Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

New paper from Christy et al. corrects drift in NOAA-14 satellite, affected the trend by ~ 0.05 C/decade in the 1990s and the early 2000s. [link]

How extreme events are defined across disciplines and the importance of communication for effective research and decision making [link

Large changes in sea ice triggered by small changes in Atlantic water temperature. [link]

Is recent ice edge retreat along east Greenland linked to ocean convection? [link

“… recent regime shift in El Niño diversity … same regime shift not observed in CMIP5 simulations … link between cooling of the eastern tropical Pacific and changes in ENSO diversity.” [link]

Essex and Tsonis: New understanding of ultra-long timescales provides a new take on climate [link]

A “La Niña-like” state occurring in the second year after large tropical volcanic eruptions during the past 1500 years [link]

Orography and the Boreal Winter Stratosphere: The Importance of the Mongolian Mountains – [link]

Hidden underwater melt-off in the Antarctic is doubling every 20 years and could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise [link]

The role of sea-ice albedo in the climate of slowly rotating aquaplanets [link]

To improve seasonal storm track forecasts, look to the tropical stratosphere [link]

A new estimate of the solar irradiance variations since 850 CE by Judith Lean has just been published in Earth and Space Science [link]

A comprehensive report on the relationships and potential connections between Arctic climate and mid-latitude weather is available today from . [link]

Atmospheric influences on the anomalous 2016 Antarctic sea ice decay [link

Research on China’s climate confirms numerous warm periods during past 2,000 years. [link]

Internal atmospheric variability can have a large impact on the CA precipitation response to  [link

More work is needed to constrain the size of soil carbon stocks, a key component to understand vulnerabilities to changes in land use and climate; new paper in GBC comparing datasets [link]

Now in NatureClimate – Limited influence of climate change mitigation on short-term glacier mass loss [link]

New paper out by Steve Po-Chedley et al. linking intermodel spread in lapse rate and water vapor feedbacks to differences in meridional pattern of surface warming. [link]

Five Weird Archives That Scientists Use to Study Past Climates [link]

“Consistency and discrepancy in the atmospheric response to Arctic sea-ice loss across climate models” [link]
 .

Social science & policy

The IPCC’s strategy, although successful in putting climate change on the international political agenda, has restricted the understanding of the problem and has downplayed the uncertainties, lack of knowledge, and unlikely, though possible, scenarios [link]

How are California water managers thinking about climate change? It depends [link]

The mass adoption of solar-generated electricity is causing problems in California [link]

Wizards and prophets face off to save the planet [link]

Precautionary principle gone mad:  California judges rule coffee forms must add cancer warning [link]

The Economist highlighting the failure of progress in delivering clean cooking access and the huge damages this causes to health and the environment [link]

The Externalities of Energy Production Systems [link]

The Confidence Trap: Balancing the Proof Burden in the Climate Conversation [link]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy [link

About science & scientists

How the Closing of the Campus Mind Threatens Freedom [link

The full list of authors of the Working Group I report is out [link]

“In science, a dominant paradigms determines which experiments are done how they’re interpreted and what kind of path a research programme follows” [link]

Opinion | The Carbon Footprint Hypocrisy Of Jet-Setting Academics [link]

Pal review: After uncovering evidence of “reciprocal favors” related to grant reviews, the NIH is engaging in disciplinary action against reviewers and applicants [link]

“The idea that teamwork can be performed successfully without independent thinkers is a collectivist myth.” [link]

RIP Stephen Hawking [link]

270 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. One of the things i suggested before the 2015-2016 El Niño was that I did not expect a great deal of OHC to be released from the oceans to the atmosphere.

    And:

    Unprecedented 2015/2016 Indo‐Pacific Heat Transfer Speeds Up Tropical Pacific Heat Recharge

    Key points

    – There was no net ocean heat discharge from the Tropical (30N-30S) Pacific during the 2015/16 El Nino event

    – Anomalous Indo-Pacific heat transfer associated with weak Indonesian Throughflow was a key driver and stronger than surface heat loss

    – Reduction of Indonesian Throughflow in 2015/16 is linked to increased Indian Ocean sea levels associated with preceding enhanced heat uptake

    • Both oceans and atmosphere warm in El Niño and cool in La Niña as a result of low level cloud feedback and thus a modulation of the global energy budget. With cloud feedbacks dominating the energy dynamic.

      Key points:

      The tropics warmed – both ocean and atmosphere.
      Indonesian throughflow is always weak in El Niño.
      La Niña pumping warm water through the Indonesian throughflow increased water level ffs?

      • David Wojick

        Re TE’s OHC numbers. Gotta love 8 significant figures on numbers that are probably not accurate to two. Arithmetic disguised as science.

    • “OHC to be released from the oceans to the atmosphere.”

      Looks like that’s exactly what happened around ’15-’16.
      Big drop in OHC commensurate with increase in atmospheric temperature:

      • It actually coincides with the end of El Nino in 2016. As the atmosphere was cooling, so was 0 to 2000 meters.

      • OHC

        2015-3 23.416958
        2015-6 22.368597
        2015-9 21.546423
        2015-12 22.271896

        2016-3 22.763397
        2016-6 19.730759
        2016-9 19.145727
        2016-12 21.5578

        2017-3 23.502459
        2017-6 23.522329
        2017-9 22.078201
        2017-12 24.290524

        From Q1 of 2015 through Q3 of 2016, the ocean’s lost heat to the atmosphere, accounting in part for the increase of surface temperature.

        From Q3 of 2016 through Q4 of 2017, the oceans took up heat, accounting in part for the decrease of surface temperature.

        Now, the oceans have more heat than ever to again share with the atmosphere, so that does bear watching,

      • Curious George

        Eddie – can we really measure OHC to 8 significant digits?

      • Those numbers do not necessarily tell you what the oceans did; they tell you what happened within the layer represented by them.

      • Curious George

        JCH, you are right, and you only need the first two digits for your point. My point is that authors append another 6 digits, probably totally unreliable, calling even a reliability of the first two digits in question.

      • I know baseball players who don’t know the difference between hitting .3 or .356, so you’re not alone.

      • “I know baseball players who don’t know the difference between hitting .3 or .356, so you’re not alone.”

        Tell them to look at their contracts.

  2. Highly regarded Australian Economist, Warwick McKibbin et al. examinses design options for a carbon tax in the US.

    McKibbin et al (2018) THE ROLE OF BORDER CARBON ADJUSTMENTS IN A U.S. CARBON TAX. Climate Change Economics, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2018) 1840011 (41 pages)
    DOI: 10.1142/S2010007818400110
    https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S2010007818400110

    Abstract

    This paper examines carbon tax design options in the United States using an intertemporal computable general equilibrium model of the world economy called G-Cubed. In this paper, we discuss four policy scenarios that explore two overarching issues: (1) the effects of a carbon tax under alternative assumptions about the use of the resulting revenue, and (2) the effects of a system of import charges on carbon-intensive goods (“border carbon adjustments” or BCAs).

    Consistent with earlier studies, we find that the carbon tax raises considerable revenue and reduces CO2 emissions significantly relative to baseline, no matter how the revenue is used. Gross annual revenue from the carbon tax with lump sum rebating and no BCA begins at $110 billion in 2020 and rises gradually to $170 billion in 2040. By 2040, annual CO2 emissions fall from 5.5 billion metric tons (BMT) under the baseline to 2.4 BMT, a decline of 3.1 BMT, or 57%. Cumulative emissions over 2020 to 2040 fall by 48 BMT.

    Also consistent with earlier studies, we find that the carbon tax has very small overall impacts on gross domestic product (GDP), wages, employment, and consumption. Different uses of the revenue from the carbon tax result in slightly different levels and compositions of GDP across consumption, investment and net exports. Overall, using carbon tax revenue to reduce the capital income tax rate results in better macroeconomic outcomes than using the revenue for lump sum transfers.

    Counter to their purported purpose of protecting U.S. trade strength, for a given revenue policy, BCAs tend to produce lower net exports than the carbon taxes alone. This is generally because the BCAs raise the value of the dollar relative to other currencies, thus lowering exports more than they lower imports. This is consistent with standard results in the international trade literature on the effects of import tariffs and export subsidies on real exchange rates, a result that is often overlooked in the discussion of domestic carbon policy.

    In a finding new to the literature, our results show that BCAs can have strikingly different effects depending on the use of the revenue. Under a lump sum rebate, BCAs exacerbate the impact of the carbon tax by lowering domestic output further than it would fall under the carbon tax alone. Under a capital tax swap, however, BCAs have a moderating effect: they reduce the impact of the tax on most industries.

    Keywords: Carbon tax; climate policy; border carbon adjustment; G-Cubed model”

    Warwick McKibbin’s Profile:
    “Professor Warwick McKibbin, AO is Professor of Public Policy and Director of the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis (CAMA) in the Crawford School of Public Policy at the Australian National University (ANU). He is also an ANU Public Policy Fellow; a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Social Sciences; a Distinguished Fellow of the Asia and Pacific Policy Society; a non-resident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C (where he is co-Director of the Climate and Energy Economics Project) and President of McKibbin Software Group Inc. Professor McKibbin was foundation Director of the ANU Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis and foundation Director of the ANU Research School of Economics. He was also a Professorial Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy for a decade from 2003 where he was involved in its design and development. Professor McKibbin served for a decade on the Board of the Reserve Bank of Australia (the Australian equivalent of the Board of Governors of the US Federal Reserve) until July 2011. He has also served as a member of the Australian Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering and Innovation Council, and on the Australian Prime Minister’s Taskforce on Uranium Mining Processing and Nuclear Energy in Australia.

    Prof McKibbin received his B.Com (Honours 1) and University Medal from University of NSW (1980) and his AM (1984) and a PhD (1986) from Harvard University. He was awarded the Centenary medal in 2003 “For Service to Australian Society through Economic Policy and Tertiary Education” and made an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2016.

    Professor McKibbin is internationally renowned for his contributions to global economic modeling. Professor McKibbin has published more than 200 academic papers as well as being a regular commentator in the popular press. He has authored/ edited 5 books including “Climate Change Policy after Kyoto: A Blueprint for a Realistic Approach” with Professor Peter Wilcoxen of Syracuse University. He has been a consultant for many international agencies and a range of governments on issues of macroeconomic policy, international trade and finance, greenhouse policy issues, global demographic change and the economic cost of pandemics.”

    Profile: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/people/academic/warwick-mckibbin
    CV (64 page PDF) can be downloaded from the link above:

    • Apologies for not closing the bold after “Warwick McKibbin’s profile. Perhaps Judith could close it

    • David L. Hagen

      Duck Curve Rising
      California’s Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act SB350 established a greenhouse reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. SB350 established a 50% renewable retail electricity mandate by Dec. 31, 2030.
      By itself, SB350’s 50% renewable mandate would likely create a 30,000 MW 3 hour power ramp. California’s Independent System Operator (CAISO) is now scheduling power every 15 minutes and has initiated 5 minute and 1 minute emergency dispatches.
      What the duck curve tells us about managing a green grid: California ISO

      Energy and environmental goals drive change
      In California, energy and environmental policy initiatives are driving electric grid changes. Key initiatives include the following:
      • 50 percent of retail electricity from renewable power by 2030; . . .
      • an executive order for 1.5 million zero emission vehicles by 2025.

      Herman K. Trabish Utility Dive, March 22, 2018
      On the duck’s 10th birthday, here’s how to keep it from eating the power system
      By SB350 requires widespread transportation electrification. California’s 3 large investor owned utilities are beginning to create charging sites and infrastructure. How they manage electrification will affect the Duck curve.

      • David,

        Was your reply meant to be to me or to someone else? it has nothing to do with my comment.

      • David L. Hagen

        Peter Lang Just noting an alternate way of acting on climate alarms. Both have consequences.

      • David,

        I don’t understand what point you are trying to make. Are you advocating that renewable energy is a solution? Surely not!

      • David L. Hagen

        Peter Lang. We have four long term energy options: Solar nuclear fusion, terrestrial nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, and Low Energy Nuclear Reaction. People have been panicked over nuclear fission. LENR might be possible, but is uncertain. Reliably collecting solar energy and providing dispatchable power competitive with fossil energy appears feasible. I see no reason why not.

      • David L. Hagen

        Peter Lang Shanghai Electric is building a 700 MW concentrating solar thermal project in Dubai for ~7 c/kWh. https://www.shine.cn/biz/company/1804133114/

      • David L. Hagen,

        We should not try to pick winners within nuclear technologies. Just recognise that renewables cannot provide much of the worlds energy, ever, and nuclear power can provide all of it, cheaply, reliably, safely, effectively indefinitely. We also need to understand that nuclear power is the safest way to generate electricity, always has been since the first reactor started supplying electricity to the grid in 1954.

        We should also understand it takes many decades to develop from concept to commercially economic, proven, reliable designs. Therefore, we need to deploy and develop the currently available technologies and progress, over time, to improved designs and technologies – all of this takes many decades as had been demonstrated over the past 60 years with nuclear, and over the past several centuries with other technologies since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

        Did you read this: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169 ? See also notes V, VIII, IX, and XII in Appendix B.

  3. How Sudden Stratospheric Warming Affects the Whole Atmosphere – Eos
    https://eos.org/features/how-sudden-stratospheric-warming-affects-the-whole-atmosphere

    Bet you didn’t think these things actually change the chemical and electromagnetic composition of the atmosphere? The energy signature of these events is profound and should rank with ENSO as a planetary climate driver.

    • Such overblown rhetoric based on a confused and rambling narrative. These things happen for a week or so every couple of years. While dramatic – the workhorse is the northern annular mode that indeed does have profound implications for NH climate.

      • How do we know they are dramatic? If the first time it was ever observed was in the 50’s how do we know what is normal? I suspect there is a trend.

      • You suspect a trend hey? I expect it must be catastrophic. Dramatic? The stratospheric warming is up to 50K and the polar vortex splits in 2. OMG we are all going to die.

        There was one recently – you can watch them in near real time on this site. It’s a near real time supercomputer visualization. I stare at it for hours. These are winds at about 25km.

        https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-120.25,90.62,208/loc=-50.770,89.411

        But the real work is done at the surface with the potential for cooling over much of the NH by a couple of degrees K this century.

        e.g. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034015

      • But the real work is done at the surface with the potential for cooling over much of the NH by a couple of degrees K this century.

        Witchhful doctoring again without a license? The cargo planes are coming. just keep telling the faithful the cargo planes are coming.

      • “Despite the small reduction in total solar irradiance (0.36 W m−2), relatively large responses emerge in the winter Northern Hemisphere, with a reduction in regional-scale projected warming by up to 40%.”

