Week in review – science edition

by Judith Curry

A few things that caught my eye this past week.

Reviews of Geophysics:  Observing and modeling ice sheet surface mass balance [link]

Effects of variability in the Atlantic Ocean circulation [link]

“Global and Regional Increase of Precipitation Extremes under Global Warming” now available at

Microorganisms — tiny bacteria and other living things invisible to the naked eye — play a “central role” in the climate crisis. [link]

Common cause for severe droughts in Sougth America and marine heatwaves in the South Atlantic [link]

Evaluating SST Analyses with independent ocean profile observations [link]

The complex human impacts behind India’s 2019 heatwave [link]

Interesting work on how irrigation in farming can cool local microclimate

Scientists zero in on trees as a surprisingly large source of methane [link]

Airplanes’ “contrails” have a big climate impact, and it could triple by 2050 [link]

Medieval Warm period in Antarctica [link]

40 yr record of Antarctic sea ice extent [link]

Scientist Spots High Geothermal Heat Flux In East Greenland – ‘Dramatic Consequences For Ice Basal Melting’ [link]

The relative influence of climate and housing development on current and projected fire patterns and structure loss in California [link]

Zharkhova:  Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar radiation on millennial timescale [link]

Scientists have identified biased data in an iconic meteorological record, and are now challenging conclusions about long-term precipitation trends in England, Wales and possibly other regions. [link]

Mid-Holocene climate change over China: model–data discrepancy

Now, scientists in Germany say wind turbines are contributing significantly to the “insect die-off.” [link]

How the secret language of plants can boost agriculture’s resilience [link]

Long‐Term Hydroclimatic Patterns in the Truckee‐Carson Basin of the Eastern Sierra Nevada, USA [link]

Icehouse climate of the late Paleozoic [link]

Social science, technology & policy

Why the “Manhattan Project” or “Apollo Program” aren’t useful policy models for climate change [link]

Making Carbon Taxation a Generational Win-Win [link]

How the media corrupted climate policy [link]

Inconvenient energy realities. [link]

Leibreich:  We need to talk about nuclear power [link]

Why renewables advocates protect fossil fuel interests [link]

Inexpensive heating reduces winter mortality: National Bureau of Economic Research

The renewable energy storage conundrum [link]

Regenerative and sustainable agriculture [link]

Shell’s boss delivers some hard truths on climate change [link]

“People who professed to have superior beliefs were most likely to inaccurately overestimate their perceived knowledge relative to their actual knowledge on a number of political topics.”

How restoration of forests and wetlands can heal climate and biodiversity crises [link]

Creative Carbon Accounting: How Industry and Government Make Burning Wood Look Like a Climate Solution [link]

“political motives are the major driving force behind most science communication programmes including so-called public engagement with science” [link]

As floods keep coming, cities pay residents to move [link]

The global tree restoration potential for carbon sequestration [link]

Improved rice cultivation can drawdown carbon [link]

Tree planting has mind blowing potential to tackle climate crisis [link]

Why cost-benefit analysis does not work well for wicked problems such as climate change [link]

EU destroys 700,00 hectares of rainforest for biofuels [link]

It’s time to untame the mighty Mississippi River and stop wasting millions of dollars of sediment each year

Sustainable cities focus on solutions, not litigation [link]

Systematic carbon footprint analysis shows how consumption practices are socially and spatially structured. Slashing emissions isn’t about individuals’ choices, it’s about public policy choices. [link]

Cement produces more pollution than all the trucks in the world [link]

No real benefit to biofuels. Corn-based ethanol and soybean-based biodiesel are hurting water quality and that the Renewable Fuel Standard may be increasing the number of acres being planted for biofuels. [link]

About science & scientists

Is pre-publication peer review a good idea? [link]  Short answer: NO

What conservatives get wrong about the campus wars [link]

 

204 responses to “Week in review – science edition

  1. Making Carbon Taxation a Generational Win-Win [link]

    Should read: “Carbon Taxation is a lose-lose

    The evidence suggests that any global warming we might get this century will be beneficial for ecosystems and the global economy. Therefore, actions that reduce global warming are harmful not beneficial. Not only do they reduce the benefits of global warming but they are costing around $1.5 – $2 trillion per year (around close to 2% of global GDP) for no benefit whatsoever.

    • Is global warming beneficial for ecosystems?

      Below are some points and evidence that suggest global warming may be beneficial for ecosystems.

      1. I infer that the optimum GMST for ecosystems is that which existed around the Eocene Thermal Maximum [1] and during the ‘Cambrian Explosion’, i.e. ~25–28˚C (i.e. 10–13˚C warmer than present). The following suggest that warming is beneficial for ecosystems, not harmful.

      2. Most major extinction events [2] have been due to bolide impacts, volcanism and ice ages, not to global warming

      3. The PETM was due to warming but it was less severe than most mass extinctions
      “The most dramatic example of sustained warming is the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum [3], which was associated with one of the smaller mass extinctions.”

      4. The cause of the Permian-Triassic Boundary mass extinction event has recently been reported as an ice age, not global warming (Baresel et al., 2017) [4]

      5. I do not know of any major extinction events that were due to global warming when GMST was below the optimum (which was ~7–13˚C above present)

      6. Even very rapid warming is beneficial for ecosystems. Coxon and McCarron (2009) [5] Figure 15:21 shows temperatures in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland warmed from near LGM temperatures to near current temperatures in 7 years 14,500 years BP and in 9 years 11,500 BP. Life thrived during these events.

      7. Biosphere productivity is increasing during the current warming – the planet has greened by about 14% during 35 years of satellite observations (Donohue et al., 2013) [6], Zhu et al. (2016) [7], Greening of the Earth and it drivers )

      8. Biosphere productivity is higher at low latitudes (warmer) than at high latitudes (colder). Gillman et al. (2015) ‘Latitude, productivity and species richness’ [8]

      9. Biomass density (tC/ha) ~10 times higher in tropical rainforests than extratropical [9].

      10. The mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere has increased substantially during the warming from the LGM. Jeltsch-Thömmes et al. 2019 [10], find that the mass of carbon in the terrestrial biosphere increased by about 40% (850 GtC) from LGM to preindustrial times. This compares with 10%-50% (300-1000 GtC) increase from LGM to the pre-industrial inventory of about 3,000 GtC stated in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 6 [11]. This also indicates that warming is beneficial for ecosystems.

      I infer from the above that global warming is net beneficial for ecosystems when GMST is below the optimum (which may be around 7–13˚C above present GMST).

      References below (probably delayed in moderation until released).

    • Not only do they reduce the benefits of global warming but they are costing around $1.5 – $2 trillion per year (around close to 2% of global GDP) for no benefit whatsoever.

      Peter, at this juncture in time it is debatable that there is no benefit whatsoever. Here in the good ol’ U.S. of A. the unemployment rate stands at 3.7% and inflation a mere 1.6%. Those are pretty impressive numbers. Numbers that arguably come from the relatively low cost of energy, both electricity & gasoline, during this boom cycle. And, yes, green energy (or at the very least the push for alternate sources of energy) has also arguably contributed those impressive numbers. Any time we diversify sources of energy, we bring over all energy costs down during a boom by keeping the energy markets from maxing out. At this point it looks like it may not just be theory. (it may well be happening before our very eyes)…

      • afonzarelli,

        The strong economy cannot be attributed to either reducing CO2 emissions nor to the increase in renewable energy generation, which is entirely due to huge subsidies and other market distorting incentives. Both are unsupportable assertions.

      • afonzarelli

        The strong economy cannot be attributed to either reducing CO2 emissions nor to the increase in renewable energy generation…

        Sure it can… All we need do is compare this boom cycle with the last one. Under the bush boom, both electricity rates and the cost of gasoline rose throughout resulting in high inflation. High inflation resulted in a strong reaction from the federal reserve which kept the unemployment rate high (all the while never quite tamping down on inflation). This go round, electricity prices have remained stable throughout the decade. And gas prices, as we all well know, have remained low. The result? The fed more or less keeps off the brake, with record low unemployment and low inflation for a boom as well.

        Both are unsupportable assertions.

        The push for alternative sources of energy keeps energy prices low during an economic boom. At these times, we need all the energy we can get our hands on. Evidenced by the comparison with the economy just a decade ago. (the evidence supports the assertions)…

      • afonzarelli

        Moderation apparently ate my comment…

        Both are unsupportable assertions.

        In short, no they’re not.

        (hopefully my comment will show up)…

      • afonzarelli | July 13, 2019 at 4:40 pm |

        Sure it can… All we need do is compare this boom cycle with the last one.

        Nope!! Correlation does not imply causation. You need to present a root-cause analysis to demonstrate cause and effect.

        The push for alternative sources of energy keeps energy prices low during an economic boom.

        Nonsense!! The massive subsidies, incentives for renewables and the market distortions these are causing, is substantially increasing energy prices and slowing economic growth.

      • afonzarelli

        Peter Lang, i get sooo tired of having to explain to people… When the economy gets into a boom, the cost of energy sky rockets due to speculation(!) Take 1979. After the iranian revolution, world wide production only dropped by 4%. It was panic buying that made the cost of a barrel of oil quadruple. We had very similar problems just a decade ago.
        We don’t have that problem this go round primarily because the U.S. is experiencing an oil glut (from the fallout of the arab spring). Now, that glut is being eroded by higher demand which would be even worse were it not for the presence of renewables. How much worse? Who knows? That’s why i used in my original comment the word “arguably”. If i can’t definitively say that renewables are holding gas prices down, then you cannot say that they aren’t. (and, therefore, cannot definitively say “no benefit whatsoever” either) Now it’s one thing to say that renewables are currently holding down the cost of energy. It is another to say that the low cost of energy is holding down inflation. Are you dispute this latter point? i’m at the point where i’m beginning to seriously wonder if energy costs are the sole reason for inflation in an economic boom. i kept waiting for some sort of inflation to show up, but it never did. (for that matter, neither did the higher energy prices) Every last boom for the last 50+ years has seen high inflation except this one. And, ditto, every last boom o’er the last half century has seen higher gas prices, save now. But, the bottom line is that in a boom we need all the energy we can get our hands on or the cost of energy will sky rocket. i would think that would be reason enough to pursue renewables…

      • afonzarelli

        Are you dispute should read Are you disputing

      • afonzarelli

        One last thing… you mention renewables are slowing economic growth. Not so. It’s the federal reserve that’s currently slowing economic growth by raising interest rates. They have been under the mindset that the economy has been growing too fast and that’s why they did it. Now, we’re in a rough patch because of their foolishness and hopefully they’re about to make an about face. The unemployment rate should be down to 3% by now and inflation between 3-4%. That’s why Trump is pissed off at his very own (hand picked) fed chair. My own personal opinion is that the fed has kept the economy too slow, but we shouldn’t want it to grow too fast either. Eventually we’re going to run out of labor and there is no point in stepping on the accelerator to get to that point. Once we run out of labor, the ecomy stalls, we recess. Currently, the fed is stalling the economy (and we’re about to recess if we’re not careful). Goldilocks, not too hot, not too cool. We should try to sustain this level of economic activity for as long as possible…

      • afonzarelli: “Now, that glut is being eroded by higher demand which would be even worse were it not for the presence of renewables. ”

        It’s a reasonable argument, but it cuts both ways. By subsidizing renewables and using policy to artificially increase the price of nuclear power, you increase the reliance on natural gas and increase energy prices over what they could be.
        In other words, if policy had promoted more nuclear power you’d have even less demand for natural gas than you do today and electricity would be even cheaper than it is today.

        That’s not a good argument for solar panels and windmills.
        An analogy- a lot of bicycles will have some small impact on gasoline demand and price. One electric car will have a bigger impact.
        Next gen nukes are the Tesla in this analogy.

