POHANG UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (POSTECH)
While the entire world focuses on achieving carbon neutrality – zero carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions – a new research shows climate change in some regions is inevitable even if the already increased CO2 level is reduced. As CO2 decreases, the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) shifts southwards, which can trigger persistent El Niño conditions. El Niño refers to a phenomenon in which the sea surface temperature near the equator rises by 1 to 3°C above its surroundings, causing droughts, storms, and floods around the world.
A POSTECH research team led by Professor Jong-Seong Kug and Ji-Hoon Oh (Division of Environmental Science and Engineering) conducted a simulation on the Earth system model that can ramp-up and ramp-down the concentration of atmospheric CO2. The researchers observed that the ITCZ, which hardly moved when the CO2 concentration increased, sharply shifted southwards when the CO2 level decreased. Even when the CO2 concentration was returned to its original level, its center still remained in the Southern Hemisphere.
The shift of the ITCZ, where 32% of the global precipitation occurs, is an extremely important factor in determining the amount of precipitation in the tropics and subtropics. The shift can change the Hadley circulation – the starting point of the global atmospheric circulation – to cause abnormalities in the global climate. Through this study, Professor Kug’s team has confirmed that as CO2 begins to decrease, the ITCZ moves to the Southern Hemisphere which remains warm, unlike the Northern Hemisphere that cools down with CO2 reduction.
Atmospheric CO2 reduction could slowly return the average global temperature and precipitation to normal. However, the researchers claim that the climate may appear completely different in some regions. The change in precipitation due to the southwards shift of the ITCZ is very similar to the pattern during an extreme El Niño. In other words, it is expected that some regions will experience an abnormal climate condition where an extreme El Niño persists.
The model simulations confirmed that even if the increased CO2 concentration is reduced and returned to its original value, the Sahel zone including the Sahara Desert and southern Europe around the Mediterranean Sea experienced a 20% decrease in average annual precipitation compared to the current levels, leading to further desertification. In contrast, North and South America had an increase in precipitation by about 15%. In fact, a risk of more frequent flooding was found in the western regions of North and South America where the increase in precipitation was noticeable. In East Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, a possibility of more rain during the monsoon season was found due to the increased precipitation in summer.
“It is impossible to properly reflect the complex climate system if only the average global temperature and precipitation levels are considered when creating mitigation policies to prevent climate change, such as carbon neutrality or carbon reduction,” explained Professor Jong-Seong Kug. Emphasizing that regional changes such as the southwards shift of the ITCZ should be fully taken into account, Professor Kug added, “The already emitted greenhouse gases have lasting effects on the planet so we need to recognize their long-term impacts as well as their immediate effect on climate change.”
Recently published in Nature Climate Change, this study was conducted with the support from the Irreversible Climate Change Research Center funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea.
JOURNAL
Nature Climate Change
ARTICLE TITLE
Hysteresis of the intertropical convergence zone to CO2 forcing
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
9-Dec-2021
“Atmospheric CO2 reduction could slowly return the average global temperature and precipitation to normal.”
Now define NORMAL.
Normal are Ice Ages, we are lucky to live in abnormally short period of the warm climate which has enabled humans to develop civilisation and to prosper.
NOAA data says so
And looking at that the temperatures may start falling off that cliff in the next 1,000 years. There is no evidence to indicate that the ice age has ended.
Also, I have just noticed how NOAA, which I guess is staffed with the ‘brightest and best’ has highlighted the MWP and only the MWP. This is appalling, firstly, because it betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the temperature ‘topology’ of the Holocene and secondly, scale. How long was the MWP?
Correction, they did mark clearly as I’ve noticed where they put it so it wasn’t clear to me. My mistake. Either way my first point still stands.
The new normal is an unwarranted media induced fear about future weather. Mezoamerican’s cancelled their fear of PDO variability by sacrificing virgins to the weather gods. Today’s kinder, gentler version is to sacrifice science that can explain the variability, but not in a way that’s consistent with the gospels of the new climate religion.
Normal is a mystical and very unattainable constant. Normal is a real world abnormal; for temp and precip would run within a range on a regular timetable at every point on the globe and never become uncomfortable let alone do damage with high winds and extremes.
But Beagle, the principle reason it is unattainable is that should the world ever achieve “Normal” we would no longer need the UN and the bureaucrats to fix the abnormality of it all and how else might they control the great unwashed masses.