        In an RCP 8.5 scenario I might add. A return to Maunder Minimum conditions implies a couple of degrees of cooling in the NH. Indirectly through enhanced meridional blocking patterns. I provide the references but it’s the proverbial water and horse’s ass.

        “Cluelessness is strong with this one.”

      • “A number of studies have recently raised the possibility of a near-future descent of solar activity into a new grand minimum state, similar to the grand maunder minimum (Abreu et al 2008, Lockwood et al 2011, Roth and Joos 2013, Zolotova and Ponyavin 2014). The weakness of the current solar cycle number 24, and the unusually deep minimum in 2008–2009 (Janardhan et al 2011, Lockwood 2011, Nandy et al 2011) support this view.” op cit

        It’s the horses ass problem again.

      • We are in a warm period, similar to the Roman and Medieval warm periods. This is when the open oceans promote much rain and snowfall and rebuild ice for another little ice age, in a few hundred years. Until then, we will get some cold periods but nothing like a little ice age. It is warm now because it is supposed to be warm now. It will stay warm until there is enough ice to advance and cause cooling later. These climate cycles are Natural, Normal, Necessary and Unstoppable by people.

      • Simplistic nonsense that doesn’t address your essential quandary. Why would ice advance in a warming climate?

      • As always, you are a vulgar pos.

      • “Since irradiance variations are apparently minimal, changes in the Earth’s climate that seem to be associated with changes in the level of solar activity—the Maunder Minimum and the Little Ice age for example—would then seem to be due to terrestrial responses to more subtle changes in the Sun’s spectrum of radiative output. This leads naturally to a linkage with terrestrial reflectance, the second component of the net sunlight, as the carrier of the terrestrial amplification of the Sun’s varying output.”
        http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Goode_Palle_2007_JASTP.pdf

        To repeat myself – because the response is always hilarious – what comes first agnatology or the horses ass? There is an asymmetry – he may insult, berate and belittle cargo cult etc generally and frequently but dissolves into apoplectic rage at sleights on his leftist progressive dignity. Do not offend them – it’s a high horse with a humongous ass.

      • In the last three centuries, the lulls in solar activity have been followed by active phases within the same century. Being in a lull, the most likely direction this century based on the past is up. It may happen after two to five low cycles, but it can happen by the mid-century timeframe if we use the past as a guide.
        http://woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/mean:80/mean:40

      • The chance of a maunder minimum has been out at 20% this century. Rather than a very modest dip and then increased TSI – the decline may just be starting.

        Jimmy’s wood for dimwits science should be taken with a load of salt.

      • That leaves an 80% chance that I am right and it just rises back up mid-century. Allow for that. Perspective, people.

      • No Jimmy – it leaves an 80% chance that the decline will not be quite to a Maunder minimum. A decline at some time is very likely – the timing is very uncertain.

        How about a classic study – http://www.atmosp.physics.utoronto.ca/people/guido/PHY2502/articles/solar-activity/Maunder_Minimum.pdf

        This is not a period with zero sunspot activity.

      • Your chosen reconstruction has a long-term upward trend. It’s worse than we thought.

      • You didn’t read Essex or Tsonis? Or the ‘panta rhea’ extract from Koutsoyiannis? I’m not surprised.

      • If less cosmic rays = stronger intensity, the future is not looking good from this trend either.

      • Curve C us probably the one to look at first.

      • Yes, even though the sun has weakened in this century so far, the overall strength is not low, which says that maxima could return to high values sooner rather than later.

      • The Sun – like climate or the future – is difficult to predict. I’m no solar physicist – just going with the consensus.

      • The consensus is probably that the most likely direction is up from this weak cycle. Whether it happens in the next cycle or in mid-century is the main question left.

      • Most like they all agree with your wood for dimwits unscience aye? Some half a dozen actual science articles were given in the quote from this study I provided.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

        And I have actually read them all over several years. Fell free to read – or just look at the title – rather than pull it out of the horse’s ass.

      • A hypothetical MM with what they rate as a 20% possibility. OK, then.

      • A decline that may reach MM proportions this century with a 1 in 5 chance? But a decline nonetheless – perhaps. The Sun is nowhere near zero sunspots. The only question is – does Jimmy believe the cr@p he spouts or is he just playing games with us?

      • It is not cr@p to remind you that the most likely direction is up from this cycle. Just keeping your feet on the ground to counter flights of fancy like this. This paper shows that even an MM extreme only offsets 2 years of CO2 warming. In other words, not a big factor to deal with, but clearly very important to you for some reason.

      • This cycle has zero sunspots? But the blocking patterns from a low NAO/AO create super cold conditions in places in high latitudes especially during winter. And spin up Pacific gyres and upwelling in both hemispheres.

        http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

        I know you have on agnatological obsession with eliminating NV but making up things that you then attribute to this paper is very poor form.

      • OK, it looks like you’re asking me to quote that first paper, so here it is.
        “This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ∼2 years and is small compared with the modelled global warming. This is consistent with other recently published results, which indicate that any change in global mean temperature due to a future prolonged solar minimum would do little to substantially offset or delay the warming due to projected increases in long-lived greenhouse gases. ”
        Happy now?

      • “Numerous studies have identified links between past climate and solar variability42,43. During the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715), very few sunspots were seen despite regular observations44. If the past relationships between TSI and ultraviolet irradiance and sunspots are the same as are observed for modern solar variability, then a decline in both TSI and ultraviolet for this period can be assumed. The Maunder Minimum coincided with more severe winters in the UK and continental Europe32 and many reconstructions45,46 suggest atmospheric conditions were broadly comparable with the regional effects on European atmospheric circulation found here. Some modelling studies13,47 also support the idea that similar regional cooling and circulation changes occurred during this period. On longer timescales, cosmogenic isotopes provide a proxy for TSI variations and only indirect meteorological information is available, nevertheless linkages can be made. For example, lake sediments have been analysed to demonstrate that a grand minimum of solar activity, the Homeric Minimum (∼2,750–2,550 years before present), affected climate conditions through western Europe through altered regional circulation consistent with the negative phase of the NAO48. While these paleoclimatic studies appear largely consistent with our model result that weak solar ultraviolet irradiance can have a significant impact on European winter circulation through ‘top-down’ dynamical forcing, detailed modelling and attribution for these events is beyond the scope of this paper.”

        We were first of all talking about a specific mechanism in the Arctic involving solar uv/ozone chemistry and enhanced medidional blocking patterns and extreme cold in parts of the NH. There is no expectation of broad ranging cooling in these models – although this may well emerge in the real world with reduced temperature transport north and enhanced sea ice cover – potentially within a decade. The models do not comprehensively model Earth physics and there is little confidence that any of the results can be more than indicative. The failure to model this process was after all what prompted the study. That the process exists seems a reasonable working hypothesis and proceeding from there with new and focused observations leading to a better understanding of how the world might work would seem to be better science than no it just affect global warming. Even if that is what the study said. Context is everything. Think of it as a process model and you are closer to the truth. Real science is about putting the pieces together into a coherent whole.

        The trajectories of the solutions are themselves chaotic and non-unique. A criticism repeatedly leveled at models from an unassailable perspective. To accept the unrealistic emissions scenarios and model solution trajectories as precise truth is widespread but scientifically and mathematically naive. Nor do they include the Pacific amplification of the solar signal through the polar annular modes in both hemispheres.

        The reality of offsetting cooling in the NH of a new MM is more easily and realistically seen in CET data. The reality is that a more negative NAO/AO with low solar activity leads to enhanced meridional blocking patterns and significant cooling – especially in winter – over large parts of the NH.

      • Lots of speculating hard on MM effects there. A forcing change of a couple of tenths of a W/m2 is noticeable even in the noisy CET record, and that is about the extent of it. Meanwhile you look at several W/m2 from CO2 and are not at all interested in what that does to the climate and extreme event frequency, let alone pushing tipping points and sea level. It’s completely myopic or blinkered to not take seriously forcing of all types. Even your reference says this type of change dwarfs the effects of an MM.

      • We have actual data on the temperature change associated with and the problem as always is to disentangle natural internal variability from forced. But you have spent so long denying that there is any that it has become habitual.

      • The net forced change leads the temperature, as seen from the measured positive imbalance. Natural effects, like thermal inertia, cause the lag of the temperature below a rapidly rising equilibrium, so their net effect is still running negative.

      • Energy imbalances at TOA are inferred from ocean heat. The significant toa variability in recent decades is from cloud changes.

        Most of this change is natural even with high end AGW cloud feedback.

      • We’ve been through this. You’re showing a positive cloud feedback to the forcing change that we found is also what the observations indicate happen. See Lewis piece on emergent constraints where the more sensitive GCMs have exactly this kind of feedback to warming, and match observations better.

      • The numbers do not add up Jimmy – 0.19 to 1 W/(m2.K) feedback. It is just utter nonsense. No models needed.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2018/03/11/intrinsic-and-forced-climate-variability/

      • Clouds also have a greenhouse effect, so increasing them also increases that. It turns out that the only ones that matter for net shortwave plus longwave forcing, as the emergent constraint studies also show, is low clouds in the low latitudes. These clouds decrease as the ocean gets warmer, aka a positive feedback. They don’t change spontaneously, but in response to a change.

      • The place where SST and low cloud changes most is in the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific – across a large portion of the global tropics.

        “Marine stratocumulus cloud decks forming over dark, subtropical oceans are regarded as the reflectors of the atmosphere.1 The decks of low clouds 1000s of km in scale reflect back to space a significant portion of the direct solar radiation and therefore dramatically increase the local albedo of areas
        otherwise characterized by dark oceans below.2,3 This cloud system has been shown to have two stable states: open and
        closed cells. Closed cell cloud systems have high cloud fraction and are usually shallower, while open cells have low cloud fraction and form thicker clouds mostly
        over the convective cell walls and therefore have a smaller domain average albedo.4–6 Closed cells tend to be associated with the
        eastern part of the subtropical oceans, forming over cold water (upwelling areas) and within a low, stable atmospheric marine boundary layer (MBL), while open cells tend to form over warmer water with a deeper MBL.” https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4973593

        Your next claim is that this is white noise and sums to zero. Agnatology at it’s finest.

      • No, I am saying declouding is not a spontaneous process. Things lead to it, like warming oceans. It is a feedback, not a forcing. Big difference. Don’t get confused between causes and effects. Clouds don’t just disappear in response to nothing.

      • Coupled ocean and atmosphere processes that are quite natural in origin change the energy dynamic of the planet. I’m not sure what Jimmy’s problem is.

      • ENSO, right? That’s easily the biggest example. Does it cause net heating? No.

      • The maunder minimum happened when ice extent was max. The maunder minimum got credit for causing the ice extent max. The ice extent max was responsible for most of the colder. Other solar minimums cause nothing. All ice extent maxes cause colder.

      • The am-
        1
        arXiv:1602.06397v1 [physics.ao-ph] 20 Feb 2016
        plitude of the UV variability is fundamental in determining the magnitude of the climate response but understanding of the UV variations has been challenged recently by measure- ments from the SOlar Radiation and Climate Experiment (SORCE) satellite 7, which show UV solar cycle changes up to 10 times larger than previously thought. Indeed, climate mod- els using these larger UV variations show a much greater response, similar to NAO observa- tions 8. Here we present estimates of the ozone solar cycle response using a chemistry-climate model (CCM) in which the effects of transport are constrained by observations. Thus the photolytic response to different spectral solar irradiance (SSI) datasets can be isolated. Com- parison of the results with the solar signal in ozone extracted from observational datasets yields significantly discriminable responses. According to our evaluation the SORCE UV dataset is not consistent with the observed ozone response whereas the smaller variations suggested by earlier satellite datasets, and by UV data from empirical solar models, are in closer agreement with the measured stratospheric variations. Determining the most appro- priate SSI variability to apply in models will allow clearer understanding of the impact of past and future solar variability on global and regional climate. …

        A recent study 29, concerned with the potential for declining solar activity to mitigate7 global warming, has shown that the effect on near-surface temperature in the North Atlantic de- pends sensitively on the choice of UV spectrum and our work suggests that the effect is probably at the lower end of those considered in that study. …

        29. Ineson, S. et al. Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum. Nature Communications 6 (2015).

      • How much cooling can Central England expect from a MM solar decline and enhanced merdidional blocking patterns?

      • Why would ice advance in a warming climate?

        Ice does not advance in a warming climate. Ice advances in a warm climate. The start of ice advance is the start of cooling.

    • Water is abundant. When oceans are warm and thawed, water evaporates from the surface and that cools the oceans and warms the atmosphere. That warm water vapor filled air travels up to high altitudes and turns to water and ice, releasing the huge energy it picked up from the oceans. This causes and explains sudden atmosphere warming and cooling when it occurs somewhere else or the oceans were ice covered and kept the energy bottled up below.

  4. Regarding:
    “A “La Niña-like” state occurring in the second year after large tropical volcanic eruptions during the past 1500 years”

    It looks like “La Niña-like” conditions accompany every global cooling event resulting in a breakdown of the monsoon cycles which causes all kinds of environmental/biosphere problems throughout southern Asia and eastern Africa.

  5. Large changes in sea ice triggered by small changes in Atlantic water temperature. [link]…

    They wrote: There is a non-linear response in Nordic Seas sea ice to Atlantic water temperature with simulated large abrupt changes in sea ice given small changes in inflowing temperature.

    YES! When oceans are a little warmer, oceans are more open and that promotes more snowfall that rebuilds ice on land. When oceans are a little colder, oceans are more closed and that promotes less snowfall that allows ice depletion on land. This is what keeps temperatures in narrow bounds with cycles that alternate.

    • They are finally figuring some of this stuff out. It is way past time.
      Actually, they are not really figuring anything out, they are just noticing it.

    • The indicates the current Nordic Seas are not susceptible to what the paper is describing, which is the behavior of the Nordic Seas during DO events. At that time the Nordic Seas were like today’s Arctic Ocean.

    • SB, the study indicates

    • “Evidence from North Atlantic deep sea cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. Pacings of the Holocene events and of abrupt climate shifts during the last glaciation are statistically the same; together, they make up a series of climate shifts with a cyclicity close to 1470 +/- 500 years. The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climate cycle operating independently of the glacial-interglacial climate state. Amplification of the cycle during the last glaciation may have been linked to the North Atlantic’s thermohaline circulation…

      In any case, if we are correct that the 1470-year climate cycle is a pervasive component of Earth’s climate system, it must be present in previous glacial-interglacial intervals. If that turns out to be true, the cycle may well be the pacemaker of rapid climate change.” http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/A%20Pervasive%20Millennial-Scale%20Cycle%20in%20North%20Atlantic%20Holocene%20and%20Glacial%20Climates_1997.pdf

      Is aperiodic cyclicity an oxymoron? But the age old problem remains. Whet came first – agnatology or the horse’s ass?

