How Natural Oscillations Affect Arctic Climate & Predict Future Climate Change: Part 4

Jim Steele

The degree that natural quasi-cycles, or oscillations, generate dramatic changes in the Arctic must be determined before scientists can blame rising CO2. Natural oscillations have highly significant effects on global and Arctic temperatures and suggest that by 2030 Arctic sea ice will be increasing.

Transcript of video available at:

https://perhapsallnatural.blogspot.com/2021/11/part-4-how-natural-oscillations-affect.html

Jim Steele is Director emeritus of San Francisco State University’s Sierra Nevada Field Campus, authored Landscapes and Cycles: An Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism, and proud member of the CO2 Coalition.

5 13 votes
Article Rating
44 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
November 6, 2021 6:15 pm

This is just not possible. The IPCC stated very clearly that they couldn’t find anything that affects the climate except CO2. We all know that the IPCC is the gold standard for science, so this must be wrong.

Dennis
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 6, 2021 6:28 pm

The latest of several tipping point of warming predictions that have not happened claims ten more years (2031), interesting that there was a 2000 earlier timeline end and the UN Agenda 21 was signed around 1990 and that was extended to become Agenda 30.

Rest easy, the next mission not signed at Glasgow is net zero by 2050.

Hmmm.

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  Dennis
November 7, 2021 1:03 am

A common error (perpetuated by griff). Agenda 21 is not a plan to be achieved by the year 2021, rather a plan for the entire 21st century.

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf

Tom Waeghe
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
November 7, 2021 5:29 am

LOL!

ResourceGuy
November 6, 2021 6:49 pm

Very good. It’s too bad this plain explanation cannot reach more fair minded people for at least a suggestion that the Political Climate Crusades are wrong.

Aside from those hapless masses and their handlers, I’d like to see a fuller explanation of the detrending of the AMO and what those error bars look like. You don’t see less than three turning points being used to detrend anything else in any other time series analysis.

Robert of Texas
November 6, 2021 7:21 pm

Science by politicians looks like:

> Science is too hard…just make us a graph showing all humanity dies by 2050 unless they send us more money. Signed, the U.N. <

markl
November 6, 2021 7:53 pm

I’m always heartened by the logical science posted on this site and disheartened that this is one of the few places to find it.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  markl
November 6, 2021 8:37 pm

This site is too big to be gaslighted into obscurity regardless how hard the warmunists have tried. There is more science here than all its competitors combined … while still maintaining a healthy sense of humour and a balanced view.

Christopher Fay
November 6, 2021 8:13 pm

And the Eastern hemisphere?

Jeroen
Reply to  Christopher Fay
November 7, 2021 1:37 am

PDO and ENSO. Souther hemisphere has a strong jet stream so less fluctuation.

commieBob
November 6, 2021 9:05 pm

… quasi-cycles …

There’s this dandy paper. It describes how a thin sphere enclosing an acoustic medium ‘rings’ when excited. The resulting waveforms are very much like the quasi-cycles that characterize the planet’s climate.

People see things that look like cycles and think they’ve found the answer to everything. The trouble is what they’re seeing is ‘quasi periodic cycles’. That makes them unpredictable. Many careers have run aground on those shoals.

Quasi periodic cycles are one indication of the chaotic nature of the climate. Lorenz pointed that the climate is a chaotic system and therefore unpredictable. Nobody has proven him wrong and yet climate modelers blithely ignore that simple truth. Before they waste another dime of the public’s money, they should be forced to explain how their models could possibly get around the problem. The folks who use those fatally flawed models to ‘prove’ CAGW should be jailed for fraud.

Last edited 6 months ago by commieBob
Abolition Man
Reply to  commieBob
November 6, 2021 11:01 pm

commieBob,
Let them repay ALL the public moneys they wasted on their bogus research! If they do that I’m quite happy to let them skip out on the jail sentence! A few weeks in the stocks will suffice!