Oh wait. Pans! Panic and Pandemonium from Pandemics. Yeah, pans, that’s the ticket!
You beat me to it.
The Professors run a “simulation” utilizing a “model” which shows decreasing atmospheric CO2 pushes the ICZ southward, then they claim their simulation/model shows even decreasing atmospheric CO2 won’t return to “normal”, which indicates that CO2 is not the climate cycle control knob. What a mess of a pseudo-scientific cobbled-up spending of federal (Korean?) money.
What I would like to know is how is CO2 pushing the ITCZ around? What’s the mechanism? Are they assuming CO2-added warmth is the cause?
But “model simulations CONFIRMED…”
Shouldn’t that be enough for you to have FAITH in their results???
If we keep pushing up the CO2 levels and then letting them drop over and over again, can we push the ITCZ all the way down to the equator? /sarc
So what is their idea of normal temperatures and rates of precipitation?
Enough of this nonsense
Now at 7:30am it is -32C in Calgary – where is that global warming we’re supposed to be so afraid of?
Went shopping yesterday – the Boxing Day ritual. It’s so cold here that the boogers freeze inside your nose.
More from my friend Cap Allon at electroverse.net:
RECORD-BREAKING FLURRIES HIT PRINCE GEORGE, + “SNOW TO PILE AS HIGH AS A ONE-STORY BUILDING” IN PARTS OF THE US
DECEMBER 23, 2021 CAP ALLON
According to the NWS, the Sierra Nevada mountains could receive up to 10 feet during the Christmas weekend.
“RED ALERTS” ISSUED IN INDIA AS COLD WAVE INTENSIFIES; RECORD SNOWFALL HITS SWITZERLAND; + AMID FREEZING LOWS & ENERGY SHORTAGES, EUROPE STRUGGLES TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON
DECEMBER 22, 2021 CAP ALLON
The cold of winter is set to invade even the wealthiest of nations: Prepare for rolling blackouts…
BHOPAL, INDIA SUFFERS LOWEST TEMP IN 55 YEARS, “HAZARDOUS” FREEZE TO HIT THE PRAIRIES, RARE POLAR STRATOSPHERIC CLOUDS SPOTTED, + TONGA-HUNGA VOLCANO ERUPTS TO 49,200 FEET
DECEMBER 21, 2021 CAP ALLON
The COLD TIMES are returning…
EUROPE FORECAST A BITTERLY COLD AND SNOWY CHRISTMAS, VIRUS LEAK, + WASHINGTON POST (& GOOGLE) ATTACKS ELECTROVERSE…?
DECEMBER 16, 2021 CAP ALLON
The truth always prevails… eventually.
SNOWFALL RECORDS (FROM THE 1800S) FALL IN NEVADA & CALIFORNIA–JUST AS NEW BOGUS STUDY CLAIMS “NO SNOW” IN 35 YEARS
DECEMBER 15, 2021 CAP ALLON
We are being lied to on every front. A healthy suspicion is advised.
MOSCOW BREAKS MULTIDECADAL SNOWFALL RECORDS, “TREMENDOUS SNOW TOTALS” HIT SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAINS, + SNOWIEST GREECE SINCE 2004
DECEMBER 14, 2021 CAP ALLON
Dr. Richard Courtney: “The empirical evidence strongly indicates that the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is wrong.”
SNOW CHAOS IN SERBIA & THE BALKANS, COLDER & SNOWIER WINTER HEADED FOR U.S. WITH INCOMING ‘POLAR VORTEX’, + FEMA GUILTY OF TWISTER ‘CLIMATEERING’
DECEMBER 13, 2021 CAP ALLON
Dr. Vincent Gray: “The [IPCC] climate change statement is an orchestrated litany of lies.
Is “boogers” a scientific term?
Ask any parent.
In the UK we call them “bogeys”.
Boreal winters have gradually reducing sunlight for the last 400 years and that process is in train for another 10,000 years. Calgary is a good observation point for the current cycle of glaciation.
No one living today will get to see any serious impact of glaciation but it is underway.
The proper terminology is “neoglaciation”, and it has been underway for ~5,000 years.
Mountain glaciers and ice fields have formed again and with fits and starts are regrowing. Muskeg is increasing via paludification. The Arctic treeline has shifted south by 500 miles or more since the Hypsithermal. Nunataks, islands of montane vegetation surrounded by alpine tundra, are developing again. Ice is accumulating in central Greenland, and coastal vegetation is disappearing.
