from whatever it is/was that you were telling them.
So, it is MLO that, ….. time is over for talking PC science to/with those turkeys ….. and time to start calling them dastardly, devious, dishonest, disingenuous charlatans and liars until such time they provide actual factual proof or evidence that support their claims and/or commentary.
Repeating a “lie” after one has been presented proof that it was a “lie”, ….. makes that person a ”liar” also.
I keep telling people that their mimicked “claim” that …… “microbial decomposition of dead biomass during the NH fall and winter causes the average 6 ppm bi-yearly increase in atmospheric CO2” …… is a biological impossibility, ….. yet they ignore that FACT and continue to “repeat the lie”.
Wow, Geoff, what a high-and-mighty attitude.
In case you didn’t know AGW is politicized science.
Incidentally that recent paper that claimed that GCM:s are more reliable that reanalysis programs showed that reanalysis also suffers from “double-ITCZyism”:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/24/columbia-researchers-provide-new-evidence-on-the-reliability-of-climate-modeling/
Possibly the one interesting fact in the paper.
Oops we had a glitch over Houston, send another 30 years dough for reanalysis…
Just fudge the data until it matches the models – like you normally do
The missing links are compensated with brown matter and energy to force a “consistent with” model that demonstrates no skill to forecast or hindcast.
Wow. It must be cold water that is responsible for coral bleaching on The Great Barrier Reef.
No, but cold is the main threat tor corals in southern Florida. And even large parts of the tropics lack coral reefs because the water is too cold, e. g. nearly the whole west coasts of Africa and South America. Even Oman and Somalia with their very hot climate inland.
Clarky,
Coral bleaching is due to hot water and/or cold water and/or low sea level and/or high sea level.
See, the science is settled.
After half a billion million years of climate change, I’m shocked, shocked I tell you, that life on Earth (and specifically corals) have so many ways to cope with the climate changing. After all, it’s natural (if you are trained by Greenpeace) to assume that corals can only survive in a world with one constant stable temperature just like they never had.
One more tool in the coral-reef-workshop
Corals don’t just have a tool-box, they have a Home Depot Warehouse. h/t to GWPF
We already knew corals chuck out the symbionts that don’t work so well and pick up better partners. Plus, evolution left a stack of genes lying around that were honed in a world that was warmer, and natural selection has a way of amplifying better combinations as conditions shift. Then there is the way corals can be reseeded from safe sites, far away. Now we find out that corals can use epigenetics too.
Epigenetics is that kind of spooky effect where people can inherit the exact same DNA code yet it works or doesn’t work depending on whether it was Dad’s copy, or Mum’s, or whether parents were starved, fearful or stressed. It’s weird, […]
The current El Niño cycle was one of the weakest is 70 years and will officially be over by October 2019, followed by ENSO neutral conditions for about 12 months, and a strong La Niña cycle will start around the fall of 2020.
The Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic oceans will soon all be in their respective 30-year cool cycles (the Atlantic seems to have started its 30-year cool cycle), which will cool the planet for at least the next 30 years. Moreover, a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum cycle may have already started, which will likely add to global cooling.
By the end of Trump’s second term, the global cooling effects of all these concurrent global cooling phenomena, and a string of brutal winters will make CAGW a laughingstock.
Hi Samurai,
Thank you for this very interesting post. I agree with your global cooling prediction, which I first published on 1Sept2002.
Can you elaborate on the background information that supports your predictions? If you prefer, you can contact me offline through my website.
Regards, Allan
Global cooling already happened, from ~1945 to 1977, even as atmospheric CO2 reportedly increased.
We only have good-quality CO2 data from Mauna Loa since 1958, but there is ample evidence from this global cooling period and other credible data to demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is very low – less than 1C/doubling and probably much less.
There is no real human-made global warming or wilder weather crisis – it is false nonsense, concocted for financial and political gain.
The global warming propagandists will lie and twist future global cooling the same way they did the previous ~1945-1977 cooling and the ~20-year “Pause” in warming– they have actually stated that “global warming causes global cooling” and other such blatant false nonsense.
Note that every very-scary prediction by the global warming alarmists has failed to happen – they have a perfectly negative predictive track record – 100% wrong!
