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]

 

490 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.

      • There are so many fallacies and errors with regard to economics and economic history in this and your subsequent posts that it is hard to know where to begin.
        Let’s start with history:
        Not every boom leads to inflation. In the 1990s, the 1990-1 recession ended in March 1991 and there was a boom that lasted for the rest of the decade–accompanied by very low inflation. We also saw the lowest real (inflation adjusted) prices of gasoline at any time since World War II. The Bush expansion (2002-7) was accompanied by higher oil prices in the last couple years, (they tripled in the run-up to the recession) but inflation topped out at about 4%–higher than it had been but nothing like 1970s levels. In fact 4% as I note below was the rate seen in very expansionary 1980s. And to attribute even this level of inflation in 2007-8 to oil leaves out the housing bubble, Fed policies and other important economic elements of the time.
        You say “take 1979” and suggest that our economic problems then resulted from panic buying of gasoline and oil. The underlying problem in 1979 in the US was that the government still maintained price and allocation controls. That was why we had shortages; speculative buying in the US was due to fears of shortages which were manufactured not in Iran but in Washington. True the Iranian revolution took supply off the market, and prices rose but that caused neither the gas lines nor general inflation–US oil policy did in the former case and Fed over-accommodation did in the latter. In fact, the price of oil–in fact the price of any commodity–is only indirectly related to the inflation level. Inflation is typically, as Milton Friedman observed, a monetary phenomenon. Possibly, the price of oil led to a few (short-term) ticks in inflation; it also led to greater supply and the collapse of oil prices in 1980s, which was the US a period of robust economic expansion and inflation rates falling from double digits in the 1970s to around 4%.
        You suggest causality of good general economic variables due to government renewables policies. That is, because we’re spending money on highly subsidized renewables, this has led to (or at least made a large contribution to) general economic growth. Causality is hard to prove in macroeconomics. But what you seem to be doing is advancing a version of the “broken window” fallacy, noted by Bastiat in the 1800s. In other words, break all the windows in town and you get so much work for glaziers that you lift employment for window workers. But is this really the best government can do? Is this really a good way to get economic growth? Government spending on “winners” is bureaucratically redirecting resources away from more productive, market-related activities, and rewarding instead rent-seeking and other non-productive activities.
        I could go on. But suffice to say the level of economic analysis and knowledge of economic history here leaves much to be desired.

  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

    • Before Judy adds another fun video, she should read the conclusons of items on this weeks list like :

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

      What they found is indeed:
      ” insignificant: a 50 mW/m2 GHF anomaly, in case it is entirely spent on the ice sheet melting, will melt the base of the ice with a rate of only ca. 4.5 mm/year (for ice density of 0.934 t/m3 and heat of fusion of 334 kJ/kg”).

      The AGW thermal flux meting the ice from the top is an order of magnitude larger.

      You can have more fun hyping the MWP anyway

      https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2019/07/can-paleoclimate-trigger-warnings-save.html

      • https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-19244-x

        https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2689

        These studies indicate there is a geothermal impact on ice streams in Greenland. You might want to educate yourself and catch up with current science.

      • Keep your current science stick on the ice, kid- the study that found Greenland geothermal melting regionally:
        ” insignificant: a 50 mW/m2 GHF anomaly, in case it is entirely spent on the ice sheet melting, will melt the base of the ice with a rate of only ca. 4.5 mm/year (for ice density of 0.934 t/m3 and heat of fusion of 334 kJ/kg”).”

        appeared in Earth-Science Reviews this January:

        Lithosphere thermal thickness and geothermal heat flux in Greenland from a new thermal isostasy method

        https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2018.10.015

      • “A high heat flux from the Earth’s interior enhanced by a hot fluid percolation above active magma chambers at the edge of the ice cap may have dramatic consequences for ice basal melting in the central-eastern Greenland, and may be an important contributor to the Northeast Greenland Ice Stream in Central Greenland “

        “….dramatic consequences for Ice basal melting….”

        This is the entire issue, basal melting.

        Why don’t we spend some time on Antarctica and you can tell me that geothermal activity has no effect there, either. Of course, then I will bring out a dozen studies that would counter that specious argument.

      • What part of

        a 50 mW/m2 GHF anomaly, in case it is entirely spent on the ice sheet melting, will melt the base of the ice with a rate of only ca. 4.5 mm/year

        Don’t you understand?

        That’s the rate of basal melting , and it is counterfactual, if not delusional , to elide that rate with anyone having assertied a null effect.

      • Maeir et al 2019 attributes 96% of Ice Sheet movement to basal sliding. This is about ice sheet and glacial movement and thinning of those glaciers and the contribution to GMSLR through those dynamics. It’s tragic that you are unaware of the science.

      • Geoff Sherrington

        Geothermal, ice melting etc.
        For many purposes, there is low interest in documenting that geothermal is present, or even that new hot spots are found.
        Of more interest are measurements that show significant changes, both plus and minus, of flux on decadal time scales.
        Authors should be more clear about which general case they discuss. Geologists tend to assume decadal change is rather rare, while alarmists seem to expect it as a foregone consequence of their global warming assumptions. Big difference in attitudes, when only proper measurement and attribution matters. Geoff S

  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

      • Going by the eddy solar cycle alone we are now at Oort that took place just after 1000 AD.:

        Since it was a Dalton like minimum it would involve 4 or 5 SC and look something like this:

    • 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.

      • Wally was wrong.

        Parker, A. and Ollier, C.D., 2016. There is no real evidence for a diminishing trend of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Journal of Ocean Engineering and Science, 1(1), pp.30-35.
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246801331500008X

        “There is no reliable measure of the AMOC direct or based on proxies that covers a sufficient time window to show a clear trend beyond inter-annual and multi-decadal variability. Claims of strengthening or reducing of the AMOC are therefore pure speculation.”

        The build up of pools of warm subsurface water during cold stadials that precede DO events obviously depends on AMOC that is responsible for warm water advection from the tropic. However the sudden break up of an inherently unstable water stratification that depends on a constant supply of melt water is the trigger of the abrupt release of the stored heat. These are very particular conditions that, as I have said, depend on having a large store of water with a big ΔT.

        You cannot get an abrupt change in global temperature without an abrupt release of a large pool of water at a very different temperature. It is a question of mass and enthalpy. Otherwise the planet warms or cools slowly and it takes centuries to millennia to produce big changes. That’s what alarmists like you are unable to understand. There is no urgency on this matter.

      • The 26 degree north array says different.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017GL076350

        And abrupt change is defined as the system being pushed past a threshold at which stage internal variability determines a rate of change that is faster than the original forcing.

      • After measuring just 13 years they see changes that indicate AMOC undergoes multidecadal variability. Big deal, like everything else in the climate system.

        And from this you infer an abrupt change. No wonder climate science is so appalling.

        There is absolutely no evidence that AMOC is doing something that hasn’t been doing many times before. And there is no evidence that abrupt warming is even possible under present conditions.

        In 1990 IPCC thought that the 1980s warming was due in its entirety to the increase in CO2 and so it projected an increase in warming rate over time leading to +1°C increase by 2025.

        They were wrong. Despite a bigger increase in CO2 than anticipated the warming rate did not increase, but actually decreased in the 2000s.

        The evidence, both paleo and instrumental, support my interpretation, not yours. There is no evidence that the planet surface can warm significantly faster than it has been doing for the past 70 years. The only clear precedents involve special conditions.

        All your talk about abrupt climate change indicates the typical alarmist lack of understanding on how the planet responds to external forcings. It strongly resists change in any direction due to the high inertia of the oceans. Otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

      • What I said was that AMOC was declining. Also that it is implicated in past transitions. Wally was right.

        “The climate system has jumped from one mode of operation to another in the past. We are trying to understand how the earth’s climate system is engineered, so we can understand what it takes to trigger mode switches. Until we do, we cannot make good predictions about future climate change… Over the last several hundred thousand years, climate change has come mainly in discrete jumps that appear to be related to changes in the mode of thermohaline circulation.” Wally Broecker


        https://www.ocean-sci.net/10/29/2014/

        I expect that AMOC is coupled with the Arctic oscillation – which itself may be coupled with solar variability.

        e.g. – https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms8535https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/3/034004/meta

        It is linked to ENSO, the Gulf stream and AMO via the gyre hypothesis.

        e,g, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283053909_Decadal_Patterns_of_Westerly_Winds_Temperatures_Ocean_Gyre_Circulations_and_Fish_Abundance_A_Review

        You will find both sides of climateball are adept at casting doubt on data when it offends the narrative – the tell is simplistic narratives consisting largely of partisan rhetoric and told with an impossible dogmatic certitude.

        But frankly the key term here is mode switch – and this one is more likely to cause abrupt cooling than warming. Abrupt warming is more likely to result from nonlinear cloud feedback. I’m on the fence.

        “Climate scientist Tapio Schneider, who co-authored the paper, said it’s important to note “there are substantial uncertainties about quantitative results. The largest uncertainty is in the CO2 level at which the clouds become unstable—we cannot pinpoint that with precision.”

        “The central point to me is that our study points to the possibility of previously undiscovered and strong feedbacks in the climate system,” he added.” https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613016/the-loss-of-clouds-could-add-another-8-c-to-global-warming/

        I’m suggesting soil and ecosystem restoration – pollutant – nitrous oxides, CFC’s, methane, black carbon and sulfur – reduction and support for small modular reactor prototypes. As a hedge against suspected but inevitable unknowns.

      • Wally (Broecker) was wrong. His salt-oscillator hypothesis has failed to gain support from evidence and has even disappeared from textbooks (present in the first edition of Ruddiman’s “Earth’s climate. Past and future” but absent in the second and third). Broecker’s hypothesis of AMOC shutdown that inspired the 2004 movie “The Day After Tomorrow,” was described in his 1999 article:
        “Greenhouse-driven polar warming and strengthening of the hydrologic cycle during the coming 100 or so years may push the system over the brink once again, bringing the conveyor to a halt.”
        It was severely criticized by Carl Wunsch in correspondence to Nature in 2004:
        “Gulf Stream safe if wind blows and Earth turns”
        In Carl Wunsch’s 2006 lecture “Notes on the Ocean Circulation for Climate Understanding” that is required reading for anyone trying to understand the complexities of ocean circulation, he further criticizes Wally Broecker’s depiction of the global conveyor:
        “The mean circulation involves an integral of many small-scale, extremely energetic time-varying components. A change in high latitude sinking rates need not simply propagate upstream in the one-dimensional conveyor. Stoppage of North Atlantic sinking does not preclude its appearance somewhere else. Sinking motions cannot drive the meridional overturning circulation–they can only influence its properties.”
        He also shows that ocean circulation is the result of the energy provided mainly by wind and tides in the context of a rotating Earth. Something that was intuitively understood from early navigation, allowed the discovery of the Americas by Christopher Columbus, but appears to have been forgotten by modern “climate science.”

        The only real climate switch in terms of global temperature is the build up or melt of extra-polar ice sheets constituting the glacial cycle. As the present global warming takes us farther away from that switch it results in an increase in climate stability.

        AMOC multidecadal variability appears to match AMO and probably ties in with the inter-connected multidecadal variability between many climate subsystems so imaginatively described in the “Stadium Wave” hypothesis developed by Marcia Wyatt and co-authored by our host, Judith Curry. Now, you want to be afraid, very afraid, of multidecadal variability as Wally Broecker, that’s your problem.


        Figure from Broecker’s 1999 article. Clear example of the wrongful application of the uncertainty principle by climate alarmists.

      • “This proposed ‘salt oscillator hypothesis’ was first put forth by Broecker et al. (1990a) as a mechanism to explain how salinity oscillations in the Atlantic Ocean could modulate the strength of AMOC and cause the D-O cycles of the last ice age. Since then, several studies have suggested that it only takes a small reduction in sea surface salinity to alter the rate of NADW formation, and that large inputs of fresh water from melting ice sheets to the North Atlantic could even cause a complete collapse of AMOC (Figure 3) (Clark et al. 1999, 2001, Stouffer et al. 2006). Furthermore, the presence of the ice sheets around the margins of the North Atlantic during the last ice age provided a freshwater source that could rapidly alter surface salinity at sites of deep-water formation. During warm interstadials, enhanced heat transport to the North Atlantic would cause melting along the margins of the ice sheets, gradually reducing surface salinity and weakening AMOC until stadial conditions returned (Figure 3).”

        Sea surface salinity of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

        The convergence of warm, moist air from the trade winds (purple arrows) leads a region of convection and cloudiness along the equator known as the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) (grey line). The trade winds blowing across the tropical Atlantic cause a net transport of freshwater out of the North Atlantic basin and makes the waters there very salty (Broecker et al. 1990b, Zaucker & Broecker 1992). As these warm, salty waters of the tropical Atlantic circulate north to the sub-polar regions of the North Atlantic via the Gulf Stream (dark blue arrows), evaporation causes the surface waters to cool, and the remaining salt results in the formation of very cold, salty surface waters (Conkright 2002). These waters eventually become dense enough to sink in the region south of Greenland and in the Norwegian Sea, forming North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW). The NADW then flows southward along the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean (green arrows). This transport of northward flowing surface waters and southward flowing deep waters is what oceanographers call Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).”

        Although it is true that ocean currents don’t flow in straight lines as the schematics suggest – and ocean currents are caused largely by the Coriolis force in baroclinic oceans. No serious oceanographer is unaware of this.

        “The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) extends from the Southern Ocean to the northern North Atlantic, transporting heat northwards throughout the South and North Atlantic, and sinking carbon and nutrients into the deep ocean. Climate models indicate that changes to the AMOC both herald and drive climate shifts.” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2019.00260/full

        Wall’s climate beast – at which we are poking sticks – is a metaphor for abrupt and nonlinear shifts in the climate system.

        “The stadium wave is a term that refers to a hypothesis of multidecadal climate variability describing climate behavior as a network of synchronized ocean, ice, and atmospheric indices, through which a signal propagates sequentially in an ordered lead-lag relationship – hence, the allusive term, “stadium wave”.

        The fundamental view upon which the stadium-wave hypothesis is built is that over long timescales, “parts” of a system organize into a network of interacting sub-systems resulting in collective behavior. Intra-network interactions yield positive and negative feedbacks, together generating an oscillatory behavior.” http://www.wyattonearth.net/

        Marcia Wyatt is right as well. Synchronous chaos in the complex dynamical climate system produces regime change and persistence at all scales, It is far from being alarmed to recognize the fundamental mode of operation of the system

      • The salt-oscillator hypothesis is an old hypothesis that is no longer considered as it has not found support in the evidence. You have to look at more recent articles to see what scientists believe it is going on during DO-events in the North Atlantic-Nordic Seas.

        Sadatzki, H., et al. “Sea ice variability in the southern Norwegian Sea during glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles.” Science advances 5.3 (2019): eaau6174.
        “Our results document that initial sea ice reductions at the core site preceded the major reinvigoration of convective deep-water formation in the Nordic Seas and abrupt Greenland warming; sea ice expansions preceded the buildup of a deep oceanic heat reservoir. Our findings suggest that the sea ice variability shaped regime shifts between surface stratification and deep convection in the Nordic Seas during abrupt climate changes.”

        Ezat, M. M., Rasmussen, T. L., & Groeneveld, J. (2014). Persistent intermediate water warming during cold stadials in the southeastern Nordic seas during the past 65 ky. Geology, 42(8), 663-666.
        “The rise in [bottom water temperature] during stadials confirms earlier interpretations of subsurface inflow of warm Atlantic water below a halocline reaching >1.2 km water depth. 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“.

        Eldevik, T., & Nilsen, J. E. Ø. (2013). The Arctic–Atlantic thermohaline circulation. Journal of Climate, 26(21), 8698-8705.
        “It is found, maybe surprisingly, that the strength of Atlantic inflow is relatively insensitive to anomalous fresh-water input; it mainly reflects changes in northern heat loss. Freshwater anomalies are predominantly balanced by the inflow’s partition into estuarine and overturning circulation with southward polar outflow in the surface and dense overflow at depth, respectively”.

        Without a deep oceanic heat reservoir you can’t get the abrupt warming. Salinity changes are not believed to drive the system during DO glacial periods. Wally was wrong in this as in many other things like the shutdown of AMOC, that is also not supported by evidence.

        The idea that bottom water formation drives the strength of AMOC through mass balance is silly beyond belief. Oceanic currents require energy to overcome friction, and the energy is provided by wind and tides within the context of basin geometry in a rotating Earth. Bottom water formation provides no energy and its only effect in the absence of other factors would be to increase the height of the bottom cold layer all over the globe.

        Wally’s climate beast is a metaphor for the fear of the unknown. Abrupt and nonlinear shifts in the climate system are also mythical beasts. Glaciations/deglaciations are not abrupt (they take many thousands of years), and DO events respond to the release of accumulated warm subsurface water, as the 8.2 kyr event responds to the release of accumulated cold proglacial lake water. No store to release, no abrupt change.

      • Water in high latitudes sinks as density increases due to cooling and evaporation.


        https://sites.google.com/a/salinityremotesensing.ifremer.fr/public/home

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

        “The last ice age wasn’t one long big chill. Dozens of times temperatures abruptly rose or fell, causing all manner of ecological change. Mysteriously, ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show that these sudden shifts—which occurred every 1500 years or so—were out of sync in the two hemispheres: When it got cold in the north, it grew warm in the south, and vice versa. Now, scientists have implicated the culprit behind those seesaws—changes to a conveyor belt of ocean currents known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC).” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/06/crippled-atlantic-currents-triggered-ice-age-climate-change

        And yes we know it is not a conveyor belt.

        ” Here we provide several lines of palaeo-oceanographic evidence that Labrador Sea deep convection and the AMOC have been anomalously weak over the past 150 years or so (since the end of the Little Ice Age, LIA, approximately AD 1850) compared with the preceding 1,500 years.”
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0007-4

        “A change in insolation affects the Earth’s five main climatic reservoirs-atmosphere, ocean, land surfaces, cryosphere, and vegetation- and each of them affects, in turn, the Earth’s other reservoirs through feedback mechanisms that amplify or reduce the original climate change (Ruddiman, 2001). Thus the frequency, duration and magnitude of a given climate change is the result of the interactions between orbital external forcing and internal feedback loops involving, for example, ocean currents, particularly the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), ice-sheet and sea-ice dynamics, vegetation, volcanic eruptions, GHG concentrations, and albedo (Ruddiman, 2001).” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2018.00038/full

        “Overall, the Past4Future findings unambiguously demonstrate that abrupt climate changes are not limited to glacial conditions, but can also occur in a warm world.
        Changing ocean circulation, increasing
        greenhouse gas concentrations and instabilities of the remaining polar ice sheets are candidates for causing future abrupt
        changes.” http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/magazine/2015-1/PAGESmagazine_2015%281%29_Magazine_LoRes.pdf

        To repeat Javier’s first quote above.

        Sadatzki, H., et al. “Sea ice variability in the southern Norwegian Sea during glacial Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycles.” Science advances 5.3 (2019): eaau6174.
        “Our results document that initial sea ice reductions at the core site preceded the major reinvigoration of convective deep-water formation in the Nordic Seas and abrupt Greenland warming; sea ice expansions preceded the buildup of a deep oceanic heat reservoir. Our findings suggest that the sea ice variability shaped regime shifts between surface stratification and deep convection in the Nordic Seas during abrupt climate changes.”

        “Climate is ultimately complex. Complexity begs for reductionism. With reductionism, a puzzle is studied by way of its pieces. While this approach illuminates the climate system’s components, climate’s full picture remains elusive. Understanding the pieces does not ensure understanding the collection of pieces. ” Marcia Wyatt

        I have no single or simple answer. Just that emergent behavior of complex dynamical systems involves multiple negative and positive feedbacks with an order – a new regime – emerging from disorder. I’d keep an eye on clouds and AMOC.

      • I have no single or simple answer.

        The single simple answer that is being promoted is that the increase in CO2 is responsible for the warming observed. Such a narrow view is fashionable, but we should all be skeptical of it.

        Climate is very complex, but its response to CO2 has been made overwhelming without clear evidence for it. There will be a high prize to pay for that.

      • There is an article linking regenerative agriculture to the Green New Deal. CO2 is an opportunity rather than an insurmountable problem.

        Global warming can be solved. Electricity is 25% of the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. A multi-gas and aerosol strategy is required – carbon dioxide. CFC’s, nitrous oxides, methane, black carbon and sulfate. Ongoing decreases in carbon intensity and increases in efficiency and productivity. And technical innovation across sectors – energy, transport, industry, residential and agriculture and forestry.

        Much of it is on track in rich economies. Put a few billions into soils and ecosystems – and some more into first of a kind SMR prototypes.

        Eyes on the prize and not skeptic distractions.

      • 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.