Steve Case
Reply to  commieBob
November 7, 2021 4:59 am

Lorenz pointed that the climate is a chaotic system and therefore unpredictable.
___________________________________________________

And so did the IPCC:

  The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore
  the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. 
  IPCC TAR Chapter 14 Paragraph 14.2.2.2 page 771

A quick check of References page 785 doesn’t find Lorenz listed.

Abolition Man
November 6, 2021 11:10 pm

Jim,
Thanks for another great video! Please keep providing us with the ammunition needed to win this war for science and civilization!
When mass delusion and hysteria become commonplace, a quiet, rational voice speaking the truth acts as an anchor for those seeking knowledge!

griff
November 7, 2021 1:13 am

The degree that natural quasi-cycles, or oscillations, generate dramatic changes in the Arctic must be determined before scientists can blame rising CO2.

There is any amount of scientific research on the NAO and the changing climate…

and it concludes there’s warming on top of the NAO.

Here’s a random example from the list

Decoupling of the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation in a warmer climate | Nature Climate Change

Jeroen
Reply to  griff
November 7, 2021 1:45 am

Lets take local averages influenced by local factors then homogonize them and detrend it with a single oscillation. Of course we completely ignore the other oscillations and changes in cloud cover. Let alone all the big unknowns. Our best bet is to wait and observe. In the meantime just prepare for te worst is most likely the cheapest and most effective way.

Disputin
Reply to  griff
November 7, 2021 3:36 am

So use the output of models. Sorry, Griff, that is not “any amount of scientific research on the NAO and the changing climate…”; it’s modelling.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Disputin
November 7, 2021 9:33 am

Hey, give Griff a little credit. He at least found a paper and didn’t just copy and paste from the Gruniad.

Reply to  griff
November 7, 2021 3:57 am

Mickey Mann tells us, there are no ocean cycles, at least no AMO … 😀

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Krishna Gans
November 7, 2021 5:40 am

Ocean cycles are bourgeois science.

Reply to  griff
November 7, 2021 6:21 am

LOL Griff is such a transparently stupid troll. Why does he persist??? At least he worth a laugh and models the dishonest absurdity of climate alarmists

I’ll guarantee Griff never read the paper unless he paid for it, and that is highly doubtful because its science he doesn’t understand. I had to order the paper days ago and am still awaiting its delivery

And clearly from the abstract Griff is clueless. The study compared the AO and NAO under different climate modeled simulations between a warmer and cooler world and found the 2 oscillations behave differently BECAUSE “stronger warming of the Pacific compared with the slower warming of the Atlantic Ocean”

The study does nothing to separate warming from GHGs from natural warming, although not having read thee full paper yet it may give lip service to GHGs as nearly all editors demand that now.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Steele
November 7, 2021 7:01 am

griff is on a mission from the Great God CO2, his job is to bring enlightenment to the masses, and to make an utter fool of himself.
He won’t get his reward until all believe.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
November 7, 2021 6:59 am

The earth has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. Just as it warmed going into the the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period, the Egyptian Warm Period and the entirety of the Holocene Optimum.
CO2 wasn’t responsible for any of the previous warm periods, and it isn’t responsible for the Modern Warm Period either.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  griff
November 7, 2021 9:26 am

Griff, if a ‘science paper’ is tendentious, then it is not science at all, rather just a pointless exercise in mental masturbation.

I would suspect that it is these masturbatory fantasies that are impressing you.

