By Andy May
The Creative Society ask to interview me on the 20th century climate shifts that Dr. Javier Vinós and I discussed in Part IV of our series of posts on Javier’s Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis. I don’t agree with a lot of the Creative Society ideas, but we do agree that open discussion on the future of mankind is important. I was pleased that an organization that has such a different outlook on civilization would want to interview me, a proponent of small and local government. More discussion and debate between differing worldviews is needed today. The interview was October 10th, but it has not been posted or published yet.
Most of this talk is based on Chapter 11 of Javier Vinós’ new book: Climate of the Past, Present, and Future: A Scientific Debate. This is a graduate school level review of natural climate change processes, an often-ignored area in modern discussions of climate science. The book comprehensively introduces Javier’s new Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis of natural climate change.
Earth’s global average surface temperature changes constantly, at all timescales. Earth is never in thermal equilibrium, and powerful natural forces are always at work redistributing the absorbed radiation from the sun, some of the major processes are illustrated in Figure 1. The sun delivers more radiation to the tropics than to the higher latitudes because it is more directly overhead. In fact, it delivers so much to the tropics it cannot all be radiated to space, the excess is shown in red. In addition, Earth’s tropical ocean surface temperature is capped at about thirty degrees Celsius, since at that temperature the energy lost to evaporation and deep convection always equals the excess energy delivered.
Because the tropical sea-surface temperatures are capped, global warming is mostly a function of polar temperature. Thus, the key to climate change, at all timescales, is the meridional, or north-south, transport of energy from the tropics to the poles.
When meridional energy transport is stronger, more energy reaches the poles. Most moisture transported to the poles in winter freezes, emitting its latent heat, and warming the surrounding air. Additional CO2 molecules in the polar air increase outward radiation since they are warmer than the surface. The net result is that nearly all imported energy into the polar regions in winter eventually exits the climate system at the top of the atmosphere, as shown in blue in Figure 1. Increasing the energy transported there mostly just increases the energy lost. The result is a cooling planet.
As more energy is directed toward the poles, sometimes the Arctic region warms, even as the rest of the world cools or warms more slowly. The Arctic warmed, for example, as the rest of the world cooled, from 1880 to 1910, 1965 to 1976, and from 2005-2015. When meridional transport is weaker, less energy reaches the poles and exits the climate system, and the planet warms, as the Arctic cools, because it is receiving less energy from the lower latitudes.
Commonly natural climate change is viewed as cyclical, but since 1951 nature is thought to have a near zero net climate effect by “consensus” climate scientists, as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC, as shown in Figure 1 here, from AR5, page 6. Also, we commonly hear that as the global average temperature goes up, storminess, or so-called extreme weather increases. Here we present some often-ignored data that shows both ideas are incorrect oversimplifications.
As you can see in the lower right of Figure 2, Earth is a rotating sphere, and the axis of rotation is tilted relative to its orbit around the sun. The orbit is slightly eccentric such that Earth receives more sunlight in January, than in July. As a result, Earth’s global average surface temperature varies almost four degrees every year. It is near 16°C in July and a little over 12°C in January. Why panic over an increase of two degrees Celsius? We see twice that every year.
The poles are dark in winter, they simply receive energy from the tropics and radiate it to space. The more energy they receive from the tropics in winter, the more they radiate, cooling the rest of the planet. If they receive more energy in the summer, it goes into melting ice. When the summer meltwater re-freezes in winter it releases the stored summer energy (called “latent heat”) and radiate that to space as well. This is how variations in the amount of heat delivered via meridional transport cause climate change. The evidence and processes involved in meridional transport will be briefly covered in this talk as well as the evidence that periodic shifts in Earth’s climate state occur about every 25 years. Climate shifts change the relationship between delivered solar energy and climate through changes in meridional transport.
The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis proposes that changes in the meridional transport of energy and moisture are the main way the climate changes now and in the past. Meridional transport variability integrates the many forces that act on it simultaneously and in different timeframes. Thus, interpreting exactly how and why meridional transport affects climate is difficult. We can see it happening, and will show the data, but we cannot always explain why. The forces that act on it and through it are multidecadal ocean-atmosphere oscillations, solar variability, ozone, stratospheric-reaching tropical volcanic eruptions, orbital changes, and changing lunar and solar gravitational pull. Meridional transport is an integrator of internal and external forces. It is not the only way climate changes, but evidence suggests it is the main actor.
The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis does not disprove greenhouse gas effect induced climate change—manmade or otherwise—in fact, it primarily acts through the greenhouse gas effect. But it does not require changes in non-condensing greenhouse gases (like CO2) to cause significant climate change. Therefore, it does refute the hypothesis that CO2 is the main climate change control knob.
Meridional transport moves energy that is already in the climate system (mainly from the tropics) toward its exit point at the top of the atmosphere at a higher latitude. It is carried out mainly by the atmosphere—in both the stratosphere and troposphere—with an important oceanic contribution. The greenhouse effect is not homogeneous over the planet due to the unequal distribution of water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Water vapor provides about 75% of the total global greenhouse effect according to Lacis, et al., Raymond Pierrehumbert gives a value of 67%, and Wijngaarden and Happer, 61%, either way water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. The total greenhouse effect is stronger in the wet tropics, weaker over deserts, and much weaker at the poles in winter, as Figure 2 makes clear.