Global warming propagandists have NO credibility, except among their co-conspirators and their faithful minions – who will believe anything.
Allan-san:
Yes, when the Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic enter their respective 30-year cool cycles, global temps fall for about 30 years as occurred: 1880~1910 and 1945~1976, and will start falling again shortly, only this time, a Grand Solar Minimum will add to the cooling…
Obviously, when 30-year warm ocean cycles occur, global temps rise: 1850~1880, 1910~1940 and 1978~2008…
CAGW will soon be ridiculed from the coming cooling cycle, which, under the CAGW hypothesis, should be impossible given record man made CO2 emissions occurring as we speak..
True, but it won’t matter one twit.
By the time said “cooling cycle” can no longer be denied, ……. the flim-flam scammers will have already launched their next “money making” fear campaign to extort money from the “public trough” via help from elected politicians. These were their past “gooderns”, …… to wit:
War on Poverty
War on Drugs
Head Start Education
Student Loan Guarantees
Cigarette Smoke causes Cancer
CO2 causes Global Warming
And the next one will be …………….. ??
It is worth noting that the section of the full article quoted here manages to completely give the
wrong impression. Reading the full article along with actual journal article makes it clear that once
the correct initial conditions are used global climate models accurately predict the pattern of warming in
the pacific and indeed show that it can only be reproduced with additional forcing caused by CO2.
The conclusion of the journal article states:
The main features of observed tropical Pacific climate change over past decades are
consistent with a response to rising CO , according to fundamental atmosphere and
ocean physics. The spatial pattern of climatological upwelling and wind speeds means
rising CO2 causes more warming over the western than CEP, driving stronger trade winds
that shoal the thermocline, which cools the cold tongue, further strengthening the zonal
SST gradient and, hence, the trades. Delayed warming of the thermocline could oppose
this positive feed- back but, to date, has not cancelled it.
All of those things you’ve listed in the last paragraph are assumed responses to rising CO2. None of them are “according to fundamental atmosphere and ocean physics. ”
The model didn’t produce the same result as reality, so they had to keep tweaking it until it did. Great stuff.
So the only question remaining: has this story has been contorted deliberately or by accident?
Which story Loydo? There are so many. The Human induced Global Story do you mean?
I am obviously talking about the conflict Izaak has identified. Why do you think the findings have been misreported so egregiously?
“it can only be reproduced with additional forcing caused by CO2.”
Using climate models that have consciously been constructed so as to produce warming by CO2.
It’s all just built in, Izaak.
That last paragraph summation only bolsters a balancing atmosphere. Warming here causes cooling there, in the overall mixing little or no lasting effects to change climate. The mixing (from all apparent evidence) only adds a better for human environments in less severe tropical storm activity and frequency. Or a better living through chemistry.
CTM – ‘Bottom map shows what the waters are actually doing; the equatorial waters are remaining relatively cool’ but I see only one map on the WUWT post? Is the second map in the linked page?
How’s this for a hypothesis:
The oceans do not warm as much as land BECAUSE they are further from the sun!!!!!
HOWZAT.
First reaction on seeing stuff like that is to look at where I am at the western end of the “tongue”. Models say large expanse of very hot. “what the waters are actually doing” shows smaller area of very hot. Both wrong.
I have noticed and remarked on, during the odd halting build up to and the precipitous drop of the 2015/16 el Nino, two things. A) That the persistent “hot blobs” in the Pacific temperate zones of many years previous to the build up of the last el Nino had disappeared and were replaced by large very “cold blobs and B) instead of just upwelling of cold water off Peru as usually happens after el Nino is done, masses of cold water from the temperate zones’ sub-continent sized cold blobs is slanting equatorward bringing cold water to the mid ocean equatorial region.
My eyeballed assessment has been for these years that there is just not a lot of hot water to build up and for NOAA’s prediction of an 2019 el Nino (admittedly not a strong one) I said the same thing. This one is going to fizzle and become a notable la Nina, although it, too, will be an unusual one. With this development, and with the support of the “big cold blobs” it seems a cooling for global temperatures in the coming few years is hard to bet against.