  6. Is recent ice edge retreat along east Greenland linked to ocean convection? [link]  …

    Warm subtropical-origin Atlantic water flows northward across the Greenland-Scotland Ridge into the Nordic Seas, where it relinquishes heat to the atmosphere and gradually transforms into dense Atlantic-origin water.

    This warm water relinquishes more heat when it encounters sea ice and ice shelves when oceans are cold than it does when the oceans are open.

  7. “The Economist highlighting the failure of progress in delivering clean cooking access and the huge damages this causes to health and the environment [link]”

    I have to smile a bit to myself as the answer to why innovation in cookstoves does not “stick” for many poor people lies in the elitist donor country participants unwilling to address a core issue: paternalism. Families live within the confines of tribal order which begins at the top: chief, then tribal elders, then fathers of the family, then sons, and then…well, there are no rules for what comes after. Feminists interested in the developing world are currently focused upon emancipating women of these developing countries. This politically correct message gets in the way of implementing strategies to change the way people prepare their meals. There is a ritual and a sacredness around food preparation and meals, what is eaten, when, and who is served first, etc. To change that culture means changing the tribal culture which also means deference needs to be extended to tribal chiefs and the governing elders. To have women change the way they prepare meals needs the consent of the titular patriarchy. Yes, women do the cooking, but the meals are the province of the tribal customs. Imagine for a moment changing Jewish Kosher cooking and meal preparation by going to the women without first addressing the Rabbi, the solemn texts and tradition.

    The key to changing the way people of the developing world cooks, means addressing changing traditions, and, to the gaul of the feminists agenda for the developing world, deference needs to be paid to the man.

    • The problem is that most of the cook stoves are not all that innovative. What you need is a product that people want and a sustainable business model. This firm seems on the right track – and has been for several years now.

      https://www.bioliteenergy.com/pages/mission#

      • Not only must any technology be accepted, it must be sustainable. Any technology that is provided to peoples with little technical capacity must be maintainable by the people who inhabit remote regions that may adopt it. Often, these people have no money to buy spare parts, no way to get spare parts, and no tools to make repairs. These populations live in a purely subsistence mode with little if any support infrastructure. This is why technical solutions usually fail for these populations.

        It is simply arrogant for people, who have money and access to the technical support infrastructure that took hundreds of years to develop, to expect that poor people in remote areas will be able to sustain and maintain high technology solutions. My guess is that this technology may look good at first, but ultimately may not be sustainable over time. The cost of technical support for remote areas is just too high. I expect those that are successful with it are not in remote areas, ans have some financial means. I also suspect that it will not be successful in remote barter based economies.

        My guess is that it will be tried by some with more than subsistence means, but will ultimately wind up being used in either a partially functional state or be abandoned. It may never be used as it is intended.

      • Technology is in fact leading the way – and the ability to charge cell phones may be the biggest selling point.

        https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/03/how-are-mobile-phones-changing-africa

      • Robert I Ellison

        Thank you for the article on the BioLite HomeStove system which burns wood more efficiently and produce less particulates in the smoke. From the article, the HomeStove uses a Thermo Electric Generator to power the internal electric fan which adds additional airflow to the flame leading to improve fuel combustion. The fuel saving of up to 50% less wood burned is a needed improvement. The Parallel Innovation business model of selling these stoves to recreational campers for financing the stove’s improvements folds into the Company’s Social Enterprise mission. The portion of the business model that requires realization is the self-financing portion at the local level as currently, the stoves many times are given away to needy households.

        Obviously grants and charity donations underpin the marketing/distribution portion of the business model. Julia Roberts and Hillary Clinton have added their names along with the Spark Fund and its partnering with the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves provides access to markets in developing countries.

        Several thoughts occurred to me as I read:

        Improving fuel combustion is good but does not eliminate some of the most potent wood burning pollutants: aldehydes (acroline, formaldehyde, etc) which coagulates respiratory secretions, immobilizes the respiratory tract defense systems; benzopyrene and its analogues (cancer causing); anthracene and a host of other compounds formed depending upon the water content of the fuel (more water content, ie, green wood leads to cooler temperatures of the fire). The remaining particulates in the air, particularly the <2.5 micron are coated with these and many more chemicals, inhaled deep within the small respiratory bronchioles where they remain, creating a burden to the muco-ciliary clearance mechanisms.

        Indoor burning without adequate fumes removal will continue to pollute the air as National Institute of Occupational Health measurements will attest.

        The portion of BioLite's Social Enterprise mission: ie, empowering women, seems to have all the elements that I have addressed by my comments (see above). The failure of "take up" and use of the HomeStove as well as failure to realize self sustaining financial markets with the default "giving away" the stoves as charity belies not understanding the need to get "buy in" by tribal chiefs, tribal elders and then the husbands of the women who are doing the actual cooking.

        Changes to tradition and tribal culture takes more energy and costs much more time than many "good deeders" usually want to invest.

      • They have claimed almost complete elimination of black carbon emissions. But at the end of the day – it is a technology that is better than nothing and not the shape of the future.

      • Robert I Ellison

        ” it is a technology that is better than nothing and not the shape of the future.”

        Agreed. As above: cellphone charging will bring news and information that may facilitate tribal cultural changes. Progress by expanding people’s universe is likely the most cost effective way to change. The tie into emancipating women on the other hand may be off-putting the men in their lives.

      • Robert I Ellison

        Intimate Partner violence and child abuse combined cost society the most in terms of %GDP. There is a reason why many tribal societies are polygamous, the wife, now with her family of children shuts out the husband whose sole involvement becomes financial. Visible disrespect on both partner’s part. On the plus side, when there is societal awareness that half the society’s intellectual capital is back at home tending the kitchen fire. When society wants to capture that intellectual capital, then women acquire the respect and economic placing that will address many of the domestic violence issues.

        Going back to my proposition that women are reluctant to use modern wood burning cook stoves remains until their culture and husbands agree that they should change cooking traditions. This goes to the heart of improving tribal society functions. Actually, one of the major solutions is visible in the article you provided; namely, in the picture taking place presumably in India, the HomeStove demonstrator is in the middle of a semi-circle surrounded by men (wearing shorts and sandals) and several children clutching one another looking on. If the demonstrator is effective, he is selling the HomeStove to the men as a way of improving the health of his children; ie, children growing up healthier because they are not exposed to the fumes of traditional wood fires. What’s in it for the father’s? fewer but healthier children. Not so many children getting sick and dying off. Investment in the father’s old age pension.

      • I still claim that it is not sustainable because of high high technology in it. Who is going to repair it when the thermo-electric cooler fails to operate the fan, improving the burning efficiency? What happens when the fan bearings fail? What about the fan controller? Where do the spare parts come from? How do they get there? Who repairs it? There are many logistics and infrastructure problems with supporting such technology. Optimism is great, but only time will tell how successful this particular solution will be.

        Let me provide an example of very simple technology failure in Africa. Please be patient with me, because I read about this in my science and technology policy class in graduate school. In large portions of the world, especially in semiarid regions of Africa, women and children are in charge of getting water for the families. They carry jugs (of whatever size they can afford) to the water sources and fill them up. Often times they have to walk for many miles to the water sources, typically streams, rivers, and/or lakes. Obtaining water, being a critical survival factor in those regions, is a major effort and important task for the women and children to accomplish in these regions of the world. A great deal of time is spent acquiring this vital commodity. However, most traditional water sources are contaminated through a variety of causes, and can contain many parasites and diseases. The World Health Organization considers water supply contamination to be one of the major issues with rural health, infant mortality, and general lifespan shortening in large portions of the world. Wouldn’t it be beautiful and awesome if clean water sources could be provided to these communities, to improve their health, reduce the time of commodity acquisition, and thereby leading to healthier families, lower death rates, and longer lifespans?

        So, (i don’t recall the decade that they did this) they thought that providing low technology hand pump water wells near theses very remote villages would be the panacea for this massive health problem. It is very low technology, simple to use, and voila the solution. Sounds great, right? So, they went out and drilled a bunch of water wells. Clean water was provided by the wells. In fact it worked so well that the wells were used all of the time. One could argue whether the well pumps were over used or not, but eventually even this very simple technology broke down. How did they break down? Some of them broke down at the simplest, and most accessible point, the pivot at the handle just simply wore out and broke. Crap, now you can’t pump the water. The women and children were not capable of fixing the pump, nor did they have the materials to fix it even if they could have fixed it. There were no tools, no metal parts to replace the pivot. The men couldn’t fix it either.

        So, what happened? The wells were eventually abandoned as they failed, and the women and children returned to their traditional, contaminated sources of water.

        This leads me to the conclusion that we must be very careful of introducing new technology into remote villages where there is no technical support infrastructure. As I have learned, technology is not always the solution to a widespread health problem. Any technology that is introduced to these populations must be very simple, bullet proof (figuratively, and literally), and require no technical support what so ever if it breaks. The technology must be repairable by the indigenous peoples, and manageable by women and children. That is the reality of those remote social structures. Cell phones, and radios, and even TV are desirable objects for us to spread to all peoples of the world, but it is not sustainable by many types of populations.

        I am a technologist, engineer, scientist, and geophysicist; that lesson was a bitter pill for me to swallow.

      • Allan

        “The technology must be repairable by the indigenous peoples, and manageable by women and children”

        Thank you for your assessment of the viability of placing technology into the hands of people otherwise unprepared to maintain/repair said technology. Obviously, there are no technologies “bullet-proof” that will endure far into the foreseeable future.

        I believe Robert I Ellison’s comment: “it is a technology that is better than nothing and not the shape of the future” is applicable. My comment regards the time and energy required to obtain “buy in” for technological innovation applies as well to the maintenance portion. That is why the BioLite Social Enterprise portion of their mission needs to succeed. Giving away the stove benefits the families as long as the stove is able to function. Developing the economic model for sustainability requires local entrepreneurs to purchase items (in this case a stove) from manufacturers, resell and then after market repair the HomeStove, all for a profit. The purchaser of the stove via a micro loan needs to sell either the use of the stove itself or the electricity to charge cellphones or other devices.

        My argument that the “do gooders” like Julia Roberts & Hillary Clinton, whose agenda is emancipation of women, does not provide a pathway for the women to become financially & successfully independent of her husband without crossing many cultural taboos; the latter, destines the project to failure most of the time. It takes time and energy to make all the links; ie, supply chain management. Nascent entrepreneurs require capital, as in capitalism. Unfortunately, in all tribal associations, there is a certain level of “dashing” or tithing to the chief, elders and intermediaries before the capital finally gets to where it can go to work. Westerners call this “dashing” as in a dash of salt or a dash of that to the chief, corruption, and, on a wholesale level, at the level of state government, bribery. For capitalism to succeed, there needs to be: “the rule of law”. That is why “buy in” by patriarchal titular head is so important. The “laws” can’t be applied arbitrarily or capriciously. The chief needs to agree to the project, and to do so, he takes his “tax”, ah, cut.

      • Allan, I find it difficult to believe that the water pump users can’t fix the pump handle, or even replace it. The production and maintenance of a simple handle would appear to require the most basic of skills. If they can’t figure that out there isn’t much hope for them anyway.

      • Does anyone fix toasters, TV’s or microwaves? Much modern technology is disposable. If not it is plug and play. If you have the right part.

      • Scraft1, unfortunately you speak from a position of technological knowledge and arrogance. You also speak with a lack of social knowledge and appreciation of the profound lack of technical knowledge of those highly vulnerable populations. Women and children in those situations have the least amount of education, and yet are often given responsibilities that are deemed by the men to be menial tasks. The women and children are also often not allowed to think for themselves, voice opinions, or otherwise be self sufficient. This usually suppresses innovation and self initiative in the women and children.

        The women cannot, and will not break those norms unless it is condoned by the “authorities.” The consequences for breaking the norms are a fundamental matter of life and death for them. This means that they are prevented from taking action to repair things like pump handles for numerous reasons, social and technological.

        These populations of people are nothing like the west in terms of social structure and technological advancement. Once you realize this, you will truly understand how difficult this problem is.

        Robert I. Ellison, disosability also generates massive problems for an economy with little money and wherewithall to deal wiith the associated added health impacts at many levels, including the potentially toxic constituents of the discarded technology.

      • I have installed solar panels on bush material huts on a remote south Pacific island called Misima – a volcanic dome in the ocean vastness. Solar panels because the cheaper and more powerful technology of micro-hydro posed insoluble maintenance problems and possible safety issues. Permanent and beautiful streams with high quality water run off the mountain every 100m or so. The panels and batteries powered lights, video, battery charging, communications and electric piano. Admittedly – it is a matrilineal society. It is probably the only place on Earth where they let the prisoners out with machetes to cut the grass on the local sports field.

        The huts are brilliant. Clean, open, cool, comfortable and aesthetically pleasing. My experiences are radically different to the blanket stereotypes I am seeing here. These are people who operate and maintain cars, boats, heavy machinery, portable saw mills, etc. Many of them worked in a mine. Much of the economy – however – is still subsistence farming and fishing. They made nets and lures out of bags oranges come in and laughed as I tried to catch amazing fresh water prawns in the streams. I was relegated to carrying the bucket of prawns but fell over and most escaped and they laughed even harder. I fished all day once with my western gear and failed to catch a fish. I wondered what we would eat as the pallet loads of rice, flour, bully beef, hard biscuit and tinned fish I’d brought on a coastal trader had been passed out and and consumed. Then the boys walked past with a pig carried on a pole between them. I’m doubting that Allan has any experience or first hand knowledge other than a lecture in science and technology.

        This is what I am really in favor of.

      • Robert, I really appreciate your experience, but it does not speak to the millions and billions of other scenarios that don’t fit your particilar and pleasing experience. Try deep sub Sahara Africa, Bangladesh, deep inside rural India, and other places like those. These peoples are often on the edge of starvation. They live in resource limited environments, nowhere near the oceans where resources are more available.

      • RiHo08 | April 10, 2018 at 1:33 pm | Reply
        Allan

        It’s hard to connect with all the people in need and obtain their stories. That is why systems like capitalism applied to a tribal community can provide the individualism through local knowledge which is likely to be successful. Micro economics are best to impact people in need.

      • Capitalism works where wealth is based on something other than just subsistance and survival. Something has to be exchangable for some sort of gain or advancement or profit. Many of these populations don’t have such means. That’s why they are in these situations.