Roughly every 25 years, the climate shifts from one state to another, these shifts involve changes in meridional transport. We can see one aspect of the most recent shift, that occurred between 1997 and 2005, in the upper right portion of Figure 2. Prior to this shift, summer outgoing radiation exceeded winter outgoing radiation and the planet warmed rapidly. After 2005, the winter sent out more radiation than the summer, winter meridional transport increased, and most of the planet warmed less quickly, as you can see in the left illustration in Figure 2. Meridional transport drives climate change, but it has many forces that drive it. Besides the differential greenhouse effect driver already discussed, ocean oscillations, especially the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation shown on the bottom of the left illustration, are important. The top part of the left illustration shows the level of solar activity, another driver. The middle graph shows the smoothed global average temperature anomaly from the Hadley Climate Research Center in the UK. When both the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and solar activity increased from 1910 to 1940, the world warmed rapidly, and meridional transport weakened.
From 1945 to 1976, the world cooled as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation went into its cool phase, the Arctic also cooled, and meridional transport was weak. After 1976, transport weakened further, there was strong warming, solar activity was still elevated but declining, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation went into a strong warming phase. The world warmed rapidly.
After 1997, there was another shift, global warming slowed, the sun weakened rapidly, and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation plateaued. Comparing the ascending Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation periods from 1920 to 1940 and 1976 to 2005, one gets two impressions. The first is that the ocean cycles have a larger influence than insolation changes, and the second is that the ocean cycles have a stronger influence than CO2 emissions, since the two warming periods are similar even though the CO2 emissions were much higher during the second period.
One critical influence on meridional transport, and climate shifts, is the strength of the polar vortex. These two figures show a strong polar vortex as it existed in January of 2005. The left illustration shows the strong westerly (west to east) average wind speed surrounding the North Pole in red. This definitive, nearly circular, high westerly stratospheric wind pattern at 20 hectopascals altitude (about 23 km), is a sign of a strong polar vortex. The right-hand illustration has the altitude of 20 hectopascals marked and shows wind speed as a function of altitude and latitude. The strong vortex extends down to 100 hectopascals altitude (11 km). Under extreme conditions it can nearly reach the surface.
A polar vortex forms in winter because cooling air over an icy surface, when the area is losing energy (or heat) to space, causes an increase in air density. This increases the air pressure at the surface, forming the vortex. When the vortex is strong, it traps cold air at the pole, preventing cold air incursions into the mid-latitudes and decreasing meridional transport. When it is weak, it loses its shape and can even split in two. A weak vortex allows warm air and moisture to flow into the polar area, increasing meridional transport and emissions to space.
The polar vortex is strongest in the winter, when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is rising, and the number of sunspots is high, indicating strong solar activity. The polar vortex is weak when solar activity is low (fewer sunspots), the AMO is decreasing, and meridional transport is strong.
In the Arctic, the polar vortex strength determines the polar stratosphere-to-troposphere winter coupling. The cumulative winter Arctic Oscillation is plotted in gray in graph (a) of Figure 4 and labeled “AO.” It can be used as a proxy for polar vortex strength. When increasing, it suggests little exchange between the mid-latitudes and the pole, and a strong vortex. A strong polar vortex requires cooperation between the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific high latitudes and minimal air exchange with the middle latitudes.
The black line in (a) is the degree of correlation between the Aleutian Islands in the North Pacific and the Icelandic weather in the North Atlantic, it is often called the Aleutian-Icelandic low seesaw. When there is a cooperation between the Aleutian Low and the Icelandic Low, the polar vortex is strong. The periods when the vortex is strong are shaded in gray.
In Figure 4 the 20th century climate shifts, first identified in the Pacific, are shown as black dots. Here we discuss some of the major climatic features that change with each of the recent major shifts. In panel (b), the black line is a 4.5-year average Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index, labeled “AMO.” The data are from NOAA. The grey line is the cumulative 1870–2020 detrended (meaning the linear trend is removed) cold season North Atlantic Oscillation index, labeled “NAO.” The North Atlantic Oscillation is the difference between the pressure over Iceland and the Azores, a measure of the strength of North Atlantic westerly winds and the location of the North Atlantic winter storm tracks.
Panel (c) is the cumulative Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It is labeled “PDO.” The black dots, our climate shifts, mark the years when Pacific Decadal Oscillation regime shifts took place.
The black line in panel (d) shows the zonal (west-east) atmospheric circulation index, cumulative anomaly. The grey line in panel (d) is the 1900–2020 change in the length of day, used here as an indication of Earth’s speed of rotation. It is plotted in milliseconds and correlates well with zonal wind speed, as it should. Changes in average west-east wind speed can cause Earth’s rotation speed to vary by several milliseconds.
Panel (e) is the detrended 1895–2015 annual global surface average temperature. It is 10-year smoothed. The data are from the UK Met Office.
The panel (f) dashed line is the smoothed monthly total sunspot number. The grey line is the smoothed monthly Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation index. The black line is the inverted 20-year running correlation of the two. Notice the correlation reverses at every climate shift, this reversal confounded solar-climate researchers for over 200 years.
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, in panels b and f, measures sea-surface temperature anomalies that reflect the strength of meridional transport over the North Atlantic. Positive AMO values indicate warm water accumulation due to reduced meridional transport and a strong polar vortex. The North Atlantic Oscillation (panel b) is the sea-level pressure gradient over the North Atlantic, and part of the Arctic Oscillation (panel a). Not surprisingly, its detrended and cumulative value is very similar to that of the Arctic Oscillation, but also shows some correlation to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation sea-surface temperature anomalies.
The decades-long North Atlantic Oscillation index trends cannot be explained by general climate models as they do not incorporate multidecadal meridional transport regimes. Models consider North Atlantic Oscillation indices white noise. Without properly representing meridional transport, the IPCC climate models cannot explain climate change.