      • Robert I Ellison: The CO2 hypothesis has been verified on a planetary scale.

        Javier: 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.

        Robert I. Ellison 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.

        So Robbie, lots more stuff about dynamical complexity and chaos theory — all reproduced from your (many) previous entries. But can you tell us how much all that dynamical systems scholarship contributes to answering Javier’s question? How much of the warming can reasonably be attributed to CO2 accumulation beyond “reasonable” doubt?

      • Robert I Ellison: And abrupt change is defined as the system being pushed past a threshold at which stage internal variability determines a rate of change that is faster than the original forcing.

        You have written that a lot. But you have never presented an instance of climate change where those elements of the definition have been shown to have occurred: (a) pushed past a threshold: (b) rate of change of system faster than the (c) rate of change of original forcing. As they say in math, the phrase “abrupt change” of climate, by that definition, refers to an empty set.

      • I generally ignore Matthew – there are no answers to his questions that he finds satisfactory.

        Climate shifts in the modern era involve synchronous chaos in climate indices.

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

        Shifts in the coupled Pacific state result in shifts in cloud, sea level pressure, winds and currents that shift the global energy dynamic and change the trajectory of global temperature.

        Restating definitions is required when people are defining it as something other.

      • “What defines a climate change as abrupt? Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced to cross some threshold, triggering a transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause. Chaotic processes in the climate system may allow the cause of such an abrupt climate change to be undetectably small.” https://www.nap.edu/read/10136/chapter/3#14

        The definition comes from a seminal work on the topic. There are many examples of what are called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point.

        The definition is an attempt to define in words emergent properties of a chaotic system. To prattle on about the terms of the definition rather than trying to comprehend their significance signals an empty head rather than an empty set.

      • Robert I Ellison: Climate shifts in the modern era involve synchronous chaos in climate indices.

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

        Shifts in the coupled Pacific state result in shifts in cloud, sea level pressure, winds and currents that shift the global energy dynamic and change the trajectory of global temperature.

        That is nice, but you still have not produced an example of “abrupt climate change” that satisfies the criteria of the dictionary definition.

        I generally ignore Matthew – there are no answers to his questions that he finds satisfactory.

        That is not so. You can’t generally provide accurate, empirically based answers to my questions (or responses to my critiques). Here is something you quoted that I like a lot: “Climate scientist Tapio Schneider, who co-authored the paper, said it’s important to note “there are substantial uncertainties about quantitative results. The largest uncertainty is in the CO2 level at which the clouds become unstable—we cannot pinpoint that with precision.”

        “The central point to me is that our study points to the possibility of previously undiscovered and strong feedbacks in the climate system,” he added.” https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613016/the-loss-of-clouds-could-add-another-8-c-to-global-warming/

        “points to possibilities”, “previously undiscovered and strong feedbacks” (“unknown unknowns”, anyone?), “substantial uncertainties about quantitative results”.

        “could add”, or “could subtract” — it’s all about maybe.

      • No – it is about mechanisms and analytic uncertainty. The essence of science.

      • Robert I Ellison: it is about mechanisms and analytic uncertainty.

        Don’t forget measurement inadequacies: unmeasured covariates, biased measurement plans, random measurement error, systematic measurement error, etc.

      • Robert I Ellison: To prattle on about the terms of the definition rather than trying to comprehend their significance

        Robbie, there was no “prattle”, nor do you quote any. To have a definition which is not satisfied by even one climate example is “angels on the head of a pin” territory: “[comprehending] the significance” of what hasn’t even one time been shown to exist?

        It isn’t that I personally can not be satisfied with reasonable answers, it’s that you can’t supply even one example of a climate change that satisfies the definition of “abrupt climate change”. You are literally writing about nothing.

      • “What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere.”
        https://www.geomar.de/en/news/article/klimavorhersagen-ueber-mehrere-jahre-moeglich/

        I just gave you these ones. Along with the math and the observations. You are the epitome of prattling on about nothing.

      • Matthew

        I haven’t been following this long sub thread very closely but does this fit the bill?

        https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/12/week-in-review-science-edition-105/#comment-895494

        We can also point to the sharp deterioration of the climate in the 1300’s that was so dramatic that the monks at nearby Torre Abbey were forced to put roofs over cloisters, build fireplaces and brick up windows in order to combat the wet, windy and cold climate in stark contrast to what had gone before.

        Let us also not forget the advent of CET which shows we went from the depths of the LIA in 1695 to the warmest decades until the 1990’s that then again came to such a cold reversal in 1740 that Phil Jones wrote an article about it

        tonyb

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

        I endorse “suggestions” and “hypotheses”, along with “maybe”. There “might” be instances of “abrupt climate change” (as frequently referred to) that actually do satisfy the definition that you quote; and there might be instances of “catastrophes”, and “bistability” such as your mathematical/computational/graphical excerpts describe, but you have not provided any examples where the measurements and modeling confirm them. Many things can be defined and described that do not exist, like power-producing low-temperature fusion devices.

        Asserting your certainty in your explanatory scheme, and insulting people who point out that you can’t produce any examples that conform closely to the scheme, don’t move the discussion forward.

      • Robert I Ellison: “What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes. They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mid-1970s and rapid cooling in the late 1990s. Both events turned the world’s climate topsy-turvy and are clearly reflected in the average temperature of the Earth. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere.”

        Right. We discussed that one before. The authors do not in fact show that the terms of the textual definition you frequently quote are met. They do not show, for example, that the climate change occurred faster than the change in the forcing, whatever it might have been. The last line “suggests” that there was no precipitating event; they do not identify one, nor show that the climate change happened faster than the change in any conjectural precipitating event.

        In usage, “abrupt climate change” doesn’t mean anything more than unexpectedly rapid (“unusual”, in the above quote”), and is used without reference to the definition that you cite.

      • Climate Reason: We can also point to the sharp deterioration of the climate in the 1300’s that was so dramatic that the monks at nearby Torre Abbey were forced to put roofs over cloisters, build fireplaces and brick up windows in order to combat the wet, windy and cold climate in stark contrast to what had gone before.

        Maybe. Can you show that it satisfies the 3 elements of the definition quoted by Robbie Ellison? My “prattling” on the this topic of the non-definition of “abrupt” in practice has been going on for a few years now in this space. In practice, “abrupt” has no operational definition, and simply means “unusual”, “unexpected” or some such.

      • Matthew

        I don’t want to come between the proponents in an ancient feud. :)

        To me a climate change scenario must be large enough to be noticed, come out of nowhere and be prolonged. In that respect the modern period of warming probably does not qualify as it has been gradual and as yet not particularly large.

        tonyb

      • climatereason: To me a climate change scenario must be large enough to be noticed, come out of nowhere and be prolonged.

        “out of nowhere” probably can’t happen. Can “large enough to be noticed” and “prolonged” be defined well enough to permit agreement that anything satisfies the definition or does not satisfy it? Generally that requires an operational definition. Does any of that quote have anything to do with “abrupt”?

      • There are 1000’s of studies on abrupt climate change. That Matty can’t reconcile this with the NAS definition is neither here nor there.

      • Robert I Ellison: There are 1000’s of studies on abrupt climate change. That Matty can’t reconcile this with the NAS definition is neither here nor there.

        What is here or there is that neither you nor anyone else has shown that any examples of “abrupt” climate change fit the textbook definition that you quote.

      • So Matty imagines that the NAS should change it’s definition of abrupt climate change? There is so much that is so absurd about this that it is little wonder if I go back to ignoring him.

      • Robert I Ellison: No – it is about mechanisms and analytic uncertainty.

        Don’t forget! It is also about rates, changes in rates, and rates of change in rates. Those also are not known very exactly.

      • “What happened in the years 1976/77 and 1998/99 in the Pacific was so unusual that scientists spoke of abrupt climate changes.”
        I just gave you these ones.

        You just showed your ignorance by mistaking climate regime shifts with abrupt changes. Shifts are inherent to oscillations when the direction of change reverses.

        Miller, A. J., et al. “The 1976-77 climate shift of the Pacific Ocean.” Oceanography 7.1 (1994): 21-26.

        “This remarkable climate transition was illustrated by Ebbesmeyer et al. (1991) in a composite time series of 40 environmental variables (Fig. 2). Each of the 40 time series were normalized by their standard deviation, then averaged together to form a single time series, which suggests that a step-like shift occurred in the winter of 1976-77. The North Pacific climate system fluctuated around this perturbed state for roughly 10 years thereafter (Trenberth, 1990).”

        Minobe, S. (1999). Resonance in bidecadal and pentadecadal climate oscillations over the North Pacific: Role in climatic regime shifts. Geophysical Research Letters, 26(7), 855-858.

        “The climate change in the 1970s is often called a climatic regime shift, reflecting the fact that a transition from one climatic state to another has occurred within a period substantially shorter than the lengths of the individual epochs of each climatic state. The regime shift in the 1970s was marked by significant changes in the physical environment that resulted in dramatic changes in marine and terrestrial variables in the North Pacific and western North America [see the summary reviews in Trenberth and Hurrel, 1994, and Mantua et al., 1997]. The regime shift in the 1970s is not a unique phenomenon. Pan-Pacific regime shifts have been observed also in the 1920s and the 1940s in the averaged winter-spring (Dec.–May) strength of the Aleutian low (Fig. 1) and in a number of other physical variables [Kondo, 1988; Parker et al., 1994; Dettinger and Cayan, 1995; Hare and Francis, 1995; Zhang et al., 1997; Minobe, 1997; Mantua et al., 1997]. The periodicity of a climate oscillation associated with these regime shifts is estimated to be about 50–70 years (hereafter referred to as pentadecadal variability) based on instrumental records for the North Pacific Ocean and North America, and also on tree-ring records for western North America [Minobe, 1997].”

        The problem for you is that climatic regime shifts do not fit the NAS definition of abrupt climate change that you defend even if they are abrupt, because it is not the crossing of a threshold that accelerates change in the same direction. It actually involves a reversal in the direction of the change, and thus cannot be the result of a tipping point. It is also the opposite of chaotic, as climate regime shifts are quasi-periodic and part of an oscillation, and therefore predictable to a certain extent.

        Abrupt climate changes do exist and I wrote an entire series of articles analyzing them, but it didn’t do you much good as despite all your sciency babble you don’t know what they are and what causes them. Giving the wrong examples shows that the emperor is naked.

      • That was a quote from Mojib Latif. So I start from a position of strength.

        “We construct a network of observed climate indices in the period 1900–2000 and investigate their collective behavior. The results indicate that this network synchronized several times in this period. We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s. We also find the evidence for such type of behavior in two climate simulations using a state‐of‐the‐art model. This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288

        More recent work is identifying abrupt climate changes working through the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, the Artic Oscillation, the Indian Ocean Dipole and other measures of ocean and atmospheric states. These are measurements of sea surface temperature and atmospheric pressure over more than 100 years which show evidence for abrupt change to new climate conditions that persist for up to a few decades before shifting again. Global rainfall and flood records likewise show evidence for abrupt shifts and regimes that persist for decades. In Australia, less frequent flooding from early last century to the mid 1940’s, more frequent flooding to the late 1970’s and again a low rainfall regime to recent times.

        Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. Ocean and atmospheric indices – in this case the El Niño Southern Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and the North Pacific Oscillation – can be thought of as chaotic oscillators that capture the major modes of climate variability. Tsonis and colleagues calculated the ‘distance’ between the indices. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.

        It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. Our ‘interest is to understand – first the natural variability of climate – and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,’ Tsonis said.

        Four multi-decadal climate shifts were identified in the last century coinciding with changes in the surface temperature trajectory. Warming from 1909 to the mid 1940’s, cooling to the late 1970’s, warming to 1998 and the ‘hiatus’ since. The shifts are punctuated by extreme El Niño Southern Oscillation events. Fluctuations between La Niña and El Niño peak at these times and climate then settles into a damped oscillation. Until the next critical climate threshold. It is in the nature of fluid flow in Earth’s spatio-temporal chaotic system.

        Climate as a complex dynamical system – in the broad class of such systems and with all that implies – is an idea that is beyond you. But the weight of science is behind it. It is the world of Prigogine, Hurst, Mandelbrot, Kolmogorov and
        Lorenz in which – to paraphrase Marcia Wyatt – understanding the parts does not mean understanding Earth system dynamics.

        https://watertechbyrie.com/2014/06/23/the-unstable-math-of-michael-ghils-climate-sensitivity/

      • We can define abrupt climate change anyway it pleases us, since language is ambiguous and abrupt is a relative term. What we cannot do is define it one way and then use it another. In your words:
        “An abrupt change is defined as the system being pushed past a threshold at which stage internal variability determines a rate of change that is faster than the original forcing.”
        But changes in the direction of variation take place by definition at a certain time when the rate of change goes through zero to the opposite sign.

        The change in 1976 does not fit the definition of abrupt climate change. There is no evidence of any threshold, and opposite to the definition the rate of change in absolute value decreases as the system approaches the shift, as it has to go through the zero value. There is no evidence either that the original forcing underwent any change in 1976.

        Calling any crossing of the zero line in warming rate an abrupt change is obviously silly.

        By looking at the main indicator of climate change (global surface average temperature) we don’t detect any abrupt change in 1976, just a change in direction:

        Neither we do in 1998 unless you want to consider strong ENSO events as abrupt changes.

        What we detect is the ~60-yr oscillation, but defining the regime shifts intrinsic to any oscillation as abrupt changes goes against the definition you stated and essentially empties the term from any meaning, as Matthew says. When every change is abrupt then no change is abrupt. Just change.

        So climate scientists study multidecadal oscillations and they detect the regime shifts when phases change. And some of them like to call them abrupt changes to make their work look fancier. Big deal. It is clear that what they are calling abrupt changes have nothing to do with what paleoclimatologists are calling abrupt changes. DO events were abrupt changes, multidecadal oscillations are not. Climate is all the time doing multidecadal oscillations.

        Anybody that calls regime shifts as abrupt change is not using your definition, it is using a different one.

      • Robert I Ellison: So Matty imagines that the NAS should change it’s definition of abrupt climate change?

        another claim(?) about me without an exact quote. What I wrote is that there are no examples you can present of “abrupt” climate change that satisfy the definition. So when you quote the definition to us, you are not writing about anything in the actual climate.

        In the examples where authors refer to “abrupt” climte change, it is with respect to something other than the NAS definition, usually an implicit, literally unstated, standard of how fast the system under study had been expected to change. As used, “abrupt” climate change is merely a change that is faster than some other climate change.

      • javier: You just showed your ignorance by mistaking climate regime shifts with abrupt changes. Shifts are inherent to oscillations when the direction of change reverses.

        Quite so.

      • Robert I Ellison: That was a quote from Mojib Latif. So I start from a position of strength.

        Sure, I respect Latif’s work. But you still have not produced an example of climate change that satisfies the definition of “abrupt” that you quote. “Abrupt” climate change that results from the occasional (possibly quasiperiodic, but seldom observed in climate) synchrony of chaotic oscillations is not change that is more rapid than the (nonexistent) precipitating event.

      • “abrupt” climate change is merely a change that is faster than some other climate change.

        “abrupt” climate change is a regional measurement but not a global average change.

      • Robert
        The CO2 hypothesis has been verified on a planetary scale.
        Does this “verification” include any attempt to distinguish between cause and effect? CO2 is a lagged proxy of temperature. How is it possible for evidence of correlation CO2-temperature to be automatically interpreted as CO2 causation?

      • CO2 is a ‘greenhouse’ gas – the theory is experimentally verified – people emit greenhouse gases. There is an inescapable logic.

  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

      • Javier
        I don’t think Holmes is saying that only change in composition can change temperature on earth. He’s probably generalising about average temperatures. I agree entirely that changes in ocean configuration, such as the connection of the Americas and the isolation of Antarctica (situated at the south pole) with deep ocean all around, have significantly cooled the earth’s climate and are responsible for the Pleistocene glaciation. That was the point of my post further above – why are papers published saying it is only CO2? This is a baleful revisionism.

      • Ireneusz Palmowski

        Phil Salmon
        First of all, the changes may relate to solar energy reaching the surface.

      • climatereason: this is quite an interesting article

        Intriguing. Thanks for the link.

      • 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.

      • Ulrich Lyons
        Robert, calling them chaotic is not science.

        That’s really cool, we have a real life actual out and out denier of chaos on this site.

        If there is no such thing as periodically forced nonlinear pattern formation, then please give us your explanation of the precise patterns emerging in this experimental system:

        https://laughingsquid.com/the-awesome-effects-of-vibration-on-cornstarch-solution/

        This video shows how the patterns that emerge from periodic forcing – such as astrophysical forcing of climate – will resist explanations based on simple relationships to forcing frequencies, due to emergent chaos. That’s why your quest to explain everything by some harmonic of some solar or planetary frequency is a road to nowhere.

        Its also curious how more than 60 scientific journals have chaos and nonlinearity as their main or a significant part of their publication field – can they all be chasing illusions, waiting for you to set them straight?

        http://sprott.physics.wisc.edu/chaostsa/journals.htm

      • Ulric Lyons

        phil samon:
        “..patterns that emerge from periodic forcing – such as astrophysical forcing of climate – will resist explanations based on simple relationships to forcing frequencies, due to emergent chaos.”

        The AMO is not internal chaos, it is an inverse response to a noisy envelope of indirect solar variability.

        “That’s why your quest to explain everything by some harmonic of some solar or planetary frequency is a road to nowhere.”

        I don’t, that sounds more like Scafetta, I don’t do any harmonic wiggle matching. I was merely stating to Robert that multiple orbiting bodies do actually naturally seek harmonic agreements, however chaotic he imagines it all to be. It’s the chaos theory that is the road to nowhere.

      • Even the Schwabe cycle is aperiodic – ranging in length from 9 to 11.3 years. The source of the variability I presume is the evolution of the solar dynamo within the turbulent fluid dynamics of the sun itself – and as the sun orbits the barycentre of the solar system. The former is canonically chaotic. The latter mathematically so as Henri Poincaré showed in the 19th century.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles

        People extract approximate ‘cycles’ from this – with little practical use.

        The internal resonance of the complex dynamical Earth system – of which the AMO is a subsystem – complicates the picture further.

      • Ulric Lyons

        The Schwabe cycle would not be called a cycle if it were aperiodic. The source of the variability is the near periodic sequences of heliocentric quadrupole configurations of the orbiting bodies which order sunspot cycles. They dictate the actual timing of each Schwabe cycle and each centennial minimum. There is nothing chaotic about this.

        The AMO is not internal resonance, it is an inverse response to indirect solar variability.
        https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682616300360

      • Yet the period of the Schwabe nonlinear oscillation varies significantly – as do other so called cycles.

        “Suggested mechanisms for the solar influence on SST include changes in atmospheric ionization and cloud microphysics affecting cloud cover, storm invigoration, and
        tropospheric dynamics. Such changes modify upward wave propagation to the stratosphere, affecting the dynamics of the polar vortex. Also, direct solar inputs, including energetic particles and solar UV, produce stratospheric dynamical changes. Downward propagation of stratospheric dynamical changes eventually
        further perturbs tropospheric dynamics and SST.”

        And you have oversimplifies your single study.

      • Ulrich
        Your insights into astrophysical forcing are useful.
        The recent confirmation that the 11 year sunspot cycle is indeed entrained by Jupiter-Venus alignments is something of a vindication for the peleton of astrophysical climate cyclists.

        But it is a courageous position to take that the earth’s climate is essentially passive and all changes and apparent cycles are externally forced. This may not be a fair characterisation of your position but you are always resistant to any idea of internally driven variability.

        However it is not at all controversial to assert that in certain well known circumstances, a system will become excitable and strong internally driven variability will take place. This is called nonlinear pattern formation and is as well established as gravity:

        The climate is an open heat engine in which heat flows from space to the equator to the poles and back to space. It is dissipative (energy is lost). It is characterised by numerous positive feedbacks (excitability) and negative feedbacks (friction). In such a system, spontaneous pattern formation is thermodynamically needed to export entropy, to satisfy the second law of thermodynamics. All these conditions make the emergence of chaotic internal oscillations more or less inevitable.

        Chaotic-nonlinear oscilllations can be periodically forced from outside. They can also be internal only with no outside forcing. My opinion is that apparent cyclical or quasi-cyclical behaviour in climate over many timescales is an interaction between internal excitability and oscillation, and external periodic forcing from annual, lunar, solar and other astrophysical forcing. In strong periodic forcing, the external and the forced frequencies are the same. In weak forcing the emergent system oscillation can have a very complex wavetrain and pattern bearing little resemblance to the periodic forcing. But they are still causally linked.

        The AMO is a case where a positive feedback exists between transport of high salinity water to the north Atlantic and the downwelling and cold water formation in the Norwegian sea. This makes the whole Atlantic an excitable medium and results in the oscillation known as the AMO which is just an alternation in strength of the AMOC.