How do we judge whether or not an alleged scientist has approached the question tendentiously? If the language is surrounded by advertising rhetoric, weasel words, complex statistical tests not proven fit for purpose (all climate models seem to fall into this cateory, and especially demands for immediate political action or language of the ‘quick sale’ are some good indicators. I’ve written this before I have checked out the link you’ve provided. Now I’ll go read it and report back with my impressions.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Mickey Reno
November 7, 2021 9:39 am

Article is pay-walled, so I can’t read anything but the abstract. That brief summary says their study does use CMIP climate models. It also doesn’t apparently relate any warming directly to CO2 in the atmosphere, but assumes whatever the CMIP models say about that must be true. The abstract talks about the jet stream controlling atmospheric circulation patterns and argues that the Pacific oscillations are somewhat stronger in final outcomes than Atlantic oscillations within those models. Aside from that, I cannot actually discern from the abstract, what the authors are actually questioning or claiming their “experiment” is asking or answering.

If the question is “CO2 is affecting, or more ominously, adversely affecting North Atlantic oscillations, I’m not sure this paper will inform anyone.

Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 6:25 am

The AMO chart in this article shows the temperature highs and lows since 1850.

The U.S. surface temperature chart (below) shows the same highs and lows.

From a start at 1850 the temperatures climb to a highpoint in the 1880’s, then the temperatures cool to the 1910’s, then the temperatures warm again through the 1930’s, with high temperatures similar to the 1880’s, and then the temperatures cool to the late 1970’s, reaching the same level of coolness as was reached in the 1910’s, and then the temperatures warm from the 1980’s to the present, where the high temperatures are on the same level as the high temperatures of the 1930’s, and the 1880’s. The Earth’s temperatures seem to be moving in a channel, limited on both the upside and the downside.

This is the climate pattern. It warms for a few decades, and then it cools for a few decades and the warm temperatures do not exceed a certain level, and the cold temperatures don’t exceed a certain level.

You can look at the U.S. surface temperature chart at this url below. The chart cuts off at 1880, but you can see the cold of the 1910’s and the warmth of the 1930’s, and the cold of the 1970’s, warming up to the current day. This chart only goes through 1999, but the high temperature of 2016 is no warmer than 1998, so temperatures have not exceeded the highpoints in the 1930’s, and the 1880’s, despite the claims to the contrary by the alarmists.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research//briefs/1999_hansen_07/

Notice also, the Bogus, bastardized Hockey Stick chart next to the U.S. chart. The temperature profiles look nothing alike. The Hockey Stick looks like no other chart in the world. It does not represent reality.

The AMO and the U.S. chart represent reality, and they show us we have nothing to fear from CO2 because it is no warmer today than it was in the recent past although there is much more CO2 in the air now than then, which should make us reach the conclusion that CO2 has had little effect on our temperatures.

The only charts showing uprecedented warming are computer-generated, instrument-era Hockey Stick charts. Every other chart in the world says just the opposite.

Don’t believe the bogus Hockey Stick charts. They are political documents meant to fool the public into doing something very dangerous to our current society.

Legitimate temperature charts show us we have nothing to fear from CO2.

Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 9:19 am

It is interesting you bring up the 1999 Hansen graph, where he admits “Part of the “answer” is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate”. Indeed in my Sierra Nevada research, I found the 1930s maximum temperatures were still the highest on record. It is one example of how the alarmists lie when they say warmer temperatures have been drying the forest causing more wildfires. Northern California’s max temps are cooler now.

You can also compare Hansen’s graph to a 2016 graph from climate.gov and see how the temperature record has been modified. In 1999 the temperature spike was lower than the 1930s, In 2016 it miraculously became higher than the 1930s.

It appears NASA found a way to solve the inconvenient truth that the US was “following a different course than global climate” Furthermore most of the world other than the US and western USA totally lacked any reliable instrumental data to compute a global average temperature, but that doesnt concern the alarmists

US teem trend Hansen vs Gov.png
roaddog
Reply to  Jim Steele
November 8, 2021 12:16 am

Tony Heller has been laser-focused on NOAA’s manipulation of the historic temperature record, and the history he’s provided well documents the outright criminality of their behavior.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  roaddog
November 8, 2021 4:21 am

It is criminal.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Jim Steele
November 8, 2021 4:06 am

“You can also compare Hansen’s graph to a 2016 graph from climate.gov and see how the temperature record has been modified. In 1999 the temperature spike was lower than the 1930s, In 2016 it miraculously became higher than the 1930s.”