Over the Pacific sector, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation also measures sea-surface temperature anomalies. A positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation indicates warm water accumulation over the equatorial and eastern side of the Pacific, an indication of reduced meridional transport. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation values in panel (c) roughly coincide with those of the Atlantic in panel (b). Climatic shifts in the Pacific coincide with times when the Pacific Decadal Oscillation changes from predominantly positive to negative or back.
Meridional wind circulation is how most excess energy is transported out of the tropics. Increases in meridional transport imply increases in meridional circulation and corresponding decreases in zonal circulation.
A stronger polar vortex and weaker meridional transport coincide with stronger west-east (zonal) winds. A weaker polar vortex and higher meridional transport coincide with stronger north-south (meridional) winds. These periodic changes in atmospheric circulation patterns affect Earth’s rotation speed and the length of day. Earth must preserve its angular momentum, so when global atmospheric circulation becomes persistently more zonal the Earth rotates faster reducing the length of the day. The normal mid- to high-latitude zonal winds are west to east, which is the way the world turns.
Each of the four climate shifts, originally identified in the Pacific during the 20th century, took place 1–3 years after a solar minimum. The grey and white areas in Figure 4 represent alternating meridional transport regimes, each span three solar cycles, minimum to minimum. Many critical climate processes are stronger at solar minima. Based on this pattern we expect the next climate shift to take place around 2031–34. Using a frequency analysis by Nicola Scafetta, Javier Vinós has convincingly proposed that the climate shift timing is related to the 9.1-year lunar tidal cycle and the 11-year solar cycle such that they change from correlated to anti-correlated (i.e., from constructive to destructive interference) with a periodicity that not only matches the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but is exactly synchronized to it.
The significance of the ocean oscillations in Figure 4 was not discovered until 1994, by Schlesinger and Ramankutty. This was long after the “consensus” that CO2 emissions controlled the climate was formed, illustrating the danger of forming a consensus opinion before all the facts are in.
Multidecadal changes in meridional transport cause a multidecadal oscillation known as the “stadium-wave,” shown in Figure 5. It shows that internal multidecadal climate variability and global average surface temperature display a roughly 55–70-year oscillation when detrended. Interdecadal oscillations in sea-surface temperature and sea-level air pressure have been described in most oceans, including the Arctic. These oscillations affect a variety of climatic phenomena including salinity, sea-ice extent, wind speed, sea-level, and atmospheric circulation, besides sea-surface temperature and air pressure.
Marcia Wyatt integrated these processes in her thesis. She identified a multidecadal climate signal that propagated across the Northern Hemisphere through a synchronized network of fifteen climate indices, as shown. Four clusters of indices are highlighted, 1 through 4, each can be positive (warming) or negative (cooling). Peak values of group indices represent stages of climate-regime evolution. I’ve added our four 20th century climate shifts with vertical black lines. The climate shifts occur near major changes in the 15 indices.
Most energy is transported through the lower troposphere and ocean track. As a result, changes in multidecadal ocean oscillations have a greater effect on climate in the multidecadal timeframe than changes in solar activity, which mostly affect stratospheric energy transport.
Meridional transport was further reduced during the 20th century by the coincidence of the Modern Solar Maximum, the longest solar maximum in over 600 years. Besides the stratosphere, solar activity also influences the strength of the polar vortex and the El Niño/Southern Oscillation, so it has some influence on tropospheric transport.
While Marcia Wyatt could not identify the nature of the signal, or the cause of its 64-year period, she identified the Eurasian Arctic sea-ice region as the place where the signal originated. Javier Vinós and I have identified this area as the main gateway for atmospheric winter meridional transport into the Arctic. The area is very sensitive to sea-ice.
North of about 30° latitude most heat transport is through the atmosphere, mostly in storms. The two principal pathways for atmospheric heat transport to the North Pole are shown on the left-hand map in Figure 6. The graph on the right shows the trend in storminess since 1870 in the North Atlantic storm track. The red line are observations, the black line is the same dataset, but with errors corrected. The “CAI” blue curve is the seasonal cyclone activity index.
Overall, storminess has decreased since 1870, which is logical since the planet has warmed over that period. Warming takes place mostly at the poles, equatorial temperatures do not change much, which reduces the latitudinal temperature gradient, and lowers the meridional transport of energy from the tropics to poles, thus decreasing storminess.
Summary
In summary, major climate shifts occur about every 25 years. Every shift occurs at a solar cycle minimum, takes a few years to complete, and involves a reversal of the current Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation/Solar correlation. Overall storminess or extreme weather has been decreasing since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 19th century.
There are other major shifts in the solar/climate correlation that occur roughly every 80 to 120 years. These were identified by Hoyt and Schatten, who show they occurred about 1600, 1720, 1800, and 1920. At these critical times, the global correlation between solar activity and temperature and precipitation reverses. It is unclear why it happens, but it does, and it is very confusing. This post is not about these shifts, here we cover the 25-year shifts, which mostly involve the Northern Hemisphere, especially sea-surface temperature, and sea-level air pressure. The 25-year shifts are more of a change in climate state and direction, rather than a full reversal of the solar/climate relationship. Both sets of climate shifts show that solar changes do not affect Earth’s climate directly through changes in irradiation. The solar changes change atmospheric processes, which then change meridional energy transport, which is what changes the climate.