        Also I generally believe that oceanic circulation patterns drive atmospheric processes and not the other way around.

      • Internal plasma turbulence and chaotic solar spin precludes precise periodicity in the solar dynamo.

      • Ulric Lyons

        “Yet the period of the Schwabe nonlinear oscillation varies significantly – as do other so called cycles.”

        And only the apparent quadrupole planetary ordering of solar cycles can properly account for Schwabe cycle variability.

      • This is a magnetic quadrupole.

        Now imagine a gravitational multipole in which everything – including the sun – rotates around the barycenter of the solar system. The position of which can theoretically be plotted using finite differences in a non-integrable Hamiltonian. God plays dice.

      • Ulric Lyons

        “And you have oversimplifies your single study.”

        In fact the AMO response around 1969 and 1979-80 suggests that the effect of major lows in the solar wind then overwhelmed the opposing effects of higher UV levels. They present the best test periods for the relative influence of UV variability and solar plasma variability. Been there done that.

      • Your single study graphs solar with against the NAO. They go on to produce weak temperature correlations between that and global surface temperature. And not between the NAO and AMO.

        There does seem to be a link between the ‘cumulated’ NAO and the AMO – but it is not the one you imagine from your eyeballing.

        And trying to draw universal truth from eyeballing 10 years of whatever is yet more nonsense.

      • Ulric Lyons

        phil
        AMO anomalies are constrained by solar cycles, and are always coldest around sunspot minimum during a cold AMO phase, and are never coldest around sunspot minimum during a warm AMO phase. The only thing that can explain that is the shifting positions of the major lows in the solar wind. Which were around sunspot maximum in 1969 and 1979-80, but have shifted to just past sunspot minimum since then.
        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:1880/mean:13/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1880/normalise

      • Ulric Lyons

        “Also I generally believe that oceanic circulation patterns drive atmospheric processes and not the other way around.”

        There probably is some feedback on the NAO by AMO anomalies, but there is a sound reason why the NAO is widely referred to as the leading mode of Northern Hemisphere variability.

      • Ulric Lyons

        Robert, the study shows significant inverse correlations between the solar wind speed and North Atlantic SST’s, and effecting cloud cover. We have previously had a discussion about cumulative NAO.

      • Rejecting data again?

      • Ulric Lyons

        “There does seem to be a link between the ‘cumulated’ NAO and the AMO – but it is not the one you imagine from your eyeballing.
        And trying to draw universal truth from eyeballing 10 years of whatever is yet more nonsense.”

        In fact the alternating relationship between solar cycles and AMO anomalies is coherent for nearly two AMO cycles. You are eyeballing cumulative NAO which is physically impossible, and probably now think that negative NAO drives a cold AMO when the reverse is true.

      • “The SST-based definition of the AMO index often leads to the incomplete understanding of the AMO only in terms of North Atlantic SST anomalies. In contrast, the AMO actually reflects coherent multivariate low frequency variability observed in the Atlantic, including correlated variations in the subpolar North Atlantic heat content, salt content, and ocean-driven surface turbulent heat fluxes, as well as anticorrelated variations in the tropical North Atlantic subsurface temperature (Zhang 2007, 2008; Wang et al. 2010, Robson et al. 2012; Zhang et al. 2013; Gulev et al. 2013; Wang and Zhang, 2013). Mechanisms proposed for the AMO have to account for the observed coherent multivariate low frequency variability in the Atlantic, in addition to the low frequency North Atlantic SST variations. It is crucial to use multivariate metrics to understand the mechanisms causing the AMO.”

        The SST patterns for the AMO and NAO seem very different. The cumulative NAO of Smeed et al 2014 adds a temporal dimension and shows a very close correlation to the AMO from 1950.

        It seems churlish to deny it out of hand.

      • Phil,

        Also I generally believe that oceanic circulation patterns drive atmospheric processes and not the other way around.

        That’s obviously not possible. You need energy to drive oceanic currents and overcome friction. Where do you think that energy is coming from? A small amount comes from a variety of processes, like surface warming and cooling, and bottom geothermal warming, but the bulk of it comes from two sources: wind and tides. Wind powers oceanic currents, and not the other way around. Sea surface friction slows down the wind and speeds up the water.

      • There are coupled ocean and atmosphere processes driven by planetary rotation. But the energy that make it possible is from the sun to oceans to atmosphere and into space.

      • the energy that make it possible is from the sun to oceans to atmosphere and into space.

        Correct, but oceanic circulation is mainly driven by wind, not by changes in sea surface temperature.

        “Why is there an ocean circulation at all? All real fluids are subject to friction, and some forces must sustain the movement of water. A list of possibilities is not long:
        (1) the wind
        (2) heating and cooling at the surface
        (3) atmospheric pressure loading/unloading
        (4) precipitation and evaporation
        (5) heating through the seafloor
        (6) tides
        All of these things do make the fluid move, but some analysis suggests that only (1), (2) and (6) are really significant, and as we will see, it is (1) that is most important even for motions in which (2) and (4) appear to dominate.

        The invocation of “global conveyor belts” as a description of the meridional overturning circulation had evidently led to many scientists thinking of the dominant elements of the ocean circulation as a kind of heat engine, in which the circulation was being driven in the overturning mode by the convective sinking at high latitudes. What had generally been forgotten, or waved away as irrelevant, was a very old paper of Sandström (1908; this paper is in German, but Defant, 1961 has a good explanation of it in English) in which he pointed out that the motions induced, in a steady-state, in a fluid heated and cooled at the surface would be extremely weak.

        They then calculated how much energy would be required to sustain the turbulence implied by such an average value and estimated it as about 2×10^12W (2 Terawatts) for the region below about 1000m (nothing could be said about the upper ocean energy requirement). Their inference was that the tides, forcing stratified fluid over deep topography could account for about 1/2 the energy, and that the wind field generating what are called internal waves would account for the other half. The most startling conclusion was that the tides were important to the ocean circulation.”

        Carl Wunsch. Notes on the Ocean Circulation for Climate Understanding.
        http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/oceanandclimatelectures.pdf

      • I’d add a 7th – the Coriolis force. Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947). SAM and NAM are the result of planetary spin.

        Oceanic gyres likewise. So the picture emerges of a constantly roiling ocean. Including below the surface. The significance of bottom water formation is transport of warm water into higher latitudes and subsequent cooling, evaporation and sinking keeping those higher latitudes warmer than they would otherwise be. That changes.

        Atmospheric circulation cells are created by surface zonal and along track temperature differences. No 2 in the list.

        Coupled ocean/atmosphere processes as I said – with most heat transported in the oceans.

      • Coupled ocean/atmosphere processes as I said – with most heat transported in the oceans.

        Nope. The bulk of the meridional heat transport corresponds to the atmosphere, despite its much lower mass.

        Ocean heat transport dominates in the subtropics, but atmospheric heat transport is about twice overall.

      • Ulric Lyons

        “Rejecting data again?”

        You did the rejecting again, the study that I linked, and with the bogus claim that it ‘graphs solar with against the NAO’.

        “The SST patterns for the AMO and NAO seem very different.”

        Where is the link to the paper that came from so I can see the context and the claims?

        “It seems churlish to deny it out of hand.”

        Which is what you did. Personal attacks are typically projections.
        My argument (repeat) is that accumulated NAO is physically impossible, and has likely led you (and Smeed) to believe that negative NAO is associated with a cold AMO phase, when the reverse is true.
        Smeed:
        “The downturn of 2009–2010 was followed by an anomalously cold winter in NW Europe with strong negative North Atlantic oscillation (NAO) in December 2010. Maidens et al. (2013) noted that the anomalous conditions were predicted by long-range forecasts several months in advance. Using an ensemble of hindcasts, Maid-ens et al. (2013) concluded that the factor that led to the predictability of this winter was the anomalous upper-ocean heat content and SST.”

        The MOC was slowing during 2009 due to negative NAO/AO, and slowed much faster during the greater negative NAO/AO of Jan-Feb 2010, which was discretely solar driven in those two months and would have not otherwise have occurred. And through all that the AMO was warming, and more strongly in Jan-Feb 2010. December 2010 had colder regional land temperatures, but was preceded by a much faster MOC than Jan-Feb 2010, but the negative NAO/AO anomaly in Nov-Dec 2010 had a strong slowing effect on the MOC.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/esrl-amo/from:2008/to:2011.5

      • Plotted solar wind against NAO. Is precisely what your single study did.

        The obvious correlation between cumulative NAO and AMO might be an effect of momentum in ocean currents in response to change in the polar annular mode.

      • Oh – and the link between solar activity, the polar annular mode, SST and cold winters in the NH is not new.

        e.g. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/5/2/024001/meta

        But the SST pattern of the AMO is not defined with these effects in mind. It’s a lot irrelevant.

      • Ulric Lyons

        “Plotted solar wind against NAO.”

        It’s an inverse correlation between solar wind speed and N Atlantic SST’s. I can’t open it on sci hub now for some reason, so show me that plot.

        “The obvious correlation between cumulative NAO and AMO might be an effect of momentum in ocean currents in response to change in the polar annular mode.”

        Obviously the NAO cannot physically accumulate. The AMO does.

      • Ulric Lyons

        “Oh – and the link between solar activity, the polar annular mode, SST and cold winters in the NH is not new.”

        For a better perspective of major temperature anomalies during centennial solar minima:
        The particularly cold years in the Maunder Minimum, 1684, 1692, 1694, 1695, 1698, occurred on tighter quadrupole configurations of the gas giants which drive such extreme cold events. They otherwise would not occur. They can happen at any time and are not confined to centennial minima. Like with the 1962-63 winter and its analogue in winter 1783-84. Or the 1979 winter and its analogue in 1800. The relative positions of Earth and Venus to the gas giants dictates exactly in which months the cold anomalies will occur. They are discretely and entirely solar caused at the scale of each weather anomaly. The very warm 1686 in Maunder with the second mildest English winter in 360 years occurred on the same Jovian T-square type as the 1976/2003 heatwaves. Maunder was unfortunate to have such a string of cold Jovian configurations, while this centennial minimum so far has had very few cold ones. That’s the way it rolls.

        https://climexp.knmi.nl/data/tcet.dat
        (last column is the annual mean)

      • Javier wrote:
        That’s obviously not possible. You need energy to drive oceanic currents and overcome friction. Where do you think that energy is coming from?

        Are you kidding, the energy comes from the sun, oceans are warmed the most in tropical regions and less toward the poles. The atmosphere does get energy from the oceans. The atmosphere influence on oceans is mostly with evaporation and precipitation but that depends on evaporation of the oceans to start with.

      • Ferrari says that it never made sense to argue that independent changes drew down CO2 by the exact same amount in every ice age. “To me, that means that all the events that co-occurred must be incredibly tightly linked, without much freedom to drift beyond a narrow margin,” he says. “If there is a causality effect among the events at the start of an ice age, then they could happen in the same ratio.”

        They do not even understand carbonated drinks. The oceans are huge carbonated drinks. Vapor Pressure of CO2 is more over a warm carbonated drink and less over a cold carbonated drink.

        The same cold temperature of ocean water would promote the same low vapor pressure of CO2, A change in a trace gas is not causing the oceans to warm and cool. Evaporation and rain and snowfall and sequestering of ice and reflecting and thawing of ice is causes the climate to warm and cool. These are internal cycles with frequencies and magnitudes that are dependent on ocean area of evaporation and location of evaporation and snowfall and rain rates and area if ice extent that is thawing and reflecting.

        Ice ages and warm periods are internal responses to external forcing, More ice causes colder and less ice allows warmer.

        Consensus theory has no clue as to how water, in all of its changing states, determines the characteristics of the internal cycles.

      • Ulric Lyons

        Winds control the phases of ENSO and the AMO via their influence on Ekman transport, overturning, and ocean gyres.
        Maybe the oceans can get hot in the Horse latitudes too because there is less water vapour and less cloud cover.
        https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/clim/sst.shtml

      • Are you kidding, the energy comes from the sun, oceans are warmed the most in tropical regions and less toward the poles.

        I won’t even bother arguing your single bit tediously repetitive bonkers conjecture. Whoever wants to know what powers oceanic currents has Carl Wunsch:

        Notes on the Ocean Circulation for Climate Understanding 2006
        http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/oceanandclimatelectures.pdf

        It is directed to students so relatively easy to understand.

      • Javier
        Phil,

        Also I generally believe that oceanic circulation patterns drive atmospheric processes and not the other way around.

        That’s obviously not possible. You need energy to drive oceanic currents and overcome friction. Where do you think that energy is coming from?

        “Where is the energy coming from” is a good place to start thinking about ocean-atmosphere circulation (i.e. climate). Ocean and atmosphere drive eachother. It is dynamically coupled system as RE keeps reminding us. It is way too glib to assert that “winds drive ocean currents”. What about the deep ocean floor currents that often flow in a different direction to surface currents and the bottom water has not been at the surface for up to several thousand years? No – wind does not drive ocean circulation.

        Consider the trade winds. It is customary (and wrong) to assume that Peruvian coast upwelling is driven by the trade winds. But the reality as set out by Bjerknes in the 60’s is that the trade winds are caused by difference in sea surface temperatures. Peruvian upwelling makes the eastern equatorial Pacific cool, while the central and western Pacific is warm. This causes a pressure difference (cold air has higher pressure than warm) that drives the trade winds. Now those trade winds, once blowing, will entrain the surface water to move westward with them, and in turn, reinforce Peruvian upwelling. So what do you have – a mutually reinforcing positive feedback. And what does this imply? We’ve gone over this lots of times. It makes the eastern equatorial Pacific ENSO region an excitable medium with the potential for this upwelling-trades positive feedback, That’s the essence of the Bjerknes feedback – intermittent positive feedback between Peruvian upwelling and the trades. Too many contemporary climate science researchers seem to be unaware of Bjerknes or of the concept of feedback driven chaotic-nonlinear oscillation, since it involves reading papers from more than ten years ago. But that’s what ENSO is. Its not driven by weather or by cosmic forces. Its a chaotic-nonlinear intermittent oscillation entrained by the annual cycle *see papers by Tziperman, Kane, Zebiak etc.)

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052%3C0293:IALTTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

        The ocean creates the winds that then entrain ocean currents. So A affects B and B affects A. But on different ranges and timescales. That is a precise example of a Turing reaction. Again a recipe for emergent pattern formation.

      • Phil,

        Trade winds close the Hadley circulation at the surface level and they blow over land and ocean. They are driven by the meridional differences in insolation with latitude and the rotation of the Earth. While they are affected by zonal differences in temperature with longitude it is clear that they are not produced by them, and it is the wind creating the currents and not the currents creating the wind. The force behind the Hadley cells is atmospheric convection.

        ENSO is regulated by solar activity. The whole climate of the Earth is a manifestation of the redistribution of solar energy within the climate system from the entry points towards the exit points. The bulk of the work is done by the atmosphere. The ocean acts as a huge stabilizer absorbing energy from the sun and the atmosphere and ceding energy to the atmosphere. The atmospheric-ocean coupling results in the Bjerkman compensation.

        Warming the surface of the water at some region and cooling the surface of the water at another does not create a horizontal current between the two. Cooled water sinks and pushes the cold layer upwards everywhere, while warmed water rises and pushes the warm layer downwards everywhere. The main result is therefore vertical movements. The ascent of cold water takes place at Peru and Namibia due to the Coriolis effect and tidal effects. Winds parallel to the cost and the Ekman transport are responsible for upwelling. The strength of the wind determines the upwelling.

        It is clear that winds determine currents and not the other way around. It is true that changes in surface temperature affect winds very much as surface winds blow mainly from colder areas to warmer areas, but it is the wind that drags the water and not the other way around. Without the wind you would get much weaker oceanic currents. Without oceanic currents you still have wind, as over land.

      • “Seasonal upwelling and downwelling also occur along the West Coast of the United States. In winter, winds blow from the south to the north, resulting in downwelling. During the summer, winds blow from the north to the south, and water moves offshore, resulting in upwelling along the coast. This summer upwelling produces cold coastal waters in the San Francisco area, contributing to the frequent summer fogs. (Duxbury, et al, 2002.)”
        https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/03coastal4.html

      • Ulric Lyons

        Negative North Atlantic Oscillation states are directly associated with slower trade winds. Low solar indirect solar drives negative NAO states, promoting El Nino conditions. So El Nino conditions increase during centennial solar minima.

  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.

  42. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The anchovies are satisfied.

  43. Ireneusz Palmowski

    A large pod of dolphins was spotted off the coast of southern California on Sunday (July 14).

    Chuck Patterson filmed the dolphins on one side of the boat just off Laguna Beach. He estimated more than a 100 dolphins surrounded the boat with most of the mammals sticking on one side as it raced up the coast.

    Patterson said they were driving the boat for hydrofoil surfing when the dolphins started following in their wake. He said “they seemed super happy, you could really feel the energy”.

  44. As floods keep coming, cities pay residents to move

    “…said G. Dodd Galbreath, the founding director of Lipscomb University’s Institute for Sustainable Practice and a member of the city’s storm water management committee. “It’s a new weather pattern,” he said. “You can no longer rely on statistical reliability and statistical measurement as your sole measurements of risk.””

    A new weather pattern. And we can’t use sciency tools anymore. But it’s not flood control and dredging and wing dams and tile in farmer’s fields. It’s a new weather pattern. Once your sciency tools are broke, you haven’t got anything. You might as well put me in charge and give me a nice title like Freedom Land Manager. I don’t know what’s happening but neither does science.

  45. First Comes Renewable Energy, Then Comes Battery Storage

    “A Wood Mackenzie study of four existing natural gas-powered peaker plants found that a 6-hour battery could have handled 74% of the actual peak operations in 2017. The remaining events lasted too long for batteries to handle.”
    “The upshot is that currently available battery technology can plausibly take over much of the peaker role, GTM says, but not the bulk power function served by larger combined-cycle gas plants. At some point, clean resources will need to supply larger amounts of power on demand for an extended period of time, especially in the evenings as solar generation tapers off.”

    So here’s the plan. Pay the one you want until they can’t do it anymore. Then pay the one you don’t want to finish the job. So because we want something done, we reward the one that can’t do it and penalize the one that can. This is the virtue signal energy Olympics. Eventually the one you don’t like gets tired of not being paid and goes away. Or you pay it to not go away and then say it’s getting a subsidy. The peakers can go for months and that’s what you want if you want a grid. But don’t pay them for that. Pay somebody else. Keep taking the peaker’s money and give it to somebody else and then throw a party for how woke you are. All this nonsense should be laid squarely at the feet of the solar owners who should pay for it. Solar disrupts through inefficiencies and inherent problems. Not because of its inherent value.

  46. Can one of you experts explain to me why when I watch Climate Reanalysis all the month of June it has shown very low temperature anomalies and then when I check the NASA figures for June it shows record hot? Just a layman here. I just don’t understand why the difference; seems like if you have thermometers set up across the world, you just check them and average it. Why the difference? Seems like about a half a degree anomaly difference to me, roughly.

  47. Follow the Carbon
    The Case for Neighborhood-Level Carbon Footprints

    “Research needs to focus on the intersections of climate, inequalities, and the built environment.”

    The built environment is housing density. Inequalities is whatever you want it to be. It can be taxing rich people and/or oil companies and having politicians pretend to help poor people with that money. Who can now survive a hurricane or something when what they really need is a job like maybe working on an oil rig or building a pipeline.

    When we intersect these three things, we fail at all of them at the same time. But we can build coalitions to raise taxes. The built environment can’t be more that 2% of the problem and solution but hey, we are inclusive. And we do such a good job housing already. And why our housing may be expensive, we could fix housing in poor countries or move them away from sea level rise and give them wifi and phones. But hey, live in the richest country in the world and fix things here, then help the rest of the world. It’s not our goal to be equal with people living in other countries.

  48. Can someone explain how Judith Curry has been able to entirely avoid discussing Lansner & Pedersen, 2018? – which, indirectly, blows greenhouse gas warming to pieces.

    NTZ: https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/23/uncertainty-mounts-global-temperature-data-presentation-flat-wrong-new-danish-findings-show/#sthash.kTQ2d8B7.dpbs
    Paul Homewood: https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/03/23/new-danish-paper-wrecks-co2-theory-of-global-warming/
    “Danish Research Result of the Year”: https://www.nbi.ku.dk/english/namely_names/2017/ku-researcher-with-bad-climate-news-won-the-danish-research-result-of-the-year/

    PAPER: Frank Lansner and Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen; 2018; doi: 10.1177/0958305X18756670; “Temperature trends with reduced impact of ocean-air temperature”

    • I had a short look at the deal at Homewood’s. I think his title is overstated. It’s an interesting paper. And an interesting argument. A question is, Is this an original line of argument or has it been done before?