All these and more neoglaciation phenomena are observable and have been well-documented.
The UK was cool on Christmas day i.e. far from severely cold.
UK temps are forecast to be 13 to 14C until Sunday.
It’s been another warm winter so far, very wet too.
How many of those other claims are true?
(Btw, I am 100% against the watermelon climate blob.)
Just what is ‘NORMAL’?
The time of Hans Christian Anderson; Ice Faires, skating on the Thames, and the like. Ah, the good old days.
And ice bergs floating downstream in the Delaware River in NJ.
“…. downstream in the Delaware River in NJ.”
Interesting trivia –
The shared border between Pennsylvania and New Jersey is split down the middle (which is typical for most state river borders). So only half in NJ.
When the Delaware river gets to the state of Delaware, the border is at the NJ shoreline (not typical), so All of the river is in the state of Delaware, virtually none in NJ.
Is this not backwards?
More CO2 will dissolve in water, the cooler the water gets. A reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere has no effect on the temp of the water below it. This is like putting the cart before the horse
Not another unvalidated model. Into the round green filing cabinet with it.
How can it be unvalidated. It showed them what they wanted to see. Isn’t that enough proof that it works?
“this study was conducted with the support from the Irreversible Climate Change Research Center funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea.”
Indeed. So they got exactly what they paid for. Funny how that works.
The caption of the shown figure makes no sense when describing the figure. The sentence:”WHEN THE CO2 LEVEL INCREASES, THE CENTER DOES NOT CHANGE MUCH BUT AS IT
INCREASES, Decreases THE ITCZ DESCENDS SOUTHWARDS,… ”would make much more sense.
This is climate science! It doesn’t need to make sense..
“While the entire world focuses on achieving carbon neutrality…”
the entire world? well, if you exclude China and India and Russia and Africa
“…the researchers claim that the climate may appear completely different in some regions…”
May? in some regions? Wow, now that sounds like SETTLED science- precise, like nuclear physics…
“The model simulations confirmed….”
Confirmed????
I looked up “confirmed” on dictionary.com and it says:
Must be one heck of a model- deserving of a Noble Prize.
I was originally going to post something along the lines of …
… but scrolled down to check other people’s reactions first.
You highlighted the (main) problem better than I could have.
What this DOES confirm is that so-called Climate “Scientists” have simply abandoned the real, physical world to operate instead in a digital fairy story.
well, we have to believe what they say- that report is peer reviewed! Kinda like a “papal bull”
Well, it’s definitely bull.
Indeed…
“
HysteresisHysterical interpretation of the intertropical convergence zone to CO2 forcing”fixed it :-}
Egads! We’ve broken the planet! It’s not only unprecedented, it’s irreversible.
This report is so full of red flags as to burn your corneas. Models, simulations, et al.
Funded by the Irreversible Climate Change Research Center. Do you think that maybe their mission is to find irreversible climate change and that they will inevitably find something that looks like it? When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.
Meanwhile, in other news, neuropsychologists funded by the Irreversibly Stupid Research Center have determined that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions cause an unprecedented expansion of the Intercranial Stupid Zone.
Now that there is a real “Tipping Point!”
They might want to reconsider using the word “irreversible”. If it can’t be reversed, what’s the point of any more funding?
They should have stopped just there.
Uh-oh, now we’ve done it. We broke the planet.
Enough reading to confirm that this is merely a CAGW Domesday Cult Propaganda piece
In fairness, the model simulations did confirm that they are model simulations.
The model simulations confirmed the programmers’ preconceived opinions. Science? No.
off topic- sorry, but just saw a very good YouTube video about nuclear energy in Europe- learned a lot and it was nicely done from a pure videographer perspective
“Why is FRANCE betting on NUCLEAR ENERGY again?”
“The model simulations confirmed…” Oh, for crying out loud. Not the **** models!!!
How can the ITCZ move south as it is a product of the size/spin of the earth along with the depth and mass of the atmosphere? Any asymmetry of this region around the equator is as a consequence of the position and shape of the oceans, which is determined by the land masses and mountains. If there were no land masses and the world was just a uniform ocean and atmosphere then the atmosphere would organise itself more symmetrically such as on Jupiter and Saturn.
The Irreversible Climate Change Research Center concludes that climate change is irreversable. Who would ever have seen that coming?