      • The global economy is now about $100 trillion a year.

      • Allan

        “Something has to be exchangable for some sort of gain or advancement or profit. Many of these populations don’t have such means.”

        Even in famine. Even in war-torn refugee camps, there is trade, on the micro scale to be sure. Barter in these circumstances predominates unless there is currency, providing of course the money can buy something. The formation of capital is harder to accumulate so the micro-loans, plus the education on budgeting are needed with the intent of paying back the loan. Supply management systems requires the investment of time and energy. Money isn’t just handed out, that is charity; charity money soon runs out. These are able people by-and-large although parasites and other preventable diseases creates a disabled class where other work-arounds require imaginative solutions.

        With the widespread distribution of cellphones, education in short bursts is possible although governments are leery of too much education and understanding on the part of the populous. At times, internet and phone service are not “available” because…

      • Capitalism is based on comparative advantage and value adding. There was a continent spanning trading network in pre-European Australia.

  8. How are California water managers thinking about climate change?

    Unpredictable timing of unusual droughts and floods don’t seem to figure. As said by others, CA is not even prepared for the past.

  9. From, Internal atmospheric variability can have a large impact on the CA precipitation response to #ENSO [link] …

    The inability to accurately model the effects of El Niño or La Niña on, for example, the weather of California, probably is due to our inability to predict changes in the strength and directions of the trade winds which may have little to do with the extent and magnitude of the warming of equatorial waters in the eastern Pacific.

  10. Essex and Tsonis. “Climate models do not and cannot employ known physics fully. Thus, they are falsified, a priori.”. Yes!!! If only certain others could understand this, we wouldn’t be in the current (very expensive) mess.

    • “Since “panta rhei” was pronounced by Heraclitus, hydrology and the objects it studies, such as rivers and lakes, have offered grounds to observe and understand change and flux. Change occurs on all time scales, from minute to geological, but our limited senses and life span, as well as the short time window of instrumental observations, restrict our perception to the most apparent daily to yearly variations. As a result, our typical modelling practices assume that natural changes are just a short-term “noise” superimposed on the daily and annual cycles in a scene that is static and invariant in the long run. According to this perception, only an exceptional and extraordinary forcing can produce a long-term change. The hydrologist H.E. Hurst, studying the long flow records of the Nile and other geophysical time series, was the first to observe a natural behaviour, named after him, related to multi-scale change, as well as its implications in engineering designs. Essentially, this behaviour that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches. Surprisingly, however, the implications of multi-scale change have not been assimilated in geophysical sciences. A change of perspective is thus needed, in which change and uncertainty are essential parts.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

    • nobodysknowledge

      Essex and Tsonis. Very couragious. Will they become the next hateobjects of the doom-believers?

      “Prof. Essex explains, “Unlike the stable virtual ‘climates’ seen in computer simulations, corresponding real-world conditions aren’t stable at all. There are perpetual, natural, internal changes in play that take longer than human lifetimes to play out.”

      No human will ever fully perceive this change. No one lives long enough. But some astute people, in their later years, might just be able to make a little of it out.

      Prof. Essex adds, “There is an ultraslow, mysterious, unseen world out there, under our very noses, that we cannot perceive. It’s beyond our measurement capabilities, and beyond the capabilities of our best computers using our very best physical theories. It belongs to a class of problems that we cannot overwhelm with data, or crush with our biggest computers.””

  11. re Paris Climate Accord: “There are 195 signatories, of which only [7 named countries] are considered even “in range” of their Paris commitments”. That is incorrect. One signatory, China, committed to increase its CO2 emissions as much as it felt like, up to 2030. China is certainly on target.

    • Countries agreed to an 8% increase in energy emissions in 2030. That was known at the time and it was heralded as an historic agreement. Now they figure it is not enough. F@%k them then.

    • Tourists visiting la ville des lumières are noticing that Paris is looking a lot like Kyoto, these days.

  12. Seasonal and regional manifestation of Arctic sea ice loss

    Abstract

    The Arctic Ocean is currently on a fast track towards seasonally ice-free conditions. Although most attention has been on the accelerating summer sea ice decline, large changes are also occurring in winter. This study assesses past, present, and possible future change in regional Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent throughout the year by examining sea ice concentration based on observations back to 1950, including the satellite record since 1979. At present, summer sea ice variability and change dominate in the perennial ice covered Beaufort, Chukchi, East Siberian, Laptev, and Kara seas, with the East Siberian Sea explaining the largest fraction of September ice loss (22%). Winter variability and change occur in the seasonally ice covered seas further south; the Barents Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, Greenland Sea, and Baffin Bay, with the Barents Sea carrying the largest fraction of loss in March (27%). The distinct regions of summer and winter sea ice variability and loss have generally been consistent since 1950, but appear at present to be in transformation due to the rapid ice loss in all seasons. As regions become seasonally ice-free, future ice loss will be dominated by winter. The Kara Sea appears as the first currently perennial ice covered sea to become ice-free in September. Remaining on currently observed trends, the Arctic shelf seas are estimated to become seasonally ice-free in the 2020s, and the seasonally ice-covered seas further south to become ice-free year-round from the 2050s.

    • nobodysknowledge

      Just another science lookalike paper with activist fingerprint. Without even mentioning the warm phase of the AMO. Copy of a doom-paper from 20 years ago, with some new numbers?

    • Abstract

      The Arctic Ocean is currently on a fast track towards seasonally ice-full conditions. most attention has been on the accelerating summer sea ice decline [actually increased 6 places last year], large changes are also occurring in winter [actually increased 1 place this year]. This study assesses past, present, and possible future change in regional Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent throughout the year by examining sea ice concentration based on observations back to 1950, including the satellite record since 1979 [Satellite records are available back to 1970?]
      with the East Siberian Sea explaining the largest fraction of September ice loss (22%) [Full this year]
      Winter variability and change occur in the seasonally ice covered seas further south; The distinct regions of summer and winter sea ice variability and loss have generally been consistent since 1950 [This cannot be true, A few years of watching show quite marked yearly variation].
      As regions become seasonally ice-free, future ice loss will be dominated by winter [Surely Summer?]
      The Kara Sea [Full this year] appears as the first currently perennial ice covered sea to become ice-free in September. the Arctic shelf seas are estimated to become seasonally ice-free in the 2020s, and the seasonally ice-covered seas further south to become ice-free year-round from the 2050s.
      [As opposed to recent predictions Wadhams and others well before now, If the end of the world does not come today predict it again tomorrow]

      If one is allowed a prediction the melting out of the thin seasonally ice covered seas [greater extent but disappears] Should lead to a greater PIOMAS volume because the thicker ice should be slower to melt]

    • The Arctic Ocean reacts strongly not because of a poor design but because of its regulatory attributes.

      Look, the car’s radiator is hot as you’re driving it. Maybe you should not drive it? Think of the animals that live on the radiator. They’ve adapted to live on a cool radiator and cannot adapt to live on a warm one.

      We’ve measured the radiator’s temperature and it is warmer. But we need more dead animals. Dead animals sell. And cold air masses moving South with ice storms. People need to be afraid of the radiator.

  13. The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/the-paris-climate-accords-are-starting-to-look-like-fantasy.html

    That is all to say, it is a virtual certainty that we will inflict, thanks to climate change, the equivalent of 25 Holocausts on the world. Or rather, thanks only to the air pollution associated with climate change. We are almost sure to break two degrees of warming, and those numbers do not reflect any of the other — quite considerable — effects of climate change. So 25 Holocausts is our absolute best-case outcome; the likely suffering will be considerably higher still. “We are locking in place a scale of suffering that has no precedent in our history,” David Roberts wrote on Twitter. “Imagine the horror we would feel if we valued human life like we claim to.

    This is alarmism in spades.

    Some excerpts from the Nature Climate Change Letter https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0108-y.epdf and my comments:

    In particular, public health impacts have not previously been evaluated, but should be included in a consideration of risks and benefits.

    Nonsense. There are many studies of the health impacts of global warming attributed to GHG emissions. Tol (2013) for example shows health impacts of GW are beneficial up to about 4°C GMST increase. There are also many studies of the impacts of air pollution.

    what would be the additional health and climate impacts of accelerating carbon emissions reductions via greater reliance on renewables.

    Why renewables as the example? Renewables can provide negligible contribution to world energy supply. This reveals the bias of the authors.

    Air quality is a different issue. If the purpose is to reduce health impacts due to air quality – a desirable aim – then the focus should be on that, not CO2. We can achieve that much more cheaply by focusing on it rather than on CO2 emissions.

    This Nature Climate Change Letter is rubbish. It relies entirely on acceptance of the unfounded premise that global warming would be very harmful. It is loaded with alarmist adjectives.

  14. “Hidden underwater melt-off in the Antarctic is doubling every 20 years and could soon overtake Greenland to become the biggest source of sea-level rise”

    Wrong! If the ice is underwater, it will not contribute to sea level rise. On the contrary, it could decrease sea level because ice is 8% lower density than water. If it melts, there will be 8% extra volume for seawater to fill in.

    • The authors must not be familiar with the behavior of iced drinks.

    • This is about the retreat of the grounding line, which is an important line because it is the transition from ground-based ice to floating ice. Ground-based ice can be, and is, higher than floating ice, so there can be a sea-level gain as the grounding line retreats.

  15. Nevertheless, there is hope. As Professor Tsonis explains, our growing understanding of the nature of natural ocean modes and how they are linked may open up a whole new field of research into ultra-long timescales taking us beyond the virtual stability of modified meteorological models:

    “Ocean modes like the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, known natural internal dynamical features, affect weather patterns globally over years, decades and longer. They are deep structures that are coming to be understood on their own terms. We understand better than ever how they are linked, and we understand the mathematical structures in play in ways that we could not have only a few decades ago. We are on the verge of being able to predict what they will do next. If we succeed, a hitherto invisible world will open to us. We will see new wonders through new eyes.”

    I guess he means the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, which won’t be understood or predicted while assumed to be ‘internal’, as it’s strongly solar driven.

    • which won’t be understood or predicted while assumed to be ‘internal’, as it’s strongly solar driven.

      The sun does supply the energy, but the climate cycles are self correcting. People leave out ice cycles. There are huge storehouses of ice in both hemispheres. When earth gets warmer, for any reason, oceans thaw and increase snowfall until it gets colder. When earth gets colder, for any reason, oceans freeze and decrease snowfall until it gets warmer. This is ignored by most all on the different sides of the debates. No one will get even close to understanding climate without understanding the ice cycles. An ice age happens when there is more ice. More ice came from more snowfall in warmer times. A warm time happens when there is less ice. Less ice came from less snowfall in colder times. Ice core data shows this very clearly.

      • The tilt of the earth cycles alternate solar heating of the hemispheres. Both hemispheres compensate by adjusting the storehouse of ice in each hemisphere. More energy in promotes more thawed oceans and more snowfall. Less energy in promotes more frozen oceans and less snowfall.
        Ice core temperature data shows both hemispheres being bounded in the same bounds in spite of alternating changes.

    • “We present here a simple and novel proposal for the modulation and rhythm of ice-ages and interglacials during the late Pleistocene. While the standard Milankovitch-precession theory fails to explain the long intervals between interglacials, these can be accounted for by a novel forcing and feedback system involving CO2, dust and albedo. During the glacial period, the high albedo of the northern ice sheets drives down global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, despite subsequent precessional forcing maxima. Over the following millennia more CO2 is sequestered in the oceans and atmospheric concentrations eventually reach a critical minima of about 200 ppm, which combined with arid conditions, causes a die-back of temperate and boreal forests and grasslands, especially at high altitude. The ensuing soil erosion generates dust storms, resulting in increased dust deposition and lower albedo on the northern ice sheets. As northern hemisphere insolation increases during the next Milankovitch cycle, the dust-laden ice-sheets absorb considerably more insolation and undergo rapid melting, which forces the climate into an interglacial period. The proposed mechanism is simple, robust, and comprehensive in its scope, and its key elements are well supported by empirical evidence…

      Ice age CO2 reductions coincide with an increase in ice sheet extent and therefore an increase in global albedo, and this should result in further cooling of the climate. But what actually happens is that when CO2 reaches a minimum and albedo reaches a maximum, the world rapidly warms into an interglacial. A similar effect can be seen at the peak of an interglacial, where high CO2 and low albedo results in cooling. This counterintuitive response of the climate system also remains unexplained, and so a hitherto unaccounted for agent must exist that is strong enough to counter and reverse the classical feedback mechanisms.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

      A problem for Pope is that can reduced precipitation – a fact of glacials – be sufficient to result in ice retreat? Alternatively – is higher precipitation in warm condition a sufficient cause of ice advance? It is just a narrative – repeated a dozen times a day – so not all that scientifically meaningful My feeling is that all is complex and dynamic with the involvement of many factors.

      • these can be accounted for by a novel forcing and feedback system involving CO2, dust and albedo. During the glacial period, the high albedo of the northern ice sheets drives down global temperatures and CO2 concentrations, despite subsequent precessional forcing maxima.

        You don’t get the dust and albedo without the ice that is extended, thawing and reflecting.

      • A problem for Pope is that can reduced precipitation – a fact of glacials – be sufficient to result in ice retreat? Alternatively – is higher precipitation in warm condition a sufficient cause of ice advance?

        The ice sheets, glaciers, ice fields are flowing and thawing. Ice volume increases when it snows more and ice volume depletes when it snows less. This is more just common sense than data but it is fully supported by ice core data.

      • It is just a narrative – repeated a dozen times a day

        Climate alarmism, (This not directed at you, it is a general statement) is repeated thousands of times a day. A few dozen attempts to fight back with knowledge of natural climate cycles is still not enough. The Houston Chronicle can hardly publish an article that does not say “made worse by climate change”, not saying every time, but implying every time, “man made climate change due to the use of fossil fuels”.

        If you disagree with me, help find the other factors that caused climate to stay bounded and caused the bounds to get tighter during the recent ten thousand years.

      • My feeling is that all is complex and dynamic with the involvement of many factors.

        I agree, the ice cycles do respond to and resonate with the many factors, resulting in many correlations that lead researchers down multiple paths that ignore internal responses.

        It always snows more when oceans are warmer and thawed, ice volume always increases then and it always gets colder as the ice advances.
        Everyone acknowledges that ice advances as earth gets colder, but they all treat it as a result and nothing to do with cause.

      • Everyone acknowledges that ice retreats as earth gets warmer, but they all treat it as a result and nothing to do with cause.

      • As northern hemisphere insolation increases during the next Milankovitch cycle, the dust-laden ice-sheets absorb considerably more insolation and undergo rapid melting, which forces the climate into an interglacial period.