Meridional energy transport from the tropics to the poles, and variations in it, are the principal drivers of climate change. Manmade CO2 and other greenhouse gases have a smaller role. The largest influences on meridional transport are changes in ocean oscillations (the “stadium wave”), changes in solar activity, ozone, large volcanic eruptions, orbital changes, and changes in lunar and solar gravitational pull. The relative strength of these forces on meridional transport varies with the timeframe considered. Longer term the solar influence is more important, and on the decadal timeframe, ocean oscillations are more important.
The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis explains far more of known climate history than the manmade greenhouse gas emissions hypothesis. Neither is proven nor disproven, but the data we have today supports the Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis.
Download the bibliography here.
Why not send a copy of the book to the ‘scientific gatekeepers’ like the Met Office, BOM etc?
Educate them.
Scientists don’t accept reading assignments, but I am doing my best at scientific marketing. The book and its chapters are circulating in scientific circles.
Arrogant Scientists don’t accept reading assignments
I don’t accept reading assignments either. If someone suggests a study or a book, using my own judgement I may or may not read it.
So how do you judge this hypothesis?
Do tell
An intriguing possibility.
From God’s lips to the ears and other senses of these mere humans, gradually diminishing in ignorance despite the boon to authority that the ignorance of the masses represents.
We are talking change at a glacial rate, but inevitable, since truth is beauty, and so recognized.
============
Why isn’t it called “The Winter Gatekeeper Model”?
It isn’t a model, it is just a hypothesis, that is a scientific idea. Javier, or somebody else might make a model from it at some point. The evidence shows there are a lot of moving parts involved, not just CO2 or changes in the Sun, thus building a model will take a whole lot of work. Current climate models ignore most of the important parts, which is why they do not work. In fairness, the current models were designed and built before most of the important parts were discovered, like the PDO, AMO, NAO, etc.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that your hypothesis is a model of how climate varies, but it is not a computer or digital model. In the world of engineering, a model is any proposed way of explaining the physical world. So Einstein’s general theory of relativity is a model, even though there were no digital versions of it at the time it was developed. Indeed any process or state of being that can be represented by a mathematical equation is a model.
It has been a pretty consistent misunderstanding of what models actually are and do here at WUWT and the climate skeptic community (of which I am part) that tries to denigrate and dismiss all models as bogus, just because the predominant global warming digital models are in error. No single product of human mind or hands can be produced without a model, even if it is just a model that exists within someone’s mind.
Having an incomplete model, be it a complex computer program or the back of a fag packet calculation can lead to a disaster. Tay Bridge, DH Comet and Titanic spring to mind
I see mainly denigration and dismissal of UN IPCC CliSciFi models here. The sticking point is the modelers’ refusal to modify their approaches in the face of contrary evidence. In fact, the model versions deviate from reality more and more as time goes along.
*Sweeps things under rug*
Where is this contrary evidence you speak of?
I think Mr. Fair is referring to evidence such as this:
Please, Janice, call me Dave. I’m retired and no longer a “suit.”
Hi, Dave.
Thanks Janice.
No measured Hot Spot that is in all CMIP6 models but two. CMIP3,5&6 models running hotter than observations. Models unable to hindcast accurately, especially medium-to-high ECS CMIP6 models.
There’s no “gotcha” there, Jeff.
Building a model is, I would say, more than a lifetime’s work at the very least. To paraphrase Douglas Adams:
Climate is big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big and complex it is. I mean, you may think it’s a long way down the road to the drug store, but that’s just peanuts to understanding how the climate works.
Don’t forget your towel.
You will need it, for sure.
=======•••••
The Babel fish died
Tell that to the numerous climate modeling groups, strativarius.
Duane and strativarius,
I wasn’t assuming that models had to be computer programs. But any model has to predict something in the future.
That means the modeler has reduce the hypothesis to a set of differential equations. That means a lot of statistical work on a lot of different parts of the climate system. We have done none of this. Basically, Javier has collected a lot of evidence in the peer-reviewed literature that the “consensus” climate community is ignoring and pointing out how he thinks climate change occurs naturally. There may also be a human-caused CO2 emissions component, but it looks like it is small.
Andy, as far as I’m concerned you can only successfully model that which you understand- fully
Or, one can define exactly what the model is expected to do with an acceptable accuracy. Depending on the accuracy, a simple, incomplete model may suffice.
However, it is clear that the implied precision of extant models is not justified by the large range of results, indicating low accuracy of individual models, and quite possibly, the entire ensemble. After all, logic demands that there can only be one best model, which may not be accurate enough to be of any practical use.
Averaging garbage only produces average garbage.
How true. The IPCC has written numerous models of something that they do not understand, their utter failure is proof of what you say.
The graphic shows that during La Niña periods, warmer water from the subsurface western equatorial Pacific is transported toward the poles, where it gives off excess energy and cools again in winter.
Therefore, the temperature of the Peruvian Current drops.
Ireneusz,
Yes, sort of. The ocean surface flow near the equator is to the west. But this causes upwelling of deeper, colder water near the west coast of South America. Some of that colder water might flow south, but more likely is that the upwelling spreads south, cooling the surface. Another factor is that at about the latitude of New Zealand the currents are opposite, they flow west to east, this current heads north when it hits South America near Chile. This is why I doubt there is much southerly flow along the coast of South America, it should be mostly south to north.
Generally, the surface flow at the equator should be from east to west. Someone more knowledgeable about La Niña may want to chime in here.