🙂 clown show.
How many climate modelers can be stuffed into a mini cooper?
Yes, it’s like the UN IPCC:
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations responsible for advancing knowledge on human-induced climate change. Wikipedia”
The mission of the IPCC is to find human-induced climate change, and lo, and behold, that’s what they claim they have found. Would they claim anything different? I don’t think so. If they did, all their paychecks and political power would go away. No, the IPCC is going to find human-induced climate change whether it is there or not because it is in their interests to do so.
Impossible to know if they are right or wrong, it depends on how good the modell is. This is the fundamental problem with model evidence, there is no way of knowing if it is right or wrong.
There are ways of testing models. The problem is that it is rarely done. Perhaps they are afraid of having to admit that the model failed the test and there is nothing that can be published and added to their CV.
Well, weather models are falsified all the time. Just yesterday the forecast for today in my area was 6% precip. Today it says 21%. That’s a falsification. More than 300% wrong. They only get it “right” through the broken clock syndrome.
Different forecasters give different forecasts. It is my impression that all of them have high rates of false-positives for rain for at least the mid-west and NE USA. They do better in California where most of the rain is in the Winter, and there tends to be light, continuous rain everywhere, at least in Northern California.
Alexander: there is no model evidence. Models do not produce evidence (evidence, facts, is produced by nature), models produce outputs.
If models do represent accurately the way nature exists, their outputs may be quite useful because they may be quite close to the observed facts. A simple example: matter mode of existence is very well described by an old model, Newtonian physics. This model is so good that its outputs enabled Armstrong to go to the Moon, walk over its surface, and come back to Earth.
The problem arises when people call “models” to their hypotheses, to the products of their imagination, instead of doing the hard job: doing a formal description of the “behavior” of nature, testing to check if it is correct (at least inside the limits of the realm of their observation and of the precision of their measurements), and then using that description (that model) to write a computer programme for doing quickly the calculations.
Do these jerks think that the climate is something static that can controlled with a thermostat? I have been observing stupidity for decades and it just gets worse not better.
Stupidity seems to have a direct correlation with CO2 levels. Is there nothing that the Magic Molecule ™ can’t do?
Do these jerks think that the climate is something static that can controlled with a thermostat?
After several years of hearing from them, that appears to be exactly what they believe. (I won’t say “think” because there is none of that going on)
“The already emitted greenhouse gases have lasting effects on the planet so we need to recognize their long-term impacts as well as their immediate effect on climate change.” – Perfesser Kug
Yeah, well, we’ll have much, much bigger dragonflies and centipedes, and possibly/probably lots more GREEN cover like PLANTS, and BIGGER plants, so I’m guessing the people who do these studies (to justify grants money?) don’t know or even vaguely understand how biology works?
Almost forgot to include the part (as David Middleton once reminded me!) that tells us that too much O2 in the atmosphere will allow raging wildfires to occur. (See the Carboniferous and Silurian periods) But those things don’t occur to Those People, do they?
After all, centipedes were as much as 10 feet long in the Carboniferous period: Arthropluera was perhaps the largest arthropod of the Carboniferous and was overall among the largest arthropods that ever lived, measuring on average between 6.6 – 10 feet (2 – 3 m) long, as large as a man or crocodile and as long as a car. — https://prehistoric-earth-a-natural-history.fandom.com/wiki/Arthropleura
Really, I would prefer to not run into a creepy crawler that size without a very large bottle of a degreasing household cleaner like Fantastik.
So if plants do what they usually do – pull all that CO2 into their vascular systems, along with a gobsmacking amount of water, we’ll have more plants releasing higher and higher levels of O2 into the atmosphere, and — well, folks, be prepared to meet some Very Large Bugs. And there goes that whole “CO2 is bad stuff” right out the window.
I mean, who does NOT like plants? Do you think vegans might get the point? Think about it for a minute: broccoli plants 5 feet high from root to crown, with stems so full of woody fiber that the brocco is inedible. Whatever would the vegans do????
Klaus Schwab of WEF infamy is now telling people to not wash their clothes in order to combat “climate change”.
You go first, Klaus Klown.
Klaus Schwab of WEF infamy is now telling people to not wash their clothes
The guy who invented “Soylent” (the “meal-replacement” drink) apparently wears clothes only once and then disposes of them because he believes that’s better for the environment than washing them.
You mean broccoli is actually edible? Who knew?
Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and his wife have bought 110 acres of a beach front former sugar plantation on the Hawaiian island of Kauai.
The ardent climate change warrior Zuckerberg is not concerned about forthcoming catastrophic sea level rise.
Is he someone who says he has particular moral beliefs but behaves in way that shows he is not sincere?
So, it’s a “peer reviewed publication.”
BFD!
That’s no guarantee it can’t be a total load of horse manure especially if the reviewers are fellow BS slingers.
Every article and comment published here on WUWT is essentially ‘peer reviewed,’ with varying degrees of expertise, and different biases.
The Boston Globe reports a major snow storm in northern CA. Probably caused by global warming. The photo is from the paper.
It is noteworthy that the picture was taken in the vicinity of Donner’s Summit, named after the infamous Donner Party.
Lunch anyone?
Where was Blitzen? Oh, right – they ate him.
We had snow here in Western Washington starting on Christmas day. All through the week, the weather people were wishy washy on whether we would get any. They certainly didn’t predict that it would be 12F last night on Whidbey Island.
Yeah, models work.
> “The model simulations confirmed”
I weep for the state of editorial review.
How can a model confirm, something that the model just found?
They ran it twice and got the same output each time?
Confirmation bias certainly got confirmed.
“Climate science” is starting to become a parody of itself.
If by “starting” you mean has been for 30 years, then yes.
The latest scientific data from CERES tells a different story. The data appears to show that the warming seen over the past 25 years was driven by a reduction in clouds and not CO2.
“The drop of cloudiness around the millennium by about 1.5% has certainly fostered the positive net radiative flux.”
“… the root cause for the positive TOA net flux and, hence, for a further accumulation of energy during the last two decades was a declining outgoing shortwave flux and not a retained LW flux. ” – Hans-Rolf Dübal and Fritz Vahrenholt, October 2021, journal Atmosphere, Radiative Energy Flux Variation from 2001-2020.
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/12/10/1297/htm
“The shift from a negative to a positive PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) index as an additional factor for the net TOA flux”
OK, the PDO shift occurred in 2014 so how does this align with the warming?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to/plot/uah6/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/trend
So two drops in clouds. One right around the turn of the century and another around 2014. Warming followed. Sure looks like a solid theory. This means we’ve likely gone 25 years without any greenhouse warming. I wonder how that fits into their model.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1997/to/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1997/to/normalise
The cloud reaction ( for the “albedo warming” after 2014 ) could be indeed a result of the PDO+ swing.
“Recently published in Nature Climate Change, this study was conducted with the support from the Irreversible Climate Change Research Center funded by the National Research Foundation of Korea.”
What a surprise, the research center established to study irreversible climate change, found irreversible climate change. That’s as surprising as the IPCC finding that CO2 is the climate control knob. Are we ever going to move on from this nonsense?
“Models confirmed…”. What bullshit. Models confirm nothing. I worked my whole career in the semiconductor business where everything is designed using Models. An axiom from people who actually know Modeling is that models never work. They can be tweaked into usability only after much testing against REALITY.
Nature Magazine = BBC = Climate Change Propaganda
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/04/the_coming_modern_grand_solar_minimum.html
Quote – “Even when the CO2 concentration was returned to its original level…”
—————
At that point I realized there was no point reading any further. “Original” level???
Well actually I realized that from reading the title because we are already in the climate of the past and no matter how much it changes in any direction, we will still be in a climate of the past. Earth has been through it all before.
Since the climate can logically only get hotter, get colder, or stay the same, and it’s been all of those in the past, saying we can’t return to a climate of the past is nonsensical.
A conclusion that begs the question. Notably an assumption, assertion of cause and effect. And a colored perception of systems and processes, past, present, and future.
If we build our assumptions into a model, then the model confirms our assumptions. The end.
I’m confused by the information provided under the initial graph and the text directly below. Which is it…does the ITCZ shift to the south in CO2 levels “increase” (text with graph) or does the shift occur when the CO2 levels “decrease” (1st paragraph), thus causing lingering El Nino conditions?
Yes.
The Magic Molecule can do anything at all that the models want it to do.
More self satisfaction models return what the modeler desires.
“The model simulations confirmed” I stopped reading at this point.
return the average global temperature and precipitation to normal
Did someone finally define “normal”? I’ve been asking what the right temperature (and the rest) should be for years, still haven’t gotten an answer.