        Again, the consensus theory keeps the ice sheets totally frozen for 80 to 100 thousand years and then remove them in ten thousand years. That much dust did not suddenly appear and cause that much ice to melt that quickly.

  16. The Confidence Trap

    “If the IPCC has to defend the idea that continuing with current levels of greenhouse gas emissions is going to do great harm to humanity, the IPCC will lose. They can’t prove that because it’s uncertain.”

    We could award the IPCC a participation trophy. Somebody came up with the idea that great harm to humanity is coming our way. The IPCC adopted this. This is unfair to the IPCC and they can’t get what they want as people question them.

    The IPCC should not have to defend its ideas. Neither should I. I want a PhD degree and be referred to as Doctor. But I don’t want to face people that just attack me and my break though ideas. That’s not fair.

    “It’s like a soccer game in which the red team’s goal has been removed, The red team needs no defense and can only score. The blue team can’t score and can’t possibly win.”

    I should not have to face a group of credentialed experts or even the common man. It’s not fair. I would be a Doctor if it was fair. We could all be Doctors.

    • David L. Hagen

      IPCC’s “expert” hubris” vs burden of proof
      The Confidence Trap:

      The hypothesis that an expert is statistically accurate would be rejected at the 5 percent level for nearly three quarters of the 320 experts in the studies we reviewed. About half would be rejected at the 0.5 percent level. When unvalidated expert judgment is invoked to produce 90 percent confidence bands for a number of unknown quantities, we should not assume that 90 percent of the true values will fall within those bounds.

      See also:
      Expert Elicitation: Using the Classical Model to Validate Experts’ Judgments
      Abigail R Colson Roger M Cooke, Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Volume 12, Issue 1, 1 February 2018, Pages 113–132, https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex022

      Rothlisberger et al. (2012) found that the statistical accuracy of the experts varied over several orders of magnitude, from 0.45 to 1.2E-9.
      . .this highlights the need for validation of expert judgments. Although all of the participants in these studies are established experts in their respective fields, their knowledge does not necessarily translate into statistically accurate probabilistic statements about unknown quantities. . . .
      expert judgment should not provide the final word on any issue; rather, it should guide future data collection, modeling, and analysis related to the topic.

      Modern science was founded on validation not authority. The Royal Society’s motto was: Nullius in verba; (Take nobody’s word for it)
      The IPCC still bears the burden of proof of modern majority anthropogenic catastrophic global warming. The lack of progress for four decades years in reducing the climate sensitivity range of 1.5C to 4.5C suggests very poor performance in providing that burden of proof.

      • David, having been offline for a while, I just posted this on the sea level rise post. Also pertinent here:

        (Coming in late) “The ‘likely range’ is consistent with the terms used by the IPCC meaning that it has about a 2-in-3 chance of containing the correct value.” As I’ve said before, in economic models, anything without a 95% probability would be rejected. 98% probability would be regarded as likely representing the true situation. In comparing the possible outcomes of alternative policies, impacts beyond ten years would generally be disregarded due to uncertainty and because of the discount rates used. As for 100 years hence – well, who would be stupid enough to try to project that far in our highly uncertain and always changing world?

        In my experience as a government economic policy adviser, no one would dream of putting forward a proposal on the basis of a two-in-three probability. That’s almost in the range of tossing a coin. Skip the fancy models and flip a coin.

  17. “A “La Niña-like” state occurring in the second year after large tropical volcanic eruptions during the past 1500 years”

    But not Pinatubo. What about the El Nino conditions that occur in the first year after large tropical eruptions?

  18. My latest on CFACT: “Deluge of UN small warming advocacy studies begins.” Orchestrated by the British Royal Society.
    http://www.cfact.org/2018/04/07/deluge-of-un-small-warming-advocacy-studies-begins/

    Early excerpts:

    The predicted deluge of journal articles touting 1.5 degrees of global warming as the new UN target has begun. The Transactions of the (British) Royal Society has even devoted a 20 article special issue to the cause. The issue title is “The Paris Agreement: understanding the physical and social challenges for a warming world of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.”

    The purpose of this exercise in alarmism is to kill the 2.0 degree warming target. This is made clear by a long news report from AFP, the French News Agency. Their headline is metaphorical and a bit cryptic: “Two degrees no longer seen as global warming guardrail: studies.”

    However, their first sentence is crystal clear, saying this; “Limiting global warming to two degrees Celsius will not prevent destructive and deadly climate impacts, as once hoped, dozens of experts concluded in a score of scientific studies released Monday.”

    • I will highlight their problem for you:

      We are not even going to reach the +1.5 °C target within any significant timeframe in political terms. Furthermore, we are probably contemplating one or two decades more of stable temperature anomaly, and they know it. Either they reduce the limit for destructive impact or the problem does no longer exist.

      • David Wojick

        Javier, the 1.5 degrees is from pre-industrial times, not 1950. The IPCC says we have already had 1.0 degrees of warming so 1.5 degrees equals 0.5 degrees from now.

      • David, I know the pre-industrial temperature average is the 1850-1900 average, that according to HadCRUT was –0.31 °C below the 1961-1990 baseline. We are now, as of February, at +0.523 °C above the 1961-1990 baseline, so at +0.83 °C above the pre-industrial average, and 0.67 °C from reaching the dreaded +1.5 °C.

        So the problem is that after 118 years we have only increased 55% of the difference. It is clear that the +1.5 °C target is too high. We won’t reach it in the next 4-5 decades (if ever) even if we don’t do anything. Perhaps by the end of the 21st century if we try hard. The +2 °C target is simply unassailable. That’s why it has to be removed.

        The planet refuses to warm fast enough for these guys.

      • David Wojick

        Javier, your numbers are not the numbers they are working with and the government policies are based on their numbers, not yours. In fact some models that they use say that 1.5 cannot be avoided.

      • David, they are not my numbers, but HadCRUT4.6 numbers. There is no mistake in them except that I am using the latest monthly value (February 2018) instead of the last complete year, 2017, or the warmest year, 2016. But I would argue that since the trend from February 2016 is cooling, the latest values better represent current conditions. We are not having a warm 2018, that much is clear.

        The problem with the models is giving to much credit to what they say. Of course 1.5 is unavoidable according to CMIP5 models, and should be reached ~ 2030, but as the figure above shows, the models are wrong. And climate scientists know it. By 2030 we are likely to be below the 2016 level. Gavin Schmidt and James Hansen were already preparing people for a new pause recently.
        “it is plausible, if not likely, that the next 10 years of global temperature change will leave an impression of a ‘global warming hiatus.”
        http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2018/20180118_Temperature2017.pdf

        They know. That’s why they have to get rid of the +2 °C limit. There is not enough warming and that limit is too high. It will not scare even little children. The new message is that +1.5 °C is enough to do much harm so we need to act now.

        Climate is not predictable, but what these people would do is predictable. They need to promote a state of fear regardless of what Nature does.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Javier, the 1.5 degrees is from pre-industrial times, not 1950. The IPCC says we have already had 1.0 degrees of warming so 1.5 degrees equals 0.5 degrees from now.”

        What javier misses, of course, is the recent science discussing how we calculate the difference from pre industrial. Its a function of the time period you select and more importantly the time series you use. HADCRUT underestimats the warming because its not global.

        Javier:
        “David, I know the pre-industrial temperature average is the 1850-1900 average, ”

        err No.

        https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/defining-pre-industrial/

        “Previously, the period 1850-1900 has been used as the historical baseline, but this period includes some large volcanic eruptions and is after greenhouse gas concentrations had already started to rise. We suggest that the earlier period of 1720-1800 is a better choice for this baseline. This is because the major natural factors that also affect Earth’s climate – the levels of solar and volcanic activity – were both at similar levels to today (see Figure 1).”

        We’ve got between .4C and .5C to go.
        At current rates, figure 20 to 30 years.

      • err No.

        err Yes.

        “The IPCC 5th Assessment Report used 1850-1900 as a historical baseline”

        Ed Hawkins and friends suggest 1720-1800, but that suggestion is silly because there are no enough temperature measurements to reconstruct a global anomaly for that period. Hold your breath until that suggestion is accepted.

      • Mosher

        “figure 20 to 30 years.”

        Amazing what adjustments can do. The only way these predictions come true is with a pencil and paper. The real world will still be the real world, which is divorced from the Adjusted world.

      • Err, I am with Steven on this one. Ed Hawkins, Pablo Ortega, and Emma Suckling are in charge of all New Science. Out with the old and in with the New.

      • Paris 2015 was negotiated with a 1850-1900 baseline. Good luck changing the baseline now.

      • Don’t even worry about it. The baseline is non-binding.

      • Like the rest of the treaty, you mean.

      • Energy sources between 1720 and 1800 were horses, oxen and burning wood and coal. Streets in cities were covered with human and animal feces.
        A whole lot of methane and soot back then. Less GHGs than today, but certainly not nothing.

      • Yes Javier, the whole of the Paris rigmarole is non-binding. We didn’t expect anything serious. Junkets are supposed to be for fun.

      • Steven Mosher

        between 1720 and 1800 we have enough measurements to make an estimate. funny watching javier deny we know the temperature before 1800..

        we always have enough information to make estimates. the question is always how accurate are they for the intended purpose.

      • Yes, you can make estimates even without a single measurement. Their value, however, is very limited.

      • I have always thought the historic BEST measurements were pretty good although they don’t quite capture the 1720 and 1730 decades as there are genuinely few measurements for that , basically Uppsala, CET and Utrecht

        Early CET matches BEST quite closely and those two decades were quite warm and all the more remarkable for the period from 1690. i.e. we went from very very cold to the warmest decade -1730- until the 1990’s (Phil Jones 2004)

        tonyb

      • So, the Paris agreement was negotiated on the wrong baseline. It’s a good thing we are out of that mess. Let’s all pray along with Steven that the next non-binding agreement uses the correct baseline.

      • Steven Mosher

        tonyb

        I’m talking about more than temperature records, but thanks.

        You see here is the problem.
        when Javier wants to talk about past temperature
        ( https://judithcurry.com/2017/07/11/nature-unbound-iv-the-2400-year-bray-cycle-part-a/) for example,
        he has ZERO skepticism about proxy records when he perceives that they may support his position. When he writes there is no doubt about
        whether PROXIES from a few locations can capture a global temperature.

        when it comes to actual thermometers and proxies for 1700 to 1800, well
        you know what happens. SUDDENLy and MAGICALLY he is skeptical
        , actually he is dogmatic asserting that we dont have enough data for a global average.

        10s of thousands of years ago… he has no doubt.
        300 years ago, doubt galore.

        In my view the amount of uncertainty is driven by the data, NOT by the answer. That is, I dont look at the answer and then decide to accept or challenge the data. I start with the data and challenge all of it. In the end
        you get an estimate of what you know and a confidence factor. There is no certainty, no certainty that we DONT have a good estimate.

      • You see here is the problem. when Javier wants to talk about past temperature, he has ZERO skepticism about proxy records

        No, the problem is that Steven Mosher does not difference between proxies and instrumental measurements, and he should. They are two completely different things that are only loosely related. It comes from building hockey sticks by stitching together proxy reconstructions and instrumental temperatures, a very bad and poor science habit.

        Ed Hawkins and friends proposition, that you agree with, essentially tells us that we should place the baseline within the LIA, the coldest period of the entire Holocene.

        How wise is that? Should we place the baseline in the Last Glacial Maximum for a bigger scare value? We have some proxies covering that period and there is no shortage of estimates.

    • Curious George

      Get ready to pay more for everything. The army of alarmists is growing. They may be halfwits, but they are not half-appetites.

    • Being wrong about almost everything makes skeptics bitter. Snowfall up 10% on Antarctica. Will keep the dopey alive.

      • David Wojick

        JCH, your empty and insulting reply just makes you look foolish. Try this for skeptical substance: http://www.cfact.org/2018/01/02/no-co2-warming-for-the-last-40-years/.

      • Sorry, I don’t see much substance there.

        The gold standard, .19 ℃ per decade:

      • David Wojick

        Maybe you should read the article and respond to the actual analysis. Applying a single linear trend to a step function is mathematical nonsense. Plus use UAH, not RSS (which uses a climate model to make its adjustments).

        The only warming so far in the entire 40 year record is a single step up of about 0.3 degrees coincident with the giant El Nino cycle 1998-2001. All is flat both before and after that, until the present big El Nino cycle which has yet to run its course. There is no evidence of GHG warming in the entire record.

  19. nobodysknowledge

    Something to think of: Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 CE (2018)
    J. L. Lean
    Changes in solar irradiance. Small percentages may have great implications. I haven`t seen an established theory on the importance of ultraviolet change. Could that have more implications than total irradiance and sunspot numbers?
    “the new estimates suggest increases from the Maunder Minimum to the Medieval Maximum of 0.17±0.04%, 0.030±0.008% and 0.036±0.009% in the ultraviolet, visible and near infrared spectral regions, respectively”

  20. Established is a moving goal. Let me google that for you.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solar+uv+climate

  21. Essex and Tsonis: New understanding of ultra-long timescales provides a new take on climate

    Christopher Essex and Anastasios A.Tsonis (2018) Model falsifiability and climate slow modes, Physica A, Volume 502, July 2018, Pages 554-562
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2018.02.090

    Great paper that many people should read. Quite accessible despite the complexity of the problem it presents.