Until Bob Tisdale appears (someone who is HIGHLY knowledgeable about La Niña), here are some excerpts from his ebook, Climate Models Fail (pp. 283-88):
How would stronger trade winds during a La Niña create heat (in the form of warm water) for an El Niño? During La Niña events, the east-to-west trade winds are stronger than normal. This causes more cool subsurface waters to be upwelled along the equatorial Pacific. Figure 9-5 shows the sea surface temperature anomalies for the period of July, 1998 to June, 1999, the first year of the 1998-01 La Niña. Note the cool sea surface temperature anomalies along the equatorial Pacific.
***
Because the sea surface temperatures are cooler than normal along the equator, there is less evaporation, less convection, and less cloud cover there.
Less cloud cover, as noted by Trenberth, et al. (2002), means more sunlight can enter and warm the tropical Pacific to depths of about 100 meters. The resulting warm water collects in an area of the western tropical Pacific called the West Pacific Warm Pool. It’s also called the Indo-Pacific Warm Pool because it extends into the Indian Ocean. ***
Since their first attempts at modeling more than 15 years ago, the modelers have failed to program into the models’ code enough sunlight to drive ENSO. This means that climate modelers have been trying to force El Niño and La Niña processes with infrared radiation from day one and they have had no success with those efforts.
Apparently ENSO is not a chaotic, manmade-greenhouse-gas-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, but the modelers keep writing the same code, over and over again, trying force an ENSO response from increases in human-induced infrared radiation.
This leads to a strong, logical, presumption that the modelers are intentionally avoiding adding a sufficiently strong sunlight parameter to their models (to make ENSO work) for a reason they consider of vital importance. That is, unless their persistence in the face of failure is due to gross incompetence, their deliberate repetition of what they know does not work leads to the highly plausible conclusion that the modelers do not want their models to show what the data has shown clearly: that periodic, La Niña-caused variations in sunlight at the surface of the tropical Pacific, and not manmade greenhouse gases, fuel ENSO, the most powerful mode of natural variability on the planet. ***
(some emphases mine)
By the way, Andy May, well done. Thank you for sharing this fine lecture with us (and the treasure trove of sources, too).
Thanks very much Janice, and thanks for contributing.
Ren,
One more point (from Javier), the 150 m water depth is mostly below the thermocline, thus your graphs are mostly showing upwelling. The water is not affected much by surface winds or the sun.
This is how easterly winds in the South Pacific play a role in the transportation of warm water during the La Nina period. A comparison with the average temperature at a depth of 150 m indicates that warm water is pushed further south during La Nina.
The 20-degree isotherm also moves south during La Niña.
During La Niña, persistent easterly winds in the equatorial western Pacific cause positive temperature anomalies as deep as 300 meters.
Andy,
Many people forget that the Humboldt Current is a surface current that carries cold, fresh water from melting ice in the south all the way to the equator. Because this water is poorly salted, it does not sink at the equator.
“The Humboldt Current, which occupies the upper ocean, flows equatorward carrying fresh, cold subantarctic surface water northward along the edge of the subtropical gyre. The main stream of the current curves into southern Peru, while a weaker stream flows further toward the equator. Around the 18th parallel south, fresh, cold waters begin to mix with warm, high-salinity subtropical surface waters. This collision causes partial subduction. In this region, the equatorial undercurrent (EUC) flows eastward along the equator, feeding the Peru-Chilean undercurrent (PCU), which moves toward the pole.”
“The South Pacific Gyre is part of the Earth’s system of rotating ocean currents, bounded by the equator to the north, Australia to the west, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to the south, and South America to the east.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Current
The southerly course of the jetstream in autumn-spring will very quickly lower the temperature in the North Atlantic as Arctic air masses come over the ocean.
https://i.ibb.co/FhDHBGJ/hgt300.webp
500 hPa.
Due to the opacity of the atmosphere, only 2.5% of incoming solar radiation reaches the surface of Venus. The Earth’s surface receives much more, about 50%, so solar insolation on Earth has a greater effect on the surface temperature than on Venus and temperature differences between summer and winter can be very large. However, due to gravity, the particles of the dense troposphere retain some of the solar energy (due to collisions of particles that transfer energy to each other).
Thanks to Earth’s thin troposphere, the temperature near the planet’s surface cannot be similarly high as on Venus.
Wow! Complicated stuff, just like it should be. I think of a crowd surging to and fro because of different effects. Chaos, just like the climate. I would add land use and UHI as additional complicating factors to the climate.
Whether the hypothesis is proved or not, I like the work you two have done to begin the process of identifying the myriad of factors that interact to form our climate. Too bad the modelers ever decided ahead of time that CO2 was the main warming factor. That will basically make all their work worthless in the long term, which is quickly approaching.
Your comment “Meridional transport variability integrates the many forces that act on it simultaneously and in different timeframes.” Too seldom do we hear of more complicated mathematical concepts like “integration”. It’s usually more about correlation than trying to a mathematical relationship between multiple factors.
Despite the massive inflows of governmental money and the hysterical, 24-hour propaganda barrage the UN IPCC CliSciFi modelers and their masters can hide the truth for only so long. Rather than admit it in the future, I assume they will just let the whole thing fade into obscurity over the decades and replace it with some new way to herd the masses and make obscene amounts of money.
There were probably political influences that came into play that were more important than the search for understanding and Truth. Then, as T. C. Chamberlain warned, those who made an early commitment to THE hypothesis, found that they had emotional and professional entanglements that made it difficult for them to admit they might be wrong.
I think we are finally getting to the heart of the matter when it comes to the Earth’s climate.