That NOAA appears to not see this very different phenomenon unfolding surprises me. I’ve also noted with all the hype about global warming bleaching the Great B Reef and the firing of Peter Ridd who criticized the research that Australia has largely been surrounded by cold water for a few years. Don’t those blokes notice any change in the weather down there. Are they just going with what the BMO is peddling?
Imo, the main reason for the current ocean conditions being discussed is the change in surface winds which took place around 28 months ago at the tip of South America. I made a comment on WUWT about the wind change shortly after that. As It seemed clear to me that if the new surface wind pattern persisted over time, then it would lead to above average cool waters being pushed up the west coast of South America; and that is exactly what has occurred since then with the new pattern remaining predominant. The prior dominant pattern was warm surface winds moving south through Drakes Passage. … https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-83.23,-39.22,672/loc=-85.480,-40.647
Around the same time there was a similar surface wind change in the NH below and to the west of Greenland, also a cooling trend imo.
Check Willie Soon’s Calgary presentation here:
https://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2446
Willie says the Sun drives global temperature.
I’ve noticed that when the Sun rises in the morning, it gets warmer, and when it sets it gets cooler. Funny that.
[sarc/off]
Valentina Zharkova has just published how that big yellow thing in the sky will affect temperatures here on tiny little Earth. I’m buying new skis.
And with a variable tilt, the temperature varies by 10, 20, 100 degrees and more. With a fixed position, it can vary by 10, 20, 40 degrees and more within an hour.
Climate modelers don’t know about the massive negative feedbacks provided by wet convection in the tropics, that serve to resist any temperature change.
Enough negative feedback and you get oscillation. Like the heretofore unexplained Madden-Julian oscillation?
pochas94 June 26, 2019 at 10:04 pm
Enough negative feedback and you get oscillation.
———————
interesting idea that!
And here I am/was thinking negative feedback produced better stability.
Phase shift the fb until it become +ve then oscillation can occur. But then it is not -ve fb any more!!
👍🏼 👍🏼
Basic feedback 101!
and you do?
It would be great if you could explain it in detail along with the necessary equations so that
others could learn and also implement the right equations into the global climate models.
After all they are all open source so you should be able to specify line by line where the models
have got it wrong and what the correct code should look like.
When you’ve got a model that reproduces the Madden-Julian oscillation, then you’ve got something.
It’s more interesting in the rest of the article where the differences in modelling are explained:
“assuming within the model the (real-world) climatological mean state and simply simulating perturbations from that. ”
having better results than if
“we assume the biased climatological state in the complex state-of-the-art models , the response to rising greenhouse gases has enhanced warming”
Can anyone explain what the difference here actually is? Would that mean the first model is more like a full feedback model and the second, flawed one, using only a differential input with climate state as bias?
Hi John,
I am not entirely sure but it seems that the standard initial conditions to climate models
have a cold tongue that is too large and too cold and does not correspond to reality. Inputting
a more realistic temperature profile to the models results in predictions that accurately match
the observed warming.
Basically it says what is not that surprising — if you want to model the earth’s climate the more
closely your initial conditions match reality the closer your predictions will match the observations.
In other words, the climate models don’t work as claimed, so we eliminated most of the variables and came up with a simplified model that kinda-sorta works in isolation, in one little part of the world, so climate models really do work as claimed. 99% confidence maintained. Funny.
When they can hindcast without tweaking, then I might be impressed. Might be.
Hindcast to what ?
Temperature data is such a mess, certainly before satellite.
Hindcast to say GISS, Hadcrud, etc. then they are almost certainly wildly incorrect.
Circulation in the Central Pacific indicates the cooling of the surface south of the equator.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2m/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&layer=700-850&prod=midpac×pan=24hrs&anim=html5
comport with the cold tongue’s actual behavior—and show that it is consistent with rising greenhouse gases
…
If, instead, we are right and the cold tongue will not warm as much, then drying in southwest North America…
…
In developing climate impact assessments, scenarios should not be limited to the complex models. They should also consider the case in which the cold tongue continues to not warm. The implication for modelers is that they must find out why their models have biases, and fix them.
The CAGW enthusiasts are jumping the gun on CO2 efficacy in the wild, the value of models outside of a limited frame of reference to do forecasts… predictions and hindcasts. The scientists involved with this simplified model seem to have a more measured, reasonable reaction.