    I would like to highlight the following:

    “Shifts in this global temperature index (known as climate shifts) are superimposed on a very long period increasing signal (often referred to as global warming). It is not always increasing however. For example, from 1880 to 1910 the trend is negative. It then changes to positive until the early 1940s. Then it shifts to negative until the mid 1970s and back to positive until 2000. And since 2000 it appears to have shifted again to a horizontal or slightly negative trend regime.
    A series of papers [11, 12, 13, 14] demonstrated that these shifts depict the ultra slow modes often described as the “natural variability” of the climate system. The ultra slow modes might be understood in the climate system (an infinite dimensional system) if there are low-dimensional sub-systems that may communicate with each other. It has been shown that a network of major climate modes (specifically, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), the North Pacific Index (NPI), and the El Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) may synchronize intermittently. In other words, the four modes may resonate with each other in a variable manner. If during synchronization the coupling between the modes increases, the syn- chronization collapses and climate emerges in a new regime represented by a shift in the temperature trend. This mechanism (which is consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos) is purely dynamical and has explained all the above-mentioned climate shifts in the 20th and 21st centuries [11, 12, 13, 14].
    The above results refer to the collective behavior of the four major modes used in the network. As such they do not offer insights on the specific details of the mechanism. For example, is synchronization the result of all modes synchronizing or of a subset of them? When the network is synchronized, does the coupling increase require that all modes must become coupled with each other? To answer these questions [12] split the network of four modes into its six pair components and investigated the contribution of each pair in each synchronization event and in the overall coupling of the network. It was found that NAO is without exception the common ingredient in all shifts and when it is not coupled with any of the Pacific modes no shift ensues. In addition, in all cases where a shift occurs, NAO is necessarily coupled to north Pacific. In some cases it any also be coupled to the tropical Pacific (ENSO) as well, but in none of the cases NAO is only coupled to ENSO. Thus, results indicate that not only NAO is the instigator of climate shifts but that the likely evolution of a shifts has a path where the north Atlantic couples to north Pacific, which in turn couples to the tropics.
    The results above provide a concrete picture of how the physics may play out. NAO, with its huge mass re-arrangement in north Atlantic, affects the strength of the westerly flow across mid-latitudes. At the same time, through its twin, the Arctic Oscillation (AO), it impacts sea level pressure patterns in the northern Pacific. This process is part of the so-called intrinsic mid-latitude northern hemisphere variability [15, 16]. Then this intrinsic variability through the seasonal footprinting mechanism [15, 16] couples with equatorial wind stress anomalies, thereby acting as a stochastic-like forcing of ENSO. This view is also consistent with recent studies showing that PDO modulates ENSO [17, 18].
    Another possibility of how NAO couples to north Pacific may be through the five lobe circum-global waveguide pattern [19]. It has been shown that this waveguide pattern projects onto NAO indices and its features contribute to variability at locations throughout northern hemisphere. Finally, north Atlantic variations have been linked to the northern hemisphere mean surface temperature multidecadal variability through redistribution of heat within the northern Atlantic with the other oceans left free to adjust to these At- lantic variations [20]. Thus, NAO, being the major mode of variability in the north Atlantic, affects both ENSO variability and global temperature vari- ability. Recently a study has shown how ENSO with its effects on the Pacific North America (PNA) pattern can, through vertical propagation of Rossby waves, influence the lower stratosphere and how in turn the stratosphere can influence NAO through downward progression of Rossby waves [21]. These results coupled with our results suggest the following 3-D super-loop: NAO ⇒ PDO/NPI ⇒ ENSO ⇒ PNA ⇒ stratosphere ⇒ NAO, which captures the essence of decadal variability in the northern hemisphere and possibly the globe.”

    It is clear to anybody that has studied paleoclimatology, that the North Atlantic region is a climate hot spot where many climate changes occur first and more profoundly than in other regions. The Little Ice Age for example is more evident there than anywhere else. Many studies support that this North Atlantic climate sensitivity, that is probably due to geological reasons (the disposition of the continents and oceans), is tied to the NAO/AO/AMO mode of variability, and influences the rest of the globe through teleconnections. The equatorial Pacific is the other main planetary region of climate sensitivity, for obvious reasons.

  22. Wizards and prophets are all hedgehogs. One idea to rule them all. What is required instead is a multifaceted response to multifarious problems. Bjorn Lomberg’s Copenhagen Consensus provides a deeply considered list of high value responses to the profound problems of humanity at the start of the 21st century. “Leading economists including two Nobel Laureates have found that we could achieve four times more benefits by prioritizing 19 Sustainable Development Targets instead of spreading the aid budget thinly.”

    http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/expert_outcome_one_pages_combined.pdf

    It includes opening up trade – which is fundamentally the clearest way to progress on diverse fronts of environment, population, health, education, clean water and sanitation. The global economy is worth about $100 trillion a year. To put aid and philanthropy into perspective – the total is 0.025% of the global economy. If spent on Copenhagen Consensus smart development goals such expenditure can generate a benefit to cost ratio of more than 15. If spent on the 169 UN Sustainable Development Goals you may as well piss it up against a wall. Either way – it is nowhere near the major path to universal prosperity. Some 3.5 billion people make less than $2 a day. Changing that can only be done by doubling and tripling global production – and doing it as quickly as possible. Optimal economic growth is essential and that requires an understanding and implementation of explicit principles for effective economic governance of free markets.

    Increasing agricultural productivity by 40% requires an increase in soil carbon. Historically, the soil carbon pool has been a major source of atmospheric carbon dioxide with likely more than 80 GtC lost from grazing and cropping lands. The transfer of soil carbon to the atmosphere has created a carbon deficit in agricultural soils. Soils now contain a lower organic content than before conversion to agriculture. In many regions it has led to a spiral of decline to desertification. The rich ecology of living soils – fungi, insects, bacteria, vegetation – in a highly productive symbiosis gives way to bare earth. Plants create sugars from carbon and sunlight and they feed organisms in the soil with exudate from the roots. Organisms which in turn create environments that break down soils and release nutrients – bacteria fix atmospheric nitrogen. It is a living system that can become unbalanced and lose organic matter. The water holding capacity of soils is reduced. Infiltration of rainwater declines, runoff and erosion increase with more flash flooding. Groundwater stores decline, vegetation is more drought stressed, there is less dry weather flow in waterways. The spiral of soil and ecological decline continues. Elsewhere the productivity of cropping soils is sustained only by larger inputs of increasingly expensive fertilisers and poisons – which in themselves destabilise living soil and have impacts on broader environments.

    This soil carbon store can be renewed by restoring land. Holding back water in sand dams, terraces and swales, replanting, changing grazing management, encouraging perennial vegetation cover, precise applications of chemicals and adoption of other management practices that create positive carbon and nutrient budgets and optimal soil temperature and moisture. Atmospheric carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to soil carbon stores through plant photosynthesis and subsequent formation of secondary carbonates. The rate of soil carbon sequestration ranges from about 100 to 1000 kg per hectare per year as humus and 5 to 15 kg per hectare per year inorganic carbon. The total potential for carbon sequestration in agricultural soils is approximately equal to the historic carbon loss of 80 GtC – on top of reversing soil carbon loss. This is about 10 years of global annual greenhouse gas emissions. At realistic rates of sequestration 25% of current annual global greenhouse gas emissions could be sequestered over 40 years.

    Carbon sequestration in soils has major benefits in addition to offsetting anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion, land use conversion, soil cultivation, continuous grazing and cement manufacturing. Restoring soil carbon stores increases agronomic productivity and enhances global food security. Increasing the soil organic content enhances water holding capacity and creates a more drought tolerant agriculture – with less downstream flooding. There is a critical level of soil carbon that is essential to maximizing the effectiveness of water and nutrient inputs. Global food security, especially for countries with fragile soils and harsh climate such as in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, cannot be achieved without improving soil quality through an increase in soil organic content. Wildlife flourishes on restored grazing land helping to halt biodiversity loss. Reversing soil carbon loss is a new green revolution where conventional agriculture is hitting a productivity barrier with exhausted soils and increasingly expensive inputs.

    Increased agricultural productivity, increased downstream processing and access to markets build local economies and global wealth. Economic growth provides resources for solving problems – conserving and restoring ecosystems, better sanitation and safer water, better health and education, updating the diesel fleet and other productive assets to emit less black carbon and reduce the health and environmental impacts, developing better and cheaper ways of producing electricity, replacing cooking with wood and dung with better ways of preparing food thus avoiding respiratory disease and again reducing black carbon emissions.

    A global program of agricultural soils and ecological restoration is the foundation for balancing the human ecology. Many countries have signed up since the Paris COP to increasing soil carbon by 0.4% per year. As a global objective and given the highest priority it is a solution to critical problems of biodiversity loss, development, food security and resilience to drought and flood.

  23. scroll down to about the middle of this post and look at
    “A glacier unleashed” Glaciers gain mass in their upper reaches, where snowfall is heavier, and lose it at their snouts, where the ice breaks up and melts

    it gains the most ice in warm times when it is snowing more and it gains the least ice in cold times when it is snowing less.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/11/why-slow-glaciers-can-sometimes-surge-fast-speeding-train-wiping-out-people-their-path?utm_campaign=news_daily_2017-11-30&et_rid=274816153&et_cid=1697209

    • major ice ages ice sheets are a super version of a glacier.

    • Ice sheets and glaciers are always losing ice by thawing at the lower ends and even in the middle, that promotes faster advance. A glacier with no loss at the tail does not exist. A major ice sheet with no loss at the extreme edges never did exist. Thawing did not wait until 20 thousand years ago, it was continual. It behaved like the advanced glacier in the graphic.

      • the debris fields that were left are proof that the ice sheets continued to thaw and advance during the long cold. The ice was not kept frozen until 20k years ago. It behaved just like all known glaciers today, always thinning and advancing and thawing. The ice sheets gained ice volume when it was snowing enough and depleted when it was not. For 80 to 100k years, it was not snowing enough.

      • During the last glaciation when sea levels were some 400 feet lower how did Antarctic ice mass respond? Did the ice sheets increase to fill in the void from the receding waters? What would that have meant for conditions at Drakes Passage?

      • During the last glaciation when sea levels were some 400 feet lower how did Antarctic ice mass respond?

        Ice core data showed that Antarctic ice mass was replenished by ice accumulation every year. I don’t know about the net gain or loss but I believe it was net gain.

    • It seems pretty obvious that ice sheet growth and retreat requires additional factors.

      • Ice sheet growth requires more ice volume and weight which requires more snowfall.
        Ice sheet retreat requires ice volume depletion and weight depletion which requires less snowfall.

      • Ice sheets extend at the edges across continents in glacials. Summer insolation has something to do with it as well as Atlantic heat transport. and consequent sea ice changes. Melting seems to involve CO2 deserts, dust and ice albedo changes. As in the study I linked.

      • Oceans are huge carbonated drinks. When temperatures are colder, vapor pressure of gases in the atmosphere is low and when temperatures are warmer, vapor pressure of gases in the atmosphere is high. CO2 and dust and albedo are natural correlations as is melting. Melting is most when ice extent is most and there is more exposure of ice to the environment. Ice depletes and retreats and that results in warming. Nothing else needs to be said here.

      • Ocean CO2 solubility is a minor component – biokinetics is a much greater contribution. Albedo is highest when ice is greatest and CO2 declines. What is to stop the more cooling even with low precipitation. Dust blowing onto ice sheets is theorized as the trigger for melting in deep glacials as bare earth emerges in low CO2 and dry environments.

        There is lots more to be said on this as science has barely scratched the surface.

      • Dust blowing onto ice sheets is theorized as the trigger for melting

        The ice is already always melting, it does not need a trigger. glaciers and ice sheets are always melting, some at the head and totally at the tail and it tapers in between. Dust may change the melting rate some, but it does not trigger it and when it is not there the melting occurs anyway. if it does not snow more than enough to replace the ice that melts, the ice retreats.
        Ice in glaciers and ice sheets melt, it does not sit there waiting for a trigger.
        Triggers are invented by people who do not understand natural cycles.

      • Why should should miles deep ice sheets melt in the cold?

      • Why should should miles deep ice sheets melt in the cold?

        Glad you asked!
        The ice sheets are always melting, they are advanced very far into a normally temperate region with sunshine in summer. ice melts every summer and it did not snow enough in cold times to replace the ice that melted every year. It took a hundred thousand years to thin the ice sheets but it happened a little every year. After they thinned, they retreated.

  24. It seems pretty obvious that ice sheet growth and retreat requires additional factors.
    Ice sheet growth needs more snowfall, more ice volume.
    Ice sheet retreat needs less snowfall, less ice volume.
    Other factors may have some small influence, but nothing really important.

    • Ice sheet growth increases albedo, decreases temperature and CO2. And the process is relatively rapid. What causes a rapid growth in ice sheet area and then s step-wise recovery. A complex of interacting processes and feedbacks.

      You would be more convincing in this theory you have applied your name – and that you have repeated dozens of times a day for many years – if there were a body of scientific evidence to support it.

    • nobodysknowledge

      Ice sheet growth and retreat requires first and foremost autumn/winter/spring snowfall and summer melting. I think that dust is somewhat overrated in melting. New snow cover dust. Dust have some effect in late spring and summer when there are high temperatures and much sunshine. But the strongest melting comes with rain and wind. Middle winter is often dry, so combination of snowfall and low temperatures in autumn and spring is the best prerequisite for ice sheet growth. It is logical to think that warmer climate will make glaciers retreat, as history shows, but some local variations can have some effect.

  25. Allan

    It’s hard to connect with all the people in need and obtain their stories. That is why systems like capitalism applied to a tribal community can provide the individualism through local knowledge which is likely to be successful. Micro economics are best to impact people in need.

  26. Peter Lang gets quoted in Reason.

    http://reason.com/archives/2018/04/12/how-we-screwed-up-nuclear-powe

    According to Australian National University researcher Peter Lang, the ’60s and ’70s saw a transition “from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment.” Had the initial trajectory continued, he writes in the journal Energies, nuclear-generated electricity would now be around 10 percent of its current cost.

    In a counterfactual scenario featuring increasing uptake of nuclear power from 1976, Lang calculates that by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation. Thus, over the past 30 years we could have substituted 186,000 terawatt-hours of electricity production, avoiding up to 174 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions and 9.5 million air pollution deaths. Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less.

  27. http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43713719

    Climate change dials down Atlantic Ocean heating system

    By Victoria Gill Science correspondent, BBC News

    A significant shift in the system of ocean currents that helps keep parts of Europe warm could send temperatures in the UK lower, scientists have found.

    They say the Atlantic Ocean circulation system is weaker now than it has been for more than 1,000 years – and has changed significantly in the past 150.

    The study, in the journal Nature, says it may be a response to increased melting ice and is likely to continue.

    Researchers say that could have an impact on Atlantic ecosystems.

    Scientists involved in the Atlas project – the largest study of deep Atlantic ecosystems ever undertaken – say the impact will not be of the order played out in the 2004 Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow.

    But they say changes to the conveyor-belt-like system – also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) – could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.

    That could also affect temperature-sensitive species like coral, and even Atlantic cod.

    Scientists believe the pattern is a response to fresh water from melting ice sheets being added to surface ocean water, meaning those surface waters “can’t get very dense and sink”.

    “That puts a spanner in this whole system,” lead researcher Dr David Thornalley, from University College London, explained.

    The concept of this system “shutting down” was featured in The Day After Tomorrow.

    “Obviously that was a sensationalised version,” said Dr Thornally. “But much of the underlying science was correct, and there would be significant changes to climate it if did undergo a catastrophic collapse – although the film made those effects much more catastrophic, and happening much more quickly – than would actually be the case.”

    Nonetheless, a change to the system could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.

    That is why its measurement has been a key part of the Atlas project.

    Scientists say understanding what is happening to Amoc will help them make much more accurate forecasts of our future climate.

    Prof Murray Roberts, who co-ordinates the Atlas project at the University of Edinburgh, told BBC News: “The changes we’re seeing now in deep Atlantic currents could have massive effects on ocean ecosystems.

    “The deep Atlantic contains some of the world’s oldest and most spectacular cold-water coral reef and deep-sea sponge grounds.

    “These delicate ecosystems rely on ocean currents to supply their food and disperse their offspring. Ocean currents are like highways spreading larvae throughout the ocean and we know these ecosystems have been really sensitive to past changes in the Earth’s climate.”

    To measure how the system has shifted over long timescales, researchers collected long cores of sediment from the sea floor.

    The sediment was laid down by past ocean currents, so the size of the sediment grains in different layers provided a measure of the current’s strength over time.

    The results were also backed up by another study published in the same issue of Nature, led by researchers from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.

    This work looked at climate model data to confirm that sea-surface temperature patterns can be used as an indicator of Amoc’s strength and revealing that it has been weakening even more rapidly since 1950 in response to recent global warming.

    The scientists want to continue to study patterns in this crucial temperature-regulating system, to understand whether as ice sheets continue to melt, this could drive further slowdown – or even a shutdown of a system that regulates our climate.

    Follow Victoria on Twitter

    • We are in a warm period, like the Roman or Medieval warm periods. Whatever happened then, for whatever cause, is happening again for the same reasons. This is part of a natural, normal, necessary and unstoppable climate cycle. Earth and people did fine in past warm periods, better in fact than in cold periods. Earth will do fine this time. People will do much better this time because we have fossil fuels to make our lives easier and we have more CO2 so we can grow more of many things we need.

      Life is good, really good in warmer times and life is better when CO2 is higher.

    • or even a shutdown of a system that regulates our climate.

      The climate has been changing for billions of years, whatever causes climate change is never going to shutdown. That is silly. Worse than silly.

  28. Even the Nature Journal now seem to be taking ocean oscillation driven climate change seriously (AMOC slowdown):

    http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-04322-x?WT

    • Thanks for the article.

      We can bet the MSM will not mention the first paper’s conclusion that it began as early as 1850.

      We can also bet the second paper’s statement that AGW likely was involved will be highlighted.

      This is why reading only MSM for global warming coverage is worthless.

      • “We can also bet the second paper’s statement that AGW likely was involved will be highlighted.”

        You mean of course AGW likely was NOT involved

      • We – is us
        angry beast – is abrupt climate change
        stick – filling the atmosphere with carbon dioxide

  29. nobodysknowledge

    Atlas project.
    “Nonetheless, a change to the system could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.”
    So melting ice cools the North Atlantic.
    And the warm north Atlantic melts the ice.
    And the melting ice cools the North Atlantic.
    And the warm north Atlantic melts the ice.

    • nobodysknowledge

      So what is the answer? The take-away-message is that more cooling means more ice melting (warming). Or is it the other way around, that more warming means more cooling.

      • It’s not even as simple as that. The central North Atlantic has not warmed and the Greenland ice is melting anyway. Similar around the Antarctic. This is because the melting is not all due to the surface ocean temperature, but it does seem to control parts of it.

  30. This was highlighted in the upper right of the page:

    https://aeon.co/essays/why-its-as-hard-to-escape-an-echo-chamber-as-it-is-to-flee-a-cult

    A long time ago, I listened to Limbaugh. It was around his emergence time. I started watching Fox when the Presidential election looked to have Trump as the Republican’s candidate and average about ½ hour a day of that still. Mostly Hannity.

    Of course I am not a cult member.

    Last night when the TV forgot what the guide was after a brief power failure I was watching a late night talk host for 15 minutes. He spent the whole time making jokes about Trump. I felt sorry for him and his audience.

    Dual echo chambers. Who knows?

    They pick on Fox. We pick on their alarmism. Maybe the MSM is wrong, or behind the times with their cultish ways. Maybe we are an old school don’t worry about it cult.

    Do we welcome other views here? Or attack them like a pack of wolves?

    Assume the author is at least half right. Why did this happen? Are there cults in response to existing cults? That way we can blame them for having one first, and making it necessary to have our own.

    • Good article. People in echo chambers/cults don’t really know they are in one. I think the way to tell is if you only trust a few people to tell you the truth, and if those tell you not to trust “mainstream” views. Tough to get out of that cycle once you are in. It is like a cult. The author describes a complete reboot as what is needed to exit such a cycle, but that is not simple.

      • I am with yimmy on this one. If you don’t trust the left-loon “mainstream” views of the coastal elites, you are in a cult and in need of a huffpo reboot.

      • Don, you might agree with me and go along with the mainstream science and media, or maybe not. The others usually occupy echo chambers that promote vast conspiracy theories to keep their folks from believing any mainstream reporting and research (see WUWT and Fox/Sinclair). Anyway, at least you’re interested and hopefully read the article which is the first step to recovery.

      • Do you mean the recovery from intellectual and moral inferiority, yimmy? You suffer from the huffpo delusion that you are right and virtuous and the deplorable flyover untermenchen are wrong and evil. It’s not working for you. Seven more years.

      • It should be a red flag when your trusted sources tell you to disbelieve parts of mainstream reporting and science, a process the article calls endarkenment. But you’re well entrenched now, and it will be hard to pull you out. It has parallels to other cults like alt-right, Is!s, Scientology, FLDS, etc., to which we can add Trumpism and climate denialism, where those inside are closed off by their leaders who carefully cultivate their followers’ opinions to not listen to the outside real world and instead promote various conspiracy theories to their sect. it’s a widespread multi-faceted issue now, especially with online and media compartmentalization and epistemic bubbles.

      • It’s not a cult when the alleged cult members make a spectacle of themselves by flamboyantly objecting to the actions of the alleged cult leader.

        Alex Jones is a nut, but he is not dumb and crazy enough to, for example, burn himself up to show his devotion to the Paris Non-Binding BS Agreement Cult.

        You need to change your game plan , yimmy. Your incessant repetitious haranguing is having zero effect on us deplorables.

      • You’re a case in point. Get yourself out of it while you still can, Don. It’s a cult like Scientology. You’re being used and conned. You are a victim of their post-truth world. Jones, Limbaugh, Fox News, Breitbart, Trump, etc.. The article gives you a way out; a “deep-cleanse” or a full “Cartesian epistemic reboot” is what you need. I can help you.

      • J

        There is only one side of the electorate who would be gullible, naive and stupid enough to believe the Democratic line about POTUS colluding with the Rooskies, Biden saying the GOP wants to stop black people voting and Horizontal Stripes Hillary charging Trump supporters want to go back 50 years.

        It is beyond sad that millions of the lefty Loons actually lap up this stuff. Is it any wonder they believe these horror stories about Lady Liberty drowning?

      • It’s still an investigation. Don Junior famously attempted a collusion and a failed attempt doesn’t exonerate it, just like a failed robbery is as bad as an actual robbery. Was that the only attempt? Unlikely after everyone was lying, or suspiciously forgetful, about Russian contacts. We will see. Lots to investigate there.

      • What is the statute number on attempted collusion, yimmy? You are a prisoner of huffpo left-loon indoctrination. I hope you don’t burn yourself up over seven more years of POTUS Trump.

      • Exactly. Why is Trump continually denying a non-crime. Someone should tell him. It’s not like conspiracy or something. More reading.
        https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/07/12/what-is-collusion-215366

      • I will help you, yimmy. Trump is denying collusion, because there is a witch hunt over alleged collusion and he did not do it. Seven more years.

      • You’re careful to say “he” did not do it. He has people for that. They are meanwhile pleading guilty, turning state’s witness, getting denied security clearance, registering as foreign agents, getting dawn raids, etc. Not a good look for his core team in the campaign.

      • No need for me to debate this with you, yimmy. Everyone here knows your game. Seven more years.

        You are performing a useful public service here with your incessant haranguing. A constant reminder of the self-righteous foolishness of the left-loon huffpo crowd. Thank you, yimmy.

      • He’s very entertaining. You’ve got to give him that. It’s a reality show at the WH, and the Republicans have to figure out when enough is enough for their prospects in November. I think they’ll choose to sink with the ship, at least the ones who haven’t jumped overboard already. Great stuff.

      • You don’t have a clue about politics, yimmy. Congressclowns face election every two years. They have to keep feeding the beast. Voters like the spending. They also like tax cuts. They get both now. Incumbents will win about the same obscene % of races, as usual. Not very many will be fiscally responsible. That’s how the game is played.

        The difference is that the anti-economy job hating clown Obama imposed on the nation stunted annual GDP growth of a pathetic 1.5%. Can’t pay the bills with that, yimmy. We are on a roll, now. Tax revenues busting the seams of the Big Gubmint Coffers.

        By November, it is likely that this Russia crap will have petered out to the embarrassment of the desperately delusional witch hunters, the desperate clown in N Korea will have made some kind of deal that makes Trump look like a gutsy genius (in contrast to his meek feckless predecessors), jobs jobs jobs, a chicken in every pot, food stamp recipients turn into tax payers, etc. etc. And you will be sorely disappointed, little yimmy. Seven more years.

      • They get away with it because of the dopes with the MAGA hats who don’t know any better and don’t look outside what they are fed by their echo chamber. This is exactly the problem with the post truth era and the cultish practices that tell them to distrust the mainstream press and science, which is where we came in. It is long on rhetoric and short on real information and is no way to run a country.
        “People can only make choices if they have access to accurate information concerning society, and the government has a special duty to collect and disseminate this information. Thomas Jefferson wrote that a well-informed electorate is a prerequisite to democracy.”

      • You are stuttering, yimmy. Didn’t you get the memo from huffpo? Jefferson was a racist and a rapist. I hope your huffpo keepers don’t catch you quoting that un-woke reactionary. Go find Ellison. I am tired of your BS.

      • Thanks for your input.

      • What do we know?

        Members of Trump’s team met with the Russians before the election and now Trump is holding back on the new improved sanctions on Russia.

        Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, probably tastes good with hoisin sauce.

      • Don has pledged allegiance to the Orange Clown. No way back from that. Sad.

    • Hail Montfort !
      The greatest public intellectual since Scaramucchi, or was it Tillerson , or Bannon, or Kellyanne?

  31. nobodysknowledge

    The “new” findings: “They say the Atlantic Ocean circulation system is weaker now than it has been for more than 1,000 years – and has changed significantly in the past 150.”
    For some years there have been an obsession of some climate activists to defend a kind of Day-after-tomorrow image. S Rahmstorf and M Mann in the forefront. Clearly in this article from 2015:
    Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation
    Stefan Rahmstorf, Jason E. Box, Georg Feulner, Michael E. Mann, Alexander Robinson, Scott Rutherford & Erik J. Schaffernicht
    As usual by using climate models to make it more scary. An activist fingerprint.
    As opposed to Willis and others. From 2010 article: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/atlantic20100325.html
    “NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing03.25.10
    Illustration depicting the overturning circulation of the global ocean. Illustration depicting the overturning circulation of the global ocean. Throughout the Atlantic Ocean, the circulation carries warm waters (red arrows) northward near the surface and cold deep waters (blue arrows) southward. Image credit: NASA/JPL
    PASADENA, Calif. – New NASA measurements of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, part of the global ocean conveyor belt that helps regulate climate around the North Atlantic, show no significant slowing over the past 15 years. The data suggest the circulation may have even sped up slightly in the recent past.
    The findings are the result of a new monitoring technique, developed by oceanographer Josh Willis of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., using measurements from ocean-observing satellites and profiling floats. The findings are reported in the March 25 issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
    The Atlantic overturning circulation is a system of currents, including the Gulf Stream, that bring warm surface waters from the tropics northward into the North Atlantic. There, in the seas surrounding Greenland, the water cools, sinks to great depths and changes direction. What was once warm surface water heading north turns into cold deep water going south. This overturning is one part of the vast conveyor belt of ocean currents that move heat around the globe.”
    “The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean. “Warm, freshwater is lighter and sinks less readily than cold, salty water,” Willis explained.
    For now, however, there are no signs of a slowdown in the circulation. “The changes we’re seeing in overturning strength are probably part of a natural cycle,” said Willis. “The slight increase in overturning since 1993 coincides with a decades-long natural pattern of Atlantic heating and cooling.””

    • nobodysknowledge

      Activist-scientist, and “tipping point” ethusiast, Rahmstorf, 2009:” The AMOC thus remains a classical “tipping point” in the sense that it has a well-defined threshold with respect to freshwater as an external control parameter.”
      On the stability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation
      Matthias Hofmann and Stefan Rahmstorf

    • nobodysknowledge

      Rahmstorf, 1995. With his head deep into his virtual reality.
      “The sensitivity of the North Atlantic thermohaline circulation to the input of fresh water is studied using a global ocean circulation model coupled to a simplified model atmosphere. Owing to the nonlinearity of the system, moderate changes in freshwater input can induce transitions between different equilibrium states, leading to substantial changes in regional climate.”

      • Abrupt climate change has happened in the past. The climate system is nonlinear. If you think otherwise, then it is you with a head deep in virtual reality.

      • JCH perhaps you are referring to the climate change that occurred when a huge pulse of freshwater was suddenly released into the northern atlantic at the end of the last ice age, nowhere near present volumes.

      • nobodysknowledge

        And in the company with Mr Hansen, predicting future. ” slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region;”

    • The Willis paper and the recent papers are not in disagreement.

    • nobodysknowledge

      Willis and others, 2016.
      “At these time scales, there appears to be no consistent trend in the MOC at these latitudes. Note that statistically significant changes can be found us-ing various subsets of these time series; however, the interpretation of any trend should consider regional, interannual, and decadal variability that may not be linked to longer-term trends ”
      https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265124760_Meridional_Overturning_Circulation_Observations_in_the_North_Atlantic_Ocean_in_State_of_the_Climate_2013 [accessed Apr 15 2018].
      Not in disagreement with Rahmstorf, Mann with friends?

    • nobodysknowledge

      About the claim of agreement on AMOC.
      From: There is no real evidence for a diminishing trend of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. A.Parkera, D.Ollier. 2016
      “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is a critical part of the Earth’s climate system transporting heat from the tropics and Southern Hemisphere toward the North Atlantic. The recent period of monitoring with ocean sensors cover is very short and does not permit the separation of short term variability from long term trends [3,13,17,4, 16,18].

      A recent study by Rahmstorf et al. [12] claims, based on models and proxies, that global warming is slowing down the circulation of the ocean. They say that their computational maps of temperature patterns over the 20th century show a significant area of cooling in the Northern Atlantic near Greenland and suggest that this cooling may be due to a reduction in the AMOC over the 20th century and especially after 1970. They believe the AMOC weakness after 1975 is an unprecedented event in the past millennium. They claim that further melting could contribute to further weakening of the AMOC.

      The models and proxies of Rahmstorf et al. [12] predict the overturning circulation is slowing down as the greenhouse gases warm the planet and the melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean, but actual observations so far as Willis [18] and Rossby et al. [13] show no signs of any slowdown in the circulation.”
      Illustrating JHC`s concept of agreement

      • nobodysknowledge

        Sorry. It should be JCH`s understanding of no disagreement.

      • The RAPID array shows it is slowing down. The RAPID array is observations.

        Obviously it is easy to dismiss much of this scenario as unrealistic and exaggerated. It is – and viewers will be in no doubt that they are watching a fictional disaster movie and not a documentary. As an example: the flooding of Manhattan is described as a wind-driven surge, although this kind of massive wave (called a tsunami) could only be caused by an undersea earthquake or landslide or a meteorite hit – not by a storm or a change in the North Atlantic Current. And the shock-frosting in the eye of the storm defies the laws of thermodynamics. – Rahmstorf

        They cite Willis.

      • JCH

        There are numerous examples of massive wind driven wave surges, rather than the huge waves being caused by earthquakes etc. This is said to be the first scientific account and was written up by Daniel Defoe. It concerns the huge storm of December 1703.

        “There was extensive and prolonged flooding in the West Country, particularly around Bristol. Hundreds of people drowned in flooding on the Somerset Levels, along with thousands of sheep and cattle, and one ship was found 15 miles (24 km) inland.[6] Approximately 400 windmills were destroyed, with the wind driving their wooden gears so fast that some burst into flames.[7] At Wells, …..This same storm blew in part of the great west window in Wells Cathedral.

        At sea, many ships were wrecked, some of which were returning from helping Archduke Charles, the claimed King of Spain, fight the French in the War of the Spanish Succession. These ships included HMS Stirling Castle, HMS Northumberland, HMS Mary and HMS Restoration, with about 1,500 seamen killed particularly on the Goodwin Sands. Between 8,000 and 15,000 lives were lost overall.

        The first Eddystone Lighthouse off Plymouth was destroyed on 27 November 1703 (Old Style), (part of the build up to the same storm) killing six occupants, including its builder Henry Winstanley. A ship torn from its moorings in the Helford River in Cornwall was blown for 200 miles (320 km) before grounding eight hours later on the Isle of Wight.[5] The number of oak trees lost in the New Forest alone was 4,000.

        The storm of 1703 caught a convoy of 130 merchant ships sheltering at Milford Haven, along with their man of war escorts Dolphin, Cumberland, Coventry, Looe, Hastings and Hector. By 3:00pm the next afternoon, losses included 30 vessels.”

        Hubert Lamb also lists dozens of similar storms with huge surges including that of the Spanish Armada.

        tonyb

      • Oh good grief.

  32. Can anyone here use https://books.google.com/talktobooks/ to backup their arguments?
    Try this question: “what is the most important measurement of climate change?”
    or this: “what is the most important feedback of climate change?”.

    This ‘demo’ only has 100,000 books and it gets better the more we use it. Just wait till they add all the other books (and research) in all the other human languages like Chinese, Russian, German, Russian, Japanese, Spanish…

  33. nobodysknowledge

    From science to activist-science to science fiction. Transformation of knowledge into propaganda. The question of AMOC change.
    Parker and Willis seem sober enough.
    Then come Rahmstorf and Mann, tilting science over to doomsday ideas.
    And then the whole Scepticalscience bunch, making science fiction:
    “Serious disruption to the Gulf Stream ocean currents that are crucial in controlling global climate must be avoided “at all costs”, senior scientists have warned. The alert follows the revelation this week that the system is at its weakest ever recorded.
    Past collapses of the giant network have seen some of the most extreme impacts in climate history, with western Europe particularly vulnerable to a descent into freezing winters. A significantly weakened system is also likely to cause more severe storms in Europe, faster sea level rise on the east coast of the US and increasing drought in the Sahel in Africa.
    The new research worries scientists because of the huge impact global warming has already had on the currents and the unpredictability of a future “tipping point”. ”
    Making politics by using sentences like: “senior scientists have warned” and “new research worries scientists”.

  34. Our results show that the previously reported decline of the AMOC (Smeed et al., 2014) has been arrested, but the length of the observational record of the AMOC is still short relative to the time scales of important decadal variations that exist in the Atlantic. Understanding is therefore constantly evolving. What we identify as a changed state of the AMOC in this study may well prove to be part of a decadal oscillation superposed on a multidecadal cycle. Overlaying these oscillations is the impact of anthropogenic change that is predicted to weaken the AMOC over the next century. The continuation of measurements from the RAPID 26°N array and similar observations elsewhere in the Atlantic (Lozier et al., 2017; Meinen et al., 2013) will enable us to unravel and reveal the role of ocean circulation in the changing Atlantic climate in the coming decades.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076350

    By all means check out Smeed et al 2014.
    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017GL076350

  35. So if it cools abruptly it is global warming? It’s a curse to be right all the time.

    But whether intrinsic or anthropogenic is irrelevant. The broad response is the same. Technological innovation and ecological restoration.

  36. How to write for climate change education

    My latest CFACT piece: http://www..cfact.org/2018/04/16/how-to-write-for-climate-change-education/.
    Below is the beginning. There is a lot more.

    David
    (https://www.gofundme.com/climate-change-debate-education
    Help build the skeptical education website.)

    “My recent article ‘Two CO2 climate change myths’ has generated an unprecedented 4,400+ comments here at CFACT. These are not all favorable; on the contrary a number of climate change alarmists have come in to debate the important points that I raise. As a result we are having a very educational experience.

    To further the educational aspect, I want to describe some of the features of the “Two myths” article, as a guide that others can use in their writing. We need a lot more writing that supports teaching that is skeptical of climate change alarmism.

    This article is what I call a “gate breaker,” which means it can be used to get around gatekeepers who want to just teach alarmism. In many cases this will be the teacher. The article is such that a skeptical student can introduce it, in order to create a proper debate.

    To begin with the article is short, just under 700 words. In fact there are two distinct articles, one on each myth, and each can be used separately. This brevity is important because class time can be very limited. A lot of proposed educational material is far too long to be useful.

    Second, the article is focused on two very specific points, the two myths. The climate change debate is very complex and it is easy to bite off more that the class can chew on. Each session must be confined to a few very narrow issues. Mentioning a lot of different issues is useless.

    Third, the issues focused on are fundamental. In this case, CO2 is often described in the press as “heat trapping pollution” and the point of the article is simply that this is false. This issue is the starting point for really understanding the science. Most people get what little climate science they know from news reports, so it is very important to correct the most common alarmist falsehoods.”

    There is a lot more.

    • Correct URL for “How to write for climate change education” is

      http://www.cfact.org/2018/04/16/how-to-write-for-climate-change-education/

      • Your article reaches the heights of being positively mendacious rather than merely dishonest.

        So much so that one wonders whether deceiving yourself is the true purpose.

        What this means is that the CO2 increase in the air is not made up of our CO2 building up. Our CO2 may or may not be causing the increase, someway or another, but it does not make up the increase. Let me say this again simply, the CO2 increase is not our CO2.

        Remarkable evasion of simple reality.

      • It’s CO2 from Venus. We got nuts on both sides. Some of them burn themselves up:

        http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/charred-body-found-prospect-park-walking-path-article-1.3933598

        DeBlasio is going to take a $1,000,000 or two out of the NYPD budget to put up a statue to honor this hero, on the burned spot in Prospect Park.

      • David Wojick

        VTG, given that roughly 25% of the CO2 molecules are replaced every year it is impossible for our emissions to build up.

      • So, there is a big pond untouched by human influence. For a few hundred years as far as can be determined, it contained yearly average of 1 million gallons of water. Rainfall and evaporation accounted for variations. Along comes Jones the farmer, who digs a canal to a creek that then adds water to the pond, when the creek is seasonally high enough. The average water volume in the pond is now 1.2 million gallons, but it ain’t the farmer’s doing. Where did the extra water in the pond come from? Venus?

      • David, be serious.

      • “VTG, given that roughly 25% of the CO2 molecules are replaced every year it is impossible for our emissions to build up.”

        Wojick has a Phd, but doesn’t realize how dumb this is. Deep denial.

      • David Wojick: VTG, given that roughly 25% of the CO2 molecules are replaced every year it is impossible for our emissions to build up.

        I don’t know why you would believe that. Did you ever gain weight by overeating just a little bit over a long time span? Your argument is entirely baseless.

        Qualifications are possible: increased CO2 increases the global rate of photosynthetic C storage in total cellulose; CO2 increases the global rate of C sedimentation in the oceans. But far and away the most evidentiary support goes to the idea that almost all of the accumulation in CO2 since the rise began is caused by increased anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

      • “…it is impossible for our emissions to build up.”
        Although I think David Wojick is ‘jumping the gun’ in making this claim, in David’s defense I think the same is true for those claiming that the CO2 increase is due solely to fossil fuel emissions. IMHO there are currently too many unknowns to make a claim like this.

        Consider this. Through photosynthesis the biosphere is constantly sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere and if it wasn’t being replenished, the atmospheric CO2 concentration would fall to zero. Fortunately for us it’s replenished: about 120 GtC flux from the land and about 90 GtC flux from the ocean, according to the carbon cycle estimates I’ve seen. The consensus seems to be that this amount of flux, 210 GtC, is enough to counter photosynthesis and sustain an atmospheric CO2 concentration of approx 270 ppm.

        For me the question is, how much carbon flux into the atmosphere would be needed to sustain a CO2 level of approx 400 ppm (our current level)? Apparently the consensus is no more than 215 GtC (the extra 5 GtC being our current anthropogenic contribution). For this to be so, the increased level of atmospheric CO2, from 270 to 400 ppm, cannot cause any substantive change in photosynthesis and therefore would not change the rate at which CO2 is being converted to carbon compounds by terrestrial plants, marine algae and phytoplankton.

        There are three main ingredients to photosynthesis: sunlight, water and CO2. IMHO it doesn’t seem reasonable to just assume that you can increase the availability of one of these ingredients, CO2, by 50% and not seriously affect the planet’s photosynthesis rate, especially since phytoplankton and marine algae have virtually a limitless amount of water available to them.

      • More nonsense. David is jumping the shark. There have been more than enough human emissions to account for the increase, whatever other variables are involved. Subtract the last 75 years of human CO2 emissions and what do you have? I will help you. A lot less CO2 in the atmosphere. We don’t need to know everything about all the details of the natural CO2 flux. Human emissions are additive to the natural cycle. Get over it. Argue about something else.

      • Whatever other variables are involved??
        We don’t need to know everything about all the details of the natural CO2 flux??

        Don, you’re being gaslighted by the warmists.


      • The CO2 started to rise significantly and in step as emissions grew, and the rise rate is half the emission rate. Clearly emissions are the driver, and the net effect of nature is a negative one just trying to keep up.

      • I would prefer that the warmists were wrong about everything, but I am persuaded by evidence and logic. And I don’t have any more time for denier foolishness. You people make yimmy look intelligent.

      • The graphs for forcing and temperature show equally obvious changes in the last two centuries, but that is where skeptics don’t believe the evidence about the cause.

      • The skeptics believe, yimmy. It’s just the fringe deniers, who stubbornly refuse to get it. They’re funny that way. But I never heard of any of them deliberately burning themselves up over some CO 2.

    • David:

      Very nice.

      Isn’t some of the reemitted LWR directed back down at the ground?

      Your piece makes it sound like it all “goes out again as LWR, and is gone.”

      But not all of it goes “out” – some of it goes “in” – right?

      • David Wojick

        Yes, Richard, roughly half of the emitted LWR goes downward. That is one of the primary ways hat the GH effect keeps the surface warmer than it would otherwise be. But it is still out of the atmosphere, at least for the time being.

        What the atmospheric GHG molecule does when it absorbs a photon and transfers that energy to the surrounding air is to start the energy on a brief random walk, which may include going back to the surface. But the energy typically gets out pretty quickly, which is why I use the “line of customers” analog. It is never trapped.

        In short the GH effect is due to a small change in the massive energy flow, not to heat being unable to escape. The CO2 buildup myth makes the same mistake. There is actually a massive CO2 flow (the carbon flux) such that our emitted molecules are gone in just a few years after emission. There is no buildup of our emissions.

        In both cases dynamics is being presented as statics, with heat and CO2 both described as “piling up.” Neither is true, so what is actually going on is far more complex and poorly understood.

      • Ask the customers in the line about being trapped. Trapped is a poor word choice; it is also a completely benign word choice.

      • “There is actually a massive CO2 flow (the carbon flux) such that our emitted molecules are gone in just a few years after emission. There is no buildup of our emissions.”

        Ignorant. You got zero credibility. Stop the clowning. CO 2 molecules are fungible, like dollars. We keep adding more CO 2 molecules to take the place of those that are being taken up into natural sinks. More than enough to account for the observable increase. If you put more dollars into your bank account than are going out, the balance increases. Try to use your little head.

    • The rebuttals can be even shorter.
      1. Yes, heat is trapped and the surface would be 33 C cooler with no greenhouse effect. It works like an insulator inhibiting the surface’s heat loss to space.
      2. Yes, it is our CO2 as we have dumped twice as much into the atmosphere as the increase, and the earth is struggling to keep up with us. CO2 didn’t start rising until we started emitting it. There was a balance before, and we tipped it with a massive extra source.

      • David Wojick

        These are not rebuttals, Jim. In neither case do you address the points that I am making. Note too that insulation also does not trap heat. It just slows it down a bit.

      • What answer would address the points you are making at your level of understanding? I gave answers from the perspective of scientific knowledge, and they assume some knowledge of the data and physics to understand them. If your question is posed from a position of complete ignorance of these, there is no possible answer. If you dispute my answers, you need to say why. Most others here would have understood my answers, so you are a special case if you can’t even relate my answers to your questions. There’s a gap there.

      • On insulation, yes it slows its escape down making it warmer. For the same heat source (the sun) more insulation keeps it warmer inside. It’s the same principle as a house. The insulation keeps it warmer than if it wasn’t there. Adding insulation makes it even warmer. Adding GHGs makes it warmer even though the solar source remains the same. If you understand how insulation works, you understand how GHGs work.

    • David, the science is irrelevant, because global warming would be beneficial, not detrimental.

      Pity the alarmist are so anti science they are incapable of challenging their beliefs, doing reality checks, or testing their hypotheses.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s