      • Steven Mosher

        “These approaches use one temperature trend for each area that they call “expected regional trend” and then they adjust all data to resemble this trend. ”

        Nope. wrong. Frank Lasner strikes again

    • On the ‘Danish Research Result of the Year’: Listening to the English speaking professor – he states climate sensitivity as solely defined by CO2 levels. The researchers examined mineral content for CO2 from billions of years ago and tied them to temperature at that time. However, if one defines the climate sensitivity in radiative forcing terms, one must include the effects of water vapor and clouds affecting temperature. Gavin Schmidt attributed greenhouse effects as 50% to water vapor, 25% to clouds and 20% to CO2. So, what were the water vapor levels and cloud cover during the time of this mineral formation? Nobody can even guess an answer, so the CO2 levels driving temperature, i.e. supposedly being the sensitivity driver, is meaningless. I’d venture to state that this research recognition by the Danish fits nicely within their prevailing alarmist sensitivity.

    • I’d like to hear Steven Mosher’s thoughts on the paper.

      • This is a 9 year old paper, is it still considered to be state of the art thnking on the subject?

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        Frank Lasner?
        last “paper” of his I looked at he had borked up the download of data.

        Let me predict. Some skeptic finds a way to slice and dice the temperature data to look at a SMALLER set of data and finds something
        that over turns the science we know from looking at all the data.

        That’s my prediction. I’ll go read the paper

      • Steven Mosher

        Ugg read it.

        as predicted.

        1. Skeptic selects a subset of data. with no OBJECTIVE method
        of doing this.
        2. Skeptic doesnt list the stations or provide the data.
        3. Skeptic finds a reason to avoid homogenization known to be required
        4. Skeptic finds all of climate science is wrong.

        The problem is they use a mis mash of data ( ghcn v2, Best, others)
        they then “select’ stations with some criteria ( no objective testing
        criteria for the two types of regions)
        they never list the stations or the data or there averaging method.

        not even science.

        The finding: coastal stations differ from ocean air protected stations.

        Duh.

        global temp is what we care about: SST is 70% of all data.

      • Steven Mosher: 4. Skeptic finds all of climate science is wrong.

        That is not what they found.

        The authors plotted the locations of the selected stations, and described the criteria for categorizing them. Their presentation would be improved if they provided a downloadable listing of the names/locations of the stations that they used, and the exact operational criteria that they used in all cases. Perhaps they can be persuaded to do so in future.

        What they found does not overturn anything, but contributes details to the descriptions of heat flows and temperature changes in the climate system.

        “Belief” in their results has to await replication by others and more details. Your superficial dismissal is worthless.

      • Steven Mosher

        “The authors plotted the locations of the selected stations, and described the criteria for categorizing them. Their presentation would be improved if they provided a downloadable listing of the names/locations of the stations that they used, and the exact operational criteria that they used in all cases. Perhaps they can be persuaded to do so in future.”

        err no they did not decribe the criteria in any way that can be replicated.
        They combined GHCN V2 ( YEARS OUT OF DATE) with Best .
        perrty aweful since GHCN v2 has been out of date for years.

        This is simple. When Phil Jones said thta 95% of their stations came
        from GHCN v2, skeptics were in an uproar because he did not list the stations. In sept of 2007 Willis eschenbach had to FOIA to get them.
        The fact that Jones did not list the stations or provide the data was seen
        by skeptics ( me included) as a reason to reject the papers outright.

        This is not a superficial rejection of their work. It is a fundmental rejection.
        there is No work done in this paper.

        Here is what Lasner wrote about his study

        “These approaches use one temperature trend for each area that they call “expected regional trend” and then they adjust all data to resemble this trend. But Lansner points out this is inadequate and that TWO trends need to be accepted instead – depending on the topography: one for stations exposed to ocean air affects (OAA), and one for stations sheltered from oceanic air affects (OAS). “In fact between the two extremes of temperature trends we have a grey zone of temperature trends that also are fully valid,” Lansner wrote in an e-mail response to an inquiry from NoTricksZone.

        “Moreover, any dataset used to evaluate climate related changes in the heat balance over the earth should strive to use only OAS temperature data trends,” Lansner wrote. “It’s necessary to reduce noise from ocean temperature trends as much as possible if we want to read the signal from changing heat balances over the Earth. Go to the valleys and read the thermometers if you want to learn about the actual changes in the heat balance over the Earth.”

        NOISE from ocean trends? 99% of the heat imblance is carried by the oceans. if anything you want to avoid valley data to get the actual changes

      • Steven Mosher:

        Thank you for commenting on the paper. I am guessing you already know how to do the study. Much has been written about the earlier and later with a dividing line around 1950. Objective criteria may be able to differentiate between the two, those influenced strongly by ocean temperatures and those not.

      • Steven Mosher | July 20, 2019 at 10:58 pm |

        Much improved. Thank you.

        The following remains unjustified: 4. Skeptic finds all of climate science is wrong.

        that was not nearly what they claimed. This is really very mild: The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

        Personally, I hope someone takes up the challenge of replicating their procedure. As you note, more detail about their procedure will be required, but that is hardly uncommon.

      • Steven Mosher

        “Thank you for commenting on the paper. I am guessing you already know how to do the study. Much has been written about the earlier and later with a dividing line around 1950. Objective criteria may be able to differentiate between the two, those influenced strongly by ocean temperatures and those not.”

        for metadata I have classification variables that can aid in the determination of whether a station is “coastal or not”
        For GHCn V4, this data has been used in a recent paper. The difficulty
        with definining a station as “coastal” is where do you draw the line.

        In some regions and in some seasons the “normal” coastal flow will be OFFSHORE from land to ocean. and in that same region at another time of year you get on shore flow. So not only do you need a range ( distance from coast) but you also need a season.

        Next comes the issue of the intermediate zones, which they simply handle by eliminating them. ( otherwise known as getting rid of data)

        As for valley data I also have this data for classifying, geomorphology datasets are hard to come by but if you know what you are doing you can
        find it. But again the definition problem persists.

        In the end, however, you would be able to find anything that tells you about
        global warming by looking at subsets of land data.

        Its pretty simple any look at the data that uses all the data will show the planet is warming. To get a diferent result you have to look at less data.

        Long ago there was a great controversy called the “march of thermometers” in which skeptics argued that the rise in temperatures came
        from a dwindling sample of stations ( a GHCN V2 problem)

        AND skeptics argued that if you used more data the warming would disappear.

        And so they talked to Dr Muller and convinced him this was worth looking at.

        So we went and got 40K stations. and found more warming.

        So now every skeptical paper I have read does the same thing.

        Without exception.

      • Steven Mosher

        matthew maybe you missed what frank said

        “Go to the valleys and read the thermometers if you want to learn about the actual changes in the heat balance over the Earth.”

        Seriously?

        70% of the planet is water.
        A large portion of it is plaines
        and Frank’s advice is to go into valleys where you
        have the strongest effects of cold air drainage to learn about
        actual heat changes?
        When colder air from aloft drains into valleys you learn nothing.
        well you learn about inversion layers, but not about global temperature.

      • Mosh said

        “global temp is what we care about: SST is 70% of all data..”

        What decade would you agree we have reliable global SST data from?

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        matthew maybe you missed what frank said

        “Go to the valleys and read the thermometers if you want to learn about the actual changes in the heat balance over the Earth.”

        You are right: I missed that. Is it in the paper? Clearly, only some of the “actual changes in the heat balance” are in the valleys.

        This is in the paper: The implication from this is therefore that new and fast-changing heat balances over the Earth are better captured in temperature data when no large volume of water as larger lakes
        or oceans can act as a heat buffer absorbing and delaying faster changes in the heat balance over the surface. The difference between OAA and OAS temperature data may thus help in determining the effect of internal climate variability which appears to be most significant in the ocean-affected stations.

        That does not read to me like: 4. Skeptic finds all of climate science is wrong.

      • Steven Mosher

        mathew much as frank wanted to throw out data to find something to say,
        you seem to want to throw out his words when he described his results to others.

        See, when I read the climategate mails context, the full context was important.
        When we read the 2nd ammendement we are not simply restricted to
        looking at the actual texts, but we want to consider the other writings
        the founding fathers penned.
        we want to look at all the data, all the text and draw our conclusions
        in light of the full context.
        I take his comments to others as More important than what they were able
        to get past editors, because it reflects his unvarnished views.

        Nevertheless, took all the data since 1950. complete records only
        GHCN V4. 2708 complete records.
        calculated trends for all the stations. Looked at the locations:
        His hypothesis doesnt hold up.
        what you might find is that in areas ( like valleys) where there is a lot
        of irrigation for farming you get depressed trends.
        Again you are not going to discover More about internal variability
        of the whole system by studying poorly selected bits.
        It really is not worth the time I already wasted on it.

      • Steven Mosher

        ‘What decade would you agree we have reliable global SST data from?”

        from the first records which predate 1850.

        The records are reliable. I think the guys who wrote them down
        didnt lie. Just like some monk saying the summer was hot.

        the records will be of varying accuracy and precision, the same way
        any record of crops or growing season, or “heavy rain” or cold winter
        is of varying accuracy and precision.

        From these reliable records of varying accuracy and precision you can construct a estimate. Same as you do in your work.

        Unlike your work, anyone can look at the numbers and test.
        You could take 1/2 the ships records, hide them, and use the other
        half to predict what you have hidden.

        Never seen you do that with your “data” and until you do, it’s not really
        a complete job.

      • Steven Mosher: mathew much as frank wanted to throw out data to find something to say, you seem to want to throw out his words when he described his results to others.

        As with exaggerations by Hansen et al, the exaggerations by frank should be separated from the published research.

        4. Skeptic finds all of climate science is wrong.

        Did he really write that, or speak it?

        You “seem” to be committed to the idea that all warming has been geographically uniform, and the effect of CO2 has been geographically uniform.

        3. Skeptic finds a reason to avoid homogenization known to be required

        Is it required that Scandinavia and Antarctica be homogenized together? Or SE Australia and the Sahel?

        The cliche is hoary, but you seem to be throwing the baby (not a “fully fledged” proposition) out with the bathwater.

      • Mosh

        Other than Challenger voyages and data from a few other well used trade routes or very limited scientific expeditions, what proof have you got that we have RELIABLE and GLOBAL SST’s when much of the world wasn’t even traversed?

        Bored Sailors might or might not have thrown buckets over the sides of the ships at random depths. They might or might not have measured the results immediately or once the water had been left to cook in the sun or left to cool on a deck, whilst using instruments that had varying degrees of accuracy.. We have had this discussion before with John Kennedy at the Met office. The extrapolation and filling in of the grids without data by using grids from thousands of miles away or from a different season does not give SST’s much historic credibility

        The degree of reliable accuracy you claim before 1850 and that it is a global measure is simply not supported by the facts or common sense.

        Perhaps by 1950 we can start to gain some worthwhile and reliable GLOBAL measure.

        BTW I am not disputing that SST’s have likely got warmer as the world has warmed from the coldest epoch of the Holocene- the LIA- which must have had a huge impact on cooling sea water, just as it did in growing glaciers.

        That we know with scientific certainty the global record from before 1850 is far fetched.

        tonyb

      • Steven Mosher

        “You “seem” to be committed to the idea that all warming has been geographically uniform, and the effect of CO2 has been geographically uniform.”

        Nope. The exact Opposite in fact. The warming is NOT geographically uniform. This is what allows people to cherry pick viciously warm areas and viciously cool areas. This is what allows skeptics to focus on the 30s in the USA and ignore the rest of the world.

        duh.

      • Steven Mosher: The warming is NOT geographically uniform.

        You and I agree on that already. What you “seem” to object to is documenting and finding patterns in the non-uniformities.

    • Mark Pawelek: Lansner & Pedersen, 2018?

      Thank you for the paper. Abstract
      Temperature data 1900–2010 from meteorological stations across the world have been analyzed and it has been found that all land areas generally have two different valid temperature trends. Coastal stations and hill stations facing ocean winds are normally more warm-trended than the valley stations that are sheltered from dominant oceans winds. Thus, we found that in any area with variation in the topography, we can divide the stations into the more warm trended ocean air-affected stations, and the more cold-trended ocean airsheltered stations. We find that the distinction between ocean air-affected and ocean airsheltered stations can be used to identify the influence of the oceans on land surface. We can then use this knowledge as a tool to better study climate variability on the land surface without the moderating effects of the ocean. We find a lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data – with less impact of ocean temperature trends – after 1950. The lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature trends after 1950 should be considered when evaluating the climatic effects of changes in the Earth’s atmospheric trace amounts of greenhouse gasses as well as variations in solar conditions.

      • As a non-expert the Lansner/Pedersen paper makes me curious. I have seen the critique above regarding how the stations were selected and listed but despite that ; the trend they identify, the ” lack of warming in the ocean air sheltered temperature data” is still there in the data I suppose. My question to all you experts on this blog is: What mechanism explains such a 60 year period of no warming in a substantial number of stations at the same time as the, supposedly globally distributed, increase of antropogenic GHG?
        Why would the AGW not hit the OAS stations during these 60 years?

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The current anomalies of the level of the equatorial Atlantic sea surface clearly indicates the meridional atmospheric circulation.

  50. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Actual anomalies of sea level in the Pacific indicate neutral ENSO.

  51. Dr. Judith Curry: Climate Change is ‘not a clear and present danger’

    Good catch line for interviews

  52. Hi Dr Curry.
    I’m unsure if you’ve seen this – prima facie casts serious doubts re: Holocene proxies used to date.
    http://www.geologypage.com/2019/01/geoscientists-reconstruct-eye-opening-900-year-northeastern-u-s-climate-record.html

    • Another temperature reconstruction with the divergence problem (late 20th century cooling), but they don’t mention it.

      • The study of what does cause natural internal climate cycles has not been done and is not being done, not since Ewing and Donn.

        There are internal response to external forcing that causes cycles of ice age and warm periods and these internal factors are not recognized, not studied, not understood, not acknowledged, this renders any “so called” climate science and “so called” forecasts, worse than useless.

        People do not know, experts do not know, that ice core data shows more ice accumulation happens when oceans are warmer and thawed.

        Every posting is about correlations of cause and result that are immediate or close to immediate. The article about ice on Antarctica said a cold place got colder and that caused ice to build up.. How did they get evaporation and snowfall from colder, already frozen, oceans?

        Promote study of the actual data and promote understanding of what really has happened and a better understanding of what will most likely happen in the future.

        Current study and theory and predictions are based mostly on the much more data available during the warming from the little ice age into the modern warm period and little attempt is made to look at data that goes back to use history and proxies that show what happened before.

        Past ice ages occurred before modern data was available, modern data cannot be used to forecast what they did not measure in past cycles.

    • This link was in that:
      http://www.geologypage.com/2017/02/the-making-of-antarctica.html
      The second theory focuses on dramatic changes in the patterns of ocean circulation. The theory is that when the Drake Passage (which lies between the southern tip of South America and Antarctica) deepened dramatically about 35 million years ago, it triggered a complete reorganization in ocean circulation. The argument is that the increased separation of the Antarctic land mass from South America led to the creation of the powerful Antarctic Circumpolar Current which acted as a kind of water barrier and effectively blocked the warmer, less salty waters from the North Atlantic and Central Pacific from moving southwards towards the Antarctic land mass leading to the isolation of the Antarctic land mass and lowered temperatures which allowed the ice sheets to form.

      They know less than nothing about where ice comes from. The Antarctic was too cold and the oceans around the Antarctic was too cold for evaporation and snowfall. Ice on Antarctica started forming and increased as warm circulation of tropical water was forced to circulate toward the poles because circulation near the equator was blocked. Temperatures got colder over the fifty million years because sequestered ice on land increased as more warm water flowed nearer the poles.

      • Ice core records show most ice accumulation in warmest times. Colder temperatures cause less ice accumulation. Antarctica has been cold enough for ice sequestering for the past fifty million years. Warm ocean currents flowing closer promoted the evaporation and snowfall and ice sequestering there, the data proves this is true.
        Warmer oceans promote ice sequestering and will drop sea levels. Colder oceans promote less ice sequestering and ice depletes and sea level rises until it gets warmer. Ice Core Data Proves This Is True.

  53. I have finally read “Common cause for severe droughts … ” This from the abstract is interesting: We show that increased shortwave radiation due to reduced cloud cover and reduced ocean heat loss from weaker winds are the main contributors to the establishment of marine heatwaves in the region.

    Another possible unanticipated cloud cover effect in the large set of “known unknowns” in cloud cover. Naturally, the causation could be the reverse of what they conjecture. And more complex relations are possible.

  54. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration

    The maximum of this next cycle – measured in terms of sunspot number, a standard measure of solar activity level – could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.

    • Irina Kitiashvili’s work contradicts the polar fields method that correctly forecasted SC24 and correctly hindcasts past activity and indicates SC25 should have more activity than SC24. I looked at her method and I believe there is a problem as it only uses data from SC21-24 which could produce a bias towards a continuation of the decrease in activity. Her method could not be adequate for trend changes.

  55. The Earth is a far from equilibrium thermodynamic system consisting of fluid flow in a rotating inertial frame. The governing equations are the 3 dimensional Navier-Stokes equations of fluid motion. In some conditions spatial and temporal patterns of mass and energy transport in oceans and atmosphere will be one thing. Perturb the flow a little and turbulent flow patterns shift.

    In the Pacific Pacific there are regimes involving shifts in surface temperature that have profound implications for global temperature and hydrology.

    Something far less about defining how the system works – that seems to be the advanced course – and much more about solid foundations in physical oceanography.

    The Pacific climate shifts are associated with shifts in cloud cover in the eastern Pacific and changes in the trajectory of global average temperature.

    Explain these shifts and we are much further along the track to understanding climate.

  56. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Anomalies in the height of the sea surface on the equatorial Atlantic.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      HYCOM.org provides access to near real time global HYCOM + NCODA based ocean prediction system output. The ocean prediction system runs daily at the Navy DoD Supercomputing Resource Center. Upon completion, these data are remotely copied to our local HYCOM.org servers for additional processing. Daily data is typically accessible within 48-hrs of the initial runtime.

      This site also provides access to several other global and regional datasets. The data are in NetCDF format and can be accessed using OPeNDAP enabled clients. Click here for a list of pre-packaged OPeNDAP enabled clients. OPeNDAP URL’s for all datasets are available from the HYCOM THREDDS Catalog.
      https://www.hycom.org/

    • the proposed corrections would disappear in the noise of general measurement error.
      “For illustration sake let us make an error calculation re. a specific temperature of the water surface with an uninsulated bucket.

      Air cooling 0.50 degrees (random)

      Deckside transfer 0.05 degrees (random)

      Thermometer accuracy 1.0 degrees (fixed)

      Read-out and parallax 0.2 degrees (random)

      Error e = 1.0 + (0.52 + 0.052 + 0.22)1/2 = 1.54 degrees or 51 times the desired accuracy of 0.03 degrees (see also section 2.0).”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/11/bucket-list-historic-global-ocean-temperature-data-the-missing-pedigree-is-a-comedy-of-errors/

    • Any such correction attempt would disappear within the bandwidth of a typical measurement error:

      “For illustration sake let us make an error calculation re. a specific temperature of the water surface with an uninsulated bucket.

      Air cooling 0.50 degrees (random)

      Deckside transfer 0.05 degrees (random)

      Thermometer accuracy 1.0 degrees (fixed)

      Read-out and parallax 0.2 degrees (random)

      Error e = 1.0 + (0.52 + 0.052 + 0.22)1/2 = 1.54 degrees or 51 times the desired accuracy of 0.03 degrees (see also section 2.0).”

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/07/11/bucket-list-historic-global-ocean-temperature-data-the-missing-pedigree-is-a-comedy-of-errors/

  57. 40 yr record of Antarctic sea ice extent

    Figure 2a looks benign. The more worrisome Figures 2b and 2c seem to portray a step-change coincident with the 2016-2017 El Ni~no.

    Rest of the figures show a marked regional variation. I look forward to 5-yr and 10-yr updates.

  58. Ireneusz Palmowski

    The magnetic activity of the solar wind is dropping again.

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski

    This always happens during Solar Minimum. As solar activity goes down, cosmic rays go up. The last two Solar Minima have been unusually deep, leading to high cosmic ray fluxes in 2008-2010 and again in 2018-2019. These are the worst years since humans first left Earth in the 1960s.

    “It’s a bit counterintuitive,” says one of the authors, Nathan Schwadron, a space physicist at the University of New Hampshire. “Solar Minimum may actually be more dangerous than Solar Maximum.”