“If, instead, we are right and the cold tongue will not warm as much, then drying in southwest North America…”
Drying in southwest NA… which is desert…
It’s because this is as warm as it gets. It’s the sign of strong negative feedback as predicted by Willis E
As I was reading the article I thought to myself, this is just what Willis predicts with his thunderstorm theories. Then I got to the end and it was Willis who bought to the attention of WUWT, should have guessed..
equatorial carpet munching
I can visualize Willis E sitting on his nice stone patio chuckling too himself.
Timely article.
The ENSO is “rolling over” and the Spotless Days Count just accomplished a rare 35-Day run.
Worthwhile comments from the informed.
Even those from the true believers are informative.
Alternative headline for this item:
“Scientist licks models with cold tongue”
That’ll bring in the tabloid readers.
The more I think about the ocean’s role in heat control, the more I wonder how the Earth can warm much more than it already has.
If the atmosphere heats up (for whatever reason), it has to be transferring some of that heat to the surface of the ocean. This increases water evaporation, which should increase convection, which increase heat transfer into the upper atmosphere, which lowers the temperature.
As long as you have significant water, there has to be a temperature cap that the warming atmosphere can approach but never exceed. You can make the Earth overall more moderate in temperature, but I do not see how you can exceed the temperature cap. Eventually there would be so much cloud formation as to reflect most sunlight directly back into space, so again, another temperature cap. You can make a rainy world, but not a hot world.
This would nicely explain why parts of the world used to be forested or grasslands, and is now desert or tundra.
Must be something wrong with the data. Couldn’t be models or the underlying theories behind them.
Are you suggesting the models don’t understand long cycles or have averaged them out to zero or small values (solar) when the science and records for these long cycles are not well established. That includes amplitude, cycle length, and cycle influences on other systems.
Herewith….
http://climate4you.com/images/PDO%20MonthlyIndexSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
http://www.climate4you.com/images/AMO%20GlobalAnnualIndexSince1856%20With11yearRunningAverage.gif
And that grouped cycles have not been considered in the case of solar cycles, such as SC 12-16?
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/bfly.gif
Does that make equatorial wind a denier…that must be ignored?
Maybe reality isn’t matching what the models predict because the models are wrong in their assumptions. Real science says that you observe a certain behavior, you come up with a theory to explain the behavior, you design a model to test the theory, then check the model results against observations to validate the theory. If the model forecasts don’t match the observations, then no matter how elegant the model and theory are, you reject the theory and model and work to develop a new theory and model to explain the observations. You don’t modify the data to fit the model forecasts, your don’t change your predictions of what will happen midstream to fit the data, and you don’t demonize people who have legitimate arguments against your model or have their own models that do a better job of predicting future and past observations of the behavior.
It is evidence like this that demonstrates modeling climates is beyond our human ability. How many more anomalies exist in the world that we have not even discovered? It is worth the effort to continue studying the climate but attempting to mandate massive changes to our way of life trying to alter future climate is foolish at best and could be disastous if extreme measures are taken.
If rising CO2 can’t heat up Neptune’s equatorial cold tongue – then how could anyone possibly expect it to heat up all of Mother Earth’s ? How many times must a hypothesis be licked by contradictory evidence before it is deemed unworthy of the pedestal position where many a pundit of ill – repute have placed her ?
Is there a problem with this post?
‘Bottom map shows what the waters are actually doing; the equatorial waters are remaining relatively cool.’
But I see only one map?! Where is the second map?
Loydo June 26, 2019 at 10:34 pm
“The climate computer models are worthless nonsense…”
Excerpt – this is important:
Completely false, they help billions of people every day
____________________________________________________
Loydon how come you’re fantasising climate models helping people everyday when it’s weather forecasts based on real world day to day observation that help billions of people every day.
____________________________________________________
The difference:
Climate is a coupled system of nonlinear functions with chaotic behaviour.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&ei=mScaXde3Cun3qwH2pZbQBg&q=is+a+coupled+system+of+nonlinear+functions+witch+chaotic+behaviour&oq=is+a+coupled+system+of+nonlinear+functions+witch+chaotic+behaviour&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
– which helps no-one till today.