I think the AMO tells the story that the Earth’s climate is cyclical in nature and the Earth is not getting hotter and hotter and hotter because of CO2, as the alarmists claim. Instead, the Earth gets hotter for a few decades and then it gets cooler for a few decades and the process repeats and CO2 does not appear to have much influence because the cycle continues despite the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The minimally modified U.S. temperature chart (Hansen 1999) shows the same cyclical behavior as does the AMO: Cool in the 1910’s; warm in the 1930’s; cool in the 1970’s; warm in the 1990’s.
Hansen 1999:
And the world has been warming from the depths of the Little Ice Age, the coldest period in the Holocene Interglacial. We don’t, however, know how long that gradual warming will continue, if at all. CO2 did not and does not cause that warming trend.
There are so many things wrong with this story, I don’t have time for it all.
“Because the tropical sea-surface temperatures are capped, global warming is mostly a function of polar temperature. Thus, the key to climate change, at all timescales, is the meridional, or north-south, transport of energy from the tropics to the poles.” [my bold]
The arctic tail does not wag the climate dog! Poleward heat transport is not the key, it is the sign of climate change.
The ocean changes first under solar forcing, the NH SST changes, then the Arctic changes.
So the order of things presented by this thesis is completely freaking backwards!
I have presented this image group several times before which establishes the primacy of ocean transport over atmospheric transport into the Arctic, with a 5-month lag.
This means the key to global warming is the NH SST, not the polar temperature.
________________
“This post is not about these shifts, here we cover the 25-year shifts, which mostly involve the Northern Hemisphere, especially sea-surface temperature, and sea-level air pressure.”
Are there any FFTs showing 25y power in NH SST or SLP? Without that you are speculating and missing the main controlling factor.
________________
“The 25-year shifts are more of a change in climate state and direction, rather than a full reversal of the solar/climate relationship. Both sets of climate shifts show that solar changes do not affect Earth’s climate directly through changes in irradiation.” [my bold]
This is wrong, the part about climate changes not being a result of changes in irradiance. Everything important that happened to SST happened because of irradiance changes. The climate shifts in 1976 and 1997 were simply responses to strong solar cycle irradiance.
________________
“The solar changes change atmospheric processes, which then change meridional energy transport, which is what changes the climate.” [my bold]
As I have shown before the ocean changes the atmosphere in response to solar irradiance forcing, the thing that actually changes the climate. TSI forcing involves lags due to thermal inertia of the ocean that has an approximate period of 120 years, ie, the ocean stores absorbed energy from sunlight for about 120 years.
________________
The WGH is without statistical support and it has many fundamental ideas backwards. Congratulations to Andy and Javier for muddying the waters.
You’ll likely get more thumbs down for your parting fire across the bow than your actual post.
Every theory needs to have a start before it can mature enough to fill in your missing statistics and information.
Because of the constantly changing and dynamic nature of the climate, we have to study the changes as a whole process rather than being able to see cause and effect in a piecemeal fashion.
I thumbed it down because TSI does not vary widely enough to be the forcing (and I am leaving aside the atmospheric chemistry issue vis a vis parts of the spectrum, esp., UV, and whether or not THAT could be a forcing — not proven, imo, so far).
No, a strong solar wind drives a strong latitudinal polar vortex, which drives a strong latitudinal wind in the opposite direction at the equator. Therefore, La Niña begins at the beginning of the solar cycle, when the solar wind strengthens (generally, when the solar wind increases, even in the middle of the cycle). Since the solar wind increases by leaps and bounds from the beginning of the 25th cycle, La Niña does not accumulate much heat in the western Pacific and the subsurface feedback wave does not reach the eastern Pacific. Therefore, La Niña cannot end.
The Hotel California: “You can check-out any time you like, but you can never leave!” The Eagles, 1976.
There is remarkable clarity emerging from this muddying. Let there be more of this transparently testable, through time, mud.
=================
Thanks Kim.
Of course, other major changes in solar parameters also affect the climate. In particular, strong decreases in UV radiation of the shortest wavelengths (I mean a large percentage decrease, over a long period of time) will affect the state of ozone and changes in circulation in the stratosphere, and indirectly in the troposphere.
Here is the wavelet-transform coefficient of the North Pacific Index showing the 25-year climate shifts. The details are in Part IV of our recent series on Javier’s hypothesis. Part 4 is here:
The Sun-Climate Effect: The Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis (IV). The unexplained/ignored climate shift of 1997 – Andy May Petrophysicist
There is a lot more to climate change than the 0.1% change in solar energy from the solar cycle. Climate scientists are correct that such a small change in energy cannot drive a significant climate change. They are wrong in stopping there. The Sun affects climate mainly through dynamic changes in atmospheric circulation initiated by UV absorption at the tropical ozone layer. The UV change in energy is even smaller, 0.01% of solar energy, but the energy to produce the dynamic changes is provided by planetary waves, and the energy to change the climate by meridional transport.
Your hypothesis is untenable in terms of energy, and it will not be seriously considered because of that.
Looking for correlations to solve the climate riddle is a losing proposition, as everything is connected.
Statistics have never determined what is true or what is not. The Arctic sea-ice trend has changed as I said in 2016. Tamino, a climate alarmist statistician who self-defined as “Hansen bulldog” wrote an article criticizing my proposition on statistical grounds entitled “Extreme Cherry Ice“. Guess what, I am sure his statistics were very solid, but I was right and he was wrong. The Arctic sea-ice trend indeed had changed. The list of things with p<0.05 that aren’t true is unending. My first advisor in science used to say that if you need to do statistics to see an effect it is very likely that the effect is not true or important.
“My first advisor in science used to say that if you need to do statistics to see an effect it is very likely that the effect is not true or important.”