    In their paper, Zeitlin, Schwadron and co-authors describe an interesting experiment by NASA that highlights the relative peril of solar flares vs. cosmic rays. In 2011, NASA launched the Curiosity rover to Mars. Inside its spacecraft, the rover was protected by about as much shielding (20 gm/cm^2) as a human astronaut would have. A radiation sensor tucked inside kept track of Curiosity’s exposure.

    The results were surprising. During the 9-month journey to Mars, radiation from solar flares (including the strongest flare of the previous solar cycle) accounted for only about 5% of Curiosity’s total dose. The remaining 95% came from cosmic rays.
    https://spaceweatherarchive.com/2019/07/16/cosmic-ray-update-new-results-from-the-moon/

  60. Judith Curry recommends a National Review by Sahil Handa — “What conservatives get wrong about the campus wars [link]”.

    The article has some good points, Pobably the best one is how the actual proportion of the deranged Leftists on campus constitutes a minority, so that we thus have apparently a phenomenon of a minority in some complex form of bullying, putting a stranglehold on the more or less passive majority. However, Sahil Handa (a Harvart grad student himself, as he notes) has an annoying habit of cultivating the virtue of even-handedness to an excessive degree, rendering it suspiciously artificial. Most unfortunate of all, not only for the piece itself but for the National Review that published it, Sahil Handa invokes the supposed reality of “white supremacy” as if it’s a thing (and a worrisome thing at that).

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski

    July 21, 2019 there are no tropical cyclones on the oceans.

  62. Ireneusz Palmowski

    There are no conditions for the formation of hurricanes in the eastern Atlantic.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/sat/satlooper.php?region=eatl&product=wv-mid

  63. Trees really are spoiling the party in regard to greenhouse gas

    https://e360.yale.edu/features/scientists-probe-the-surprising-role-of-trees-in-methane-emissions

    Nobody is arguing that trees are therefore bad for climate and should be cut down. Indeed, in most cases, their carbon storage capability easily outweighs their methane emissions. But in a world where corporations plant trees to offset their carbon emissions, we badly need to know if their numbers add up, or if they are undermined by the complex chemistry of trees and methane.

    Both CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses.
    Which is bad,
    And trees are good since they draw down CO2.
    Except satellite data reveal forests like Amazon to be major sources of both CO2 and methane. Bigger than cities.
    So where does that leave a policy of cutting greenhouse emissions?
    With cutting down trees?
    Belief in greenhouse gasses is leading to impossible contradictions and dead ends and needs to be discarded in the light of experimental evidence.

  64. Regarding Lansner & Pedersen, 2018.

    matthewrmarler (July 20, 2019 at 10:11 pm) said:

    “What they found does not overturn anything”

    They split land surface temperatures into 2 series:
    OAA: Ocean air affected
    OAS: Ocean air sheltered

    They showed the two series change differently. OAA series shows warming. OAS shows no recent warming. This means OAA should not be homogenized with OAS, and vice versa. They overturned every major temperature dataset: GISS, NOAA, Hadleys, Berkeley Earth. Because everyone of them use homogenization. homogenization only makes sense when all temperatures involved in the process change at similar rates for the same reasons.

    Kevin Marshall: https://manicbeancounter.com/tag/lansner-pederson-2018/

  65. Ireneusz Palmowski

    Frosty low in the south of South America.

  66. So you have an unidentified slide from a slide show?

    You are so ignorant about the most basic things in climate, yet somehow you believe you know a lot.

    EVERYBODY knows for decades that meridional heat transport is carried out mainly by the atmosphere. If you were really interested in climate you should have seen that figure many times and should have taken notice. It is like everywhere where meridional heat transport is discussed. I just run a search for the figure and picked one among many.

    Here you have another one:

    From:
    Ocean Circulation and Climate: A 21st Century perspective. 2013.
    Edited by Gerold Siedler, Stephen M. Griffies, John Gould, John A. Church
    Chapter 29 – Ocean Heat Transport
    Alison M.Macdonald, Molly O.Baringer

    Or you can go to Figure 16 of:
    Trenberth, K. E., & Solomon, A. (1994). The global heat balance: Heat transports in the atmosphere and ocean. Climate Dynamics, 10(3), 107-134.

    Or what about this one from
    Yang, H., Zhao, Y., Liu, Z., Li, Q., He, F., & Zhang, Q. (2015). Heat transport compensation in atmosphere and ocean over the past 22,000 years. Scientific reports, 5, 16661.

    • Javier
      These authors presumably remembered to factor in the 1000x higher heat capacity of water than air? Just checking.

      Even if they did, remember that winds are caused by differences in SST. There is mutual (Turing) causation between oceans and winds, they are coupled. If we accept this, rather than going down a sterile reductionist path and thinking that the whole is a sum of the parts, then dividing the heat transport between the ocean and atmosphere is not so straightforward.

      And the fact that we’re even trying to divide atmosphere and ocean components of heat transport means we’re missed the point before we’re even started.

      The oceans hold 97% of climate energy. This time, it’s a real 97%. The CO2 centric paradigm wants us to believe the ocean is a passive puddle responding only to recent atmospheric events. Eppur si muove. The ocean has its own dynamic and is the driver, not the follower. Atmospheric processes have time scales of up to a year, while oceanic ones have timescales up to many millenia. Atmosphere is weather, ocean is climate. Just saying..

      • It is not reductionism. Atmosphere and oceans are very different and therefore play a very different role in climate. The picture that the oceanic currents are responsible for the winds is inconsistent with the atmosphere being the main mover of energy in the planet.

        Ocean Circulation and Climate: A 21st Century perspective. 2013.
        Edited by Gerold Siedler, Stephen M. Griffies, John Gould, John A. Church
        Chapter 29 – Ocean Heat Transport
        Alison M.Macdonald, Molly O.Baringer

        “Although both the atmosphere and ocean behave according to the laws of thermal and fluid dynamics, their differences allow them to play contrasting roles in the global energy balance. The ocean has a much greater capacity for energy storage and, being comparatively slow, has a long thermal memory. The atmosphere, moving more quickly, is an efficient mixer.”

        Ocean Heat Transport is estimated (not modelled) from two indirect and one direct methods. As far as I know there is general agreement over this aspect.

        Fasullo, J. T., & Trenberth, K. E. (2008). The annual cycle of the energy budget. Part II: Meridional structures and poleward transports. Journal of Climate, 21(10), 2313-2325.

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1936.1

        “The winter hemisphere atmospheric circulation is the dominant contributor to poleward energy transports outside of the tropics [6–7 PW (1 petawatt = 10^15 W)], with summer transports being relatively weak (~3 PW)—slightly more in the Southern Hemisphere and slightly less in the Northern Hemisphere. Ocean transports outside of the tropics are found to be small (<2 PW) for all months. Strong cross-equatorial heat transports in the ocean of up to 5 PW exhibit a large annual cycle in phase with poleward atmospheric transports of the winter hemisphere."

    • The energy dynamic is from the sun, to the oceans, to the atmosphere and out to space. Oceans heat content is some 92% of the total planetary content. But ultimately it all exits through the atmosphere – some 7% directly radiatively – in coupled ocean/atmosphere processes.

      What you are on about is a dogmatic assertion of a trivial – and incorrect – point.

      • You don’t even know how the poleward transport of energy takes place. Go learn some basics before coming here to insult the grownups. A lot of what we call weather is the manifestation (work) of the poleward transport of energy.

      • “Heat redistribution is one of the main mechanisms by which oceans regulate Earth’s climate. Analyses of ocean heat transport tend to emphasize global-scale seawater pathways and concepts such as the great ocean conveyor belt. However, it is the divergence or convergence of heat transport within an oceanic region, rather than the origin or destination of seawater transiting through that region, that is most immediately relevant to Earth’s heat budget.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0333-7

      • Robert I Ellison: Analyses of ocean heat transport tend to emphasize global-scale seawater pathways and concepts such as the great ocean conveyor belt. However, it is the divergence or convergence of heat transport within an oceanic region, rather than the origin or destination of seawater transiting through that region, that is most immediately relevant to Earth’s heat budget.

        Indeed. Forget and Ferreira made a strong effort to distinguish between heat flow and water flow.

        Javier: e. The winter hemisphere atmospheric circulation is the dominant contributor to poleward energy transports outside of the tropics [6–7 PW (1 petawatt 1015 W)], with summer transports being relatively weak (3 PW)—slightly more in the Southern Hemisphere and slightly
        less in the Northern Hemisphere. Ocean transports outside of the tropics are found to be small (2 PW) for all months. Strong cross-equatorial heat transports in the ocean of up to 5 PW exhibit a large annual cycle in phase with poleward atmospheric transports of the winter hemisphere.

        as Fasullo and Trenberth had done.

      • Although in oceans all heat transport is as kinetic energy in water.

        blob:https://wordpress.com/51d29d07-d29c-4019-af77-038cc22f7836
        https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0333-7
        http://news.mit.edu/2019/tropical-pacific-major-player-global-ocean-heat-transport-0514

        And oceans provide the energy for atmospheric processes.

        Javier has the tail wagging the dog and is typically pejorative about it.

      • As I wrote before: Using mathematical curls to model heat swirls, eddies and vortices; and using mathematical divs to model transverse heat transfer, F & F set up a large set of simultaneous (partial) differential equations. Then with a Matlab diffeqn solver in a Matlab nonlinear parameter estimation program, they estimated parameters to the system to provide a good fit, on the grid of measured values, of the fitted/modeled values to the measured values. From the solutions, they computed net directional flows and rotational flows of the heat, not the water, in various areas of the ocean surface. So, from the possibilities of what may happen, they modeled quantitatively, to at least a first degree of approximation, what is happening in the heat flows. fwiw, they have put the code and data on the web.

        The measurements to which they fit this model is the vector field of heat flows estimated from their previous research. They did not identify heat flow with any particular mechanism: radiant heat flow, evaporation, transport of air or water vapor, the hydrological cycle, Rayleigh waves, ocean gyres.

        That brings me to this: Robert I Ellison: Although in oceans all heat transport is as kinetic energy in water.

        And oceans provide the energy for atmospheric processes.

        And to this: Javier: EVERYBODY knows for decades that meridional heat transport is carried out mainly by the atmosphere. If you were really interested in climate you should have seen that figure many times and should have taken notice. It is like everywhere where meridional heat transport is discussed.

        And this: Robert I Ellison: What you are on about is a dogmatic assertion of a trivial – and incorrect – point.

        On exactly what point is Javier incorrect (exact quote please)? And why is it trivial? The exact routes of heat flows from Tropics to Poles is only partially worked out, and the exact partition of amounts of heat transported by each mechanism is only partly worked out. Right?

      • Physically – heat in water is as kinetic energy that is transported in fluid flow. The Helmholtz decomposition – as discussed at far too great a length – separates the meridional vector component from the curl of turbulent ocean eddies that confound efforts to measure heat transport directly.

      • Robert I. Ellison | July 23, 2019 at 3:14 pm |

        Where does that diagram dispute Javier’s assertion that most meridional heat transport is by the atmosphere?

      • Robert I Ellison: Physically – heat in water is as kinetic energy that is transported in fluid flow.

        There you go mixing things up again: the heat that is transported in the fluid is kinetic energy or kinetic energy plus latent heat, but not all of the heat in water is transported via fluid flow (unless you consider latent heat a “fluid” that “flows”.).

      • Latent heat is contained in evaporation. This is no longer fluid flow in oceans but the gaseous phase in the atmosphere.

      • Latent heat is contained in the liquid phase. It’s released if the water freezes. In liquid oceans – heat is transported as kinetic energy. Does that need saying? Apparently so.

      • Robert I Ellison:
        Latent heat is contained in evaporation. This is no longer fluid flow in oceans but the gaseous phase in the atmosphere.

        Latent heat is contained in the liquid phase. It’s released if the water freezes. In liquid oceans – heat is transported as kinetic energy. Does that need saying? Apparently so.

        For completeness, yes. Consider the opposite of something I wrote, suppose: Forget and Ferreira identified all energy flows with mass flows. Obviously they did not. They distinguished between heat flows and mass flows.

        You wouldn’t have wanted us thinking that this was your actual opinion: The Pacific covers most of the global tropics and so gains most of the heat. This fact is not controversial. It is redistributed in great ocean gyres. These modes of ocean circulation have been mapped for navigation for centuries.

        That makes it sound as though you believe, obviously you don’t, that the description of the ocean gyres gives a sufficient description of the heat flows. Even after adding in air flows, you still need the latent heat conversions and radiant energy fluxes to approach completeness.

      • In practice, this means that for any given volume element V, the corresponding heat content is simply given by H = ρcCpθV where ρc is the constant Boussinesq density, Cp is the constant specific heat capacity and θ
        is the potential temperature averaged over V.” FF2019

        Neglecting for the sake of sanity and common sense both the constant of latent heat in liquid water and coupled atmospheric processes not relevant to ocean heat transport discussed in the FF2019 paper.

        Ocean energy content drives coupled ocean/atmosphere dynamics – anything else is trivial and stupid. .

      • Robert I Ellison: Neglecting for the sake of sanity and common sense both the constant of latent heat in liquid water and coupled atmospheric processes not relevant to ocean heat transport discussed in the FF2019 paper.

        I don’t think it is either sanity or common sense to neglect latent heat in models and empirical studies of heat flow.

        Ocean energy content drives coupled ocean/atmosphere dynamics – anything else is trivial and stupid. .

        “anything” else? I disagree. The other details matter.

        What you [Javier] are on about is a dogmatic assertion of a trivial – and incorrect – point.

        Could you tell us, quoting Javier exactly, what his incorrect point is? And how you know it is also trivial?

      • Yet F&F did neglect it in ocean heat transport. Try not to be such an obvious dissembler.

      • Robert I Ellison: Yet F&F did neglect it in ocean heat transport.

        How did you get that? They are modeling OHT vectors computed in previous studies.

        Latent heat is contained in the liquid phase. It’s released if the water freezes. In liquid oceans – heat is transported as kinetic energy.

        Are you not neglecting the latent heat of vaporization?

      • Robert I Ellison: Yet F&F did neglect it in ocean heat transport.

        To repeat, they did not identify “heat transport” with ocean water transport. You seem to keep coming back to ocean energy transport within the gyres.

      • I quoted their formula for calculating ocean heat. It doesn’t include water vapor in the atmosphere.

      • Robert I Ellison: It doesn’t include water vapor in the atmosphere.

        And yet, they model heat “lost” from the ocean to the atmosphere. What a conundrum! You mentioned the latent heat of freezing/thawing — all that latent heat released in clouds without the latent heat of vaporization from ocean surface rising with the vapor! Another conundrum. When you decide to ignore the latent heat of vaporization, you go full out!

      • No they calculate heat transport in oceans.

      • Robert I Ellison: No they calculate heat transport in oceans.

        How droll !

        Reread the caption here: Robert I. Ellison | July 23, 2019 at 3:14 pm |

      • “Global ocean heat transport dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0333-7

        As I said – there are coupled ocean/atmosphere processes. But ocean heat in Forget and Ferriera is calculated using heat capacity and temperature.

        Surely you understand by now and are simply being deliberately obtuse.

      • Robert I Ellison: But ocean heat in Forget and Ferriera is calculated using heat capacity and temperature.

        but the heat flow model is calculated to fit data from other published data sets, referenced in the paper and Supplemental material.

        I thought I would take another whack at this:

        First, the title: Global ocean heat transport dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific.

        Robert I Ellison quoted it correctly, but it doesn’t communicate many details.

        Next, the abstract, which contains: Analyses of ocean heat transport
        tend to emphasize global-scale seawater pathways and concepts such as the great ocean conveyor belt. However, it is the divergence or convergence of heat transport within an oceanic region, rather than the origin or destination of seawater transiting through that region, that is most immediately relevant to Earth’s heat budget.

        However, effective inter-ocean heat transports are smaller than expected, suggesting that global-scale seawater pathways play only a minor role in Earth’s heat budget.

        That shows that F&F believe that they have attempted to distinguish heat flow from water flow.

        The intro starts to get more complicated: First, consider a scenario where OHT converges into an ocean basin to balance out heat release to the atmosphere. Such OHT plays an immediate role in Earth’s energy budget.. Second, imagine seawater looping around in the ocean interior, for example, eastward around Antarctica, and with unchanged temperatures. This mass flux carries internal energy (for example, temperature) that contributes to OHT but has no impact on Earth’s energy budget until heat is exchanged with the atmosphere and maybe after looping around Antarctica many times.

        I claim that F&F distinguish there between heat flow and mass flow.

        More complications: Progress can be made, however, through the decomposition of plain OHT (OHT0) into an ‘effective’ OHT that balances heat exchanges with the atmosphere (OHT∇) and a second term representing internal ocean heat loops that do not immediately affect Earth’s energy budget (OHTR,0). In mathematical terms, we carry out a Helmholtz decomposition of OHT0 into divergent (OHT∇) and rotational (OHTR,0) components. This decomposition is applied to a state-of-the-art global, gridded data product (see Methods). An important point is that OHT∇, unlike OHT0 or OHTR,0, is insensitive to mass fluxes and the chosen ERL (0 °C, here). OHT∇ represents the net effect of OHT as experienced by the atmosphere via air–sea
        fluxes rather than seawater pathways.

        Leaving aside exactly how much I understand about the Helmholtz decomposition, F&F once again distinguish between air-sea fluxes and seawater pathways.

        Section titled “Transport maps” opens with: Values of OHT0 and OHT∇ are coarsely charted in Fig. 1 (see Supplementary Tables for further detail). The OHT0 values generally fit well within the range of previously published ‘direct’ estimates from ocean sections, whereas the OHT∇ values correspond to ‘indirect’ estimates derived from air–sea flux maps..

        More there about air-sea heat flux. RIE already posted figure 1. Here is its caption.:
        Fig. 1 | OHT as estimated through sections that separate ocean basins and delimit the tropics for the 1992–2011 time average. Values (in 0.01 PW= 1013 Watts) of plain OHT (rotational + divergent components; OHT0) and effective OHT (divergent component alone; OHT∇) are charted in blue and in red, respectively. The thin lines with arrowheads are a schematic of internal ocean heat loops (purple) and effective OHT patterns (orange). The black contours (respectively, grey contours) represent the rate of OHT divergence (respectively, convergence), which corresponds to heat uptake from (respectively, heat release to) the atmosphere. These rates are contoured every 15 W m−2 starting from ±5 W m−2.

        There they clearly distinguish between the heat that is carried around and around in the water flows, and the heat that is uptaken from and released to the atmosphere.

        It gets more and more complicated. Another selection: Hence, a new paradigm emerges from OHT∇ that emphasizes heat redistribution within ocean basins rather than through global-scale circulations.

        That one does not specifically distinguish heat flow from mass flow.

        It does become more complicated, hence a long excerpt: The largest inter-hemispheric OHT∇ is found in the Atlantic where 0.39 PW crosses the Equator in the gridded ocean estimate
        (0.60 PW in the inferred estimates ensemble average). This 0.39 PW approximately balances out: 0.27 PW atmospheric heat uptake in the southern Atlantic sector plus 0.19 PW provided by the Pacific; and 0.34 PW heat loss to the atmosphere in the North Atlantic plus 0.09 PW exiting towards the Arctic. Subtracting 0.39 PW from OHT∇ throughout the Atlantic in turn yields an estimate of 0.33 PW (respectively, 0.30 PW) for the northern (respectively, southern) subtropical wind-driven cell.

        These results are consistent with previous findings that the interhemispheric, AMOC-related, OHT represents only ~50% of the peak OHT in the Atlantic13,15. Interestingly, 0.30–0.33 PW per subtropical wind-driven cell for the Atlantic is ~50% of the corresponding Pacific value (~0.7 PW). Such proportionality is hypothesized to reflect that the Pacific is about twice as wide as the Atlantic along the Equator where ocean heat uptake is concentrated. Hence, the gyre systems of the Pacific and Atlantic appear to redistribute tropical heat uptake with similar efficiency.

        There they describe explicitly cases where the heat transport is via the mass transport. I wrote that F&F distinguish between heat flow and mass flow. I didn’t write anywhere that heat transport and mass flow are totally independent; only that F&F make a strong effort to distinguish between them.

        I am at 2 pp in MS-WORD, so I have to cut it short. Here is the caption to Table S8 Table S8: Air-sea heat flux integrated (in PW) over the 9 regions (columns) shown in Fig. 1 for each of the eight products listed in Tab. S7 (rows). The region names are abbreviated as follows: “Pan-Arc” denotes the Pan-Arctic region; “Ind”, “Atl”, and “Pac” respectively denote the Indian, Pacific, and Atlantic sectors; the “N-”, “T-”, and “S-” prefix respectively denote the Northern, Tropical, and Southern latitude bands.

      • FTL:DR


        Global ocean heat transport dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific
        Gaël Forget & David Ferreira – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0333-7

        And just in case Javier feels vindicated by the headline – this is not poleward along the coast of the America’s

      • Robert I Ellison: Global ocean heat transport dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific

        I think we are agreed that you have the title down pat.

  67. Javier
    That quote by MacDonald and Baringer is a good statement of the ocean and atmosphere’s relative roles in the climate. I have no problem with that.

    Here’s an analogy about the atmosphere and ocean and their respective influence on climate.
    Half a dozen or so young children are playing on swings and roundabouts in a park. Two pairs of parents sit on a nearby bench. Who accounts for the biggest movement of energy and mass? The children. But who decides when the children come out to play or go home? The parents.

    At any moment in time the atmosphere does move more heat. (At least as perceived at the surface). But over decades, centuries and millenia the climate alternates between different states or plateaus as illustrated by Lorenz (Deterministic nonperiodic flow). These state changes (in this regard I agree with Robert Ellison’s arguments above) are real transitions in the multidimensional climate phase space, and originate principally from shifting patterns of ocean circulation, including the AMOC.

    There is a large literature on for instance how oceanic interactions between Antarctica, the Atlantic and the AMOC determined the sequence of events at the Bolling Allerod, The Younger Dryas and Holocene inception, e.g..

    https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/97GL02658

    http://www.geo.orst.edu/files/geo/weaveretal.-science-2003.pdf

    • Ireneusz Palmowski

      Is the circulation of the atmosphere responsible for surface temperature jumps in the eastern tropical Pacific?

    • The line of argumentation started several threads above over whether the major cause of oceanic currents is the wind or not, and over which one transports more energy. Their long term effect on climate is a different discussion.

      The climate system can be simplified for the purpose of this discussion to an energy input, an atmospheric engine, an oceanic supercapacitor, and an energy output. The work manifested as weather is realized by the engine that draws energy from the input and the supercapacitor and releases energy to the output and the supercapacitor.

      The long term changes are climate, so if the supercapacitor is charging over the long term, the planet is warming, and if it is discharging the planet is cooling.

      So to say that the atmosphere energy produces weather while the ocean energy produces climate is somewhat correct. It is even more correct to say that the ocean energy changes reflect climate, and climate is defined by the long term energy changes of the system. That’s why many people defend that OHC is a much better measure of climate than surface temperature.

      As the ocean does not behave uniformly, some regions are charging while others are discharging, and they change over time. This is what we define as internal variability that on multidecadal timescales can only depend on sufficiently large enthalpy stores which are the oceans and the cryosphere. Internal variability just moves energy within the system: within different parts of the ocean, to/from the cryosphere and to/from the atmosphere. While the system-wide effect of internal variability is net zero or very small, it is not so when we measure only a part of the system, and particularly one that is very variable, as surface temperature.

      The same goes for the Bølling Allerød, The Younger Dryas and Holocene inception. They have been measured at a highly variable hot spot for climate variability, the North Atlantic region, and do not appear the same when measured from a more stable one, like Antarctica or the bottom of the oceans (benthic cores like LR04).


      Bølling-Allerød and Younger Dryas seen from Greenland (cyan), Antarctica (blue) and the bottom of the ocean (black).

      In my opinion the ocean reflects the climate state and stabilizes it. It makes climate alarmism look silly due to its very high thermal inertia. But to produce climate change the ocean has to have the capacity to alter its own rate of charge/discharge. That can be done externally through tectonic changes, and both externally and internally from sea-ice changes. I am not aware that the ocean can change its own rate of charge and discharge. This was discussed when the missing heat was proposed to be going into the oceans and measured in atomic bombs. That heat isn’t coming back any time soon as there is no mechanism to transfer deep highly diffused energy to a warming atmosphere. The supercapacitor is charging and will not discharge until the warming turns into cooling sometime in the future.

    • “…all else being equal, climate variability and climate sensitivity are flip sides of the same coin.” – Kyle Swanson
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/
      So if they argue the pause didn’t happen, sensitivity is low. I love this climate.

      • The rate of warming from 2006 to 2014 was negative, and no, a warming hiatus did not happen. The negative phase of the PDO, whatever that actually means, did happen. I believe somebody on twitter, perhaps one of the authors, indicate the paper was consistent with an ECS of ~2.7 ℃, which is luckwarmer territory.

      • In climate science, the 97% consensus is that you can always have your cake and eat it!

    • Counter-intuitively, high-sensitivity climates, as well as having a higher chance of rapid decadal warming, are also more likely to have had historical ‘hiatus’ periods than lower-sensitivity climates.

      As Jo Nova says:
      “A decade without warming is even more likely to happen if CO2 is irrelevant.”
      joannenova.com.au/2019/07/the-pause-in-global-warming-shows-co2-may-be-more-powerful-say-hello-to-hyperwarming-wierdness/

      Sorry, but Ockam’s razor explanation is that pauses are most likely to happen the least effect CO2 has. That article is a joke. Nature journal sinking to new lows. I still remember the water memory one. A rather amusing read at the time. Nobody with a modicum of common sense bought that one and nobody should buy this one.

  68. I have added both Curry and Morano to my education collections:
    http://ccdedu.blogspot.com

  69. Javier
    I am not aware that the ocean can change its own rate of charge and discharge.

    Not wanting to overdo this ocean / atmosphere argument, you’ve posted a lot of great material already here as have others.

    But this is for me the big issue, I think that the ocean can redistribute heat energy spatio-temporarily, of its own accord as it were. The basis for claiming this is the whole chaos-nonlinearity thing that has been posted to death by Robert and me lots of times. I don’t think that whole ocean content is a very relevant index of climate, except maybe on million year timescales. Climate that matters to us and the next general election, or even to our grandchildren, is what happens on the surface. For instance there is evidence that during deep glaciation warmer water is trapped under the extensive ice caps – which is why they can collapse so quickly. So a whole ocean heat budget definition of climate may not show an ice age at all.

    Deep ocean water is very cold, close to zero at 2-4 km depth even at the equator. So all it takes to significantly reduce surface climate temperature is a quite small increase in vertical mixing bringing some of that deep cold up to the surface. If God stirs the ocean with a teaspoon we have an ice age. That’s all it takes. But God gave the ocean its own teaspoon – chaotic dynamics. From time to time it will stir itself for no apparent reason.

    • But God gave the ocean its own teaspoon – chaotic dynamics. From time to time it will stir itself for no apparent reason.

      There is a complete lack of evidence that chaos is responsible for the macroscopic hydrodynamic properties of the ocean. Quite the contrary and counterintuitively, microscopic chaos might result in a higher macroscopic stability.

      “Gaspard et al. show that the fluid in their experiment has chaotic dynamics after all. This points at an apparently general property of systems with many particles. From experience we know that fluids effectively maintain a well-defined local temperature and pressure. Of course, there can be turbulent motion, but even then a small fluid element is approximately in thermal equilibrium, and that is the basis of all of hydrodynamics. Also, external perturbations hardly change such a state of local equilibrium. If the motion of the fluid particles were quasiperiodic (governed by a finite number of frequencies) this stable macroscopic behaviour would be hard to explain.

      Only chaotic mechanical motion generates enough intrinsic noise to ensure a robust average behaviour.

      a great deal of effort is still required to understand, on the microscopic level, what degree of chaos in a mechanical many-particle system is needed in order to ensure the regular macroscopic behaviour we see around us.”

      https://www.nature.com/articles/29650

      I never bought the butterfly wings-hurricane story. Chaos is all around us, but the result is noise that stabilizes the systems. Analysis of the main climatic changes of the past always finds an ultimate cause or group of causes. That is the opposite of what we would find if it was down to chaos.

      When a theory explains everything, then it does not explain anything. That goes so much for CO2 as for chaos.

      • The US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) defined abrupt climate change as a new climate paradigm as long ago as 2002. A paradigm in the scientific sense is a theory that explains observations. A new science paradigm is one that better explains data – in this case climate data – than the old theory. The new theory says that climate change occurs as discrete jumps in the system. Climate is more like a kaleidoscope – shake it up and a new pattern emerges – than a control knob with a linear gain.

        There is nothing mysterious about ocean heat. It is a response to transient energy imbalances at TOA.

        The proximate cause of large changes in TOA power flux is regime change in Pacific sea surface temperature and related cloud change.

        Decadal to Multidecadal shifts in
        Pacific state are regime shifts in the globally coupled, turbulent Earth system flow field – as seen in the stadium wave.

        As I said – chaos is the paradigm that best explains climate data. Not understanding this simply means that you are decades behind the curve.

      • chaos is the paradigm that best explains climate data.

        Chaos is the excuse for the abysmal predictive skill of modern climateers. If they don’t understand how things work they can always blame chaos.

        The key to climate change is not the energy balance at the TOA as it is widely believed, but the amount of energy directed to the poles in winter. If it increases the planet cools, if it decreases the planet warms.

        Climate does not respond to chaos, but to a very complex relationship between the various external forcings and internal variability. When the main factors are understood climate becomes to a certain extent predictable at times. That’s why I was able to predict the current El Niño at the time of the solar minimum last year, and the approaching Niña when solar activity starts to increase in the new cycle, as it has happened for the last six solar cycles.

        You can just fill in the gaps. Chaos is just your excuse for not understanding anything about climate.

        Climate change is a constant pushing of an external forcing and the resistance of the climate system to change. The planet has been warming for the past 350 years and it is not due to chaos, nor is it due to CO2. Keep studying, I can’t believe it is all going to waste.

      • No the Earth system does not respond to chaos – the response is deterministically chaotic.

        The cold tongue emerging in the eastern Pacific is the outcome of multiple dynamic causes and feedbacks. The frequency and intensity of Pacific states shifts abruptly at decadal to millennial scales – along with cloud, sea level pressure, winds, currents, ocean temps, biology, ice…

      • The cold tongue emerging in the eastern Pacific is the outcome of multiple dynamic causes and feedbacks.

        Meaning you have no idea what causes it.

        The frequency and intensity of Pacific states shifts abruptly at decadal to millennial scales

        Regime shifts are intrinsic to climate oscillations. Whether they are abrupt or not is in the eyes of the beholder. To many, an abrupt change is a fast and deep change in one direction, like a DO event warming phase or the 8.2 kyr event, not a reversal at every multidecadal oscillations. Those are so common and shallow that are difficult to spot on paleo proxies. But if you look with enough magnification even tiny bugs look like monsters.

      • Decadal climate shifts have implications for patterns of 20th century warming and cooling. Centennial to millennial shifts – the little ice age and the medieval optimum.

        Moy et al (2002) present the record of sedimentation shown above which is strongly influenced by ENSO variability. It is based on the presence of greater and less red sediment in a lake core. More sedimentation is associated with El Niño. It has continuous high resolution coverage over 12,000 years. It shows periods of high and low El Niño activity alternating with a period of about 2,000 years. There was a shift some 5,000 years ago from La Niña dominance to El Niño dominance that was identified by Tsonis 2009 as a chaotic bifurcation – and is associated with the drying of the Sahel. There is a period around 3,500 years ago of high El Niño intensity associated with the demise of the Minoan civilisation (Tsonis et al, 2010). Red intensity was in excess of 200 at times. For comparison – in 1997/98 it was 99. It shows ENSO variability considerably in excess of that seen in the modern period.

        Much of it emerges from the poles – although solar activity is only one factor in polar surface pressure.

        Multi-decadal variability in the Pacific is defined as the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (e.g. Folland et al,2002, Meinke et al, 2005, Parker et al, 2007, Power et al, 1999) – a proliferation of oscillations it seems. The latest Pacific Ocean climate shift in 1998/2001 is linked to increased flow in the north (Di Lorenzo et al, 2008) and the south (Roemmich et al, 2007, Qiu, Bo et al 2006)Pacific Ocean gyres. Roemmich et al (2007) suggest that mid-latitude gyres in all of the oceans are influenced by decadal variability in the Southern and Northern Annular Modes (SAM and NAM respectively) as wind driven currents in baroclinic oceans (Sverdrup, 1947).

        Enhanced flow in the Peruvian and Californian currents biases the system to increased intensity of upwelling. Upwelling intensifies south westerly and north westerly winds in the tropical convergence zone causing divergent surface currents and a cold tongue propagating in wind and current feedacks across the Pacific.

      • Moy et al. (2002) also noticed that there appears to be a link between ENSO activity and Bond events.

        “We observe that Bond events tend to occur during periods of low ENSO activity immediately following a period of high ENSO activity, which suggests that some link may exist between the two systems.”

        In their figure 1a they plot the frequency of ENSO events per 100 years and it looks like a negative print of Bond events:

        High ENSO activity before the Bond event and low ENSO activity during the Bond event.

        Let’s remember that Bond linked his events to solar variability in his 2001 article.

        There is no chaotic bifurcation at the Mid-Holocene Transition. The planet started cooling at the Neoglaciation due to reduced polar insolation. ENSO is the mark of a cooling planet. It is associated to the increase in meridional heat transport required to cool the planet. There was very little Niño activity during the Holocene Climatic Optimum despite the planet being warmer because the planet wasn’t cooling due to higher polar insolation. Meridional heat transport was very much reduced and so Niños did not take place. Let’s remember that an El Niño is a cooling event from a planet perspective. Energy goes from the ocean to space during El Niño events.

        That also explains why there is enhanced ENSO activity during the build up of a Bond event. The planet is cooling at that time and more ENSO activity facilitates the rapid cooling. Once the planet is cold during the Bond event, ENSO activity is inhibited.

      • I find the language clunky – better to talk of relative frequency and intensity of El Nino or La Nina. The eyeballing juxtaposition of a low resolution ice rafting index and a high resolution ENSO index means little by itself. Yes there is a connection between globally coupled events. We got there with the stadium wave. However – causality in uncertain. There may be a common causal factor for both. The direction of causality is unknown. There may be multiple causes and feedbacks. The narrative constructed around such flimsy Frankendata is suspect in the extreme – there is simply insufficient detail on climate factors. A problem even in the modern era.

        The mid Holocene ENSO transition can be seen in the raw Moys data. It can also be seen in the Fourier analysis with two bands of variance before the transition at about 1000 and 2000 years – and a single broader band at about 2000 years following the transition.

        As discussed just above – it is physically linked to the polar annular modes through spin up or down of ocean gyres driving changes in eastern Pacific upwelling.

        With a coincidence of low insolation at the mid Holocene transition – and in the centuries prior to the modern period. Something that may be more a trigger for internal climate shifts in a complex, dynamic system than a forcing as commonly understood

        El Nino warm the planet – both oceans and atmosphere due to sea surface temperature/cloud feedback. La Nina cool. And relative frequency and intensity of El Nino and La Nina vary over millennia.

        “We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”
        https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

        The Earth system behaves like a deterministically chaotic system – and is thus deterministically chaotic. This is the ruling scientific paradigm. Not to understand is to be a scientific dinosaur. There are small changes in external factors and multiple interacting subsystems with positive and negative feedbacks summing to emergent behavior at the pace of internal variability.

      • El Nino warm the planet – both oceans and atmosphere

        You don’t even get the most simple things right. Look at Moy et al. (2002) figure 1. El Niño has grown both in intensity and frequency with the Neoglacial, when we do know that the planet has cooled as glaciers grew all over the world. This coincides with the energy changes of El Niño. Heat in the subsurface Pacific Ocean makes it to the surface where we measure it as SST, then to the atmosphere where we measure it as warming, then to space as OLR. It is clear that El Niño cools the Earth moving heat from the ocean to space and is part of the Neoglacial cooling. That’s what the evidence shows. But of course if you don’t know how energy is moved through the planet you can’t understand the role ENSO plays in that.

      • You indulge in reams of speculation based on the minimum of uncertain paleo evidence. The Earth has cooled since the Holocene max and at the Holocene transition – later – the ENSO subsystem switched an El Nino dominant mode? So El Nino causes cooling? Might the cooling be due to changes in ice sheet extent in the ‘neoglaciation’? Difficult to say this far removed in time. But I doubt that the fundamental geophysics have changed.


        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

        This millennial record appears to suggest a 1000 year peak in El Nino intensity and frequency – and a change in beat – in the modern period of global warming.

        Modern data shows why. Cloud feedback in the upwelling region of the Pacific. That I have shown just above in both surface and satellite observations. Thus we get reduction in albedo of marine low level strato-cumulous in the warm Pacific phase giving an increase in SW down along with an increase in IR up. With SW changes dominant.

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

        Thus we get warming and cooling of oceans and atmosphere seen coincident with decadal Pacific phase changes in the modern period. I have this in data from the 1990’s – but lets use more modern data still.

      • You indulge in reams of speculation based on the minimum of uncertain paleo evidence.

        In science we have to do with the data available. And for the same evidence scientists defend opposing hypotheses.

        Your problem is that with even less than adequate knowledge of the available evidence you believe not only that you are correct, but feel at liberty to abuse anybody that disagrees.

        I am an integrator. I integrate the maximum possible available evidence into a coherent structure regardless of mechanisms. As more evidence becomes available the structure must change to accommodate it. I am not dogmatic because unlike you I know that my structure is wrong and incomplete, but still a better approximation than most because I don’t reject anything that is supported by evidence and I don’t have a theory to sell.

        In my opinion one of the problems in the field of climatology is that most climate scientists are not sufficiently knowledgeable outside their subfield. They don’t read enough. And particularly paleoclimatologists and instrumentalists/modelers are not seeing the same things.

        Recently we revisited at Climate.Etc an article that was the subject for one of Judith’s entries in 2014.

        Jankó, F., Móricz, N., & Vancsó, J. P. (2014). Reviewing the climate change reviewers: Exploring controversy through report references and citations. Geoforum, 56, 17-34.

        “Our results show that some of the difference lies in the details; journals dealing with paleo-issues are more important for the NIPCC report. This raises a cautious question: is there an opposition in climate science palpable between paleoclimatology and the mainstream methods, similarly to the difference between observation and modelling? In other words, are there specific sub-fields in climate science, which provide some more evidence against the anthropogenic climate change idea?”

        Paleoclimatology does not support well an important role for CO2, nor the alarmism. When one takes the really long view of climate it is easier to become skeptical, as it happened to me. As an experimental scientist I became worried by the problem of global warming, thinking that it was well supported on evidence. It is not. After studying the evidence I became highly skeptical. As I know science from within, it is not a problem for me to think that most scientists are wrong on this issue. It is very common for scientists to be wrong, and entire fields have been wrong for decades on important issues.

      • In science we learn to recognize limitations of data – and palewo data leads to science that is is tentative, uncertain and provisional. You are not. You insult and berate and pontificate – and then claim that I do. You ignore the bulk of my comments that include numbers of references and up to date pertinent data in favor of self laudatory waffle and irrelevant skeptical posturing. You are a scientific poseur who begins and ends with dogmatic assertions – all of which I find questionable.

        I give you modern data – and there is more below that will escape moderation eventually – and a range of proxies that gainsay your neat little ENSO assumptions. All you can say is that I don’t know what the data is. I gives you – inter alia – CERES records, the most modern 26 degree north array heat transport data and a 1000 year Nile river instrumental record – and you know better than these patient toilers in the vineyards of science. I tend not to stray so far from data – after rigorous analysis of it’s limitations – that it is building castles out of hot air.

        There are zones in the world where more energy is lost than gained – possible only with meridional heat transport. This is then the basis for a hypothesis that ENSO changes heat transport and thus causes planetary heating and cooling. Thus it is not CO2 – or indeed cloud change in the tropics. Without a skerrick of evidence other than that there are zones in the world… And simply assert that it is I who don’t understand how energy is transported through the planetary flow field. Freely admitted. It is complex and dynamic – chaotic in short. It is data – starting with the Nile River – that shows it to be so. But you are decades behind that curve.

        And can only interpret it in terms of climateball.

      • You insult and berate and pontificate – and then claim that I do.

        Many people have reported similar problems with you in the comments of this blog. I guess that clarifies where is the source of the problem.

      • Many people have crude and eccentric theories and object to being called on it. But unlike some people I address the crude and eccentric theories.

      • La Nina cool the planet and El Nino warm – as a result of cloud feedback. I have shown this before and much else.

        Physics – and not just a tale of ‘neoglaciation’.

      • Physics says that when the surface is warmer and the atmosphere is warmer (Niño conditions) OLR increases, cooling the planet. Data shows the same, because LW TOA flux anomaly follows ENSO:

        Susskind, J., Molnar, G., Iredell, L., & Loeb, N. G. (2012). Interannual variability of outgoing longwave radiation as observed by AIRS and CERES follows the multivariate ENSO index. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 117(D23).

        It has also been shown for AIRS and CERES compared to Niño 4:

        Loeb, N. G., Kato, S., Su, W., Wong, T., Rose, F. G., Doelling, D. R., … & Huang, X. (2012). Advances in understanding top-of-atmosphere radiation variability from satellite observations. Surveys in geophysics, 33(3-4), 359-385.

        El Niño extracts heat from the ocean. Due to the increase in cloud cover associated to warmer SST ocean insolation is reduced. During El Niño events the ENSO capacitor discharges. Everybody knows that, but you have got a talent to get things backwards.

        Physics and paleoclimatology are consistent. El Niño cools the planet and that is why it is a lot more frequent during the late Holocene when the planet has been cooling.

        In essence ENSO is part of the poleward transport of energy set of mechanisms and becomes more active when more energy needs to be transported: When the planet is cooling or when there is an excess of energy in the system. That is why it is also associated in frequency to multidecadal oscillations. It is the result of the multidecadal oscillation, not the cause.

      • There is an increase in IR out and a decrease in reflected SW in ERBS, ISCCP and in CERES. The dominant cause of ‘post hiatus’ warming was a reduction in domain albedo over the eastern Pacific.

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

        As I have discussed – it relates to the stability of closed Bénard–Rayleigh convection cells over warmer surfaces. Physics and observation of low level marine stratocumulus.

      • There is an increase in IR out and a decrease in reflected SW

        A decrease in reflected short wave during an El Niño with its increase in cloud cover? How unlikely.

        Let’s see what Kevin Trenberth has to say:
        “Utilizing radiation data from Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE), circulation statistics from NCEP reanalysis, and assimilated ocean data for the tropical Pacific basin, we show that the surface ocean warming during the 1986-87 El Niño is not only accompanied by significant increases in the cloud reflection of the solar radiation, but also by marked increases in the poleward energy transport in both the atmosphere and ocean. Measured over the equatorial region,the feedback from the ocean dynamics is twice as large as from the atmospheric dynamics which in turn is twice as large as the feedback from the cloud albedo. The three feedbacks constitute a strong regulatory effect upon the equatorial SST. The results reveal a prominent role of El Niño in the heat removal from the equatorial Pacific.

        Sun, D. Z., & Trenberth, K. E. (1998). Coordinated heat removal from the equatorial Pacific during the 1986–87 El Nino. Geophysical research letters, 25(14), 2659-2662.

        Oh my!, they agree with me. Or I agree with them, as they said it first.

        Need a more recent one?

        The first principal component of ISCCP high cloud cover fraction between 60°S-60°N corresponds exactly to the Multivariate ENSO Index.

        Li, K. F., Su, H., Mak, S. N., Chang, T. M., Jiang, J. H., Norris, J. R., & Yung, Y. L. (2017). An analysis of high cloud variability: imprints from the El Niño–Southern Oscillation. Climate dynamics, 48(1-2), 447-457.

        You have it all backwards. It is a pattern.

      • “This study examines changes in Earth’s energy budget during and after the global warming “pause” (or “hiatus”) using observations from the Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System. We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

      • Cloud is a fudge factor with some authors saying one thing and others the opposite. What is most significant in ENSO is the oceanic heat pulse:

        “Tropical average OLR increases in response to El Niño in observations and models [correlation coefficients (r) with Niño-3.4 index in the range 0.4–0.6]. Weaker correlations are found for SW (r: −0.6 to 0), cloud amount (r: −0.2 to +0.1), and precipitation (r: −0.2 to 0). Compositing El Niño events over the period 2001–07 yields similar results. These results are consistent with El Niño periods being warmer due to a heat pulse from the ocean, and a weak response in clouds and their radiative effect.

        Radley C, Fueglistaler S, and Donner L. 2014. Cloud
        and Radiative Balance Changes in Response to ENSO in Observations and Models. Journal
        of Climate, 27: 3100-3113.
        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00338.1

      • As I said – IR out increases in El Nino and SW decreases.

        The ERBE/CERES join is a bit dodgy btw. But CERES data shows SW changes dominate with changes in low level cloud.


        As for authors – you are really just behind the curve again. Where you need to look for correlation is where Loeb et al 2018 did.

      • And as I said El Niño is a cooling event on a planetary scale.

      • Ocean heat content has increased ‘post hiatus’ due to an increase in SW down greater than an increase in IR up – the low level cloud signature – giving net planetary warming.



        The Loeb et al 2018 study I cited earlier shows that to be dominated by cloud changes in the upweklling regions of the eastern Pacific. As I said – I doubt that fundamental geophysics have changed over the Holocene.

      • The relationship between OHC and ENSO is best seen in the tropical Pacific:

        https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/sea-surface-temperature-versus-ocean-heat-content-anomalies/

        It does not support your view.

      • In summary, although there is independent evidence for decadal changes in TOA radiative fluxes over the last two decades, the evidence is equivocal. Changes in the planetary and tropical TOA radiative fluxes are consistent with independent global ocean heat-storage data, and are expected to be dominated by changes in cloud radiative forcing. To the extent that they are real, they may simply reflect natural low-frequency variability of the climate system.” AR4 WG1 3.4.4.1

        But the reason the 90’s are more relevant for ocean heat is that data was then dense enough to allow for annual rather than 5 year averages. And it is seen that ocean heat is consistent with TOA radiant flux – with net warming that peaked at the end of the 20th century. Although data on both ocean heat and TOA flux at that time is ‘equivocal’.

        It can be seen in Argo data – with more recent warming of oceans associated with a warm eastern Pacific surface.

      • It is too bad that you will refuse to accept what most climate scientists accept invoking poorly constrained TOA fluxes.

        This recent article hammers it down that ENSO constitutes a cooling event given the well known heat pulse originating in the tropical Pacific during El Niño events:

        “Results confirm that there is a strong negative ocean heat content tendency (OHCT) in the tropical Pacific Ocean during El Niño, mainly through enhanced air–sea heat fluxes Q into the atmosphere driven by high sea surface temperatures.

        While there are distinct regional OHCT changes, many compensate each other, resulting in a weak but robust net global ocean cooling during and after El Niño.”

        Cheng, L., Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J. T., Mayer, M., Balmaseda, M., & Zhu, J. (2019). Evolution of ocean heat content related to ENSO. Journal of Climate, 32(12), 3529-3556.

        Most people understand this because of the temporal sequence of temperature changes.

        First subsurface waters in the Eastern Pacific become warmer. Later sea surface temperature becomes warmer as the heat ascends, this is when El Niño is confirmed. Then the atmosphere gets warmer, usually with a few months delay. And OLR increases from the sea surface and atmosphere. Where the heat is originating and where it is ending is quite clear to almost anybody but you.

        El Niño is a transfer of energy from the tropical Pacific both to the atmosphere and sideways to other oceanic regions farther from the equator. It is a cooling event because it reduces ocean heat content. Part of the heat makes it to the poles where it leaves the planet more efficiently.

      • Ocean heat increased during the recent warm eastern Pacific conditions.

        We have seen why with the literature I have cited.

        e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018GL078242

        Yet you reject observational perspectives for a model study and dodgy ENSO narratives.

      • Not model study:

        “Here we combine ocean observations, reanalyses, and surface flux data with Earth system model simulations to obtain estimates of the different terms affecting the redistribution of energy in the Earth system during ENSO events.”

        And among the signatories are Trenberth, Fasullo and Balmaseda. I trust they know better than you how to interpret the data on ocean heat content.

      • “Here we combine ocean observations, reanalyses, and surface flux data with Earth system model simulations…”

      • Did you notice the observations and data parts? Reanalysis is also fed with data measurements. I guess you don’t like the study simply because it does not support your view.

      • “During an El Niño event, heat is moved eastward in the equatorial Pacific Ocean and then poleward along the Americas and into the atmosphere, resulting in a discharge of the heat from the ocean (Trenberth et al. 2002). Subsequently then, there has to be a recharge of the heat within the ocean as a whole and then into the tropical ocean. Many theories of ENSO take less account of this diabatic component and the important details of
        exactly how the redistribution of heat occurs, both between the ocean and atmosphere, and also among the tropical oceans via the atmosphere (Mayer et al. 2014, 2016).”

        Rather than subsequent – ocean heat content increases in the tropical Pacific simultaneously with warmer SST as a result of anti-correlated low cloud low level cloud feedback.


        https://science.sciencemag.org/content/325/5939/460

        Known for a while now.

        https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6010/1523

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL077904

        https://amyclement.weebly.com/research.html

        https://atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/Ceppi_et_al-2017-WIREs-Climate_Change.pdf

      • https://judithcurry.com/2019/07/12/week-in-review-science-edition-105/#comment-895979

        ocean heat content increases in the tropical Pacific simultaneously with warmer SST as a result of anti-correlated low cloud low level cloud feedback.

        Incorrect. Changes in tropical Pacific Ocean heat content precede ENSO. Ocean heat content increases ahead of El Niño events and ocean heat content decreases ahead of La Niña events. During El Niño events tropical Pacific Ocean heat content decreases.

        El Niño events constitute Pacific Ocean heat pulses. The net effect is heat transport out of the Pacific to other oceans and towards the poles.

      • And you claiming a climate consensus is a total hoot.

      • And you claiming a climate consensus is a total hoot.

        Well, my view of ENSO and its evolution through the Holocene comes from a lot of reading. I don’t know about a consensus but clearly it is not the dinosaur science that you try to describe.

        These authors reached the same conclusion I did independently from my readings at about the same time.

        It has been shown that El Niño events contribute to discharge the warm pool excess of energy out of the tropical Pacific. In a different climate, the energetic budget in the tropical Pacific is altered, which might have an effect on the El Niño amplitude and/or occurrence and thereby on the role of El Niño on energy redistribution. The mid-Holocene period (6 ka BP) offers a good example of changes in the distribution of incoming solar energy. In particular, the equator-pole gradient was weaker compared to the modern period. We analyze long stable simulations of the mid-Holocene and the pre-industrial era and discuss the mean- and El Niño-related energy transports in the two climates. We show that the role of global energy pump played by the tropical Pacific is reduced in the mid-Holocene in our simulation, both in long-term mean and during El Niño years. We demonstrate that this is not only a direct response to insolation forcing but this is further amplified by changes in internal processes. We analyze the relative role of El Niño events in the Pacific discharge in the two climates and show that it is reduced in the mid-Holocene, i.e. the fraction of the Pacific discharge that is due to El Niño is reduced. This is mainly due to reduction in the occurrence of El Niño events. This work gives a new approach to address El Niño changes, from the perspective of the role of El Niño in global energy redistribution”

        Saint-Lu, M., Braconnot, P., Leloup, J., & Marti, O. (2019). The role of El Niño in the global energy redistribution: a case study in the mid-Holocene. Climate Dynamics, 52(12), 7135-7152.

        Exactly like I said only that published in a peer reviewed journal.

        More dinosaur science or Frankenstein science to you?

      • Without satellite power flux data – especially CERES – and Argo ocean data – it is the blind leading the frankendata dinosaur through an endless GIGO loop. .

      • Satellite energy budget data is misleading to say the least. It is the small difference between too very large numbers. It is unclear how well we can measure it.

        Heat transport within the climate system shows that the largest amount of heat transported to the poles corresponds to the winter atmosphere. The seasonal difference is huge. The heat transported to the winter pole must exit the Earth, yet that feature is not well reflected in TOA data. Many satellites have bad polar coverage. I wonder if scientists are missing one of the biggest features of heat transport and the TOA data cannot be trusted to properly represent the planet energy budget.

      • It is clear what the precision of outgoing radiant power flux is. We I am talking about in CERES is precise measurement of outgoing power flux at TOA – not energy imbalances. Solar changes very little – against a a backdrop of large changes in IR and SW out.

        What is dodgy – other than your narratives – is the surface flux in the Cheng et al article.

      • Heat transport within the climate system shows that the largest amount of heat transported to the poles corresponds to the winter atmosphere. The seasonal difference is huge.

        I am interested, what data points in this direction????

      • ““The winter hemisphere atmospheric circulation is the dominant contributor to poleward energy transports outside of the tropics [6–7 PW (1 petawatt = 10^15 W)], with summer transports being relatively weak (~3 PW)—slightly more in the Southern Hemisphere and slightly less in the Northern Hemisphere. “

        Fasullo, J. T., & Trenberth, K. E. (2008). The annual cycle of the energy budget. Part II: Meridional structures and poleward transports. Journal of Climate, 21(10), 2313-2325.

        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2007JCLI1936.1

  70. Chaos is an unsatisfactory term. It covers a lot of things many of which are not relevant. Strictly it just means full turbulence which is not at all the point of our discussion. Of more interest is the regime at the very beginning of the onset of chaos, where the system’s timeline branches into different possible paths. These are Hopf bifurcations. The interesting emergent pattern forming processes occur at the threshold of chaos in the early bifurcation regime, rather than later on once full on chaos has ensued. Turn on a tap slowly. At first the flow of water is laminar. Then it starts to wobble or snake, and maybe split in two streams. A Hopf bifurcation. Keep increasing the flow rate and eventually full on turbulence breaks out.

    http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/329/lectures/node55.html

    A better more relevant term is nonlinear pattern formation. This is where systems far from equilibrium exhibit emergent pattern. This pattern canot be traced to anything. The patterns sometimes represent “attractors”, or “strange attractors” for this reason. There’s something slightly spooky about this emergence of pattern from nowhere, which is probably why so may scientists try to ignore this phenomenon. The circumstances that engender nonlinear pattern formation are all ones present in the climate system, for instance an open dissipative system where heat flows through, and which contains positive (exitability) and negative (friction) feedbacks. All this is well known:

    https://nonlinearbiomedphys.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/1753-4631-1-4

    Look at the last paper by Bertram for a helpful description of how feedback in a system actually supresses turbulence and causes emergent pattern in its place. One can find analogies to climate systems looking at experimental systems of nonlinear pattern formation. Bertram’s example is catalysed oxidation of carbon monoxide on a platinum surface. Some generalisations emerge about the role of feedbacks in the type of emergent pattern. Negative feedback is called friction and tends to cause complex asymmetric patterns. Positive feedback by contrast inhibits complex pattern formation and instead imposes monotonic oscillation. This is analagous to oceanic systems where a positive feedback results in the emergence, at least intermittently, of an oscillation. The Bjerknes feedback between Peruvian upwelling and trade winds is the positive feedback that is the drivin force behind ENSO oscillations. The salinity downwelling feedback in the north Atlantic is the positive feedback that energises the AMOC. In both cases, ENSO and AMOC, the presence of a driving positive feedback causing oscillation is said to make the system an excitable medium.

    The “chaos” argument in climate is not just a hand-waving generalisation that it’s really complicated and noisy. It is about a specific process of spatiotemporal pattern formation. The Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction is a well known example:

    And finally an important aspect of emergent nonlinear oscillations is that they can be internally generated but they can also be paced or entrained, in simple or complex ways, by outside periodic forcing. Therefore what I have been proposing again and again is that climate oscillations are often chaotic-related nonlinear patterns that are entrained by external periodic forcing, such as by solar or other astrophysical periodic forcing. ENSO for instance is forced by the annual cycle and el Nino events are phase locked to generally peak at Christmas.

    https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052%3C0293:IALTTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

    What does this all mean for climate in specific terms, not just handwaving? Climate is an open dissipative heat engine. It contains positive and negative feedbacks. It is far from equilibrium. Therefore chaotic-nonlinear pattern formation is inevitable. This takes the form of oscillations such as the AMO, PDO, ENSO and many others. These are not monotonic but change in wavelength (so they’re not just following the stars).

    There is a new branch of analysis of chaotic pattern and proceses called “Attractor Landscape Analysis”. The attractor landscape is the map of probabilities in the phase space of a system with chaotic-nonlinear pattern dynamics. It is mostly applied within genetic cell and cancer biology:

    https://stke.sciencemag.org/content/5/251/ra83.abstract

    and also areas such as human behavioural science and ecology:

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364815206000296

    Needless to say I suggest it would be useful to apply in the study of climate also.

    • Phil Salmon: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052%3C0293:IALTTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      Thank you for the link, and for the B-Z video.

      Has the Tziperman, Cane and Zebiak model been tested/upgraded in the decades since that publication?

    • Phil Salmon: Look at the last paper by Bertram for a helpful description of how feedback in a system actually supresses turbulence and causes emergent pattern in its place

      Where is that last paper by Bertram? There are many Bertrams.

    • matthew
      Here’s a link to the Bertram paper

      About the Tzipermann and Cane model – there are quite a few papers from this group and I don’t think their model and paradigm were ever refuted.
      I guess what happened is that the nonlinear oscillator narrative was judged not sufficiently CO2-ey so was starved of publication and funding.

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469%281997%29054%3C0061%3AMOSEI%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      https://science.sciencemag.org/content/264/5155/72

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1995)052%3C0293:IALTTS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0442%281998%29011%3C2191%3ALOENOS%3E2.0.CO%3B2

      https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3425922/Tziperman_ControllingSpatiotemporal.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

      • Phil Salmon: Here’s a link to the Bertram paper

        Thank you, and thanks for the others as well.

        I guess what happened is that the nonlinear oscillator narrative was judged not sufficiently CO2-ey so was starved of publication and funding.

        Robert I Ellison pounds the drum for nonlinear oscillators all the time. I think the principal problem is that there have not been good fits of any oscillator models to any climate measurements over any sufficient lengths of time. As you say, I have not found one that incorporates CO2.

    • Phil,

      I essentially agree with your exposition of chaos theory. How relevant is that to climate change? We we look to multi-millennial climate records what we see is a lot of noise. Given the resolution most of it is multidecadal to centennial noise. Frequency analysis reveals multiple shifting patterns that in many cases do not agree between proxies of different nature.

      I have chosen to ignore that noise, that could very well emerge from chaos in the very complex climate system, because it is not productive. By concentrating instead on the large climate swings, those of multicentennial to multimillennial nature, it becomes clear that large oscillations in external forcings must be responsible to a large extent. Interglacials are not due to chaos, neither are the millennial cycles (the Roman WP – Millennial WP – Modern GW sequence). Not the DO-events. And not the large climatic events like the 8.2 and 4.2 kyr events that have been used to divide the Holocene.

      Are the multidecadal oscillations that we detect in modern instruments chaotic in nature? That I don’t know and I have an open mind about it.

    • Javier
      If the climate system (or any part of it) is excitable and able to “hop” between accessible attractors, then external forcing can certainly push the system to jump between attractors. This is what is meant by “periodically forced nonlinear oscillator”.

      Your evidence for the timing of interglacials following exactly every 2 or 3 obliquity peaks (after the MPR) – with a lag of 6500 years for oceanic “thermal inertia”, is so convincing as to be irrefutable. Seeing this made be pull back a little from ascribing all the glacial-interglacial flicker to chaotic oscillation – the Milankovitch forcing is unmistakable strong (ish) in this case. It was stronger before the MPR – an interglacial with every obliquity peak. After the MPR if was only every 2 or 3 depending on the other Milankovich cycles.

      (Unfortunately in modern science it is no longer necessary to refute an argument you dont like – you just ignore it.)

      The DO events show that even in the middle of a glacial period the system can be popped to the interglacial attractor but it doesn’t hold, falling back quickly to the glacial state.

      I guess the 8.2 and 4.2 kyr ago events are the opposite – the system within an interglacial interval briefly feeling the pull of the glacial attractor – with the help of some transient downward forcing.

      About the multidecadal oscillations, the paper by Bertram (by far the best author on chaotic-nonlinear dynamics I have found) made an interesting observation in the above linked paper. Positive feedbacks dont cause chaos – the do the opposite. They cause chaotic pattern to collapse into regular oscillation. This might be a better way to see oceanic oscillations (PDO, AMO, AMOC etc.). Not chaos per se. But if anything the opposite – excitability in the system due to a positive feedback subduing chaos and imposing an oscillation. (Again – this oscillation can either be intrinsic only or it can be periodically forced from outside. See the literature on forced and unforced BZ reactions.)

      • The DO events show that even in the middle of a glacial period the system can be popped to the interglacial attractor but it doesn’t hold, falling back quickly to the glacial state.

        DO events show a very similar phenotype to interglacials at a different timescale.

        They are defined by a stable glacial state and a quasi-stable interglacial or interstadial state constituting the different branches of a slow manifold in an excitable dynamic system. This was analyzed by Michael Crucifix in 2012.

        While the system can be defined in terms of non-linear dynamics as transitions responding to attractors, the transitions to a warmer state require quite a lot of energy that has to be provided by some mechanism that can then be identified as the ultimate cause of the transition. Transitions to a colder state are thermodinamically favored. That’s why the return to a glacial state is inevitable despite generalized opinion against it.

    • Chaos is an unsatisfactory term.

      No, chaos is an excellent term. It means, “I do not understand what happened or why it happened”. You just need to understand what the word means. Every thing happens for a reason, when you don’t understand what the data does mean, it appears to be chaos because you did not expect what did happen or understand why.

  71. Richard Lindzen has said essentially the same as I was trying to say above.
    That intrinsic climate variations generated by the oceans, would continue “for centuries” even in a hypothetical case that top of atmosphere heat fluxes in and out were in perfect balance and unity. Because of the heat capacity of the oceans, and the millennial timescale of its processes, and also chaotic dynamics, the ocean changes climate by itself without need of outside forcing. However ocean driven climate change can also interact with external periodic forcing.

  72. Javier,
    Just a note to say thanks for supporting evidence based science on climate issues here. Given the short historical records vs long ice age swings it is hard to accept the CAGW that the cause is people driving SUVs. If the elites believed this they would curb their own airline travel and sell seaside residences. It is mostly about control.

    What do you think of using actual temperature measurements and error bars for adjustments? The recent modifications to the historical record seem to me to be manipulative.
    Scott

    • Scott,

      I am not too concerned about the accuracy of the instrumental temperature reconstructions. In a science made by humans it is inevitable that data interpretation is not as neutral as it should. But it is a fact that the world is warming. To me whether it is 0.6 or 1.0°C is irrelevant. If the world was cooling no amount of adjustment would hide it.

      But the conviction that the main contributor to the warming is the anthropogenic increase in GHGs is a belief supported on unproven assumptions. It is reasonable to think that it has contributed to the warming, but the neglect of natural factors is based on a very imperfect knowledge. Assumptions in science are very dangerous because they escape the scientific method and contaminate the process. Assumptions that last decades become so ingrained in the field, that it is forgotten that they had been assumed and not deduced. Then they become a serious obstacle to progress. As cracks appear in the structure ad hoc fixes are applied instead of questioning the solidity of the foundation. Sometimes it takes many decades before the structure, that should not have been erected in the first place, crumbles and falls down.

  73. I don’t care what you think of me. I don’t care if you agree with the references I bring up or not. You constantly misrepresent what I say while accusing me of many things. The comparison between Bond events and ENSO proxies was done by Moy et al. (2002) as they reported it in their article. Somehow you accuse me of Frankenscience for showing in graph format that what they say is correct. That’s just fine. It goes to show that the contaminating factor in this blog is you with your constant attacks to almost anybody.

    You are bullying the blog and like a good troll you accuse others of what you do.

    The reality is that your approach to climate science is quite useless, full of good sounding phrases but empty of content. It leads to a poor understanding of heat transport within the climate system, a most essential property.

    My opinions about climate are well reflected in the scientific literature because they are based on it. It is not my job to support or disprove them. If you don’t like my opinions I am fine with that, but you better leave me alone so I can leave you alone too.

  74. A classic sanity check. Find an alternative physical mechanism for ocean warming in recent years.

    • For those that understand that an El Niño is a discharge of tropical Pacific Ocean heat, according to the “Recharge Oscillator” theory of ENSO proposed by Jin in 1997, it is not a surprise that Pacific heat content is the best ENSO predictor one or more seasons ahead.

      Planton, Y., Vialard, J., Guilyardi, E., Lengaigne, M., & Izumo, T. (2018). Western Pacific oceanic heat content: a better predictor of La Niña than of El Niño. Geophysical Research Letters, 45(18), 9824-9833.

      “The equatorial Pacific Ocean heat content is a well-known predictor of El Niño / La Niña several seasons ahead. In this study, we show that negative heat content anomalies lead more systematically to La Niña events than positive heat content to El Niño events.”

      As of June the integrated warm water volume (WWV) above the 20°C isotherm between 5°N-5°S, 120°E to 80°W has shifted to a negative anomaly. This negative anomaly indicates the tropical Pacific has entered discharge conditions due to the current El Niño. The probability of a La Niña event in the near future has increased. The strength of the heat discharge is also probabilistically related to the strength of the following La Niña event 13 months later.

      https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/elnino/upper-ocean-heat-content-and-enso

      The coming Niña as well as the present Niño were predicted a year ago by me in a WUWT article based on solar activity.

      For someone who thinks ocean heat content increases as a result of El Niño nothing of this makes sense and predictions are not possible. The evidence, however, shows that changes in ocean heat content precede ENSO, and El Niño is an ocean heat pulse that discharges the oscillator. The relationship between ENSO and the meridional heat transport is clear, and explains the changes in ENSO activity that have taken place over the Holocene, as some authors have noted (Saint-Lu et al, 2019).

      One more problem is that in a warming planet with warmer poles and a reduced latitudinal temperature gradient ENSO activity should decrease, just the opposite of what happened during the Neoglacial. Nobody is publishing this, despite being an obvious conclusion, until someone figures out how to present it as bad news and a “worse than we thought” warming.

      • Javier

        “Nobody is publishing this…..”

        Has it been actively discussed? Is it common knowledge by those who should be publishing it?

        I’ve just been reviewing some work on MWP in the Southern Hemisphere this morning. It seems the small number of positive signs of warming in the SH is more absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.

        Maybe more incentives to find bad news is what is needed in both cases. :)

      • Cerescokid,

        Has it been actively discussed? Is it common knowledge by those who should be publishing it?

        It is hard to know from the outside what happens at meetings or what is being discussed between colleagues. It only makes it to print if somebody makes it their focus of research. What I see is that people studying paleoclimate tend to disengage from discussing implications of their work that might question the consensus line. They have nothing to win and if their article provides ammunition to skeptics they might get into a difficult situation. If a reviewer says an article can be used by deniers that is enough for a rejection in a lot of journals.

        Meanwhile modern climatology is dominated by modellers. They tend to not focus too much in paleoclimatology as their models usually don’t work very well on past conditions. One example is the Pliocene paradox, when for similar forcings to the present the climate was completely different. Some scientists have even proposed that the planet was then in permanent Niño conditions. How absurd.

        And the problem is that models say ENSO should have a bigger amplitude as the planet warms, which is the opposite of what paleoclimatology shows. This is a recent example:

        Cai, W., Santoso, A., Wang, G., Yeh, S. W., An, S. I., Cobb, K. M., … & Lengaigne, M. (2015). ENSO and greenhouse warming. Nature Climate Change, 5(9), 849.
        https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/bitstream/handle/10871/19715/ENSO%20and%20greenhouse%20warming.pdf;sequence=1

        “The El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the dominant climate phenomenon affecting extreme weather conditions worldwide. Its response to greenhouse warming has challenged scientists for decades, despite model agreement on projected changes in mean state. Recent studies have provided new insights into the elusive links between changes in ENSO and in the mean state of the Pacific climate. The projected slow-down in Walker circulation is expected to weaken equatorial Pacific Ocean currents, boosting the occurrences of eastward-propagating warm surface anomalies that characterize observed extreme El Niño events. Accelerated equatorial Pacific warming, particularly in the east, is expected to induce extreme rainfall in the eastern equatorial Pacific and extreme equatorward swings of the Pacific convergence zones, both of which are features of extreme El Niño. The frequency of extreme La Niña is also expected to increase in response to more extreme El Niños, an accelerated maritime continent warming and surface-intensified ocean warming. ENSO-related catastrophic weather events are thus likely to occur more frequently with unabated greenhouse-gas emissions. But model biases and recent observed strengthening of the Walker circulation highlight the need for further testing as new models, observations and insights become available.”

        OK, so more frequent extreme (repeated 6 times in the abstract) Niños and Niñas are expected on account of a projected slow-down in Walker circulation by models. The problem: Walker circulation refuses to comply. But if you are a paleoclimatologist you are better off not publishing that you expect a reduction in frequency of extreme ENSO based on paleo data or you would get creamed. Anything pre-industrial is no longer relevant to the present and particularly to the future unless it agrees with models.

        Climatology is just a joke of a science.

      • “One hundred and fifty years ago, the striking similarity of marine animals on either side of the Isthmus of Panama was sufficient to convince naturalists that a seaway had once flowed between the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea (fig. S1) (1, 2). Formation of the Isthmus was a pivotal event, driving global oceanic reorganization and major biotic change on land and at sea.” https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/8/e1600883

        Shoaling of the Isthmus of Panama some 2.8 million years ago had profound implications for currents in both the Atlantic and Pacific. Before then – the Pacific exhibited less of an oscillating contrast between east and west – what has been called a permanent El Niño like state – after that the modern dynamic emerges.

        High resolution data on ENSO exists only for the Holocene at best. Even here it is a nonlinear – rainfall and stream flow artifacts – proxy of a nonlinear system.

        It shows a system behaving in accordance with its own rules.

      • It shows – btw – increased El Niño frequency and intensity in the past 5,000 years.

      • Associated to planetary cooling, not warming.

      • There was a medieval and a modern peak in El Niño intensity and frequency – but assuming causality on such meager grounds is precisely your problem. The most modern data is , however, definitive


        https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00003.1

      • assuming causality on such meager grounds is precisely your problem.

        Not my problem. Tsonis provides an explanation:

        “We have presented mathematical and physical evidence that support the hypothesis that the occurrence and variability of El Niño are sensitive to changes in global temperatures, but not to the actual value of the global temperature. More specifically, our theory suggests that El Niño is activated to reverse positive global temperature trends, and La Niña to reverse negative trends.”

        Tsonis, A. A., Hunt, A. G., & Elsner, J. B. (2003). On the relation between ENSO and global climate change. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 84(3-4), 229-242.

        Please note that their hypothesis shares with mine and with the evidence presented that El Niño events are cooling events. There’s more of them when the planet is cooling (Neoglacial) and when they are acting as a negative feedback to warming as during the present global warming. Their frequency is thus controlled by the activation of the meridional heat transport when the planet cools or when it resists warming.

      • “We find that in those cases where the synchronous state was followed by a steady increase in the coupling strength between the indices, the synchronous state was destroyed, after which a new climate state emerged. These shifts are associated with significant changes in global temperature trend and in ENSO variability. The latest such event is known as the great climate shift of the 1970s.” A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Anastasios A. Tsonis Kyle Swanson Sergey Kravtsov – https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288

        ” Figure 1 (middle) shows that these climate mode trend phases indeed behaved anomalously three times during the 20th century, immediately following the synchronization events of the 1910s, 1940s, and 1970s. This combination of the synchronization of these dynamical modes in the climate, followed immediately afterward by significant increase in the fraction of strong trends (coupling) without exception marked shifts in the 20th century climate state. These shifts were accompanied by breaks in the global mean temperature trend with respect to time, presumably associated with either discontinuities in the global radiative budget due to the global reorganization of clouds and water vapor or dramatic changes in the uptake of heat by the deep ocean.” Has the climate recently shifted? Kyle L. Swanson Anastasios A. Tsonis

        Does he now? Leaving aside chaotic shifts in climate states – we have the quandary of more El Nino in the 1976 to 1998 period and cooling or warming oceans? So what was it? Or in the the ‘post hiatus’ period – with a warm Eastern Pacific and cooling or warming oceans?

        ENSO event frequency and intensity is modulated by flow in the north and south Pacific gyres. A whole lot more complex than spilling a little warm water north and south and cooling the planet as El Nino hits the eastern boundary. Meridional heat transport in oceans is largely in geostrophic eddies – https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38069-2

        The reality of which is:


        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EA000492

        And for ENSO:


        https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833

      • We are advancing a lot in our mechanistic understanding of climate processes as these interesting papers show, but the overall picture of heat transport already understood in the 1970s hasn’t changed. The Klein et al. 2019 paper concludes:
        “The consequence, as discussed by Jansen and Ferrari (2012), is that the atmospheric response to external forcings is much faster and much less inertial than the ocean response, which should impact the dynamics of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system.”
        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018EA000492

        OK. We now know a little better how that happens, but we already knew that since like forever. The oceans provide a huge inertia to the climate system, and meridional heat transport is essential to explain why the planet warms.

        Oviatt et al. 2015 provide an important clue:
        “jet stream patterns… were predominantly zonal from the 1970s to 1990s and switched since the 1990s to a meridional wind phase”
        https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/3/4/833

        So meridional heat transport is an important regulator of planetary warming and cooling.

        There is nothing in those articles that contradicts my views about ENSO or meridional heat transport.

      • Oviat et al are talking polar vortices driving oceans gyres. Very different to Arctic amplification via poleward heat transport by oceans and atmosphere – discussed in the other links provided.

        But you fail to address fundamental question of where and why oceans warm or cool with relevant data. Weasel words don’t count.

      • Oviatt et al. start talking about zonal versus meridional patterns if you have read the abstract and seen their figure 1 that I just linked above.

        I do not have to address or explain anything, as that is not my job. I just read and integrate what climate scientists produce. It is their job to properly support their conclusions on available evidence.

        Forget and Ferreira (2019) show that “Global ocean heat transport [is] dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific.” They go as far as to say:
        “The result demonstrates the overwhelming predominance of the tropical Pacific, which exports four times as much heat as is imported in the Atlantic and Arctic. …
        However, effective inter-ocean heat transports are smaller than expected, suggesting that global-scale seawater pathways play only a minor role in Earth’s heat budget.

        Forget, G., & Ferreira, D. (2019). Global ocean heat transport dominated by heat export from the tropical Pacific. Nature Geoscience, 12(5), 351.

        I wonder if you consider their conclusions as weasel words.

      • Oviatt et al discuss meridional and zonal winds patterns associated with the polar vortices.

        Forget and Ferriera discuss heat transport in the oceans and find relatively little transport between the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic Oceans
        – contrary to earlier ideas. The heat gain – and therefore transport – in the Pacific is because it covers such a significant portion of the tropics.

        You hand wave at ENSO and the ‘neoglacial’ – and heat transport. I point out the peak in El Nino frequency and intensity in the medieval and modern period associated with both ocean heat in the western warm pool and solar activity changes. The solar bias is indirect via modulation of polar vortices.

        Modern data shows both absorbed shortwave increasing and ocean heat increases in the last multi-decadal Pacific warm regime. In CERES and Argo – El Nino and Ocean warming is definitive.

      • Over this long discussion you have showed that you didn’t know that most meridional heat transport is accomplished by the winter atmosphere, with the oceans playing a minor role, and that you don’t understand that El Niño constitutes a cooling event.

        You insist on the CERES data that is difficult to analyze, but reject the most direct source of data, the Pacific Ocean warm water volume that unequivocally shows Pacific Ocean heat content decreasing during El Niño as it is happening right now.

        If the energy decreases it is a cooling event, not a warming one. And this is the energy right there in the ocean, not at the top of the atmosphere.

        I have showed you several articles where authors defend that El Niño constitutes a cooling event, including your beloved Tsonis.

        Despite all your accusations and fancy words you have failed to show a modicum of understanding of energy poleward transport. You are welcome to continue this discussion to eternity, but I think that much is evident to anybody. My recommendation is that you study harder the issues that you like so much to talk about.

      • “Both pre-1973 and post-1998 periods of reduced lead were characterized by “mean” La Niña–like conditions, including a westward displacement of the anomalous wind forcing. According to recent theory, and consistent with observations, such westward displacement increases the tilt mode contribution to the WWV and decreases the second-mode amplitude and its WWV contribution.” https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JPO-D-13-062.1

        It was in the ’tilt mode’ after 1998 through to 2014.

        Ocean warming in the tropics post 2014 was linked in a “partial radiative perturbation analysis” to the state of the Pacific. “The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”

        But I also link to the physics of the SST/cloud feedback in the relative persistence of closed cell cloud over cool or warm water in Bénard–Rayleigh convection.

        e.g. https://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973593

        Tropical oceans gain heat – mostly in the Pacific – that is carried by geostrophic and baroclinic turbulent flows poleward. Energy lost from the oceans is carried on turbulent atmospheric flows and diffuses over land and water.

        “This is the first time that this mechanism, which appears consistent with the theory of synchronized chaos, is discovered in a physical system of the size and complexity of the climate system.” https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030288

        “A major obstacle to this understanding is the extreme complexity of the climate system, which makes it difficult to disentangle causal connections leading to the observed climate behavior. Here we present a novel approach, which reveals an important new mechanism in climate dynamics and explains several aspects of the observed climate variability in the late 20th century.” op. cit.

        Changes Clouds and water vapor or in ocean heat uptake is what Tsonis said. Leaving causal connection open. But a mathematical demonstration of chaos in climate is more significant.

        Javier says I get things arse about. From a truculent neophyte who takes the most basic of geophysical throw away lines and misinterprets and amplifies that into earth shattering insights – and rejects science he doesn’t like on spurious grounds – usually with rants about how pathetic it all is – duck and water.

      • signs of warming in the SH is more absence of evidence rather than evidence of absence.

        There is best evidence, look at ice core data, SH and NH are independent in the warming and cooling cycles during the most recent ten thousand years. Major ice age cycles were more coordinated because the ocean levels promoted more evaporation and precipitation in warmest times and less in coldest times.

    • The Pacific state has decadal to millennial modes. It changes with flow in the Peruvian and Californian currents – and that may be modulated by solar activity. Low solar activity enhances the meridional component of polar annular modes spinning up oceanic gyres in the the south and north Pacific and results in shoaling of the thermocline in the eastern Pacific. Upwelling then strengthens trade winds that pile up warm surface water against Australia and Indonesia in the western Pacific warm pool. At some stage trade winds falter and warm water surges east as both surface flow and an equatorial confined Rossby wave. The thermocline in the east deepens suppressing upwelling and dissipating warm surface water north and south. La Niña is the normal state charge phase of the nonlinear oscillator and El Niña the discharge.

      A negative PDO is associated with more frequent and intense La Niña, cooler surface temps and a cooler ocean. Thus the progression from a cooler ocean to warming in the ‘post hiatus’ period of the 21st century – when data is obviously more precise and comprehensive.

      “We find a marked 0.83 ± 0.41 Wm−2 reduction in global mean reflected shortwave (SW) top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux during the three years following the hiatus that results in an increase in net energy into the climate system. A partial radiative perturbation analysis reveals that decreases in low cloud cover are the primary driver of the decrease in SW TOA flux. The regional distribution of the SW TOA flux changes associated with the decreases in low cloud cover closely matches that of sea-surface temperature warming, which shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.”
      https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62

      This is a physical mechanism caused by positive marine strato-cumulus feedback to warm sea surface temperature. Physics doesn’t change.

      There is an old idea that the tropical Pacific heat is lost to the atmosphere in a positive PDO/El Niño – this physically must be part of the complex mechanisms involved. But modern data is confirming that this idea is incomplete.

      It has been obvious for some time that the western warm pool was fully discharged. The timing of the next La Niña – now emerging in the eastern Pacific – then depends on trade wind feedbacks to cold and nutrient rich upwelling.

    • Robert
      Mechanism for “natural” non-anthropogenic warming or cooling?
      Look no further than the huge vertical temperature gradient in the ocean and all the deep cold water even at the equator.
      The mechanism might be ENSO or AMOC or the less well known Antarctic upwelling / downwelling sites or an of a host of other oceanic current systems.
      But all it takes is a small change in globally integrated vertical mixing, and enough energy is there – in the ocean – for any climate change you want.
      By that I mean for example the DO events (warming then cooling by 10-15C in a few centuries) or glacial inceptions and terminations. Or just warmer and cooler centuries.

      In Homer’s Iliad when Ulysses gained the support of the powerful goddess Athena, in his quest to regain his family home, he asked his comrades “do we need to cudgel our brains for further allies?!” Likewise with the vast heat quantity and sharp and negative vertical temperature gradient in the ocean, there is no need to “cudgel our brains” to find further sources of heat to account for natural climate changes. And this is obvious by just looking at the climate record – such huge swings of temperature have happened naturally throughout earth’s history. Without needing the permission of any climate accountant. It’s all in the ocean (with a little help from Milankovich).

      • The above is a reply to
        Robert I. Ellison | July 28, 2019 at 3:11 am | Reply
        A classic sanity check. Find an alternative physical mechanism for ocean warming in recent years.

      • Warming or cooling – mostly in oceans – happens with energy imbalances at TOA in accordance with the 1st law of thermodynamics. Changes in radiant flux largely emerge from ice, cloud, dust and biological changes in the Earth system. Modern Earth system science includes people in these dynamic changes.

        e.g. https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6006/916

        “Tremendous progress has been made in understanding the functioning of the Earth system and, in particular, the impact of human actions (1). Although this knowledge can inform management of specific features of our world in transition, societies need knowledge that will allow them to simultaneously reduce global environmental risks while also meeting economic development goals.”

        Physical changes in the system can only be understood in terms of thresholds and tipping points. Milankovic insolation changes slowly until there is a transition in AMOC and ice sheets. Solar activity declines slowly until there is a transition between a La Niiña dominant climate state to El Niiño dominance in the mid-Holocene.

        High solar activity biases the system to warm Pacific states at the medieval optimum and in the modern period – with global hydrology shifts. With cooler Pacific states between.

        It may be as subtle as the Hale cycle of solar magnetic reversal being implicated through polar surface pressure modulation in 20 to 30 year periodicity of the system.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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