At first, Hansen said 1934 was 0.5C warmer than 1998, which would make it warmer than 2016 also, since 1998 and 2016 are statistically tied for the warmest temperatures since the 1930’s.

A colleague of Hansen’s, sent an email to Hansen (which appears in the Climategate emails) where he said he got the same figure for 1934, which made it 0.5C warmer than 1998 (the colleague got something like 0.49C, if I recall correctly).

As late as 2007, Hansen still said 1934 was warmer than 1998, but just barely, as NASA systematically cooled the past in their computers.

And now NASA shows 1934 as being much cooler than 1998, by about 0.4C. So NASA has reduced the 1934 temperature down almost one degree from the original 1934 number, over the years.

This dishonest modification of the temperature record was done so that alarmists could claim we are living in the hottest times in human history because of CO2.

The facts are, it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today.

Without the dishonest modifications to the temperature record, the alarmists would have NOTHING to point to as “evidence” for CO2 warming. Our only “evidence” for Human-caused Global Warming is produced in a computer by people who have a climate change agenda..

Last edited 6 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 8, 2021 4:47 am

NASA has also subsequently cooled 1998 by about 0.3C.

The difference between 1998 and 2016 (the hottest year evah!) on the UAH satellite chart is 0.1C, which means 1998 and 2016 are statistically tied for the warmest temperature since the 1930’s.

The difference between 1998 and 2016 on the adjusted, bogus NASA instrument-era Hockey Stick chart is 0.3C now.

The UAH satellite chart:

comment image

Ulric Lyons
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 4:58 pm

The 1880’s was during a centennial solar minimum, the AMO should be warmer then because of increased negative NAO conditions, which gave some pretty chilly years for central England.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat

Southeast Australia was very warm in the 1880’s, because the negative NAO is directly associated with slower trade winds and hence increased El Nino conditions. Which is typical for a centennial solar minimum. The El Nino episodes also drive major warm pulses to the AMO with an 8 month lag.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
November 8, 2021 4:25 am

“Southeast Australia was very warm in the 1880’s”

So it wasn’t just the United States. 🙂

Some people like to complain that the warming in the United States was just a local phenomenon, and wasn’t duplicated in other parts of the world.

But your testimony, and unmodified, regional surface temperature charts from all around the world show that is not true. It was just as warm in the recent past worldwide, as it is today.

The alarmists cannot admit to this fact, otherwise, it destroys their Human-caused Climate Change meme.

Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 6:39 am

I notice another of your AMO charts (Index and Principal Component) even shows the warming that took place in the 1950’s, which is also shown on the U.S. surface temperature chart.

I look at the 1930’s through the 1950’s, as being very similar to the 1998-2016 era, with a temperature highpoint in 1998 which subsequently cooled for a few years before again warming to a high level in 2016.

What happened after the temperatures warmed to a high level in the 1950’s? Answer: The temperatures cooled off for a couple of decades down through the late 1970’s when some climate scientists were starting to voice worries that the Earth was heading into another Ice Age.

We didn’t go into another ice age, instead we warmed up in the 1980’s, but in the current situation, we are starting to cool again, and it may very well be that we cool down to the level of the 1970’s and 1910’s again. That’s the established pattern to date, going by legitimate charts.

So, time will tell. Everybody hang on for a couple of more decades and then we’ll know. 🙂

Last edited 6 months ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 7:25 am

“The following series of illustrations are screenshots taken from the videos on the website earth.nullschool.net, that uses data from the National Weather Service, GPS computer models, and the National Centers for Environmental Prediction. 
I encourage everyone to go to this site. It provides everyone with the same data professional scientists use to forecast weather and climate, and it enables YOU to appreciate the role of Arctic pressure systems or pressure systems elsewhere, and truly follow the science!”