Worth repeating and very true. I wish I had met your advisor before I became a petrophysical modeler, he could have saved me a lot of grief over the years.
Very true. That is why mathematical relationships between variables are needed in the physical sciences. I think of the Ideal Gas Law, Planck’s heat radiation and entropy, heck even Einstein’s E=MC^2. These all began with correlations but needed much work to develop the mathematical relationships of the components.
And the study SEZ! … ding: “North of about 30° latitude most heat transport is through the atmosphere, mostly in storms. The two principal pathways for atmospheric heat transport to the North Pole are shown on the left-hand map in Figure 6.”
Natural changes not unnatural like some claim.
“Earth’s global average surface temperature”
I stopped reading there. There is no such thing.
There is – if you want to keep your job
Jeff,
“There is no such thing.”
There is such a thing, the real question is: “Is it meaningful?”
I would argue that the number is not meaningful, in that it tells you nothing (or, perhaps very little) about Earth’s climate. Prior to about 2005, when the first reasonable global average surface temperatures were published, it tells you very close to nothing.
No there is no such thing. Averaging temperatures from different locations and devices is scientifically invalid.
And if it’s not meaningful, why would you include it in your article?
Jeff,
I include global average surface temperature, as meaningless as it is, because the IPCC uses it as a surrogate for climate change. They hang everything on it to avoid talking about “real climate” which is what Javier and I are writing about. Just because it is a meaningless number doesn’t mean we can ignore it.
That makes no sense.
Now we need to see whether the polar vortex is strong or weak. Let’s look at the distribution of ozone across the column at high latitudes and at 30 hPa in the stratosphere. If the vortex were strong, the ozone distribution would be more symmetrical.
Stratospheric ozone tends to accumulate always in the same region, i.e. in eastern Siberia. From my observations, this anomaly intensifies during times of low solar activity.
In light of the circumpolar vortex, any thoughts on why ozone should accumulate in eastern Siberia?
Both galactic radiation and ozone (which is diamagnetic) respond to changes in the strength of the magnetic field. This determines the distribution of ozone in high latitudes and the pattern of the stratospheric polar vortex. Depending on the strength of the solar wind’s magnetic field (of which the circular pattern of the aurora borealis is a visible image), solar activity affects more or less the distribution of ozone in the stratosphere and the wind speed of the polar vortex. During periods of weak solar wind, the distribution of ozone in high latitudes is decisively influenced by the geomagnetic field. Currently, there is a weakening of the magnetic field over North and South America, which is clearly observed in winter weather in North America (strong stratospheric intrusions, reaching the Gulf of Mexico).
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_dz.jpg
http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/data_service/models_compass/polarnorth.html
A strong geomagnetic field over western Siberia pushes ozone toward eastern Siberia, in line with the rotation in the baric low that constitutes the polar vortex.
Here you can see how ozone distribution affects weather in North America. You can see the free flow of air from Siberia to the west North America. You can already open the ski season in the Rocky Mountains.
“Warming takes place mostly at the poles, equatorial temperatures do not change much, which reduces the latitudinal temperature gradient, and lowers the meridional transport of energy from the tropics to poles, thus decreasing storminess.”
Hmm. So in the last 150 years or so, the North Pole has warmed (I don’t think that the South Pole has warmed much if at all). This means less meridional transport of energy to the North Pole. Less energy transported to the North Pole, so just what is causing the warming there?
It does not sound like this story hangs together.
“It does not sound like this story hangs together.”
Mike,
Why?
Energy is transported poleward mainly through mid- to high-latitude storms. More energy to transport, more storms, less energy fewer storms. As for the North Pole temperatures, it has gone up over the last 150 years, but storm activity has decreased over the same period, as shown by Roger Pielke jr. and many others. The warming has not been consistent, as you can see from the KNMI Climate Explorer attached. I will also post some graphs of storminess in subsequent comments.
“Why?”
What’s the explanation for the warming in the North Pole region over the past 150 years? If less heat is being transported there, as you argue, then you would expect the temperature there to fall, not rise.
For the temperature to rise with lower heat transport, then there must be something reducing the flow of heat from the surface into space. Do you have an explanation for that? I suppose some folk would propose increasing CO2 levels. An alternative would be increasing cloudiness, especially in winter, although I’m not aware of observations that establish that this has happened.
The North pole region did not warm over the past 150 years. There were periods of warming and periods of no warming or even cooling. For the period of low transport-high warming of 1976-1997, the polar region North of 80ºN actually cooled slightly during winter (blue curve in the figure) despite intense global warming.
From: https://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n_anomaly.uk.php
Winter temperature changes are a consequence of meridional transport changes, as there is no other energy source once it is dark and frozen.
Long-term storminess from Javier’s book. Note the serious drop in storminess after the Little Ice Age.
More recent storminess.
Very nice Andy, we need more like this. You are getting closer and closer to communication the average person can understand. This is important. The Winter Gatekeeper hypothesis makes more sense to me than any of the IPCC’s blathering.
Thanks Bob,
The main reason I am doing these presentations and posts is to experiment with language. I understand what Javier has done and think he is correct but explaining it in simple language, yet being accurate and truthful, is really difficult. We will keep working on it. There will be more posts and presentations.
You are going the right direction.
“The net result is that nearly all imported energy into the polar regions in winter eventually exits the climate system at the top of the atmosphere, as shown in blue in Figure 1. Increasing the energy transported there mostly just increases the energy lost. The result is a cooling planet.”
Very funny, the globe is definitely warmer during a warm AMO/Arctic phase. And the warm AMO reduces low cloud cover, that’s why the upper ocean heat content increased notably from 1995.
“The Arctic warmed, for example, as the rest of the world cooled, from 1880 to 1910, 1965 to 1976,”
The AMO cooled from 1901 and between 1965 and 1975, so the Arctic would also have cooled.
“The polar vortex is strongest in the winter, when the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation is rising, and the number of sunspots is high, indicating strong solar activity. The polar vortex is weak when solar activity is low (fewer sunspots), the AMO is decreasing, and meridional transport is strong.”
The AMO is colder when the solar wind is stronger, as in the mid 1970’s, mid 1980’s, and early 1990’s, and the AMO is warmer when the solar wind is weaker, as from 1995. Weaker solar wind is associated with negative NAO/AO and a weaker vortex.
“Using a frequency analysis by Nicola Scafetta, Javier Vinós has convincingly proposed that the climate shift timing is related to the 9.1-year lunar tidal cycle and the 11-year solar cycle such that they change from correlated to anti-correlated (i.e., from constructive to destructive interference) with a periodicity that not only matches the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, but is exactly synchronized to it.”
It is not exactly synchronized and there is no need to invoke lunar cycles. The changes in the timing of lows in the solar wind relative to solar cycles fully accounts for the phase shifts.
“Multidecadal changes in meridional transport cause a multidecadal oscillation known as the “stadium-wave,” shown in Figure 5. It shows that internal multidecadal climate variability and global average surface temperature display a roughly 55–70-year oscillation when detrended.”
It’s not internal variability, it’s an inverse response to the solar wind strength.
“The AMO cooled from 1901 and between 1965 and 1975, so the Arctic would also have cooled.”
Nope, see attached from the KNMI Climate Explorer ERA2 reanalysis data.
Arctic warming 1965 to 1975 was in the summer, the winter trend is cooling:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-019-02952-3
“It’s not internal variability, it’s an inverse response to the solar wind strength.”
Interesting opinion, but the facts and observations suggest that we are correct, and you are not.
The inverse correlation between the solar wind strength and AMO anomalies is remarkably good. The idea that the AMO is unforced internal variability is a supposition which can never be proven, and neglects the most important dynamic in the climate system. Low indirect solar => -NAO => +AMO, which is why the AMO is always warmer at least during each centennial solar minimum.
Andy, and Dr V. Thanks again to both of you for this enlightening theory.
Andy, you state at least a couple of times:
“Meridional energy transport from the tropics to the poles, and variations in it, are the principal drivers of climate change.”
Wouldn’t it be more accurate, instead of ‘climate change’ to say ‘global climate cycles observed and documented over the past several hundred years.’
My reason for this nit pick is that, from my understanding, what your theory proposes is an explanation for the ‘current’ climate cycle, and does not give an explanation for substantial breaks in the cycle, i.e., interglacials, etc.
Thanks again.
Meridional transport is the fundamental variable and ever-changing process that leads to climate change, including the changing cycles. We think that the necessary order is:
Sun to stratosphere to meridional transport to troposphere and ocean cycles.
Also, Sun to ocean and troposphere to meridional transport and ENSO to ocean cycles.
Thus, the ocean cycles are driven by meridional transport changes, not the other way around. Willing to be proven wrong on this, but that is how I see it.
Remember, zonal winds and meridional winds trade off in importance. When zonal winds are dominant, the world warms, when meridional winds are dominant, the world cools.
Okay, so we are in an interglacial at present (so I hear). So zonal winds are dominant? Or just effective enough to produce today’s climate?
Any supposition as to what the relevant tipping point conditions/variables might be that throws the ‘equilibrium off? IOW back to glacial life.
Thank you.
J
I would suggest:
Sun to stratosphere to cloudiness/albedo changes to ocean cycles to meridional transport.
Ocean cycles respond to the cloudiness changes because more clouds mean less energy into the oceans and vice versa.
So the ocean cycles are affected by the amount of solar energy that gets in and atmospheric meridional transport responds to that energy when it comes back out of the oceans to the atmosphere.
The WGH suggests that meridional transport of air causes the ocean cycles but that is impossible because of the low density of air compared to water. It has to be the oceans changing meridional transport and for that you need to change the energy content of the oceans first. You can only do that by altering the proportion of solar energy absorbed by the oceans. Hence the importance of cloudiness changes.
When zonal winds are dominant the world warms because of less clouds and more energy into the oceans.
When meridional winds are dominant the world cools because of more clouds and less energy into the oceans.
The cloudiness records show less clouds during the warming period with a slow increase in clouds during the recent pause.
In my humble opinion, changes in meridionality are a response and not a cause.
Whenever anything seeks to create thermal imbalances within the climate system then overall convective overturning over the entire planet will change speed to neutralise such imbalances. The most obvious feature is a change in meridionality.
The reason it happens is that thermal imbalances change lapse rate slopes and it is those slopes that govern the speed of convective overturning.
So much in the Winter Gatekeeper Hypothesis is sound and based on real world observation but changes in meridionality do not in themselves cause the average global temperature to rise and fall. Instead, they serve to keep it stable.
The hypothesis posits that changes in meridional transport are the cause of thermal imbalances but if that were true it would be necessary to posit another mechanism that keeps the system stable for the lifetime of a planet.
Javier and his coleagues are just adding another atmospheric destabilising feature to all the ones we already know about when the thing we really need to know is why those destabilising features fail to cause the loss of planetary atmospheres.
The answer is simply that changes in meridional transport alter the rate of progress of energy through the system so as to cancel the effect of any destabilising influences that seek to slow it down or speed it up.