  2. I added a bunch of fun Curry videos to my Climate Change Debate Education blog at http://ccdedu.blogspot.com.

    Discussed here: https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2019/07/06/educating-kids-to-debate-alarming-climate-claims-n2549587

  3. David L. Hagen (HagenDL)

    CO2 – Pollution or Potential?
    Cement Produces more Pollution than all the Trucks in the World bemoans the difficulty of making “green” cement.
    However, the US has about 85 billion bbl of oil recoverable by CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR). Globally about 1.2 trillion bbl are recoverable by CO2-EOR. Even at $70/bbl that is significant potential just waiting for supplies of cost competitive CO2 to do so.
    CO2 Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) achieves ~ 3 bbl/ton CO2 (~2-4). CO2 suppliers are joint venturing with oil producers to inject CO2 to enhance oil recovery. EU carbon allowances are ~$28/tonne. US provides a tax credit of $35/ton for CO2 used in EOR.
    For those interested in capturing CO2 from calcining and putting it to profitable productive use, see:
    Patent US9586827B2 CO2 Capturing Calciner by VAST Power Systems, Inc.

  4. Icehouse climate of the late Paleozoic [link]
    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/47/7/600/570317/explosive-volcanism-as-a-key-driver-of-the-late

    Atmospheric CO2 exerts a robust and well-documented control on Earth’s climate, but the timing of glaciation during the late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA; ca. 360–260 Ma) is inconsistent with pCO2 reconstructions, hinting at another factor.

    Yes, CO2 correlates sometimes, most always lags temperature change and is not a reasonable control knob for climate. If it does not always work, something else does. AND IT DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK, IT DOES NOT WORK MOST OF THE TIME TO CORRELATE AS A CAUSE.

  5. “Inconvenient energy realities” provides an excellent reality check – especially on the nonsense pedaled by the renewable energy advocates.

    • Yes, it’s excellent. Another great read is “The global tree restoration potential for carbon sequestration [link]”. By increasing forestation in non-Ag and non-urban areas CO2 could be reduced 25%. Imagine how much CO2 capturing potential was displaced by the rise of, and recent great expansion of, farming. Instead we blame it on oil.

      • afonzarelli

        Bigter, bingo!
        There’s a host of people out there that deny the natural component of the rise in atmospheric co2 on the basis of ice cores. Even if we assume the validity of ice cores, we can’t rule out the possibility that the rise is due to deforestion over that of emissions. Ice cores tell us that co2 rose 20 ppm from 1750 to 1900 with only 5 ppmv of emissions. Rest assured that whatever we were doing from 1750-1900 we have been doing a whole lot more of over the last 120 years. Rapid warming due to elevated co2 levels (from deforestation) & solar plus continued deforestation may be the cause of the unprecedented rise in atmospheric co2…

  6. Latest Yale climate change communication survey.

    “About seven in ten Americans (69%) think global warming is happening. By contrast, only about one in six Americans (16%) think global warming is not happening.”


    https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-american-mind-april-2019/3/

    • Curious George

      Remaining 15% do not think. Is that a serious undercount?

    • Interesting that the % who believe warming is mostly human caused has dropped from 2009. More interesting is the % has dropped 7 points recently.

    • I think that alarmists take part in more surveys.
      I talk to people about climate, almost every day, multiple people on some days. I find a majority of the people I talk to agree with me that climate change is normal, natural, necessary and unstoppable, not human caused by man-made CO2.
      A lot of people have jobs they would lose if they openly opposed consensus.
      A lot of money and power are obtained using chicken little alarmism.
      Many people doing surveys start with a bias and design the survey to get the answer they need.

      • Trump would have lost the election if most people who voted were alarmists.

      • The top 10 coal burning states in the US are the ones that will be hurt the most by climate change policy (cost-wise) and, surprise, make up Trump’s electoral college win. All of those states will be reluctant to self-destruct financially in 2020 as well.

        Texas
        Indiana
        Ohio
        Illinois
        Kentucky
        Pennsylvania
        West Virginia
        Missouri
        Michigan
        Florida

    • “Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote in the 2016 presidential election, while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.[1] When the members of the Electoral College met on December 19, 2016, Trump received 304 votes to Clinton’s 227.[2] As of that same day, however, Clinton led in the popular vote, 48.3 percent to 46.2 percent. Clinton had 65,844,969 votes. Trump had 62,979,984, a difference of more than 2.8 million.”

      The collapse of the Democrat vote in hitherto blue states gave the election to Trump. A party with pragmatic policies on the issues – including environment, energy and climate – would seem to be in the box seat for the next election.

      But in general people in the middle ground – between the silly extremes of the climate war – are risk adverse.

      • But in general people in the middle ground – between the silly extremes of the climate war – are risk adverse.

        you wrote: people in the middle ground are risk adverse.

        one extreme is adverse to risks they believe, or embrace because they can profit from, and the other extreme is adverse to solutions to to the risk.

        The middle group is only adverse to worrying about either extreme.
        They pick their own risks to be adverse to.

      • “Donald Trump won the Electoral College vote in the 2016 presidential election, while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.

        That is why the founding fathers gave us the Electoral College, so people who receive free stuff cannot control the country and the tax laws.

        But, They are gaining and sometimes they win.

      • I suggest we limit the voting to english speaking land owners who don’t have mortgages. Just a few more gerrymandered districts, purged voter rolls and all electronic voting and we will have the perfect government.

        This little item will forever make me doubt we had a fair election in 2016:
        http://electionlawblog.org/?p=93906
        “The hack appeared to include a breach of the EAC’s administrative-access credentials as well as access to nonpublic reports on flaws in voting machines, according to Andrei Barysevich, an analyst with cybersecurity firm Recorded Future.

        Access to the reports could have allowed someone to exploit flaws in voting machines, Mr. Barysevich said. The stolen credentials could have been used to install malicious code on the EAC site, thus potentially infecting any user of it. The users could include state election officials, who might then use a thumb memory stick to interact with other machines, such as ballot machines not connected to the internet.”

      • I am hugely indifferent to the vagaries of US politics. But I would blame Hilary Clinton for the Trump win. Even then he failed to win the popular vote. A huge red flag – when key states return to the blue fold.

        My point was that skeptics have failed to convince the public and seem oblivious of even that.

    • So? With all the media hype and indoctrination happening in our schools, it is more surprising that the numbers are not higher. When only one side of an argument is presented and repeated with no alternative arguments allowed, what would you expect?

      • So – you are getting whopped in the propaganda battle and take solace that it isn’t a worse whooping?

        I’d suggest putting several billion dollars a year into soil and ecosystem restoration and conservation, And a few more supporting FOAK SMR deployment. A few of the references this week are relevant.

        Most Americans – surveys say – would support a modest tax for these purposes.

      • Robert I Ellison: Most Americans – surveys say – would support a modest tax for these purposes.

        The modest tax that most Americans “would support” (but don’t actually demand from their legislators) shows that they don’t consider global warming to be much of a problem.

  7. And to add a dynamics article again.

    “In this article, we present an overview of climate feedbacks for Earth system components currently included in state-of-the-art ESMs and discuss the challenges to evaluate and quantify them. Uncertainties in feedback quantification arise from the interdependencies of biogeochemical matter fluxes and physical properties, the spatial and temporal heterogeneity of processes, and the lack of long-term continuous observational data to constrain them.” https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/10/379/2019/esd-10-379-2019.html

  8. Curious George

    “It’s time to untame the mighty Mississippi River and stop wasting millions of dollars of sediment ..” The author would prefer the sediment to be deposited where the current levee/spillway system does not divert it. The system has not been designed to protect wetlands. It seems to do only what it has been designed to do – what a shame!

  9. More about the cooling effect of irrigation (from the press release): Nocco’s team found that irrigation lowered the maximum daily temperature about three and half degrees compared to nearby rainfed farms. Adjacent forests were slightly warmer than either rainfed or irrigated farms.

    Somewhat surprisingly, the lower maximum temperatures on irrigated farms were accompanied by higher minimum temperatures. Saturated soils can hold more heat than dry soils. When that heat is released at night, it keeps nighttime minimum temperatures somewhat higher. Wet soils may also be darker, helping them absorb more sunlight during the day.

    original here: Observation of irrigation‐induced climate change in the Midwest United States
    MA Nocco, RA Smail, CJ Kucharik – Global change biology, 2019 – Wiley Online Library

    • Somewhat surprisingly, the lower maximum temperatures on irrigated farms were accompanied by higher minimum temperatures.

      I am surprised that anyone would be surprised that water tends to limit temperature extremes. That is how water works, it evaporates to limit warming and it adsorbs and distributes energy to limit cooling, This lower limit is really powerful when the water starts to freeze.
      Temperature extremes in deserts are much higher and lower than at the sea shores.

      • More evaporation and precipitation will limit global warming and temperatures will not exceed the bounds of the most recent ten thousand years, this is the new normal climate. Less evaporation and precipitation will limit the lower bound. The mass of water and ice that is taking part in warming and cooling modern cycles is limited because much of the mass of ice and water that took part in past major ice age cycles has been sequestered on Antarctica, Greenland and other sequestered ice masses in cold places.

    • There is a simple partitioning of energy at the surface between latent and sensible heat that changes in response to soil moisture – and in changes in heat absorption and retention.

      e.g. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2004EO210004

      It has implications for the surface temperature record – i.e. higher temperatures as measured by thermometers during droughts – but not for the global energy budget at TOA.
      .

      • Robert I Ellison: It has implications for the surface temperature record – i.e. higher temperatures as measured by thermometers during droughts – but not for the global energy budget at TOA.

        I think more research is needed before conclusions are drawn about effects at TOA. The water vapor from irrigation has contrasting effects on the rates of two transfer processes: (a) the increased water vapor in the atmosphere slows the radiant transfer of energy from surface to space (the misnamed “greenhouse effect”); (b) the increased rate of the hydrologic cycle increases the rate of transfer of latent heat from the surface to the mid-troposphere and thence to space. The two rate increases may not exactly counterbalance.

  10. https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaaw5406.full

    This recent paper discusses surface motion of the ice sheet in Greenland and found that 96% of the movement was due to basal sliding with 4% due to deformation. And yet no reference to geothermal activity. Nor was there mention of same in the study on SMB modeling in the first link.

  11. This web page contains some very interesting and useful facts.
    Inconvenient Energy Realities
    https://economics21.org/inconvenient-realities-new-energy-economy

    The full report is linked.

  12. Zharkova’s new article is the same nonsense she has been pushing for years
    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3

    Figure 1 (top, red) shows a curious solar reconstruction that shows a much higher level of solar activity during the past 100 years than at any other time during the past 3000 years. The reconstruction is attributed to Solanki & Krivova 2011, but that article does not report a solar activity reconstruction. The reconstruction is actually from Solanki et al. 2004. But that reconstruction ends in 1900, and Zharkova has pulled a typical alarmist trick of sticking together two records of different nature, in this case a cosmogenic isotope record and the sunspot record, to produce a hockey stick. Frankesteinian science that would make Michael Mann proud.

    To make matters worse Solanki et al. 2004 reconstruction is no longer defended even by its authors, and has been superseded by Steinhilber et al. 2012 and Wu et al. 2018 reconstructions that don’t show such abnormal activity for the 20th century compared with previous millennia. That your hypothesis relies on a particular, outdated reconstruction is a very bad sign.

    Zharkova has said on writing: We believe that the Sun is on our side, because in a few years time our star will start the next grand minimum (2020–2053), as we predicted and everyone on the Earth will witness it, including U[soskin 20]17.”
    http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/32920/1/Answer_zhark_jastp_rev_v2.pdf
    I think she suffers from delusion. In 4 years time her hopes of a grand solar minimum are going to be put to a tough test, as the polar fields method anticipates that SC25 should have more activity than SC24.

    She goes as far as saying: “This trend is anticipated to continue in the next six centuries that can lead to a further natural increase of the terrestrial temperature by more than 2.5 °C by 2600.” Oh gosh, more stupid predictions based on faulty, non-validated models. She really fits in modern science.

    • Sunspot numbers in SC25 max. are being forecast at between 95 and 130.

      https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/news/solar-cycle-25-preliminary-forecast

      But confusing this with the grand cycles discussed by Zharkova is muddle headed.

      • That’s because you are not familiar with her prediction. She has predicted a solar grand minimum starting now.

      • “Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one.”

        SC25 is being predicted to be less active than SC24.

        A number of other people are suggesting a solar minima this century as I have discussed with you before.

        Read harder.

      • Perhaps I read harder than you.

        Zharkova et al. 2015, figure 2 predicts a SC25 with less activity than SC24.
        https://www.nature.com/articles/srep15689
        If SC25 has more activity than SC24 her hypothesis fails.

        People that suggest a grand solar minimum in the 21st century belong to two groups, those that have no clue and those that have analyzed data for solar cycles 21 to 24 and since the data shows decreasing activity that is what they are predicting, as a change in trend is harder to predict.

        A more thorough analysis using both cosmogenic isotope records for the entire Holocene and sunspot records indicates the chances of a grand solar minimum in the 21st century are very small.

        SC25 should have a level of activity between that of SC24 and SC20 and that should be the end of that speculation, and then SC26 should have again a high level of activity.

      • The SC25 sunspot prediction I linked to was from NOAA last month.

        The prediction of a solar minimum in the next 3 decades in the 2019 study under discussion is unmistakable.

        Other longer term predictions rely on isotope analogues.

        “Using past variations of solar activity measured by cosmogenic isotope abundance changes, analogue forecasts for possible future solar output have been calculated. An 8% chance of a return to Maunder Minimum-like conditions within the next 40 years was estimated in 2010 (ref. 2). The decline in solar activity has continued, to the time of writing, and is faster than any other such decline in the 9,300 years covered by the cosmogenic isotope data1. If this recent rate of decline is added to the analysis, the 8% probability estimate is now raised to between 15 and 20%.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535

        A grand minimum refers to low solar activity over several cycles. The trend is to lower activity but whether it approaches the level of a Maunder Minimum is another question. But God only knows what you base your SC26 prophecy on.

      • My prediction of SC26 is based on the method developed by
        Clilverd, M. A., et al. “Predicting solar cycle 24 and beyond.” Space weather 4.9 (2006): 1-7.
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2005SW000207
        They showed some skill in predicting SC24 and SC25.
        Also Baolin Tan showed similarly how to extrapolate the centennial cycle:
        Tan, B. (2011). Multi-timescale solar cycles and the possible implications. Astrophysics and Space Science, 332(1), 65-72.
        https://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.1613

        I have improved their models to take into account the evolution of the long solar cycles. There is uncertainty with respect to peak values at certain cycles, but the model does a good job at capturing the general evolution of past solar activity. It projects a 21st century solar activity similar to 20th century solar activity.

      • There is a method for predicting the next peak after the start of a Schwabe cycle. How skillfully is a matter for skepticism. I just took the recent prediction from NOAA for the next – lower – peak SN. Beyond that your cyclomania is complete nonsense.

      • Every method has detractors. As I have showed, the method I follow is supported on published science. How good or how bad it is can only be established by how it performs. Obviously I believe my method is far superior to that of Zharkova. For that I only need to beat her over SC25.

        Solar cycle 24 prediction showed how immature is our understanding of how the Sun works. A great majority of predictions were for a very active cycle. Cyclical prediction by Clilverd et al. (reference above) was one of the very few published predictions for a low activity cycle. That indicates it makes sense to project future activity based on past activity.

      • According to Astro Physicist Cornelius de Jager there will be no grand minimum in this next 1000 year solar cycle. Right now we are at Oort so even if it were a grand cycle instead of a regular cycle this will still only be an Oort or a Dalton like minimum.

        http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/2012-sudden-trans-JSWSC-2-A073.pdf

      • Ordvic,

        Yes, I agree with De Jager that there would not be a Grand Minimum this century, and that most grand minima are associated to the lows of the Bray (2500-yr) solar cycle, but I disagree with his view that the next grand minimum should be in a thousand years. He is not taking into consideration the Eddy (~1000-yr) solar cycle that usually also has one or more solar grand minima associated to its lows. I expect the next grand solar minimum around AD 2500-2600, but since it is so far into the future I’ll let Federation’s Captain Picard take care of that.

      • Javier, According to de Jager this will be a regular eddy cycle as compared to a maximum or minimum eddy cycle. So there will be a maunder type minimum that lasts eighty to one hundred years it just won’t be as severe as a grand minimum in temp reduction. It will be more on the order of a Dalton minimum of temp only instead of lasting twenty years it will last eighty to one hundred years

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        “The Sun provides Earth with warmth, light, and the energy that fuels our entire ecosystem. As the largest body in the solar system, the Sun is the focal point and guides the planets in their orbits.

        It is no surprise that it has been worshiped by cultures throughout history, yet there is still much that is not known about the Sun. Once thought to be constant and unchanging, it is only in modern times that is has become evident that the Sun is in fact extremely dynamic.

        Since the invention of the telescope, knowledge of the Sun has grown at an extraordinary rate. Each discovery brings new ideas and often conflict. Even now, our understanding of the Sun is constantly being redefined as each new discovery is made.”
        “We predict that Cycle 25 will be another small cycle, with an amplitude slightly smaller than (~95-97%) the size of Cycle 24. Weak cycles such as this are preceded by long extended minima and we expect a similar deep, extended minimum for the Cycle 24/25 minimum in 2020. Based on this solar cycle 25 prediction, we expect that coming minimum last through the end of 2020 or beginning of 2021. Similarly, we expect that the Cycle 24/25 minimum will include extended periods of spotless days throughout 2020 and into 2021.”
        http://solarcyclescience.com/forecasts.html

    • A solar minimum during the little ice age and a solar minimum now during a warmer period will change temperatures a little bit.

      No big deal.

  13. Soreghan, G. S., Soreghan, M. J., & Heavens, N. G. (2019). Explosive volcanism as a key driver of the late Paleozoic ice age. Geology, 47(7), 600-604.
    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/47/7/600/570317

    “Atmospheric CO2 exerts a robust and well-documented control on Earth’s climate, but the timing of glaciation during the late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA; ca. 360–260 Ma) is inconsistent with pCO2 reconstructions, hinting at another factor.”

    Translation: The CO2 hypothesis of climate change does not agree with the data, but since we believe in it we are at odds to find ad hoc explanations for the multiple disparities.

    The relationship between volcanic activity and glaciations has been very much studied. The huge load placed and removed at certain locations of the crust is a powerful driver of volcanic activity. I reviewed it at my article:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/10/the-effect-of-volcanoes-on-climate-and-climate-on-volcanoes/
    There you can find bibliography on the issue.

    A problem is that there is no evidence that volcanic eruptions affect climate. They affect weather for a few years. There is some evidence that on a very large scale, like during Large Igneous Provinces they might affect climate, but in general the proposal is that very large volcanic activity warms due to the accumulated CO2 production, and not the opposite. In fact the 17 Ma Columbia River Basalt eruption is associated to both increased CO2 and temperature.

    So this article is a hypothesis on top of another hypothesis to try to explain why the CO2 hypothesis is not supported by the data.

    • Ice Extent always correlates with temperatures. There is always more evaporation and snowfall when polar oceans are warmer and thawed and it always gets colder after that. There is always less evaporation and snowfall when polar oceans are colder and frozen and it always gets warmer after that. Evaporation leads to more snowfall and more ice volume on land. More ice volume on land leads to ice extent increase. Ice extent increase correlates with colder temperatures.
      Consensus has ice extent as a result of temperature, climate will never be understood if the ice theory is wrong. Ice core data is more than enough to help this be understood. Ice ages start when polar oceans are deep, warm and thawed. Ice ages end when oceans are low and cold and polar oceans frozen.

    • The CO2 hypothesis has been verified on a planetary scale.


      https://www.nature.com/articles/35066553

      • The CO2 hypothesis has been verified on a planetary scale.

        You mean verified as having produced all of the warming or as having produced an unspecified amount of warming, or just as being capable of producing warming under certain conditions.

        The greenhouse effect is generally accepted, but it does not say how much warming a certain increase in greenhouse gases should produce.

      • Generally accepted? Yeah – like 97%. The rest are just nuts. Dynamical complexity is something you have never understood. Chaos theory shows how the system is sensitive to small changes. That there is vigorous internal variability on decadal to longer scales – something that in hydrology I have been aware of since the 1980’s – does not eliminate the reality of dynamic system sensitivity.

      • I am quite used to non-linear dynamically complex systems. Climate is not sensitive to small changes unless they are very constant in time, because the huge mass of the system and the presence of numerous negative feedbacks keep it quite stable over time.

        This is something most people are unaware. There cannot be runaway warming or fast warming because of the huge system inertia to change state. When some scientists propose that the world is going to warm at 0.3 °C or higher per decade they don’t know what they talk about. That’s why First Assessment Report projections are failing so spectacularly. The dynamics of the system are not being taken into consideration.

      • “The global climate system is composed of a number of subsystems — atmosphere, biosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere — each of which has distinct characteristic times, from days and weeks to centuries and millennia. Each subsystem, moreover, has its own internal variability, all other things being constant, over a fairly broad range of time scales. These ranges overlap between one subsystem and another. The interactions between the subsystems thus
        give rise to climate variability on all time scales. We outline here the rudiments of the way in which dynamical systems theory provides an understanding of this vast range of variability.
        Such an understanding proceeds through the
        study of successively more complex patterns of
        behavior.” https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3df8/284c921d0194a443411db7a63772b659a79c.pdf

        The Earth system shifts abruptly all the time.

        A system forced to cross a threshold where multiple interacting subsystems result in change to the system at a rate determined by internal dynamics before settling into a new state. And no you don’t have a c;ue.

      • And yet the only abrupt near-global temperature changes well recorded by proxies involve the sudden release of long accumulated stores of very cold water (the 8.2 kyr event) or warm subsurface water (DO events). If you don’t have such stores at hand and a way of releasing them abruptly all you get is slow and progressive change over time. Going from the Medieval Warm Period to the LIA took about 400 years at a cooling rate not very different from the warming rate we are experiencing.

        From the last glacial to the Holocene it has been estimated that the planet warmed about 5°C in about 5000 years. That comes at about 0.01°C/decade.

        Abrupt climate change is not as easy as alarmists believe. At least not in terms of changing the temperature of the planet’s surface. It has a huge inertia. That also means there is plenty of time to find out what is really happening before doing any silly thing.

      • “Recent scientific evidence shows that major and widespread climate changes have occurred with startling speed. For example, roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade, and it was accompanied by significant climatic changes across most of the globe. Similar events, including local warmings as large as 16°C, occurred repeatedly during the slide into and climb out of the last ice age. Human civilizations arose after those extreme, global ice-age climate jumps. Severe droughts and other regional climate events during the current warm period have shown similar tendencies of abrupt onset and great persistence, often with adverse effects on societies.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/2

      • roughly half the north Atlantic warming since the last ice age was achieved in only a decade

        They don’t know it because they don’t read enough, but they are just talking about the most recent DO event that took place at ~ 11700 years ago and that was identified as such by Rahmstorf in 2003:
        Rahmstorf, S. (2003). Timing of abrupt climate change: A precise clock. Geophysical Research Letters, 30(10).
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2003GL017115%4010.1002/%28ISSN%291944-8007.GRL40

        But you already know that because that figure is from your place. You just need to learn it.

        The only near-global abrupt temperature changes involve the abrupt release of a large store of water with a big ΔT. The cold 8.2 kyr event that involves the release of a huge amount of very cold water from proglacial lakes Agassiz-Ojibway, and the warm DO events that involve the abrupt release of warm subsurface water at the Nordic Seas and North Atlantic.

        Alarmism comes from the superficial understanding you display. The climate system has a huge mass that resists the change in temperature through thermal inertia.

        There will not be runaway climate change or fast warming from the increase in CO2. There are no precedents in the last few million years record that it is even possible in the absence of the very special conditions that can produce such changes.

      • Unlike yourself – this 2002 NAS report was produced by an authoritative group of scientists. And I find your churlish dismissal childish.

        Changes seem associated with changes in AMOC. And hydrological changes – persistent drought and flood – emerge from changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.

      • The appeal to authority fallacy is very much in use in climate science. I see you subscribe to it. I’m not surprised. I have shown you that Stefan Rahmstorf identified the 11700 BP warming as a DO event, and I know you know because you have used his figure. Just read the damn figure caption again.

        The NAS reports are anything but authoritative. They present alarmist views without any consideration for their lack of evidence support.

      • A reference to authoritative sources is not a logical fallacy. It was how I was trained.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09237-3

      • It is fallacious when you are referring not to a research article, but a political report, as authoritative in support of your views.

        There is a clear lack of evidence that the North Atlantic warming at the end of the Younger Dryas was anything but a DO event. Antarctic records show progressive warming out of glaciation for about 5000 years.

        The concept of global abrupt temperature change does not have supporting evidence except when there is an abrupt release of a large water store with a big ΔT.

      • It was of course a NAS report on abrupt climate change from a committee of illustrious paleo-climatologists. More fancy words?

        “Although climate scientists have worked hard to determine the ultimate trigger of abrupt climate change during the last ice age, it is likely that a combination of ocean and atmospheric circulation changes were involved. For example, a subtle shift in atmospheric circulation to a more meridional jet stream flow would encourage the transport of warm, salty water into the sub-polar North Atlantic, which in turn could lead to the reestablishment of strong AMOC and enhanced oceanic heat transport to the high-latitude North Atlantic. In this case, ocean circulation changes associated with AMOC may have amplified small changes initiated in the atmosphere on the transition into warm interstadials. Conversely, a sudden reduction in AMOC due to an influx of freshwater into the high-latitude North Atlantic region has the potential to trigger a regional cooling that can significantly alter tropical atmospheric circulation around the globe. Although we still do not know which happened first, interactions between both the ocean and the atmosphere must have played an important role in driving the dramatic climate oscillations of the last ice age. This paper only discusses two hypotheses to explain the abrupt climate shifts of the last ice age. To read about alternate hypotheses, see the comprehensive review paper by Clement & Peterson (2008).”
        https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

        The clement and Peterson paper for good measure.

        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a555/2f1a8b4b9f902b51ad12b7a52cae59ce586f.pdf

      • The field has advanced significantly since Clement & Peterson (2008). Particularly see:

        Petersen, S.V., Schrag, D.P. and Clark, P.U., 2013. A new mechanism for Dansgaard‐Oeschger cycles. Paleoceanography, 28(1), pp.24-30.

        Dokken, T.M., Nisancioglu, K.H., Li, C., Battisti, D.S. and Kissel, C., 2013. Dansgaard‐Oeschger cycles: Interactions between ocean and sea ice intrinsic to the Nordic seas. Paleoceanography, 28(3), pp.491-502.

        Ezat, M.M., Rasmussen, T.L. and Groeneveld, J., 2014. Persistent intermediate water warming during cold stadials in the southeastern Nordic seas during the past 65 ky. Geology, 42(8), pp.663-666.

        Rasmussen, T.L., Thomsen, E. and Moros, M., 2016. North Atlantic warming during Dansgaard-Oeschger events synchronous with Antarctic warming and out-of-phase with Greenland climate. Scientific reports, 6, p.20535.

        Wary, M., Eynaud, F., Sabine, M., Zaragosi, S., Rossignol, L., Malaize, B., Palis, E., Zumaque, J., Caulle, C., Penaud, A. and Michel, E., 2015. Stratification of surface waters during the last glacial millennial climatic events: a key factor in subsurface and deep-water mass dynamics. Climate of the Past, 11(11), pp.1507-1525.

        Our understanding of DO events has advanced a lot since that NAS report of 2011.

      • “The abrupt warming at the onset of a cycle is caused by the rapid retreat of sea ice after the collapse of an ice shelf. The gradual cooling during the subsequent interstadial phase is determined by the timescale of ice‐shelf regrowth.”

        “The mechanisms responsible for these millennial cycles are not fully understood but are widely thought to involve abrupt changes in Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation due to freshwater perturbations. Here we present a new, high‐resolution multiproxy marine sediment core monitoring changes in the warm Atlantic inflow to the Nordic seas as well as in local sea ice cover and influx of ice‐rafted debris. In contrast to previous studies, the freshwater input is found to be coincident with warm interstadials on Greenland and has a Fennoscandian rather than Laurentide source. ”

        “The results suggest that warm Atlantic water never ceased to flow into the Nordic seas during the glacial period; inflow at the surface during the Holocene and warm interstadials changed to subsurface and intermediate inflow during cold stadials. Our results suggest that it is the vertical shifts in the position of the warm Atlantic water that cause the abrupt surface warmings.”

        “The hinge line between areas showing abrupt and gradual warming was close to the Greenland-Scotland Ridge and the marine system appears to be a ‘push-and-pull’ system rather than a seesaw system. ‘Pull’ during the warm interstadials, when convection in the Nordic seas was active; ‘push’ during the cold stadials, when convection stopped and warm water from the south-central Atlantic pushed northward gradually warming the North Atlantic and Nordic seas.”

        “Records indicate that the coldest episodes of the studied period (Greenland stadials and Heinrich stadials) were characterized by a strong stratification of surface waters. This surface stratification seems to have played a key role in the dynamics of subsurface and deep-water masses.”

        “We suggest that variations in Nordic Seas deep-water circulation are precursors to abrupt climate changes and that future model studies should address this phasing.”

        ” Here, based on earlier hypotheses, we introduce a dynamical model that explains the DO variability by rapid retreat and slow regrowth of thick ice shelves and thin sea ice in conjunction with changing subsurface water temperatures due to insulation by the ice cover. Our model successfully reproduces observed features of the records, such as the sawtooth shape of the DO cycles, waiting times between DO events across the last glacial, and the shifted antiphase relationship between Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.”

        Quotes from your Googled list and some later articles. You have a skeptic capacity to reduce complex and uncertain science of a complex dynamical system to a simplistic narrative.

      • Not a Googled list. I’ve got 101 articles about DO events on my hard drive. I’ve even corresponded on the issue with Kerim Nisancioglu and Trond Dokken asking them for some data on Nordic Seas water stratification during DO events.

        So it is probably you who doesn’t know what you talk about. Here is my list of articles on the issue in case you are interested in learning about DO events:

        Ahn2007.pdf
        Ahn2008.pdf
        Ahn2008sup.pdf
        Ahn2014.pdf
        Bock2010b.pdf
        Gottschalk2015.pdf
        Gottschalk2015sup.pdf
        Liu2009.pdf
        Schmittner_Ice_Age_Oceans_Nature_2008.pdf
        Bond1993.pdf
        Bond1997.pdf
        Bond1999.pdf
        Grootes1997.pdf
        Barker2015.pdf
        Clement2008.pdf
        Dansgaard1984.pdf
        Dansgaard1985.pdf
        Dansgaard2011obit.pdf
        EPICA2006.pdf
        Erhardt2019.pdf
        Ezat2014.pdf
        Hewitt2015.pdf
        Li2019.pdf
        Martrat2004.pdf
        Mayewski1997.pdf
        Rahmstorf2002.pdf
        Rahmstorf2003.pdf
        Rohling2002b.pdf
        Schmidt2011.pdf
        Schulz1999.pdf
        Schulz2002.pdf
        Shao2016.pdf
        Sole2007.pdf
        Timmermann2009.pdf
        vanKreveld2000.pdf
        vanOmmen2015.pdf
        Wolff2010.pdf
        Wunsch2000.pdf
        Wunsch2000response.pdf
        Ruth2007.pdf
        Schulz1998.pdf
        Wegwerth2015.pdf
        Weldeab2012.pdf
        Fischer2015.pdf
        SanchezGoñi2008.pdf
        Arbic2004.pdf
        Arbic2008.pdf
        Griffiths2008.pdf
        Uehara2006.pdf
        Wilmes2014.pdf
        Ganopolski2001.pdf
        Ganopolski2002.pdf
        Marshall2006.pdf
        Menviel2014.pdf
        Wang2006.pdf
        Zhang2014b.pdf
        Obrochta2014b.pdf
        Rasmussen2014-4.pdf
        Rasmussen2014.pdf
        Seierstad2014.pdf
        Veres2013.pdf
        Dickson2008.pdf
        Dokken2013.pdf
        Ezat2014.pdf
        Jensen2017thesis.pdf
        Li2010.pdf
        Marcott 2011.pdf
        Petersen2013.pdf
        Rasmussen2004.pdf
        Rasmussen2016.pdf
        Sadatzki2019.pdf
        Wary2015.pdf
        Wary2016.pdf
        Wary2017.pdf
        Braun2010.pdf
        Ditlevsen2005.pdf
        Ditlevsen2007.pdf
        Ditlevsen2009.pdf
        Lohman2018.pdf
        Long2013.pdf
        Obrochta2012.pdf
        Obrochta2015comment.pdf
        Wunsch2000.pdf
        Agosta2016.pdf
        Maslin2001.pdf
        Maslin2001alt.pdf
        Stieglitz2017.pdf
        Alley2007.pdf
        Broecker1990.pdf
        Broecker1999.pdf
        Hewitt2015.pdf
        Rohling2004.pdf
        Seidov2001.pdf
        Eldevik2013.pdf
        NGRIPmembers2004.pdf
        Prange2002.pdf
        Braun2005.pdf
        Dima2008.pdf
        Muscheler2006.pdf
        Rahmstorf2002b.pdf

      • Thermohaline circulation..

        http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/rahmstorf_eqs_2006.pdf

        Wally was right.

        https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d70b/1dcf569821fb47202b69c755fcfc4cb6ccb2.pdf

        Evidence for a reduction in the carbonate ion content of the deep sea during the course of the Holocene

        https://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/broecker99bpo_70264.pdf

        Global problems and global onservationsw/

        http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/global_problems.pdf

        Black Sea temperature response to glacial
        millennial-scale climate variability.

        https://epic.awi.de/id/eprint/38913/1/Wegwerth_et_al-2015-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf

        All random selections from your random list. All on abrupt warming and cooling related to AMOC with a range of explanations. It has all been discussed with reference to diverse authoritative sources.

        AMOC is in decline this century – with suggestions of a further decline due to global warming. In a coupled nonlinear system.

      • Rather than inertia – the system is better characterized as tremendous energy cascading through powerful subsystems.

      • Your opinion is noted. However the climate system shows a strong resistance to temperature change that requires a constant push from an external forcing for a very long period of time. That’s the advantage of having a huge ocean that only very slowly changes its temperature.

      • “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) is determined from the difference between how much energy is absorbed and emitted by the planet. Climate forcing results in an imbalance in the TOA radiation budget that has direct implications for global climate, but the large natural variability in the Earth’s radiation budget due to fluctuations in atmospheric and ocean dynamics complicates this picture.” https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10712-012-9175-1

        Energy dynamics change rapidly in response physical changes in the terrestrial system – ice, cloud, dust, biology – as an emergent property of the dynamic Earth system

      • Blah, blah, blah. Lots of fancy words to hide our ignorance of what makes climate tick. No wonder climate science has such a poor consideration among more serious sciences. They seem to have forgotten the scientific method if they ever knew it.

      • Your skeptic narrative opinion is noted and compered unfavorably to facts.

      • The interpretation of those facts is subject to controversy. The system is too complex to predict the final effect given the many factors (including unknown factors) involved.

      • The facts in question are data on TOA radiant flux. SST in the eastern Pacific and anti-correlated cloud change is the largest factor.

        e.g. https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

      • Nothing is plotted on scales that make it look like something significant.
        The nothing is worse than nothing because the errors in knowing the values are much larger than the nothing that is shown.

  14. Medieval Warm period in Antarctica [link]
    ICE CORE DATA FOR 10000 YEARS shows Greenland and Antarctic ice cores with temperatures in the same bounds but not synchronized with each other. If the Greenland and Antarctic ice core temperatures matched during the Medievial Warm Period, it was just an accident. It was no accident that these temperatures stay in narrow bounds while 35 watts per meter squared left the far north and entered the far south over the ten thousand years. It was no accident that sequestered ice in the NH decreased while sequestered ice in SH increased. The temperature the polar oceans thaw causes more evaporation and snowfall and increase sequestered ice on land when the ice donuts of ice shelves and sea ice are gone. When ice shelves and sea ice protect the land, sequestered ice on land flows and depletes until warming occurs.
    The major ice ages started because much more warm tropical water was in the Arctic, causing ice build up on the NH continents. This initial ice cover causes cold enough that the oceans further south provided moisture as the Arctic was lowered and froze.
    Ice ages are caused by warm thawed water, not by cold frozen water.
    Sequestered ice on land comes from thawed water, warmer increases evaporation, colder stops evaporation.

  15. Reviews of Geophysics: Observing and modeling ice sheet surface mass balance [link]

    Ice core data is the best way to understand ice mass balance. When the ice shelves and sea ice donuts are gone, evaporation and snowfall rebuilds the ice volume on land. When the ice shelves and sea ice donuts around the land are large, the snowfall falls on flowing ice and the ice sequestered on the land depletes until warming occurs. This causes cycles.
    Ice core data shows the most ice accumulation in warmest times and the least ice accumulation in the coldest times. There is ice sequestered on land in cold places because warm tropical ocean currents carry warm water to cold regions. Yes, this is Occam Razor Simple.
    Alarmists say they worry about warmer oceans taking away the ice. It is the warmer oceans that caused the snowfall that put the ice there in the first place. When warm oceans could flow around the earth nearer the equator, earth was warmer because tropical water was not mixed with polar water.
    land movement blocked ocean currents and forced them more to the poles. This promoted the evaporation of water in colder regions and caused the increased sequestering of ice in cold places. Maurice Ewing and William Donn did publish this more than a half century ago.

    • When oceans are warmer and warmer ocean currents flow into cold regions, there is more evaporation and snowfall. It snows more until advancing ice causes colder. Colder covers the warm oceans with sea ice and shuts off the evaporation and snowfall. Ice flows and dumps into the oceans and on the land and thaws, causing cooling until the ice runs out. Ice retreats, it warms, the cycle repeats. This works in the north and south polar regions, independently at different rates but both regulated around the temperature that sea ice forms and thaws.

  16. “political motives are the major driving force behind most science communication… this conflation of motives of science communication and the gap between political rhetoric and science communication practice could threaten the credibility of science.”

    The public education complex didn’t just stab America in and principles of individual liberty personal responsibility in the back… abandoning honor, integrity and the scientific method, climate pseudoscience now has the credibility of rainmaking, earthquake prediction and astrology.

    • climate pseudoscience now has the credibility of rainmaking, earthquake prediction and astrology.

      You gave the climate pseudoscience way too much credit, it is way worse than what you compared it with.

      • Never before has the whole world gone this crazy over that other stuff.
        China, India and Russia are not falling for the climate stuff. China pretends because china is selling the renewable junk, but look what they are building at home.

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The eye of a tropical storm is on the coast of Louisiana.

  18. temperatures in New Delhi topping 48C – the highest ever recorded in the capital in June.

    Rising temperatures in a growing city with more urban heat.
    What should be expected, building more buildings with more air conditioning would make the city colder?

    Yes, this is man-made warming, but nothing to do with man-made CO2.
    A good sound bite for the alarmist media and alarmists.

    • Such an extended period of ferocious heat has been deadly. In the eastern state of Bihar, for example, 180 people have so far died, with hospitals “inundated with people suffering from heatstroke”.

      Provide them with air conditioning powered by fossil fuel, that is how most of us keep alive in the summer time.

      That is 180 out of how many? How many were going to die anyway? These heat waves are milked for alarmism. You might say that no one was dying before it got so hot, but that is hard to believe.

      In a large population, it does not take a large percent of people to overflow hospitals that are sized for average times. Inundated could be a few more than they have rooms for. That is a useless measurement by itself.

      What percent of people who have AC are in the hospitals from heat problems and what percent of people who do not have AC are in the hospitals from heat problems. Provide more low cost power from fossil fuels and provide more with AC. The current plan to get rid of fossil fuel will get rid of AC and will kill many more people.

  19. Icehouse climate of the late Paleozoic (link below)

    Soreghan et al 2019, “Explosive volcanism as a key driver of the late Paleozoic ice age”

    https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article/47/7/600/570317/explosive-volcanism-as-a-key-driver-of-the-late

    shows the morass of self-defeating confusion into which palaeo climate research has fallen on account of its subservience to the dogma of CO2 control of climate.

    The abstract begins with the half-sentence “Atmospheric CO2 exerts a robust and well-documented control on Earth’s climate”, which is the equivalent of starting with “in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost” or “there is one Allah and Mohammed is his prophet”. However the second half of that same opening sentence is self-contradictory, “but the timing of glaciation during the late Paleozoic Ice Age (LPIA; ca. 360–260 Ma) is inconsistent with pCO2 reconstructions, hinting at another factor.” So the first sentence could be paraphrased as “CO2 controls the climate. Except when it doesn’t.”

    Climate change over deep time is primarily driven by tectonic rearrangement of continents and of the system of 3 dimensional ocean circulation. And by factors such as mountain uplift at colliding plates and coverage of the poles by land. But this dominant palaeo climate driver is completely absent from this paper. That alone invalidates it completely, without having even to look at its CO2 obeisant narrative. The word “tectonic” is absent from the paper. The word “ocean” appears three times; in each case only to ascribe to the ocean the role of capacitor, storing and remembering atmospheric driven changes in climate.

    “Diminishing pCO2 along with lower solar luminosity (Crowley and Baum, 1992) is the preferred explanation for the LPIA.” “Preferred” is code for doctrinally mandatory. Tectonic shift, continental configuration and ocean circulation have ceased to exist as agents of long term climate change. PhD students in this research field are quite likely no longer even aware of the existence of these phenomena. It’s “atmosphere only” for agents of climate change. The oceans just lag obediently behind atmospheric driving of temperature. The tail wags the dog.

    “Atmosphere only” of course means mainly CO2, with correcting tweaks as necessary from volcanoes. Volcanism can both cool climate as needed in the LPIA, and also warm it in the cases of the Deccan Trap (end Cretaceous) and Siberian (end Permian) flood basalt extinction events. You just alternate the focus between particulate shading for cooling and CO2 (salla Allahu alayhi wa-ala Ali-hi wa-sallam) backradiation for warming.

    Never was the volcanic control knob of the CO2 control knob more needed than in the LPIA (late palaeozoic ice age). The authors truthfully reveal one of the most glaring mismatches in palaeo climate history between changing temperatures and changing CO2 levels. The discrepancies are explained thus by the authors:

    For example, pCO2 (Foster et al., 2017) exhibits an ambiguous relationship to the timing of onset, demise, and peak of the LPIA: whereas pCO2 reached a nadir at ca. 338–334 Ma, peak glaciation occurred ca. 298–295 Ma (Fig. 1). The highest-resolution reconstructions (Montañez et al., 2016) cover a brief interval of the LPIA (ca. 311–298 Ma) and show pCO2 lows ca. 305 Ma and 298 Ma, closer to peak ice conditions, but depict pCO2 rising at the apex of the LPIA (ca. 298–295 Ma; Fig. 1). Moreover, climate and climate–ice sheet models indicate a CO2 glaciation threshold at ∼560 ppmv (Lowry et al., 2014), but high-resolution pCO2 reconstructions for the interval near peak icehouse (Montañez et al., 2016) show a high-frequency oscillation both above and below this threshold. Finally, climate models cannot account for hypothesized equatorial glaciation (Soreghan et al., 2014) in moderate-elevation uplands without invoking pCO2 levels (<200 ppmv) that would stress modern vegetation (Pagani et al., 2009), calling into question either the data or the modeling.

    So CO2 was rising, not falling, at the coldest glacial maximum of the LPIA. Furthermore, equatorial glaciation, as occurred during the LPIA (late Palaeozoic ice age) can only be induced in computer simulations (built on the assumption of CO2 control of climate) where CO2 drops to levels (below 200 ppm) where plants are stressed – inconsistent with data showing no such stress and aridity (or evolution of C4 photosynthesis that happen only 200 million years later in the modern CO2 starved era). Again, CO2 centrism drives the argument into an impossible dead end.

    The apostle Paul said “I take all human arguments and make them subservient to Jesus Christ.” The modern equivalent of this is making all scientific discourse on climate subservient to Carbon Dioxide. So continental tectonic shifts don’t change climate by changing transport of the half billion cubic kilometres of the molecule water with its anomalously high heat capacity, from equator to poles, or by cooling the atmosphere directly by uplifting permanently frozen mountain ranges. Or the latitudinal level of continents. No – the effect of tectonic movement can only be via silicate weathering draw-down of CO2, or volcanic release of CO2, or volcanic release of CO2-cancelling sulphate particulates. And the ocean is dismissed as a mere memory-puddle, carrying a trace of atmospheric forcings of the prior 2000 years or so.

    Insisting on carbon centric control of climate leads to tortuously complicated non parsimonious explanations of the LPIA in which one mechanism initiates glaciation, and another (sulphate particulates from volcanism) sustains it while overwhelming a recalcitrantly rebounding higher CO2 level.

    Although CO2 forcing likely drove the cold of the Late Mississippian, we posit that volcanic forcing was particularly critical for sustaining cold conditions thereafter (Fig. 3).

    This is similar to the extraordinary contortions required to explain why in the high resolution ice core record of the glacial Quarternary, changes in CO2 lag behind matching changes in temperature by 500-1000 years. Some “other” mechanism that is mumbled then quickly forgotten, initiates the temperature change; CO2 begins to rise in response to the temperature change, but then, wonder of wonders, this reactive increases in CO2 suddenly jumps into the driving seat and becomes the chief driver of the temperature change. The roles of parent and child are miraculously swapped. The arrow of time reverses. By this stage in the narrative the gushing focus on CO2 means that the initial cause of temperature change is already conveniently forgotten.

    Volcanoes dim the atmosphere with particles for only a short time after eruption. However much sound and fury accompanies their eruption, atmospheric circulation and precipitation are efficient at removing these quite fast, so that dimming and cooling effects are quite short lived. This is well documented for Pinatubo and other big recent volcanoes. So it is quite a stretch to argue that sustained deep glaciation is maintained by a string of volcanoes. This would also argue that the cooling forcing of sulphate from a volcano must be stronger than the warming forcing from the CO2 (salla Allahu …) that the same volcano also emits. This would argue for much sharper cooling post-volcano than is actually observed in recent volcanoes like Pinatubo, whose cooling imprint is scarcely detectable in the context of steady warming.

    Geologists are taking a big risk by hitching their wagon so totally to the carbon story and basing all palaeo geology on a foundation of CO2 control of climate. Even rewriting theory of glaciation and forgetting – maybe even soon repudiating – tectonic continental drift. And ignoring the oceans. If and when the CO2 back radiation myth of heat creation finally collapses, much of this revisionist CO2 geology will go right down with it.

  20. This was long and some complicated. You said the most important part in one sentence.

    Climate change over deep time is primarily driven by tectonic rearrangement of continents and of the system of 3 dimensional ocean circulation.

    It snowed more after warm tropical water was forced to flow into polar regions and that increased evaporation in cold regions and increased ice sequestering and cooling by more ice reflecting and thawing.

  21. The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) comprises a northward flow of warm salty water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean and a southward flow of cold fresh water at depth. This circulation pattern transports a huge amount of heat northwards.

    What is patently missing in this superficial description is any sense of dynamical connection between the horizontal flows in upper layers and at depth. This leaves the false impression that AMOC is some autonomous engine that drives flow at both levels.

    But the upper layers are almost entirely wind-driven and the missing connection is provided only by the orders-of-magnitude-weaker adjunct of thermohaline (density) flow. That’s what makes the authors’ presentation suspect as a thinly veiled attempt to find funding for studying in depth a little-explored sidelight to multidecadal variability of surface climate.

    • The wind does not blow from the tropics to the polar regions.
      Tropical ocean currents flow to polar regions and cold ocean currents flow to tropical regions. This happens with or without wind and most likely causes some of the wind. Convection in oceans is temperature driven and earth rotation driven. Wind currents are also temperature driven and earth rotation driven and they do influence each other.

      The circulation pattern transports a huge amount of heat northwards and a huge amount of cold water to the tropics. You cannot have one without the other.

      • Tropical ocean currents flow to polar regions and cold ocean currents flow to tropical regions. This happens with or without wind and most likely causes some of the wind.

        You’ve got to be joking!

  22. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The storm will move north on the west side of the Mississippi Valley. In the southeast, jetstream loop will be created, which will bring rains and thunderstorms.

    • Curious George

      You must be watching TV.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Strong precipitation in Louisiana and Mississippi will last several days. The storm is blocked in the north by a jetstream.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        “Cool high temperatures are likely in the Lower Mississippi Valley with Barry, and record low maximum temperatures could be set there. Behind a cold front moving across the Northwest, high temperatures will be 5 to 15 degrees below average. Elsewhere, temperatures will generally be at or above average, and Excessive Heat Warnings and Heat Advisories are in effect for portions of Arizona and California.”
        https://www.weatherplaza.com/en/us-weatherforecast

  23. Compare Mark Mills’ Inconvenient Energy Realities with the Clean Technia piece by Steve Hanley. There’s no comparison. Mills presents harsh reality, while Hanley has nothing but wishful thinking. There really needs to be more public debate on these things, because lots of resources are being wasted on useless policies and meaningless commitments.

    • Economic shocks are frequently caused by mis-allocated capital. Spending on capital assets that have a negative net present value eventually catches up with any economy. Predicting when and to what depth this will end badly I do not know, but I believe it will end badly.

  24. The Bloomberg Liebreich piece has a lot of good arguments on all sides of the nuclear debate. It’s a bit critical of current large scale, light water reactors. As a counterpoint, I’d recommend this Scott Adams interview with Michael Shellenberger:

  25. Andrew Jackson

    For the record, I love the commentary on Judith’s site: Raw and uncensored debate, the way scientific debate USED to be ….. !!

  26. Andrew Jackson

    In a perfect world, pre-publication review of climate science papers would be a good thing. Sadly, in the current era of political and ideological filters, it is no longer a benefit and, in fact, is largely a tool for ideologues.

  27. “The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) petitioned NASA to remove from its website the claim that 97 percent of climate scientists agree humans are responsible for global warming. The petition, filed under the Information Quality Act (IQA), points out the major flaws in the studies cited by NASA to substantiate its claim. It requests the agency remove the claim from its website and stop circulating it in agency materials.

    While NASA asserts the “97 percent” claim is supported by a number of studies, CEI contends that claim has major flaws that have been documented by critics. These include:

    Incorrectly categorizing scientists who take “no-position” as endorsing the view that humans are responsible for climate change.
    Failing to include relevant sources without explanation.
    Failing to match the terms used as the basis for a study to the claim actually made by NASA.
    “The claim that 97% of climate scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming is simply false,” said CEI attorney Devin Watkins. “That figure was created only by ignoring many climate scientists’ views, including those of undecided scientists. It is time that NASA correct the record and present unbiased figures to the public.”

    • Different studies at different times.


      https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048001

      It is scientifically indisputable that what has most obviously changed in the past 100 odd years is anthropogenic forcing. I have studied decadal to millennial change since the 1980’s. It is most evidently there.

      “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 manifests that long-term changes are much more frequent and intense than commonly perceived and, simultaneously, that the future states are much more uncertain and unpredictable on long time horizons than implied by standard approaches.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02626667.2013.804626

      But there is little to be complacent about in a system that Hurst dynamics show to be sensitive to small changes in conditions.

      • Curious George

        It is scientifically indisputable that the global temperature as of year 1900 is changing daily after year 2000. Make sense of adjustments, I can’t.

      • Is this compelling argument or trivial diversion?

      • “It is scientifically indisputable that what has most obviously changed in the past 100 odd years is anthropogenic forcing.”

        It is also scientifically indisputable that what has most obviously not changed in the past 100 odd years is global warming. It was warming before the change in AF, during the change in AF and after the change in AF without much difference in the rate of warming.

      • Incalculable internal variability doesn’t negate calculable external forcing.

      • Not only internal variability, but also a lot of uncertainty about other external forcings like the Sun. The result is that we have no idea how much of the observed warming is due to enhanced greenhouse effect.

        The fact that the warming precedes the increase in GHGs suggests most of the warming could be natural. A product of the modern solar maximum and internal variability, with an unknown contribution from CO2.

      • Changes in solar forcing are negligible. To be of any significance there needs to be an amplifying mechanism in the system. Internal variability shows that the system is sensitive to small changes. Even with Milankovitch insolation – a small incremental change triggers runaway ice sheet feedbacks.

      • They are not negligible. They are cumulative, so over thousands of years the effect is huge and pushes the system towards a different state. Like the drop of water that makes a hole in the hardest stone. Milankovitch oscillations precede the appearance of large extra-polar ice sheets, as they are detected many millions of years ago, before the Pleistocene glaciations.

      • Conditions at some stage favor summer ice survival triggering runaway ice sheet growth. It is the latter that create relatively rapid change. Much faster than changes in insolation.

      • Not rapid. Glaciation is a long protracted process that can take about 15,000 years. After the Eemian, methane and sea levels started decreasing at 120 ka, but the first large iceberg discharge indicative of well developed ice sheets took place at 107 ka.
        Govin, A., et al. “Sequence of events from the onset to the demise of the Last Interglacial: Evaluating strengths and limitations of chronologies used in climatic archives.” Quaternary Science Reviews 129 (2015): 1-36.
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379115301165

        Rapid change is no the correct adjective for something that takes 15,000 years. Slow and cumulative fit much better.

      • Abrupt changes are everywhere in the system.

        “Based on his calculations, in 1941 Milankovitch postulated that insolation in the summer characterises the ice and warm periods at sixty-five degrees north, a theory that was rejected by the science community during his lifetime. From the 1970s, however, it gradually became clearer that it essentially coincides with the climate archives in marine sediments and ice cores. Nowadays, Milankovitch’s theory is widely accepted. Milankovitch’s idea that insolation determines the ice ages was right in principle,” says Blatter. “However, science soon recognised that additional feedback effects in the climate system were necessary to explain ice ages. We are now able to name and identify these effects accurately.” https://phys.org/news/2013-08-ice-ages-feedback.html

        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09237-3

        https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097

      • The benefit of this litigation could be an airing of the methodology of the various surveys associated with the 97% or any other number that divines the consensus. Just like all the other claims about AGW, if one drills down deep enough, the absolutism is not warranted. But actually investigating the specifics of these studies is not for the easily manipulated. Those with marginal cognitive development and have been indoctrinated with the science they found in People, Bon Appetit or Wine Spectator magazines and can think only in binary terms, might find the effort a bit overwhelming.

        Raising issues about the 97% serves the same purpose as bringing up previous warm periods, the Little Ice Age, subsidence, geothermal activity, past extreme weather, failed predictions, poor spatial coverage of historical temperature records, solar studies, innumerable oscillations and oceanic circulation and memory. It forces one to address the complexities of the debate.

      • That greenhouse gas emissions cause changes in the radiative properties of the atmosphere is not one of these ‘complexities’. They are mall changes in a complex dynamical system with the sensitivity that implies. Climate ball talking points are beside the point. .

        I suggested above putting a few billion into soils and ecosystems – and some more into first of a kind SMR.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Predicted stream F10.7 cm.

      • Robert I Ellison: It is scientifically indisputable that what has most obviously changed in the past 100 odd years is anthropogenic forcing.

        So, …, how reliable is “obvious” in getting to the truth?

      • Robert I Ellison: They are mall changes in a complex dynamical system with the sensitivity that implies.

        I conjecture that you meant “small”. But in this chaotic system, what sensitivity exactly does that imply? Which small changes (irrigation? reforestation? soil and ecosystem repair?) will produce global mean temperature changes at least large enough to be measurable? Which will produce abrupt regime change or “tip” the system into a different local equilibrium?

      • JCH

        When does the 45 years actually start from?

        tonyb

      • 1974.42

        June, 1974

        No negative AMO phase. Get used to it..

      • Knudsen et al suggest a highly variable AMO in intensity affected by oceanic and atmospheric factors during the Holocene. Just like everything else with the climate, we are not dealing with a 33 1/3 LP where you expect exactly the same thing to play out if you wait long enough. It’s always evolving with occasional constancy.

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1186

        Tick tock, tick tock

      • No negative AMO phase. Get used to it.

        The alarmist pretense that they know the future has already been proven false.

        No evidence whatsoever that AMO is doing anything unusual. What it is clear is that since 2003 it is not going up, and that coincides with the pause. A pause that so many scientists are at odds to explain and some deny.

  28. I missed the part where Kevin Noone offered a solution for the problems of using cost/benefits analysis. There are benefits he cares about but the great majority of people don’t.

  29. Creative Carbon Accounting: How Industry and Government Make Burning Wood Look Like a Climate Solution

    What does one expect from DeSmog? Appeal to authority. They don’t like waiting. If you grow trees and burn them, it balances. Debits equal credits. Pluses equal minuses. If a forest just sits there and trees get old and die, they release CO2. Trees have less output of heat per pound then coal. Who cares? That’s not germane. We could log all the poorly managed forests before they burn. Win/win. Alex Varley-Winter may want to consider doing something useful and find a new career.

  30. How did we manage to miss J. Kauppinen & P. Malmi. 2019? Not yet published but here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

    … We prove that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot correctly compute the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. Low clouds mainly control the global temperature …

    … The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models. If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice. The major part of the extra CO2 is emitted from oceans, according to Henry`s law. The low clouds practically control the global average temperature. During the last hundred years the temperature is increased about 0.1°C because of CO2. The human contribution was about 0.01°C …

    • Yes these studies are becoming harder to ignore.
      Kauppinen is on the IPCC.

      • Steven Mosher

        wrong.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        A thermal gradient appears in all planetary atmospheres >10kPa.

      • Phil, regarding Robert Holmes paper, I have a difficult time understanding that if the surface temperature is determined by near-surface atmospheric pressure, near surface atmospheric density, and mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere, which of these parameters changed enough to explain the great difference in temperature (~15°C) between the Late Paleozoic ice age and the Early Cenozoic hothouse.

        I am not saying that the difference is due to GHGs, but it seems even more difficult that it is due to atmospheric changes in pressure or density.

      • Mosh

        No. Correct.

        http://lauriheimonen.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/278302-ipccn-naytonpuute-saa-lisaantyvaa-huomiota

        What he reviewed and how ‘expert’ he was I don’t know, but Phil’s claim is reasonable

        tonyb

      • verytallguy

        Tony, Mosh is correct.

        Kauppinen is an “Expert Reviewer”.

        This position is self-appointed.

        To describe him as “on the IPCC” is evidently risible.

        There is a full list here, for entertainment you can play “spot the sceptic”:
        http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexVI_FINAL.pdf

        The comments made and responses made can also be found online.

      • Javier
        Phil, regarding Robert Holmes paper, I have a difficult time understanding that if the surface temperature is determined by near-surface atmospheric pressure, near surface atmospheric density, and mean molar mass of the near-surface atmosphere, which of these parameters changed enough to explain the great difference in temperature (~15°C) between the Late Paleozoic ice age and the Early Cenozoic hothouse.

        I would say ocean circulation as constrained by continental configuration, glaciation and ice albedo, and hopping between glacial and nonglacial attractors (with periods of transition flicker in between).

      • verytallguy
        I suspected my info on Kauppinen and the IPCC may have been “open to interpretation”, thanks for clearing that up.

      • VTG

        You have to register to be an expert reviewer and the process removes much of the casual and the inappropriate. With your list you prove the point that most reviewers have a vested interest as a NGO, part of an institution etc (who may or may not be experts) rather than that they are sceptics, who are strongly outnumbered.

        In that respect the claim by phil salmon is correct and you need to look at the credentials of the author to see how ‘expert’ you believe them to be.

        I think the article is interesting but whether it is correct or even relevant and worthy of further research lies beyond my area of expertise

        tonyb

      • Tony, by that definition, anyone who registers an interest is “on the IPPC”, which is risible.

        The article itself is “interesting” only in as far as it’s interesting how such obvious dross generates any attention whatever.

      • I would say ocean circulation as constrained by continental configuration, glaciation and ice albedo, and hopping between glacial and nonglacial attractors (with periods of transition flicker in between).

        Phil,

        I have the same problem with Holmes hypothesis as I have with the CO2 hypothesis. In both hypotheses the planet needs to change its atmosphere to undergo a significant change of its temperature, and that is not what it is observed in the paleo record. Both hypotheses are wrong. The planet can get important temperature changes without significant atmospheric changes. Atmospheric hypotheses of temperature change are all wrong. The closure of the Panama seaway changed the temperature of the Earth without affecting its atmosphere. This means the temperature of the planet cannot be determined neither by GHG composition, nor by atmospheric pressure. The most likely factor that determines the temperature of the planet is the transport of energy from the tropics to the poles and what happens to that energy when it arrives at the poles. When the poles are not glaciated the more energy transported to the poles in summer the warmer the planet. When the poles are glaciated the more energy transported to the poles in winter the cooler the planet. That’s why affecting the energy transport by closing the Panama seaway had such a huge effect, as it had the placement of Antarctica at the South Pole where it remains glaciated year round. The planet built the perfect refrigerating system and it had nothing to do with atmospheric composition or pressure, and all with energy transport.

      • VTG

        ‘Spot the sceptic?’

        surely we should ALL be sceptics as the default position? As The Royal Society motto says ‘take nobody’s word for it’.

        The fact that this seems an alien position and sceptics are apparently a strange breed who need to be identified and whose comments are therefore suspect, seems disturbing.. Anyway, good to see you around

        tonyb

      • Javier

        Would you say the flooding of the English channel/north sea and erasing doggerland around 8 to 10000 years ago and thereby opening up a new oceanic method of heat transportation, had any impact on the climate?

        tonyb

      • Tony,

        The flooding of Doggerland must surely have affected regional climate, particularly the precipitation regime. However I ignore what impact it could have, if any, on global or hemispheric temperature. It depends on how much effect it had on the thermohaline circulation. I haven’t read anything about that.

      • Javier

        this is quite an interesting article

        https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2012/12/doggerland/

        a climate some 2 degrees warmer than today and a sea level rise of 6 feet in a century certainly puts today climate into perspective.

        The very last few paragraphs of the article make some mention of thermohaline circulation.

        I understand that a major study into doggerland was due to report around now . I have no idea of doggerlands significance as compared to panama but it must have had some impact

        tonyb

      • verytallguy: non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

        Actually, they correctly show that cloud changes could have caused global warming, and if they are correct the sensitivity to CO2 has been overestimated. Like authors everywhere, they claim more certitude than is justified by their analysis. Cloud cover deserves more study.

    • mark4asp: How did we manage to miss J. Kauppinen & P. Malmi. 2019? Not yet published but here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1907.00165.pdf

      They document the association between low cloud cover change and global mean temperature change. Caption to figure 2: Figure 2. [2] Global temperature anomaly (red) and the global low cloud cover changes (blue) according to the observations. The anomalies are between summer 1983 and summer 2008. The time resolution of the data is one month, but the seasonal signal is removed. Zero corresponds about 15°C for the temperature and 26 % for the low cloud cover.

      Granted correlation does not “prove” causation, but it is almost always non-ignorable “evidence about” causation. Low cloud cover is worthy of more study, as it may be a part of a negative feedback between surface warming and incoming radiation. It is potentially an antidote against the IPCC claim that only CO2 increase can account for the temperature increase since 1950.

      Cloud cover feedbacks are commonly listed among the “known unknowns”, and more research along these lines is to be commended.

      Exactly what Kauppinen’s relationship to IPCC is hardly matters.

  31. “Zharkova et al.17,18 reasonably argued that Sporer minimum is an artifact of the strongly increased at that time background radiation on the Earth caused by the explosion of a very close (about 600–700 light years) supernova Vela Junior occurred in the southern sky.”

    Based on empirical evidence of the fine planetary ordering of sunspot cycles and of centennial solar minima, Spörer was actually two separate centennial solar minima, a majorly long one from 1425, and another from 1550, which agrees well with weather records and chronicles from Europe. The 1530’s were very warm, 1540 had the greatest known European heatwave, and was also the greatest known drought year in Ethiopia.
    This centennial solar minimum will be as short as they ever get, while the next two will be the longest pair for some 3500 years, from the late 2090’s, and from 2200. Along the lines of the FFT element of the Steinhilber and Beer prediction. But more severe, as these minima are both longer than Maunder, which according to the planetary model was during three just solar cycles between 1672 and 1705. The 1650’s and 1660’s were mostly very warm in Europe, sunspot numbers may have been low then but I doubt that the solar wind was.

  32. from the abstract of the Zarkhova paper: Recently discovered long-term oscillations of the solar background magnetic field associated with double dynamo waves generated in inner and outer layers of the Sun indicate that the solar activity is heading in the next three decades (2019–2055) to a Modern grand minimum similar to Maunder one. On the other hand, a reconstruction of solar total irradiance suggests that since the Maunder minimum there is an increase in the cycle-averaged total solar irradiance (TSI) by a value of about 1–1.5 Wm−2 closely correlated with an increase of the baseline (average) terrestrial temperature. In order to understand these two opposite trends, we calculated the double dynamo summary curve of magnetic field variations backward one hundred thousand years allowing us to confirm strong oscillations of solar activity in regular (11 year) and recently reported grand (350–400 year) solar cycles caused by actions of the double solar dynamo.

    How accurate can the hundred-thousand-year back-projection of the double dynamic system be? Can it be shown to be accurate?

    It will be interesting to see if the predicted grand minimum occurs in the time frame 2019 – 2055.

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Strong blocking of circulation over the southern polar circle.


  34. And I have cited two papers based on cyclical analysis.

    Your cyclomasnia is not worth a damn.

    That’s exactly what most scientists thought of Milankovitch’s theory in the 1960s, but then a benthic core was produced that demonstrated that glaciations and interglacials occur in cycles. So your opinion is worthless. The present extended solar minimum is taking place exactly when the centennial cycle of solar activity indicated, and because of that it was predicted before it happened.

    • I took the recent prediction of sunspot numbers at the peak of SC25 from a NASA page. The isotope analogue was calculated by Mike Lockwood and updated by Ineson et al in the reference quoted and linked. So everyone but Javier is inclined to think that there may be a decline from the modern grand solar max this century.

      https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/12/week-in-review-science-edition-105/#comment-895365

      But even Milankovitch ‘cycles’ are aperiodic. There is chaos in orbits, chaos in solar fluid dynamics and chaos in the terrestrial response.

      The solar dynamo evolves moment by moment in an n-body dynamic infinitely more complex than Poincaré ‘s 3-body Hamiltonian. Small changes trigger large responses in the terrestrial system. A small, incremental change in NH insolation triggers runaway ice sheet feedbacks. All of these so called cycles – in reality state transitions in the complex dynamical Earth system – have large variations in periodicity.

      There is not a chance in hell of precision at the scale of the next few decades from cyclomania.

      • Ulric Lyons

        In my teens I once got a load of yellow flashing roadworks warning lights, stripped out the circuits and bulbs, made different colour spotlight gel cover for the bulbs, and connected potentiometers to the circuits to alter the flash rates. No matter how I set the potentiometers to make the lights flash out of sync with each other, they always fell back into integer ratios. Because they all shared one battery. That is an analogy for the harmonic agreements that planetary orbits naturally find.

      • “Much developed by Lagrange, Laplace and their followers, the mathematical theory entered a new era at the end of the 19th century with the works of Poincaré and since the 1950s with the development of computers. While the two-body problem is integrable and its solutions completely understood (see [2],[AKN],[Al],[BP]), solutions of the three-body problem may be of an arbitrary complexity and are very far from being completely understood.” http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Three_body_problem

        Note the section on the astronomer’s problem. The sun orbits chaotically around the barycenter of the solar system. With implications for spin and the solar dynamo.

        What you describe I presume is synchronous chaos. Nothing to do with romantic but outdated notions of harmony of the spheres.

        It has been found in nonlinear oscillations in the climate system.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288

      • So everyone but Javier is inclined to think that there may be a decline from the modern grand solar max this century.

        Well, then everyone but Javier is wrong. ☺

        Nobody can yet explain why solar activity presents periodicities, so the models are wrong or incomplete (what a surprise). The most (un)popular explanation is that they are due to the effect of the planets that would confer them the observed cyclicity. If that is the case solar activity is to a certain extent predictable, at least until the system evolves towards other periodicities.

        We shall see when SC26 arrives. Shan’t we?

      • There is chaos in orbits, chaos in solar fluid dynamics and chaos in the terrestrial response.

        Everything has a cause. The only chaos is in not understanding external forcing and in not understanding internal response.

        The last ten thousand years has seen the best regulation of temperatures in the same narrow bounds in the ice core data in the NH and SH while tilt and orbit changes reduced NH insolation while increasing SH insolation, both by 35 watts per meter squared. This is not chaos, this is internal, very robust, regulation.

      • Everything in deterministic chaos is deterministic.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        The position of the center of mass of the solar system is precisely determined by the gravitational forces of the planets of the solar system. The gravity of Jupiter and Saturn stabilizes planetary motion.

      • The center of mass of the solar system is not ‘precisely’ at the center of mass of the sun. Everything orbits the barycenter – including the sun. This modulates solar spin and the solar dynamo. It is an n-body gravitational problem that is not ‘precisely’ calculable.

      • Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow

      • It still applies as all the bodies act upon each other. But because the orbits are not circular, finer harmonies occur over longer periods. Like with the four primary bodies ordering sunspot variability. They first roughly harmonise at the scale of solar cycles, and then at the scale of centennial minima, and then over a very stable 1726.6 year cycle of 16 centennial minima, which needs to drop only one Earth-Venus synodic period roughly every 40,000 years to maintain parity.

        “It has been found in nonlinear oscillations in the climate system.”

        That is purely a lack of understanding how the Sun drives ocean phases via the NAO/AO. Calling any of this chaos is trying to make it appear that you know what you are talking about, when you don’t.

      • None of these aperiodic oscillations have a precise periodicity. Terrestrial nonlinear oscillators – ENSO, PDO, AO, etc – synchosize every 30 to 40 years and shift into a new climate state. There is a whole field of systems science that you neglect.

      • Ulric

        I don’t now how extensive your database of weather was in the 1300’s but you might be interested in this in order to tie in with your own research

        “The Third Horseman”William Rosen Penguin Books book about climate in 14th century
        The Chronicle of Guillaume de Nangis, written by a monk at the Abbey of Saint-Denis, records records their [rains] start in the middle of April. Other accounts have the storms arriving in Flanders around Pentecost, May 11. The abbot of Saint-Vincent, near Leon, noted that ‘it rained most marvelously and for so long.’ So long, in fact, that it didn’t stop, excepts for a day or two, until August. By one count, it rained for 155 days in a row, virtually everywhere in Europe north of the Pyrenees and Apls, west of the Urals: throughout France, Britain. the Baltic, and German principalities, Poland, and Lithuania. A weather index prepared in the twentieth century calculated the severity of winter frosts and summer rains throughout the Middle Ages, and not only found that the two decades 1310-1330 contained the worst winters on record but that the rainy years between 1310 and 1330 included the four worst winters in four centuries.”
        –“The Third Horseman”

        I recently wrote this about Torre Abbey at Torquay;

        ‘The changing climate at the end of the Medieval Warm period at Torre Abbey Torquay Devon, as set out in the recently researched general information boards set in the Abbey Buildings

        The Abbey -established in 1196- is set back around 200 yards from the shores of Torbay in South Devon. now known as the English Riviera.

        “Canons lived austere lives with only one heated room known as the calefactory (Latin Calefactus-made warm.) The additional fireplaces added during the 1300’s reflect the extreme weather conditions of this period.

        As the climate deteriorated during the 1300’s the original thatched roof of the Barn was replaced with a slate roof that was better able to to deal with stormy weather coming in from the sea (note; this signifies a change from warmer Westerlies to colder Easterlies)

        The most dramatic change in response to climate were the alterations to the cloister. The original cloister had wide walkways with gently sloping roofs where canons could sit and study or pray . As the climate became colder and wetter, this was no longer possible. The cloister was rebuilt with narrower walks and less shelter. The pitch of the roof was increased to shed heavy rains and even snow”

        In addition it is evident that many of the farms on Dartmoor at around 1450 feet were abandoned at this time as the climate worsened.

        Ironically as far as I can see (and my research on this is limited) the climate warmed again towards the end of the 1300’s.

        tonyb

      • Ulric Lyons

        Tony, there was a centennial solar minimum starting around 1315. I don’t know about the relative severity of the 1318 winter, but the winters of 1323-24 and 1324-25 were during direct heliocentric Jovian analogues of the winter of 1683-84. Which as you know was the coldest in the CET series. It is a variant of the 1783-84 and 1962-63 Jovian configuration type, but with the positions of Neptune and Uranus reversed. The position of the bisector of Earth and Venus relative to the gas giants dictates which season the major cold hits occur.

        https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/weather1.pdf

      • Ulric Lyons

        Robert, calling them chaotic is not science. I’m helping to open a whole field of systems science showing how they are solar driven and not inexplicable terrestrial chaos.

      • Ulric

        Thanks for your reply..

        I would observe that from looking at the now extensive records over many centuries that it appears that the rain was much more severe during the ‘cold’ periods than it appears to be in the warm periods which is the opposite to that often cited by such as Nasa and the Met office;

        “Rising temperatures will intensify the Earth’s water cycle, increasing evaporation. Increased evaporation will result in more storms, but also contribute to drying over some land areas. As a result, storm-affected areas are likely to experience increases in precipitation and increased risk of flooding, while areas located far away from storm tracks are likely to experience less precipitation and increased risk of drought.”

        tonyb

      • “The organizing power of the evolutionary paradigm… is paralleled by the organizing power of an Earth system perspective.”

        https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earthsystem/nutshell/index.html

      • There are internal climate cycles that use ice on land and water in the oceans in cycles that build ice when there is less ice and deplete ice when there is more ice. If sequestered ice did not grow in warm times, the warm times would stay warm. If sequestered ice did not deplete in cold times, the cold times would stay cold. Nothing suddenly changes. There are rapid advances and retreats of ice sheets, but it is due to slow changes in sequestering and depletion of ice.

      • The question of solar cycles and the coming ice seems was already answered by John L. Casey back in 2007 when his eleven major climate change predictions were proven true in 2014 !
        https://drrichswier.com/2014/08/24/guess-made-eleven-major-climate-change-predictions-come-true/

        Amazing how similar some of these 2007 predictions are to the ones in this thread.

      • The hydrological cycle has about a 9 day turnover. Storms spinning off the Arctic meet moist air in lower latitudes resulting in lower temps and intense rainfall.

        The powerful nonlinear Pacific oscillation has global implications for where drought or flooding occurs.

      • https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/earthsystem/nutshell/index.html

        I am reading this NASA nutshell Thanks

        My stomach turns when I get to the part where they harp about the unproven warming and harm that is supposed to be caused by CO2

        They never mention that CO2 is necessary for life and never mention that the more CO2 is making our crops grow better while using water more efficiently. Any pretend this is about actual science is gone. They never mention that a manmade lowering of CO2 by the same amount would have killed most of us. There might be food for the strongest.

        The limit on fossil fuel and CO2 is more about population control and the world new order, where we are gone and they control the only people left alive, very poor, living on little energy and food and paying most of what they have to the government that allows them to serve the few remaining rich and powerful. No airplanes, no big vehicles, no big boats, oops, I forget, the ruling class still has that stuff.

      • “From space we can view the Earth as a whole system, observe the net results of complex interactions, and begin to understand how the planet is changing in response to natural and human influences. For example, Earth system science has begun to understand and quantify the effects of “forcings” on the climate system produced by the Sun’s solar variability and the atmosphere’s increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and aerosols. The fact that researchers detect not just variability but trends in the key measures of Earth systems make it imperative for us to ask, “How is the Earth system changing, and what are the consequences for life on Earth?”
        (From NASA’s Earth Science Enterprise Strategy, 2003)

        You don’t seem to be reading what I’m reading. Besides which – carbon is much better returned to soils and ecosystems than in the atmosphere – for food security as much as anything else. Look at the fossil fuel era as an opportunity.

      • Ulric Lyons

        Tony, to clarify, 1324-25 winter was the best analogue of 1683-84, and it should have been followed by much warmer conditions with very mild winter conditions and warm summers like through 1685-86. The same v cold then v warm pattern would have also occurred through 1503-06. These local 179 year repeats of Jovian configurations slip completely out of sync after a few steps, and occasionally the last step in a series may be 180 or 181 years, like between 829 and 1010 when the Nile Froze, and their analogues in 1784 and 1963. It also depends on where they occur on the orbital paths, that also varies the periods.

      • Ulric Lyons

        jacksmith4tx
        Casey did not realise that the AMO would remain warm and that El Nino conditions would increase during this centennial solar minimum. That blows out most his predictions.

  35. A new phenomenon has started happening annually – a huge mat of seaweed extending from the Caribbean Sargasso Sea all the way across the equatorial Atlantic to west Africa:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190704191408.htm

    One of the reasons for this is fertiliser discharge from the Amazon.

    Another is cooling – not warming – of the ocean.

    And a third reason not mentioned in the research report, but likely significant, is atmospheric CO2 fertilisation.

    • It’s fascinating what pops up in searches for these key words:
      algae, bacteria, virus, ocean dead zones, plankton, krill
      You can now teach most search engines to watch and filter what you are interested in. Create separate IDs and profiles in the Google News and Bing News engines for so you don’t pollute the search results with your normal search patterns for shopping, local news and politics.
      Some of my favorites include various sub fields of AI, genetic engineering and the biosphere writ large. I pick up about a third of the same stuff our blog hostess does but I lean toward watching how the planet’s biosphere is changing.
      Oh and don’t forget tools like https://books.google.com/talktobooks/

    • jack
      Before there really was an internet, in the early 80’s, during my undergraduate degree in oceanography I towed a plankton net across the bay in a rowing boat at Banyuls-Sur-Mer in Southern France where the Marine Biology Lab is located – it seemed wrong to be working so hard and sweating in such an idyllic location. But that was when I first came face to face under the microscope with the unique beauty of marine plankton organisms (diatoms, flagellates, coccolithophores, medusae etc.) In my final year I studied the predator-prey curves of heterotrophic microflagellates and marine bacteria, using very visually pleasing acridine orange quantitative fluorescence microscopy. This time data collection was more mundane – just dropping a grain of rice in a light-shielded flask of Solent seawater, and waiting. More recently I learned about how Craig Venter, in his spare time from sequencing the human genome, scooped some seawater out of the Sargasso Sea and discovered tens of thousands of marine bacteria and viruses new to science. Just from their DNA or RNA. The micro-world is indeed an important part of what happens in the sea. CO2 enrichment from human emissions will impact the ocean micro-world – positively – as much as every other part.

      Later during my postgraduate fish biology degree I sampled zooplankton using the UOR (undulating oceanographic recorder) – a towed torpedo that described a since wave through the water from deeper to shallower levels, automatically sampling water at regular intervals. In a french trawler hired by the Marine Research Lab in Plymouth and relabelled a “research vessel” LOL. Being the student on board I got the “graveyard shift” from midnight to 4am. Then spent a whole summer analysing the captured sample for a 3D map of zooplankton by species. The focus was on mackerel spawning at the continental shelf edge between the Celtic Sea and the Bay of Biscay.

      My current work in 3D xray microscopes does bring me periodically back in contact with marine biology which is nice. I do try to keep up with developments in plankton biology as well as marine science in general. And in climate, which is a branch of oceanography (not meteorology). Thanks for your advice on search methods.

  36. “Airplanes’ “contrails” have a big climate impact” – but why shouldn’t the increased albedo be the dominant effect?

    • Indeed, studies of contrails show that their effect is to decrease daytime temps and increase nighttime, just like clouds.

    • jim
      You’re right about it being odd that albedo seems to be forgotten.
      It’s an astonishing brainwashing, such narrow focus on the back-radiation story that researchers somehow forget that (a) albedo occurs and that (b) we are not in the Long Night of Westeros. It is sometimes day.

    • Climate is self correcting, has been in the same bounds for ten thousand years. Warmer and colder cycles have occurred in the same bounds in both hemispheres, according to ice core data.

      If airplane contrails increase albedo, the climate system will self correct, There is more evaporation and precipitation, rain and snow, when oceans are warmer and more thawed. There is less evaporation and precipitation, rain and snow, when oceans are colder and more frozen.
      The temperature that sea ice forms and thaws does provide the set point for the thermostat that turns on the cooling and turns off the cooling. More ice extent occurs after more snowfall and causes more cooling by thawing and reflecting. The thawing is not considered by climate theory or models and that is a major error that will prevent them from ever being right.

      • Robert Clark

        The ice making stage of the last Ice Age lasted about 60,000 years. The ice in the ice core was formed during the first about 10,000 to 20,000 years. The ice melted from the top down during the Ice Melting stage. The dates are by carbon dating of solids. As the ice melts from the top down they lay on top.

      • Ice is always thawing. The thawing rate depends mostly on ice extent and where the ice is extended. There is not a time ice in an ice chest suddenly starts thawing faster. Warming occurs when the ice runs out. Ice ages work the same way.

  37. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Another indicator of the level of solar activity is the flux of radio emission from the Sun at a wavelength of 10.7 cm (2.8 GHz frequency). This flux has been measured daily since 1947. It is an important indicator of solar activity because it tends to follow the changes in the solar ultraviolet that influence the Earth’s upper atmosphere and ionosphere. Many models of the upper atmosphere use the 10.7 cm flux (F10.7) as input to determine atmospheric densities and satellite drag. F10.7 has been shown to follow the sunspot number quite closely and similar prediction techniques can be used. Our predictions for F10.7 are available in a text file, as a Jpeg image, and as a pdf-file. Current values for F10.7 can be found at: ftp://ftp.geolab.nrcan.gc.ca/data/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt.

    http://solarcyclescience.com/forecasts.html#Cycle24Prediction

  38. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The activity of the solar wind after a temporary increase decreases. At the same time, the NAO index drops.

    There are still no conditions in the eastern Atlantic for the formation of hurricanes.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/product.php?color_type=tpw_nrl_colors&prod=natl&timespan=24hrs&anim=html5

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski

    I show you the circulation over the eastern Atlantic.

  40. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Circulation over the Eastern Pacific is also unchanged. Still air flows from the northwest.

  41. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Circulation also does not change in the south.
    The loading pattern of the AAO is defined as the leading mode of Empirical Orthogonal Function (EOF) analysis of monthly mean 700 hPa height during 1979-2000 period.

    AAO index falling heavily.

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 )

Connecting to %s