I agree. If you look at this site daily, you can see how the jet streams move, and the jet streams are key to understanding what is happening below them.

Such as today’s jet stream, which showed the jet stream dipping down to the Gulf of Mexico some days ago, but now the dip in the jet stream pattern is moving east and instead of a dip in the jet stream, it is bringing a rise in the jet stream over the central U.S. which translates into warmer temperatures for those south of the jet stream. And this pattern will move to the east over coming days, and another dip in the jet stream will follow along bringing cooler temperatures and winter weather. And on and on and on. Highs and Lows, traveling across the globe from west to east.

https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/500hPa/orthographic=-103.88,40.05,304

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 7:46 am

78F here today under severe clear skies (central CO).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
November 8, 2021 4:50 am

Another dip in the jet stream is in our future, heading our way, so enjoy the warm weather while it lasts.

Tom Abbott
November 7, 2021 11:00 am

From the transcript: “So likewise if you follow these weather events, it becomes clear time after time, that the extreme events are driven by various configurations of pressure systems, not global warming. ”

That’s exactly right

This means we can be subject to all sorts of surprise weather and none of it would be because CO2 is in the air. It would be because of the various combinations of highs and lows and how they interact. No CO2 required.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Yooper
November 8, 2021 4:55 am

Thanks for that link. Very interesting.

If that “White Hurricane” of 1913, had hit today, the alarmist would be certain it was caused by human-derived CO2.

Gerard O'Dowd
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 8, 2021 5:37 pm

I appreciate Jim Steele’s description of the multidecadal interactions between the Natural Oscillations of the earth’s oceans and atmosphere. It’s such a magnificent and beautiful idea that provides great insight into the complexities of variations in Global Temperatures and Weather patterns. The earth.nullset.com graphics were very helpful to illustrate the concepts and to visualize location of the Natural Oscillations.

The still unknown causes of phase shifts in the Earth’s Natural Oscillations preclude mitigation efforts to control GT by even heroic efforts to lower CO2 emissions and atmospheric levels of CO2.

Successful mitigation of any kind of problem requires knowledge of the exact nature and mechanism of causation and the temporal relationship between cause and effect and possession of technology fitted to the scale of the cause of the problem. How can the alarmists think that CO2 acts as the earth’s thermostat when phase shifts in Oscillating Systems that affect weather and GT and precipitation around the earth are due to causes independent of GHG’s?

Complex systems like the earth’s climate, cellular oncogenesis, human cognition, memory, and imagination involve numerous variables most which are still unknown, unmeasured and defy Man’s capabilities to understand their intricacies much less accurately predict outcomes. Climate Models are flawed because man’s knowledge is limited.

Successful Mitigation requires Omniscience. Man is not God.

Ulric Lyons
November 7, 2021 4:50 pm

Complete nonsense, negative NAO drives Arctic warming through increased humidity events and cyclones into the Arctic, and negative NAO drives a warmer AMO. You say that the 30 years before the 1970’s the NAO was in a negative regime, but the AMO was in a warm phase up to 1965. It was the negative NAO 1995-1999 which began the rapid AMO and Arctic warming, followed by another negative NAO regime 2005-2013.
I don’t see any AMO cooling:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1975/plot/esrl-amo/from:2003/trend

roaddog
November 8, 2021 12:21 am

Sadly, the YouTube version of the presentation is amended with an editorial note on “Climate Change,” which specifically states that “Climate Change” is principally a result of human activities.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  roaddog
November 8, 2021 4:33 am

One would think that with the Establishment pushing this Human-caused Climate Change narrative so hard, that everyone would believe in it, but the polls consistently show climate change is last on the list of people’s priorities.

The Liars on the Left are not making much headway in fooling the public about the so-called dangers of CO2, despite their mass communication advantages.

So there’s hope. 🙂

%d bloggers like this: