By Nic Lewis
A critique of the paper “Greater committed warming after accounting for the pattern effect”, by Zhou, Zelinka, Dessler and Wang.
- The pattern effect is the dependence of outgoing radiation to space on the spatial pattern of surface warming.
- A pattern effect, relative to that in equilibrium, can be caused both by evolution over time in the climate system’s response to forcing and by its internal variability.
- The paper fails to distinguish between a historical period pattern effect that is forced, which will unwind very slowly, and one that is caused by internal variability, which can quickly unwind, causing rapid warming.
- The forced pattern effect is very small in CAM5.3
- The pattern effect found in the paper is greatly affected by being estimated during the hiatus.
- The estimated post-hiatus unforced historical pattern effect is non-negligible in CAM5.3 when using the AMIP2 sea surface temperature dataset, as in the paper, but negligible when using the UK Met Office HadISST1 dataset.
- The historical pattern effect is not robust; it varies hugely between models and SST datasets.
- The paper’s claims about greater committed warming directly reflect its estimate of the size of the historical pattern effect.
A new paper “Greater committed warming after accounting for the pattern effect” led by Chen Zhou (Zhou et al.) has recently been published in Nature Climate Change. Here is the accompanying press release.
Zhou et al.’s estimate of committed warming (future warming with forcing remaining unchanged) follows fairly directly from their estimate of the pattern effect, if one accepts their bases and assumptions. In this article I therefore mainly deal with their estimate of the pattern effect.
The term “pattern effect” refers to the effect on outgoing radiation to space of the spatial pattern of surface temperatures, with unchanging global mean temperature. Mauritsen (2016) gives a simple explanation of how the pattern effect arises. The effect implies that, in the global mean, climate feedback strength – the ratio of the global change in outgoing radiation to that in surface temperature –depends on the spatial pattern of evolving surface temperature change.
In numerical value terms:
Pattern effect = Actual net outgoing radiation to space – Expected long term mean outgoing radiation (at the applicable global mean surface temperature)
Expected long term mean outgoing radiation = Increase in global temperature from previous equilibrium state × Long term climate feedback strength under increased CO2
It follows that climate sensitivity estimates derived from the change in global temperature and the Earth’s energy balance over the historical period (since 1850 or so) are potentially subject to bias if the pattern of surface temperature change over the historical period differs from the long term pattern of warming arising from increased CO2 concentration, which is what will determine equilibrium climate sensitivity.
Unfortunately, the pattern effect – most importantly, its evolution over the historical period – can only be quantified using global climate model (GCM) simulations, in atmosphere-only mode. Those simulations (amipPiForcing simulations), although driven by observational sea surface temperature (SST) and sea-ice data, are quite strongly dependent both on individual model characteristics and on the evolution of SST in regions that historically have been sparsely observed.
There is nothing fundamentally new in Zhou et al.’s paper about the pattern effect and its implications for bias in observationally-based estimates of climate sensitivity and for ultimate future warming. The pattern effect has been known about for several years, and its potential implications for historical period observational estimates of climate sensitivity discussed, for example in Lewis and Curry (2018). Moreover, Andrews et al. (2018) carried out a very similar analysis to that in the new paper. Although Zhou et al. and Andrews et al. (2018) use somewhat different models and analysis methods, there is little difference in their estimates of the historical period pattern effect. However, historical period pattern effect estimates vary greatly according to the climate model and SST dataset involved, and are not robust.
The total pattern effect arises from the sum of two distinct influences on surface temperature patterns:
- the evolution over time in the spatial pattern of the climate system’s forced response to increased CO2 forcing, which causes climate feedback strength in the long term to differ from that over the shorter term, such as the historical period; and
- the effect of climate system internal variability on temperature, particularly SST, patterns
which give rise to respectively the forced and unforced pattern effects.
The importance of distinguishing between forced and unforced pattern effects
A serious shortcoming in both Andrews et al (2018) and Zhou et al (2021) is that they only estimate the total pattern effect. But its forced and unforced components have very different implications for the timescale over which future warming develops.
The forced pattern effect is very difficult to identify in observations, however it occurs in a large majority of coupled GCMs in simulations driven by increased CO2 concentration. Within a decade after such an increase, their surface warming patterns change and their climate feedback strength starts to decline to a somewhat lower level. Therefore, coupled GCM’s long term climate feedback strength is overestimated, and their equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) underestimated, if based on data from the early decades after an increase in CO2 concentration – which broadly corresponds to data available from the historical period.
Nevertheless, if there were only a forced pattern effect over the historical period, then coupled GCM behaviour implies that use of ‘effective climate sensitivity’ estimates that correctly reflect warming and energy budgets over the historical period can be expected to result in very little underestimation of committed warming up to 2100, or until the mid-2100s for warming from increases in forcing between now and then, with underestimation only emerging slowly thereafter.
However, if there were also a non-negligible positive unforced pattern effect component over the historical period, then as soon as the internal variability excursion causing it ends, global mean temperature would rapidly increase. Moreover, historical period ‘effective climate sensitivity’ estimates would be further biased low. Therefore, using them could significantly underestimate both committed warming and warming from future forcing increases over the current century, not just in the longer run as for a forced pattern effect.
Since forced and unforced pattern effects have very different implications for the timescale of future warming, it is important to produce separate estimates of their magnitudes over the historical period.
Lewis and Mauritsen (2020) showed that the estimated magnitude of the historical period unforced pattern effect is strongly dependent, in at least one model, on the observational SST dataset used. We found it to be significant when employing AMIP2 SST, as is usual in the SST-driven climate model simulations involved, but negligible when UK Met Office HadISST1 SST data was employed.
In my view, the most useful contribution of Zhou et al (2021) is this. They carried out simulations with another model, CAM5.3, driven by HadISST1 SST data as well as by the usual AMIP2 SST data. They also performed an abrupt4xCO2 simulation for CAM5.3 in coupled mode. In this article, I will show what the implications of their CAM5.3 simulations are for the forced pattern effect and – based on each of AMIP2 and HadISST1 SST data – for the unforced historical pattern effect.
The forced pattern effect in CAM5.3: how does its climate sensitivity change over time?
Standard practice is to estimate the ECS of a coupled GCM by running a simulation under preindustrial conditions until a near-equilibrium state is reached, and then performing a 150 year long simulation at the start of which the CO2 concentration is quadrupled (‘abrupt4xCO2’). Usually ECS is estimated from the x-intercept of a linear OLS regression fit of top-of-atmosphere radiative imbalance (global heating rate, N) to global near-surface air temperature (T), both expressed as annual mean changes from their preindustrial mean. The x-intercept value, which corresponds to a stable state with zero net heating, is generally halved to convert from a quadrupling of CO2 concentration to the doubling specified for ECS. The climate feedback parameter (λ) is taken as the negative of the regression fit line’s slope.
When estimating feedbacks in amipPiForcing simulations there are good arguments for using surface temperature (Ts – SST over ocean and land skin temperature) rather than near-surface air temperature (Lewis and Curry 2018). Zhou has previously done so, and I do so here. The effect of such blending of temperature measures is extremely small in CAM5.3; Ts increases by 1.0% less than T over the abrupt4xCO2 simulation, implying an ECS of 2.97 K rather than 3.00 K per Zhou et al.
Figure 1 shows the CAM5.3 abrupt4xCO2 simulation annual Ts and N values (blue line). The leftmost end of the line shows the year 1 mean values. The red line shows the linear fit over years 1-150 and resulting ECS estimate. Its slope implies λ = 1.32 Wm−2K−1; the x-intercept of 5.94 K corresponds to an ECS of 2.97 K when halved.
In order to estimate the forced pattern effect for CAM5.3, one also needs an estimate of its climate feedback value that would have been applicable over the historical period. This can be estimated from the slope of a regression fit over the first twenty to fifty years of its abrupt4xCO2 simulation.
Figure 1. Plot of annual mean ΔTs and N values over the 150 year CESM1.2.1-CAM5.3 abrupt4xCO2 simulation, and linear OLS regression fits thereto over years 1–150 and 1–20. The x-intercepts of approximately 6 K imply an ECS of 3 K (from the years 1–150 fit line) and a marginally lower effective climate sensitivity estimate (from the years 1–20 fit line), if halved to convert from 4× CO2 to 2× CO2 (as is usually done). The climate feedback parameter, λ, estimates over years 1–150 and 1–20 are the negatives of the relevant regression line slopes.
Examination of the amipPiForcing data suggests that fitting a regression over the first twenty years would be more appropriate here. Doing so (green line in Figure 1) gives a 4.5% higher λ estimate, of 1.38 Wm−2K−1, than regression over years 1–150; the resulting effective climate sensitivity estimate of 2.90 K is just 2.4% smaller than the ECS estimate.
I use the 0.06 Wm−2K−1 excess of the climate feedback estimate from regressing abrupt4xCO2 data spanning years 1–20 (λ20) over that from regressing data spanning years 1–150 (λ150) as the best estimate, in λ terms, of the forced pattern effect applicable to the historical period in CAM5.3. The forced pattern effect on outgoing radiation is then obtained as:
Forced pattern effect = (λ20 – λ150) × Change in surface temperature (1)
Zhou et al. also mention, but do not explore, the possibility of estimating the (total) pattern effect using a long term λ value calculated using years 21–150 rather than 1–150 abrupt4xCO2 data. Issues when estimating such a λ value are discussed in an Appendix to this article.
The unforced pattern effect in CAM5.3
Zhou et al. estimate the total pattern effect over the historical period by comparing outgoing radiation with surface air temperature change, based on CAM5.3 amipPiForcing simulations driven by AMIP2 SST and sea-ice data, as is standard for such simulations. However, they also perform such simulations driven by HadISST1 SST data.
Zhou et al. estimate the total pattern effect using a long term climate feedback parameter, estimated over years 1–150 of the abrupt4xCO2 simulation, λ150. I do the same as them to estimate the unforced pattern effect over the historical period, but using a climate feedback parameter estimated over years 1–20 of the CAM5.3 abrupt4xCO2 simulation, λ20, which appropriately represents the model’s forced response during the historical period.
Total pattern effect = Change in outgoing radiation – λ150 × Change in surface temperature (2)
Unforced pattern effect = Change in outgoing radiation – λ20 × Change in surface temperature (3)
Figure 2 shows how the unforced pattern effect (unforced outgoing radiation) varies during the CAM5.3 amipPiForcing AMIP2 and HadISST1 based simulations; 3-year year running means are plotted as doing so produces a clearer comparison. It can be seen that until just after 1980 the two datasets produce quite similar pattern effects. That is as expected, because the AMIP2 dataset uses HadISST1 sea-ice data (with minor adjustments) throughout the historical period, and uses HadISST1 SST data until 1981, albeit with an altered anomalisation pattern. However, from late 1981 on AMIP2 uses a different SST dataset and the pattern effect estimates diverge substantially. Both datasets produce a positive pattern effect from the late 1990s on, but its magnitude is far larger using the AMIP2 dataset.
Zhou et al.’s main estimate of the total pattern effect, of 0.63 Wm−2, uses AMIP2 data and is based on the mean over the five year period 2006–2010.
Although I use surface temperature (Ts) not surface air temperature (T) data, when using AMIP2 data I obtain an identical 0.63 Wm−2 estimate for the total pattern effect over that period, and a 0.59 Wm−2 estimate for the unforced pattern effect (horizontal red line in Figure 2).
However, based on HadISST1 SST data, the unforced pattern effect estimated over 2006–2010 is little more than half that based on AMIP2 data, at 0.34 Wm−2 (horizontal blue line in Figure 2).
Figure 2. Plot of 3-year running average of estimated annual mean unforced outgoing radiation over the historical period, based on ensemble means from three CAM5.3 amipPiForcing simulation runs each driven by either AMIP2 data (red line) or HadISST1 SST data (blue line). The values plotted are global outgoing radiation to space minus the product of global surface temperature and the climate feedback parameter estimated over years 1–20 of the CAM5.3 abrupt4xCO2 simulation, as anomalies relative to the 1871–1880 means. Colour-matching horizontal lines show means of annual data over 2006–2010 for simulations based on both datasets, and over 2015–2017 for AMIP2-based simulations; the HadISST1-based simulation ends in 2010.
The distorting effect of the Hiatus
Although Zhou et al. performed simulations based on AMIP2 – their primary dataset – extending to 2017, they used 2006-2010 as the period over which to estimate the pattern effect for CAM5.3. However, 2006–2010 is not very representative of the historical period since it falls within the last ‘hiatus’, during which global temperature increased much less that was expected given the continuing strong increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. The most convincing explanations of the hiatus involve unusual conditions in the Pacific area caused by strong decadal internal variability, which for about a decade suppressed warming without a commensurate reduction in outgoing radiation. Cooling in the eastern Pacific relative to the west Pacific warm pool, as occurred in the hiatus, and the associated increase in low cloud cover in the eastern Pacific and other tropical areas, is expected to increase outgoing radiation. In other words, internal variability caused a positive pattern effect during the hiatus.
The estimated post-hiatus unforced pattern effect
Since Zhou’s AMIP2-based amipPiForcing simulation extends to the end of 2017, and the hiatus was over by the end of 2014, one can form an AMIP2-based estimate of the post-hiatus pattern effect magnitude by taking its mean over 2015–2017. Although this is an even shorter averaging period than used by Zhou et al. (3 rather than 5 years), the estimation uncertainty should not be hugely greater. Over 2015–2017, the estimated AMIP2-based unforced pattern effect is 0.29 Wm−2 (rightmost horizontal red line in Figure 2), 0.30 Wm−2 lower than that over 2006–2010.
Unfortunately, Zhou chose not to continue his HadISST1-based amipPiForcing simulation beyond 2010. However, it appears that the divergence between the AMIP2- and HadISST1-based unforced pattern effect estimates very largely arose in the later part of the 20th century; it is unconnected with the hiatus. Since the mid-1990s the difference between them has been fairly stable, albeit fluctuating. There is almost no trend in the difference over either the ten or fifteen years to 2010. One can therefore use the difference between the AMIP2-based unforced pattern effect estimates over 2006–2010 and over 2015–2017 as a proxy for the corresponding difference for HadISST1-based estimates. Doing so implies a HadISST1-based post-hiatus unforced pattern effect estimate over 2015–2017 of merely 0.04 Wm−2. This is negligible, and far below estimation uncertainty.
Zhou et al.’s pattern effect estimates are applicable only to the unusual hiatus period. Insofar as historical period climate sensitivity estimates are dominated by the hiatus period, it might nevertheless be reasonable to use them when estimating the effect on committed warming since early industrial times. However, previous studies have found little difference between energy budget climate sensitivity estimates formed using different periods, or using regression over the full period (Lewis and Curry 2015, Lewis and Curry 2018, Otto et al. 2013). Moreover, Lewis and Mauritsen (2020) found a negligible unforced pattern effect when estimating it by regression using HadISST1 data over 1871–2010 period.
Zhou et al.’s focus on AMIP2 SST based pattern effect estimates, which are much higher than those derived using HadISST1 data, is unfortunate. AMIP2 is a merged dataset and, after 1981, uses SST data derived using an interpolation method that is arguably less suitable for estimating the pattern effect than the method used by HadISST1 (Lewis and Mauritsen 2020).
When HadISST1 SST data are used, the estimated post-hiatus unforced pattern effect is negligible. On that basis, committed future warming accounting will be almost unaffected by the pattern effect over the rest of this century, since the forced pattern effect only increases warming very slowly. Use of ‘effective climate sensitivity’ estimates that correctly reflect warming and energy budgets over the full historical period, and are not unduly influenced by the hiatus, can accordingly be expected to result in very little underestimation of committed warming up to 2100, at least, if GCM amipPiForcing simulations based on HadISST1 data are a guide..
When AMIP2 SST data are used, there is a non-negligible (but of uncertain significance) estimated post-hiatus unforced pattern effect, but it is only half the magnitude of that estimated over 2006-2010, the period used by Zhou et al.
Nicholas Lewis 19 January 2021
 Zhou, C., Zelinka, M. D., Dessler, A. E., & Wang, M., 2021: Greater committed warming after accounting for the pattern effect. Nature Climate Change, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00955-x
 Mauritsen, T., 2016. Clouds cooled the Earth. Nature Geoscience, 9(12), pp.865-867. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2838/
 Zhou et al. define the pattern effect the same way but with the opposite sign. Since the pattern effect is the effect of surface warming patterns on outgoing radiation, my sign convention seems more natural.
 Lewis, N. and J. Curry, 2018: The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity. J. Climate, 31, 6051–6071, https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1.
 Andrews T et al., 2018 Accounting for changing temperature patterns increases historical estimates of climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 10.1029/2018GL078887
 I critiqued Andrews et al. (2018) in an earlier article, partly for the failure to distinguish between the two types of pattern effect. https://www.nicholaslewis.org/warming-patterns-are-unlikely-to-explain-low-historical-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
 An atmospheric GCM coupled to a dynamic ocean model, being an AOGCM. The coupled version of CAM5.3 used by Zhou et al. is CESM1.2.1-CAM5.3. GCMs can also be run in atmosphere-only mode (AGCMs), with externally provided SST and sea-ice boundary conditions. That is what is done in AMIP simulations, including amipPiForcing simulations.
 Mauritsen, T., and R. Pincus, 2017: Committed warming inferred from observations. Nat. Climate Change, 7, 652–655, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3357.
 No such underestimation should arise if using historical period observational estimates of climate sensitivity that adjusted for the forced pattern effect found in coupled GCMs, as presented in Lewis & Curry (2018) and some other studies.
 Lewis N, Mauritsen T. Negligible unforced historical pattern effect on climate feedback strength found in HadISST-based AMIP simulations. Journal of Climate. 2020 Nov 24;34(1):39-55. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0941.1
 In ECHAM6.3, and its coupled version MPI-ESM1.1.
 See also my article relating to Lewis and Mauritsen (2020): https://www.nicholaslewis.org/new-paper-suggests-historical-period-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity-are-not-biased-low-by-unusual-variability-in-sea-surface-temperature-patterns/
 OLS: ordinary least squares
 Sometimes adjusted for drift occurring during the preindustrial control run.
Doing so overestimates ECS by almost 5%, as CO2 radiative forcing increases slightly faster than logarithmically with concentration.
 I define λ as the change in net outgoing radiation with surface temperature, as in the last IPCC report, which matches the sign convention in Lewis and Mauritsen (2020) and Zhou et al; Andrews et al (2018) use the opposite convention.
 As I do not currently have data for the CAM5.3 piControl simulation, I have derived the preindustrial mean Ts value from the ECS value stated in Zhou et al., on the assumption that the piControl simulation was stable, with zero N.
 Regressing instead over years 1–50 would give a marginally higher λ estimate of 1.396 Wm−2K−1.
 All values are anomalies relative to 1871–1880 means, the reference period used by Zhou et al.
 See Lewis and Mauritsen (2020) for further details of the construction of both the HadISST1 and the AMIP2 SST datasets.
 Since in the AMIP2 (and the HadISST1) amipPiForcing simulations the rise in Ts to 2006–2010 was 0.6 K, the 0.06 Wm−2 K−1 forced pattern effect component of the total pattern effect amounts to 0.04 Wm−2 over 2006–2010.
 To be fair, Zhou may well have done so in order to show comparisons with existing amipPiForcing simulations by other GCMs that ended in 2010.
 Zhou et al. do give, in their Methods section, an estimate of the AMIP2-based pattern effect over 2011–2017, but the hiatus continued during first few years of that period.
 For independent random variables, averaging over 3 rather than 5 realisations would increase uncertainty by 29%. A rough measure of the increase in uncertainty in this case can be obtained by comparing the standard deviation of detrended 3-year mean and pentadal mean estimates of the pattern effect over 1871-2010. That suggests no more than a 15% increase in uncertainty.
 The trends in the AMIP2 minus the HadISST1 annual pattern effect estimates was –0.001 Wm−2 year −1 over 1996-2010 and –0.009 Wm−2year−1 over 2001-2010.
 Zhou et al. put uncertainty at ± 0.27 Wm−2 for their main 5-year mean 2006–2010 AMIP2-based pattern effect estimate of 0.63 Wm−2.
 Lewis, N., and J. A. Curry, 2015: The implications for climate sensitivity of AR5 forcing and heat uptake estimates. Climate Dynamics, 45(3-4), 1009-1023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-014-2342-y.
 Otto, A. and Coauthors, 2013: Energy budget constraints on climate response. Nature Geosci., 6, 415–416. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1836.
Originally posted here, where a pdf copy is also available
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Such a lot of nonsense!!
The actual cause of climate change is very simple.
See “A Graphical Explanation of Climate Change”
I hope you will permit me to give a couple of off the top of my head replies.
It seems you have given too much weight to American industrial activity in your approach. Since WWII there have been 2 secular trends that
cumulatively have diminished the impact of US recessions. First, US GDP has become a progressively smaller part of global GDP. Second, the US economy has been shifting from manufacturing to the service sector since 1944. Manufacturing employees made up 40% of the workforce that year. Today it is under 10%.
It seems that over the last 80 years our industrial activity and its variability has had a progressively smaller impact on any element of climate.
I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Your comments are appreciated.
I agree that variability in industrial activity has had a progressively smaller impact on our climate than earlier, but those temporary events shown on my graphs DID occur, due to decreases in the amount of SO2 aerosols emissions into the atmosphere.
Their importance is in PROVING that Earth’s climate is extremely sensitive to changing quantities of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, so that warming will always occur when they are decreased., and cooling when they are increased.
Although not strictly due to industrial activity, decreases in atmospheric SO2 .levels due to Global Clean Air efforts since the late 1970’s have had the same warming effect, to the extent that it, along with some natural recovery from LIA temperatures,, accounts for all of the anomalous warming that has occurred.since the 1970’s..
US industrial production has been growing since records were kept, excluding recessions. Industrial production includes manufacturing, mining and electricity production.
The percentage of the workforce who are manufacturing employees is a deceptive statistic. The manufacturing industry has become a lot more automated, requiring fewer employees per unit of output, and many products requiring a lot of labor are now manufactured in Asia.
You could say U.S. industrial production has barely grown in the two decades since 2000, but there was lots of growth from the trough of the Great Depression in 1932, to 2000.
The amount of US air pollution probably peaked in the 1970s, and was gradually reduced for the next 25 years. After that, outsourcing of so much manufacturing to China, and other parts of Asia, added lots of pollution to their air !
Enough air pollution is produced in China so that some actually reaches the western US states. Causes fuzzy thinking in California. heh heh
I have always heard that the cause of climate change is very simple — man made CO2. When I ask about the climate change in the 4.5 billion years before humans began burning fossil fuels, I am called a climate denier. But today, I have heard the cause of climate change is very simple, but in a different way.
Considering SO2 emissions, there was a rising trend of SO2 emissions until the early 1980s, followed by a significant downtrend.
We have been told that aerosols in the atmosphere from about 1940 to the mid-1970s overwhelmed the warming effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere.
Does that mean aerosols caused the global cooling?
But then in the mid-1970s, the 35 year global cooling trend ended, and reversed to a warming trend, in spite of the fact that SO2 emissions kept increasing until the early 1980s.
Are scientists saying aerosols that overwhelmed CO2 warming until the mid-1970s, no longer had that ability after the mid-1970s?
The oceanic oscillations are the key to understanding what happened to cause the great climate shift of 1976. The PDO and AMO are major players.
The hiatus was primarily the result of a negative PDO.
See reply, just above.
“Does that mean that aerosols caused the global cooling?”
“We have been told that aerosols in the atmosphere from about 1940 to the mid-1970’s overwhelmed the warming effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere”‘
There has NEVER been any proof that CO2 actually causes any global warming! It is just an unproven hypothesis.
“But then in the mid-1970’s the 35 year global cooling trend ended, and reversed to a warming trend, in spite of the fact that SO2 emissions kept increasing until the early 1980’s”
SO2 emissions continued rising during the 1970’s, peaking at 136 Megatons in 1979, then trended downward thereafter, causing temperatures to increase.
Temperature increases in the mid-1970’s were due to El Ninos and recessions, which offset the expected cooling from the increasing SO2 emissions.
But… there are eight known forcings for climate, nine including CO2 which is in its dotage because of the exponential decline in GHG effect noted by Arrhenius. So CO2 at the next doubling to 800ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%. The actual climate change is the vector result of the known and unknown forcings.
See the Atlantic Mag article https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2021/03/extreme-climate-change-history/617793/
for the horrifying example of ignorance blended with stupidity sprinkled with gullibility. The psychological benefit of writing and reading this stuff must be huge. Oops. Can we still use that word?
Oh well. We’ve had a good run.
What was the cause of recent warming?
“Indeed, the reconstruction of this pair of modes for regional climate indices (Fig. 3b, c) manifests as a multidecadal signal propagating across the climate index network (with certain time delays between different indices)—a so-called stadium wave (refs. 20,35,36,37)—which we will refer to as the global stadium wave (GSW) or, when referring to the global-mean temperature, Global Multidecadal Oscillation (GMO), although, once again, the oscillatory character of this phenomenon is impossible to establish due to shortness of the data record. The phasing of indices in the GSW is consistent with earlier work (ref. 20), which analysed a limited subset of the Northern Hemisphere climate indices (Supplementary Fig. 6). The global-mean temperature trends associated with GSW are as large as 0.3 °C per 40 years, and so are capable of doubling, nullifying or even reversing the forced global warming trends on that timescale.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-018-0044-6
I notice Zelinka is a co-author, so he would know that the CESM2 model is one of the hottest running models in the bunch.
Zelinka’s article: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019GL085782
Yes, I’m sure Mark Zelinka (who is a very competent and bright scientist IMO) is well aware of that. But this paper uses the CAM5.3 atmospheric model and its coupled version CESM1.2-CAM5.3, which has an estimated ECS of 3.0 K, slightly below the CMIP5 mean. CESM2 is coupled to CAM6, and as you say is a very high ECS model.
Thanks nic, for clarifying. I’m glad to hear your opinion of him, and to know the choice of model was not so unreasonable.
Pingback: Committed warming and the pattern effect – Climate- Science.press
Thanks Nic for another fantastic contribution. Without citizen scientists, climate science would be vastly less informative. It is just a pity that these silly press releases they all seem to do are always never responded to or corrected even when they fail to point out how uncertain or controversial many of these results are.
I agree that misleading, exaggerating and/or plain incorrect press releases are the biggest menace. It is difficult to counter their influence.
“While most of the planet’s surface has warmed, several important regions, like the Southern Ocean, have not. The lack of surface warming favors the buildup of low-level clouds over these regions, which reflect sunlight back to space and strongly cool the planet. Eventually, these regions will warm up. When they do, the low clouds will decrease, which will allow more sunlight to be absorbed by Earth and give the world additional warming.” https://www.llnl.gov/news/paying-emissions-weve-already-released
Climate is quintessentially a turbulent fluid flow problem. There are thus shifting patterns of spatio-temporal chaos in ocean and atmospheric circulation. Many have been identified and the tendency has been to call them oscillations. The Hurst-Kolmogorov stochastic dynamical shifts in patterns have been strong enough to add to and counter greenhouse gas warming. The patterns evolve in a ‘stadium wave’ as a signals propagates around the planet.
Marine stratocumulus are a positive feedback to sea surface temperature.
The decadal shifts are not modelled. Any superficial resemblance to decadal climate variability in model output is caused by internal temporal chaos of models.
Abrupt shifts in patterns happen as the climate is forced to cross a threshold and the planet responds with a move to a new state at a pace determined by the system itself. If I were minded to be funny – I would call it catastrophe theory.
The future is uncertain but it’s likely to involve tipping points from whatever forcing. Most of the world is working on restoration of soils and ecosystems, anticipating transitions to 21st century energy and strengthening infrastructure. For whatever the future brings.
Internal to the mean flows, which are being described at a global scale, the motions are almost always turbulent.
The global-scale motions are not determined by these local-instantaneous, less than meso-scale, turbulent motions.
Currents are driven by wind, tides, density and planetary rotation. Almost all fluid flow is turbulent. As opposed to laminar. Turbulence by its nature is fractal. From micro-eddies to planetary waves.
Don’t see how much can be gleaned from the research considering, ocean temperatures are essentially, ignored…
IN A COMPLEX SYSTEM there are MULTIPLE FACTORS involved.
Earth’s system is very complex…
BUT IN A COMPLEX SYSTEM there are some MAJOR FACTORS which play the DOMINANT ROLE, and there are many MINOR FACTORS.
Also in a complex system there are multiple MICRO FACTORS.
It is said that in complex system there are millions NANO FACTORS.
Science admits that in complex system there is an infinite number of INFINITESIMAL significance FACTORS.
When we model the Earth’s system mean surface temperature, we should take in consideration the MAJOR FACTORS ruling the surface temperature.
These MAJOR FACTORS are
1. The Solar flux So = 1.362 W/m2
2. The Earth’s average albedo a = 0,306
3. The Φ = 0,47 (smooth spherical surface solar irradiation accepting factor)
4. The Earth’s rotational spin N = 1 rotation /day
5. The Earth’s average surface specific heat cp = 1 cal /gr.oC
Earth’s atmosphere is very thin to play a significant role in Earth’s mean surface temperature.
When the oceans are warm and wet, it snows more and that bounds the upper limits of temperature and sea level.
When the oceans are cold and frozen, it snows less and that bounds the lower limits of temperature and sea level.
CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.
About 2000 years ago, there was a Roman Warm Period and then it got cold. About 1000 years ago there was a Medieval Warm Period and then it got cold. That was called the Little Ice Age. It is warm again now because it is supposed to be warm. It is a natural cycle. CO2 just makes green things grow better, while using less water.
The use fear to be able to tax and control us.
Any country signing up to the Paris Agreement, with UN climate summit to be held in Glasgow, is likely to have lessons teaching just one side of climate debate with lessons on how to protest. School children will effectively be taught the Big Green Agenda on a global curriculum:
Pingback: Committed warming and the pattern effect – Watts Up With That?
The first time I’ve heard of a possible California variant:
“By now, you have likely heard about different variants that first raised trouble in the United Kingdom, South Africa, Brazil, and now maybe California — though the jury is very much out on whether that last one is cause for concern.”
Mr. Lewis, welcome back to climate science!
I wish that all people writing about the climate would mention the questionable accuracy of global average temperature data before the use of weather satellite data in 1979, that acts as a “check and balance” on surface temperature numbers.
By “questionable”, I mean the tiny +/- 0/1 degree C. claimed margins of error are not believable.
Average sea temperature data are questionable before the use of ARGO floats in 2003.
All global average temperature data before World War II are a rough estimate, due to poor global coverage.
All global average temperature data before 1900 are close to wild guesses, due to very little Southern Hemisphere coverage, and they are not useful for real science.
There is enough evidence to prove the planet has warmed a lot in the past 20,000 years, and up to +2 degrees C. in the past 325 years. Trying to be more precise that that before 1979 is jumping to conclusions, IMHO.
The incomplete / infilled and repeatedly “adjusted” data from 1880 to World War II are NOT good enough for an accurate global average temperature.
Much more important than the low quality of global average temperature claims pre-World War II are:
The false claim that the climate can be predicted 100 years into the future,
The false claim that more CO2 in the atmosphere, and mild warming, is bad news and,
The bizarre claim that our inexpensive, reliable sources of electric power should be replaced, at great expense, with intermittent sources of power, requiring the greatest expansion of mining and manufacturing in human history.
And while the climate alarmists spend a huge amount of money on themselves, for a less reliable electric grid, about one billion people on our planet will continue to live without electricity.
Pingback: Committed warming and the pattern effect – Climate- Science.press
Pingback: Committed warming and the pattern effect |
Does anyone know if a full spectrum measurement of Earth’s energy emissions into space has ever been completed? I think the answer is no, but does anyone actually know?
Who else is looking for the summer?
A tribute to the keyboardist of the Stranglers who died to covid last year and a reflection of the Madrid care home bomb blast today:
My biggest complaint for so long has been the suppression or neglect of the examination of water vapor influence. The IPCC AR5 summary document does not even mention it (at least I haven’t found any mention). In coarse numbers the green house effect by water vapor is around 50 to 60% vs. CO2 at 20 to 25% and the anthropogenic portion thereof is 5 to 10% of the 25%.
Add to that the interplay with aerosols and the science becomes mud.
Further, the high confidence in the so frequently stated sea surface temperature historical record is totally washed out by the more than coarse methods of measurement. See my earlier investigation
That was a great article on sea surface measurements.
Perhaps the best WUWT article in 2018.
I saved it.
The outgoing radiative spectrum has been measured. And the experiment has been replicated. CO2 is a non-condensing greenhouse gas that – all things being equal – warms the planet. We are adding it to the atmosphere at 200% of the rate it is rapidly accumulating at. Otherwise concentrations would have remained at around the 280 ppm level. As it has for all other interglacials. I’m not quite clear on how this remains debatable in the minds of contrarians.
The point to water vapor is that it is a CO2 warming feedback. Evaporation depends on a number of factors. Water availability, humidity and wind speed primarily. But the amount that can remain in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.
“Individual climate-relevant temperature feedbacks and their estimated values. Central estimates in AR4 are marked with leftward-pointing blue arrows; in AR5 with rightward-pointing red arrows. The feedback sum f (right-hand column) falls on 1.5 [1.0, 2.2] W m-2 K-1 for AR5, compared with 1.9 [1.5, 2.4] W m-2 K-1 for AR4. The Planck value shown as a ”feedback” is not a true feedback, but a part of the climatic reference system.”
The radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 is some 3.7 W/m2 – it gives a no feedback temperature increase of about 1 K. So on average we are looking at some 1.5 K warming at equilibrium from a CO2 doubling – all things being equal in a nonlinear world with clouds and ice. The Planck feedback results in emissions being restored to a transient energy equilibrium at a temperature.
The point of this paper seems to be that positive cloud feedbacks – and they are positive – haven’t kicked in fully in some parts of the world. Not sticking to the point but instead reiterating their tired old contrarian talking points is a bit pointless.
And the usual complaint inevitably emerges that we are asked to sacrifice cheap energy for vastly expensive wind and solar. Rattan Lal estimates that 157 ppm of CO2 can be sequestered in soils and ecosystems. Doing so can expand food production by 300% on existing agricultural land and conserve and restore nature. Much better than so called CO2 fertilisation. Energy innovation and a transition to cheap and abundant 21st century alternatives is happening with or without you.
Robert I Ellison: The point to water vapor is that it is a CO2 warming feedback. Evaporation depends on a number of factors. Water availability, humidity and wind speed primarily. But the amount that can remain in the atmosphere is a function of temperature.
Another point to water vapor is that it transfers energy, latent and tangible heat, from the surface to the mid-to-upper troposphere, i.e. the cloud condensation layer. This is the well-known hydrologic cycle, evaporation-rainfall-evaporation-rainfall etc. How much this energy transfer increases with surface temperature has not been extensively studied (new references gladly accepted and read with pleasure), but there have been estimates that rainfall will increase 6% per C of surface temp, and Romps et al estimated an 11% increase in one process, estimated over a portion of the US. How a 3.7 W/m^2 increase in downwelling LWIR can power a 6% (or so) increase in the hydrologic cycle has not been thoroughly investigated (again, new informative references gladly received and read, if anyone has them.)
I have been harping on this cavity in “the science” for some years now, but I have seen very little written about it.
Matt: ECS and the hydrologic cycle are tightly coupled to each other by energetic constraints.
If ECS is high (say 3.6 K/doubling) and F_2x is 3.6 W/m2, then the planet is emitting or reflecting -1 W/m2 per K for every degK the surface warms (1 W/m2/K). The negative sign is to remind us this is heat lost (to space). If ECS is low (say 1.8 K/doubling), then -2 W/m2/K. About 80 W/m2 of latent heat leaves the surface as water vapor (and produces about 1 m of rainfall/yr in the average m2).
If evaporation/precipitation increases at 7%/K, that is -5.6 W/m2 of energy leaving the surface for the atmosphere.
If reflection of SWR doesn’t change, you obviously can’t have -5.6 W/m2/K of additional latent heat leaving the surface with warming and only -1 to -2 W/m2/K escaping to space.
Some climate models suggest SWR cloud feedback could approach +1 W/m2/K, which is a 1%/K decrease in the 100 W/m2 reflected by the planet. Values much higher than 1%/K aren’t very likely, because that would be a fairly huge change in cloud cover with changing temperature, for example at the LGM. Therefore it is unlikely that evaporation can increase anywhere near 7%/K with warming. Most climate models predict only a 2-3%/K increase in precipitation with warming for this reason. If precipitation over land increases only 2-3%/K and evaporation from land increases 7%/K, then land becomes more arid.
If you want evaporation to increase at 7%/K, then ECS would need to be around 0.6 K/doubling. Planck feedback of -3.2 W/m2/K, and WV+LR feedback of +1 W/m2/K, you would need massively massively negative cloud feedback (-3.3 W/m2/K) to drive climate sensitivity this low.
Climate models suppress evaporation with warming by either slowing average wind speed over the ocean or increasing the relative humidity of the air in the boundary layer over the ocean (which averages about 80%). The rate of evaporation is proportional to undersaturation (1-RH) and a 1% increase in relative humidity (associated with 2X CO2) translates into a 5% reduction in undersaturation/evaporation. The increase in relative humidity in the boundary layer is caused by slower transport of air between the boundary layer and the free atmosphere. This is typically referred to as a “slowing down of overturning of the atmosphere” or the hydrologic cycle.
(My intuition hates this slowdown – upward convection of latent heat should increase on a warmer planet.)
Above I neglected the contribution of changing LWR to changing surface energy balance with warming. However, according to Modtran, the upward increase in LWR from the warmer surface is almost perfectly balanced by the increase in DLR from the warmer atmosphere.
Issac Held has a few posts that bear on the subject, though he doesn’t approach the situation from the same perspective I do.
You state “The oceanic oscillations are the key to the cause of the great climate shift of 1976. The PDO and the AMO are major players”.
If you examine a plot of ERSST sea-surface temperatures, you will find that it mirrors the HADCRUT4 data set of average anomalous global temperatures.
Since all of the HADCRUT4 temperature changes are due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, it follows that the oceanic oscillations are also driven by the same variations in atmospheric SO2 aerosol levels. They are NOT mysterious natural occurrences.
The dominant paradigm is that changes in the trajectory of surface warming is associated with shifts in state in the Pacific Ocean. It involves a cloud feedback positively correlated with sea surface temperature. I’m not not sure how you could miss it.
“Figure 2. Global mean (a) shortwave (SW) and longwave (LW) and (b) net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) flux anomalies for March 2000–September 2017 from CERES Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) Ed4.0. Thin lines denote monthly anomalies, thick lines are 12-month running means. Vertical black bars show the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI). Anomalies are calculated relative to climatology over the entire period. SW and LW TOA flux anomalies are defined as positive upwards and net TOA flux anomalies are positive downwards.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/htm
Robert I. Ellison:
Changes in cloud formations are due to changing temperatures, which are due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere.
Changes in marine stratocumulus are due to nonlinear effects associated with Rayleigh–Bénard convection over the upwelling regions of oceans.
Other effects seem minor. So unless you have some published science?
Burl I’m very sceptical about your SO2 hypothesis on the great climate shift of 1976 and suggest you read some paleo climate history.
It is interesting to see the blue line in the Figure 1 plotted over time in place of the usual unconnected dot plot. I have done these types of plots myself. Those plots in the later years show a good deal of backing up of the N and T data over time with lots of clustered noisy data.
Why is there no blue line at zero temperature change?
Because the temperature starts increasing almost instantly after the CO2 concentration is abrubtly quadrupled. By the end of year 1 it has risen by substantially more than 1 K. The end of the blue line marks the average temperature rise during year one, which is the best part of 1 K.
THE BLACK BODY TEMPERATURE THEORY (An old over simplifying and misleading concept)
“The temperature that the surface of a body (such as a planet, like the Earth) would be if it were not warmed by its own atmosphere. It can be calculated using the Stefan–Boltzmann equation. The black body temperature of the Earth is -18°C, but the actual surface temperature is about 15°C.”
THE MISTAKEN CONCLUSION
“The difference (33°C) is the amount by which the planet is warmed by the absorption of radiation within its atmosphere, by the natural greenhouse effect.”
In 1798, Robert Malthus famously predicted that rising human population would outstrip global food production. The story of overcoming the eventuality by innovation is a fascinating one. Climate change is at the nub of the problem and the elusive millennial cycle only hinted at:
‘The most convincing explanations of the hiatus involve unusual conditions in the Pacific area caused by strong decadal internal variability, which for about a decade suppressed warming without a commensurate reduction in outgoing radiation.’
The PDO went negative for a decade and suppressed warming, then inexplicably it returned to neutral status around 2014, so global warming took off again.
The Global Warming Hiatus spanned the years 1998-2012 ,(or 1999-2013).
During that time, Asian SO2 aerosol emissions were rising, while Western SO2 aerosol emissions were falling, due to “Clean Air” efforts, resulting in the offsetting of each other, and a hiatus in the amount of changing SO2 aerosol levels. and in temperature changes.
For the period 1999-2014, annual anthropogenic SO2 aerosol levels (in Megatons) were: 107, 109, 110, 110, 113, 118, 123, 123, 123, 120, 115, 113, 115, 113,113, 111
Then in 2015-2019, they dropped to 88, 88, ?, ?, 72, and warming resumed.
This is real data, as opposed to your hand-waving.
The primary driver of post hiatus warming is reduced cloud cover over the Pacific.
“Furthermore, the regional distribution of decreases in SW TOA flux associated with low cloud cover changes closely matches that of SST warming, which in turn shows a pattern typical of the positive phase of the PDO over the eastern Pacific. In contrast to the decreases in SW TOA flux over the Pacific, increases occur over the north Atlantic associated with the North Atlantic Cold Blob, which partly compensates for the SW TOA flux decreases over the Pacific…
Large reductions in clear-sky SW TOA flux and AOD east of China are consistent with aggressive air-pollution control policies that were put in place in 2013. Reductions in SW TOA flux and AOD in the eastern US and subtropical Atlantic are likely the result of the implementation of control measures under the Clean Air Act. Over the Arctic and NH extratropical land regions, marked decreases in SW TOA flux occur due to large reductions in sea-ice and snow cover.” https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/6/3/62/htm
Robert I. Ellison:
Re your post of 3:58 pm
“The primary driver of post hiatus warming is reduced cloud cover over the Pacific”
Yes, this precisely what I am saying. Temperatures rise when there is less pollution of the atmosphere by dimming SO2 aerosols, and higher temperatures result in less cloud formation…
Low level marine stratcumulus cloud cover responds is anti-correlated to sea surface temperature. Sea surface temperature changes with upwelling in the eastern Pacific. The cloud feedback has to do with the longer persistence of closed cloud cells over cooler water relative to warm. Before raining out to form open cells with a lower domain albedo.
Climate is far from exclusively – or even mostly – driven by sulphur dioxide. And even then there are confounding factors in co-emitted species. Sulphur lenses on black carbon can increase the warming potential by a factor of 2.4 – rather than the simple cooling assumed.
Here’s yet another reference.
In your estimation the approaching hiatus (2021-2030) will be caused by what?
‘Wow – he can foretell the future. Spooky.’
You may have missed the main game, AGW supporters are forecasting hell on earth by the end of the century, surely a decade ahead shouldn’t be too difficult.
So your forecast for the 2020s and the mechanisms involved?
“In your estimation the approaching hiatus (2021-2030) will be caused by what?”
I don’t think so, but its difficult to be certain.
The incredibly stupid drive around the world to ban the burning of fossil fuels will decrease the amount of anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions into the atmosphere. If they are driven to near zero, temperatures will rise by 1.0-1.5 deg. C., from present temperatures.
However, this may not happen because of the huge increase in the installation of coal-fired power plants in Africa and Asia, unless their SO2 emissions are well scrubbed.
If they are, then we will see temperature increases, unless there are sufficient VEI4 volcanic eruptions to provide enough cooling to roughly maintain present temperatures.
If there is a hiatus in volcanic eruptions, then temperatures will rapidly soar to temperatures of the Medieval Warming Period! Or higher.
So, we are at their mercy.
I thought contrarians say that forecasting next week is impossible let alone over a century.
Some of us still believe the power of natural variability will overwhelm AGW and as a consequence I’m looking for global cooling signals.
So you aren’t prepared to make a forecast for the coming decade?
You may ‘believe’ what you like. What we have seen is alternating multidecadal periods that are marginally warmer or cooler on a forced warming trend. Internal variability is as much as 0.3 C over 40 years (Kravtsov et al 2018). Should the pattern repeat – the next climate shift due anytime now will be to a warmer state. I picked the 1998/2001 climate shift in the same way. Not the date – just that climate would shift again.
But the coupled Earth system – the global stadium wave – is variable over decades to millennia. Although even then the millennial temperature signal is modest.
Believe me if I knew anyone who was competent and claimed to be able to pick the future evolution of the coupled, nonlinear Earth system – and I have been reading on the topic for 40 odd years – I would tell you. On the other hand – predicting the forced warming signal is simple enough. It will continue to increase over the rest of the decade.
Robert I. Ellison:
You speak of cycles and trends and patterns that are artifacts of your imagination, and try to predict future happenings from something that does not exist, or does not affect our climate in any way, such as sunspots.
Up until the Industrial Revolution, our climate was totally controlled by volcanic SO2 aerosol emissions, This continued after 1850, except that changing levels of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols also began affecting our climate.
The Central England instrumental temperatures Data Set (1659-present) provides conclusive proof that Earth’s climate is controlled by varying amounts of SO2 in the atmosphere.
Every temperature decrease in that set is coincident with a volcanic eruption, and every warm period occurs in the absence of any volcanic activity (apart from some gradual natural warming as Earth recovers from the LIA.
“In your estimation the approaching hiatus (2021-2030) will be caused by what?” – ironicman
Is the “hiatus” equal in the Northern hemisphere relative to the Southern hemisphere though? I’d take a guess that the “hiatus” seesaws from one hemisphere to the other due to the ~11-year solar cycle (~22-year Hale cycle).
‘Should the pattern repeat – the next climate shift due anytime now will be to a warmer state.’
OK thanks, we agree there will be a shift very soon, but from my perspective it’ll be to a cooler state.
‘Is the “hiatus” equal in the Northern hemisphere relative to the Southern hemisphere though?’
Don’t know, but using UAH there is clearly a lull in temperatures from the start of the century until the PDO returns to neutral around 2014.
“Don’t know, but using UAH there is clearly a lull in temperatures from the start of the century until the PDO returns to neutral around 2014.” – ironicman
“clearly”? I strongly disagree. The only clear observation imo is a general warming trend overall. I believe that the data could be biased towards preconceived ideas of global warming and omitted cooling over the equatorial regions.
This is what can be seen in the oceanic temperatures given in AR5. The equatorial regions are pixelated white as if the data has been normalised. Only the mid and high latitudes show warming with any certainty.
“We emphasize the importance of understanding dragon-kings as being often associated with a neighborhood of what can be called equivalently a phase transition, a bifurcation, a catastrophe (in the sense of Rene Thom), or a tipping point. The presence of a phase transition is crucial to learn how to diagnose in advance the symptoms associated with a coming dragon-king.” Didier Sornette, 2009, Dragon-Kings, Black Swans and the Prediction of Crises
The hiatus is the period of a lower rate of global warming after 1998 than seen in the previous few decades. It is coincident with a shift in spatio-temporal chaotic patterns in the Pacific Ocean region of Earth’s coupled ocean and atmospheric flow field. Warm sea surface temperatures persist for a decade or three and shift to a cooler state. The effects have been observed as far back as priests measuring Nile River water levels at ancient Alexandria. Effects discovered by Harold Hurst in the first half of the last century in nearly a 1000 years of recorded Nile River data.
Th hiatus is significant because it was not anticipated by other than a few people such as myself. Climate had shifted after 1944 and 1976. The regime shifts were observed in the 1980’s in stream morphology changes in eastern Australia. Which is where I got the idea. The trajectory of global surface temperature changed at the same times. We hadn’t switched off internal variability and climate shifted again after 1998.
If I had to guess where it goes next – I would put my money on dragon-kings. Outsized transitions between cool and warm ocean states marking climate transitions.. Such as seems to have occurred after 2010 when a cool Pacific shifted to a very warm state. Of course it may just be a wobble and we will stay with restrained warming until the Pacific Interdecadal Oscillation does shift to a warm epoch in the nearish future. To be realistic when Pacific Ocean epochs start and finish – and how long they last – are a bit fluid.
Link for the graph:
And for the ocean temp graphic:
It does appear at this stage that I’m on a hiding to nothing.
‘The developing -PDO is no surprise given the presence of La Nina. Normally, -PDO runs parallel to La Nina (about 80% of the time in the 1950-2020 climatology).
‘The warm SSTA pattern across much of the remainder of the mid-latitude North Pacific basin does not bode well for -PDO continuing (or intensifying). The analog forecast indicates the moderate cool phase is short-lived and weakens (with La Nina) during quarter 1 of 2021 becoming neutral phase for quarter 2 through 4 of 2021.’
“To be realistic when Pacific Ocean epochs start and finish – and how long they last – are a bit fluid.” – Ellison
It’s very similar to the ~11.2-year solar cycle (~22-year Hale cycle) or is this just a coincidence in your opinion?
One is coincident – ocean state and surface temperature trajectory changes – and the other is a not even a remarkable concurrence let alone causal.
Coincident – occurring together in space or time.
Coincidence – a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.
Just to clarify my position for any readers. I propose new physics tidal forcing which affects both the Earth and the Sun (as well as the other planets). The source of such strong gravitational interaction on the plane of rotation would be Jupiter (and it’s hypothesized hyperon moons).
Jupiter’s orbital period is 11.86 years, which is very close to the sunspot cycle of ~11.2 years. The Jovian axial tilt is just 3°.
“Coincidence – a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.” – Ellison
You disregard the robust evidence of the ~215-yr and ~88-yr solar cycles being found in Earth’s data going back 98 million years into the Cretaceous.
This first 2 minutes summarises the Covid-19 response strategy very poignantly:
Unfortunately it makes many mistakes. First, it assumes that government action is driven by some sort of cost-benefit analysis. Governments impose lockdowns so that voters in democracies aren’t watching people dying waiting in line for a hospital bed on TV. We the number of new cases detected exceeds about 100/100,000/day (0.1%/day), hospitals start overflowing. It takes about 500 days at 0.1%/day to reach herd immunity. Herd immunity isn’t a viable strategy politically.
We should look at Taiwan, South Korea, and even China for the right strategy and its costs for dealing with COVID. Don’t want mandatory quarantine? Pay people $1000/day to quarantine! Winning is possible.
Then you need to deal with irrationality. Only about half of medical staff in the US have elected to be vaccinated so far! We’ve managed to banish smokers to the fringes of our society. Don’t I have a right to not be infected by coronavirus by such idiots if I need to go to the hospital or a doctor? Their risk of death may be low; but mine isn’t. Their cars can’t pollute the air, but their breathing can? (These are purely rhetorical questions?)
THE FASTER A PLANET ROTATES (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean
It is well known that when a planet rotates faster its daytime maximum temperature lessens and the night time minimum temperature rises.
BUT THERE IS SOMETHING ELSE VERY INTERESTING HAPPENS.
When a planet rotates faster IT IS A WARMER PLANET. (it happens because Tmin↑↑ grows higher than T↓max goes down).
The understanding of this phenomenon comes from a deeper knowledge of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
It happens so because when rotating faster, the planet’s surface has emission temperatures the new distribution to achieve.
So that is what happens:
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planet’s average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
And it happens in accordance to the STEFAN-BOLTZMANN LAW.
Chief climate scientist plans to refreeze the Arctic!
“We now have to literally refreeze the Arctic Ocean, otherwise the heat from its open seas will continue to accelerate the melting of the Greenland ice-cap – which has enough water stored in it to raise the world’s oceans by seven metres. I admit that I laughed at the outlandishness of such a concept – but he chastened me by pointing out that studies are already being carried out into how this might be achieved.
Research at Edinburgh University has proposed that if the clouds over the Arctic in summer are sprayed with sea-water, the salt in it would make the clouds whiter. This would reflect the sun’s heat and the ocean waters below them would start to refreeze.”
What’s your opinion on that strategy Robert?
It’s the dawn of a new era:
Odd ‘new physics’ of rotisserie planets and neutron star moons. Hippy dippy new age irrelevancies. A new American civil war being fought out on the politics threads. Endless COVID disputation – that I have largely avoided – plays out on the far too many COVID posts. What more could possibly be usefully added? Vaccines are rolling out – things will return to normal – we will be left with a virulent new mutable disease returning seasonally.
This post was at least technical. Although the premise of both the paper and the post is sketchy. The world does not warm uniformly and there is absolutely no reason to expect that models can capture climate nonuniformity or its causes. Climate evolves simultaneously as a signal that propagates around the planet and as non computable shifts in spatio-temporal chaotic quasi standing waves in Earth’s coupled ocean and atmospheric flow field.
e.g. – https://judithcurry.com/2013/10/10/the-stadium-wave/ – and – https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/10/spatio-temporal-chaos/
Climate is a fluid flow problem that evolves in time and space. Models solve fluid flow ODE’s – or really their parametric equivalent – in sequential time steps. We are barely at the starting gate in defining one system by means of the other.
“The most important point that everybody who wants to understand something about temporal chaos theory should understand that it is all about geometry in a finite dimensional phase space. In other words it deals mathematically with systems of non linear ODE where all unknowns are coordinates of the phase space and the state of the system is perfectly defined by a point P(t) in the phase space by giving its coordinates (degrees of freedom). If this rings a bell with hamiltonian mechanics, it is good as it should.” Tomas Milanovic
God plays 3 dimensional Hamiltonian billiards with the universe. Nothing to do with chance and dice at all. And perhaps the apparent discontinuity of quantum mechanics can be reconciled with the continuity of general relativity using the fractal geometry of chaos.
But all in all – it seems time that I made myself scarce again.
“The paper fails to distinguish between a historical period pattern effect that is forced, which will unwind very slowly, and one that is caused by internal variability, which can quickly unwind, causing rapid warming.”
The AMO shifts warmer when the solar wind is weaker, the same reason for El Nino conditions increasing during centennial solar minima. That’s not internal variability, it’s a massive negative feedback to indirect solar variability, self amplified by changes in low cloud cover and lower troposphere water vapour.
“However, if there were also a non-negligible positive unforced pattern effect component over the historical period, then as soon as the internal variability excursion causing it ends, global mean temperature would rapidly increase.”
We currently have a warm AMO phase, when the solar wind temperature/pressure builds up again past this centennial solar minimum, we’ll have a cold AMO phase again, from the mid 2030’s. We have already had the rapid increase in temperature from 1995, from when the solar wind weakened.
Searching for possible tipping points, misbehaving teleconnections observed through precipitation data in south east Australia.
There is NO +33°C GREENHOUSE ENHANCEMENT on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
Climate – surface temperature, ocean heat, hydrology – is determined by complex and shifting patterns of ocean circulation. Even glacials are initiated by changes in thermohaline circulation in the right background conditions.
Global multidecadal variability and the AMO – although don’t confuse this for causality.
Here’s one focussed on the Pacific.
Simple arse single factor thought bubbles of any sort are clearly contrarian nonsense. Some are just monomaniacal science obsessively repeated.
Gravity theory isn’t settled therefore climate science isn’t settled 💭
Alan: The possibility that a theory may be wrong or is incomplete or may be revised is irrelevant. Theories are hypotheses that have been confirmed by careful experiment tests over a wide range of conditions. As long as we limit ourselves to situations where a theory has been experimentally shown to predict what we observe – predictions made using that theory will be correct – even if the theory is later shown to be wrong under other situations.
Take Newton’s Theory of Gravity, which has been replaced by Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Their explanations for gravity are radically different: Newton said gravity is an attractive force proportional to the product of both masses that varies with the inverse square of distance. Einstein said gravity is a pseudo-force created by the warping of spacetime by mass. Nevertheless, Newton’s theory makes highly accurate and useful predictions about gravity here on Earth. And if some grand unification theory supplants relativity, Newton’s theory will still make highly accurate and useful predictions about gravity in climate. This happens because Newton’s law agrees with carefully performed experiments. Relativity also agrees with those experiments and the next theory will also. By definition. If a theory doesn’t agree with observations, that theory must be incorrect.
Far too many people think science consists only of theories. We know those theories can change. However, the foundation of science comes from experiments. If they are good experiments, the predictions of theories that agree with thesis experiments will always be correct within the range of phenomena studied in the lab. (There are some caveats that could be mentioned here, but I’ll skip them for the moment.)
Quantum mechanics describes the interactions between GHGs and radiation and that theory predicts that rising GHGs will slow out planets radiative cooling to space (assuming nothing else changes). When/if quantum mechanics is replaced by a new theory, the predictions of that theory must agrees with all of the measurements that have been made in the lab with GHGs and with the predictions of radiative transfer calculations that have been shown to agree well with measurements made in the atmosphere.
You are long winded.
Climate science concluding that CO2 is highly harmful is based on numerous highly unlikely assumptions.
“And if some grand unification theory supplants relativity, Newton’s theory will still make highly accurate and useful predictions about gravity in climate.” – Franktoo
No, not necessarily. A latest study of 153 galaxies shows a Modified Newtonian gravity theory will likely supersede Einstein’s GR. It only requires robust confirmation. An ‘external field effect’ could be increasing the tidal bulge of the Earth. It hasn’t been considered as a possibility in climate science.
The same effect could be responsible for the ice ages and replace Milankovitch insolation theory. I’m convinced this will be the case and shown to be true within the next decade.
Alan wrote: “An ‘external field effect’ could be increasing the tidal bulge of the Earth.”
Does anyone propounding how new theories of gravity could effect climate remember that we have barometers around the planet measuring the pressure at the surface exerted by the pull of gravity on the atmosphere? And that we have been tracking satellites circling the Earth for decades? Not to mention the GRACE satellites measuring gravitational anomalies 1000-fold more accurately than before? How about the fact that we have exquisitely sensitive measurement of the rate of rotation (length of day) of our planet which is capable of detecting changes in that “tidal bulge”.
Physicists have been testing the limits of Newton and Einstein’s theories of gravity for more than a century. If there were some simple way of overturning those theories with measurements made here on Earth, those experimental tests would likely have been done. That is exactly why you cite evident for the effect of a modified theory of gravity on 153 galaxies – because we have plenty of experimental data here on Earth showing Newtonian gravity is all we need to explain what we observe.
Rob: You are right, I’m too long-winded. I get angry about conspiracy theories and get started writing without knowing where I will end up. In this case, I’m convinced that a replacement for quantum mechanics would NOT modify our understanding of radiative forcing, which relies on accumulated measures made on GHGs in the lab and MEASUREMENTS OF RADIATION TRANSFER MADE IN THE ATMOSPHERE.
Rob wrote: “Climate science concluding that CO2 is highly harmful is based on numerous highly unlikely assumptions.”
Only your statement’s vagueness prevents me from calling this a conspiracy theory. Experimentally-validated radiative transfer calculations show that (in the absence of other changes) a doubling of CO2 will slow radiative cooling to space by about 3.5 W/m2. Combined with conservation of energy, this means that the planet must warm somewhere below the TOA. We need absolutely nothing more to predict that rising GHGs will cause warming.
There are more challenging questions that are harder to answer: How much will it warm? How fast will it warm? Where below the TOA will it warm? Has that warming been detected against the background of natural variability in climate?
The “how fast” question depends on how fast warming is being transported into the deep ocean. ARGO and earlier cruder systems have been measuring this key value. It is the difference between ECS and TCR.
The “how much” warming question depends on how fast radiative cooling to space increases with rising temperature (W/m2/K, the planetary feedback parameter). A gray-body model for the Earth predicts 3.3 W/m2/K, in excellent agreement with AOGCMs without feedbacks (3.2 W/m2/K) which take into consideration regional variation in temperature and atmosphere. We are fairly certain that rising humidity (and changing lapse rate from humidity) will reduce this about 1 W/m2. Satellites report that annual seasonal increases in GMST (about 3.5 K) associated with an 8 W/m2 increase in radiative cooling to space (2.2 W/m2/K) and we have observed this phenomena for about 30 years. Seasonal warming, which is concentrated at the poles, isn’t a great model for global warming in equatorial regions, but these measurements show that WV+LR feedback is far more than a hypotheses.
There you have it: a reasonable picture of AGW that doesn’t depend on AOGCMs and “numerous highly unlikely assumptions”.
AOGCMs are simply unvalidated parameterized hypotheses about how our climate system behaves. Climate scientists tend to ignore the obvious failings of their hypotheses, which are mutually inconsistent with each other. For starters, they don’t produce enough marine boundary layer clouds, the most cooling clouds on the planet. They do reproduce the annual changes in OLR we observe from space above clear skies (WV+LR feedbacks), but not LWR from cloudy skies nor reflected SWR. There is certainly no scientific reason models must be right about cloud feedback. The so-called pattern effect may be the biggest mistaken fudge factor since Einstein added a cosmological constant to General Relativity so his theory would predict a static universe.
“If there were some simple way of overturning those theories with measurements made here on Earth, those experimental tests would likely have been done.” – Franktoo
When I talk of “tidal bulge”, it’s the solid body tidal bulge of the planet. It has been measured by satellite to around 1 meter at the equator. There has been no experimental testing to check whether the solid body bulge is increasing because standard gravity theory predicts it stays the same.
The gravity change wouldn’t be detected by GRACE because the ‘dark matter’ at the cores only interact with each other by the strong gravitational force. It’s analogous to a self-interacting dark matter candidate.
It may sound fanciful but I’ve been studying anomalies in science for 40 years. I’ve studied Simulation Modelling at masters level at Brunel etc.
When a Modified Newtonian gravity theory becomes confirmed by robust confirmation then there *should be* a scientific investigation using careful satellite measurements of solid body earth-tides.
It will change how we think of our planet and the solar system around us for ever more.
Franktoo, here’s recent evidence that the standard gravity theory of the solar system does not match observation:
Earth effective temperature
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“The Earth has an albedo of about 0.306. The emissivity is dependent on the type of surface and many climate models set the value of the Earth’s emissivity to 1. However, a more realistic value is 0.96. The Earth is a fairly fast rotator so the area ratio can be estimated as
1/4. The other variables are constant. This calculation gives us an effective temperature of the Earth of 252 K (−21 °C). The average temperature of the Earth is 288 K (15 °C). One reason for the difference between the two values is due to the greenhouse effect, which increases the average temperature of the Earth’s surface.”
In above abstract we are facing a very interesting SCIENTIFIC CONFUSION.
It is a pure example of not to compare IRRELEVANT values.
1. The planet surface without atmosphere effective temperature is a theoretical term which assumes planet surface behaves as a black body and therefore it emits uniformly. Thus, the Earth’s blackbody temperature is calculated as 252 K (the uniform equilibrium temperature).
But actually we know that Earth doesn’t have uniform temperature. And we know Earth’s average surface temperature is 288 K, which IS NOT Earth’s uniform temperature.
2. The planet surface doesn’t emit IR radiation uniformly. And the Earth’s average surface temperature 288 K cannot be considered as another for the entire surface uniform equilibrium radiative temperature. Earth’s surface doesn’t emit IR radiation at the uniform temperature of 288 K.
We ARE NOT JUSTIFIED to put these two temperatures 252 K and 288 K side by side and calculate the difference
ΔT = 288 K – 252 K = 36 K attributing it then to the Earth’s alleged greenhouse effect, because these two temperatures represent two completely different physic terms.
We are justified to compare two different effective temperatures.
We are justified to compare two different average surface temperatures.
But we CANNOT COMPARE two DIFFERENT PHYSIC TERMS.
The science’s mainstream claim that there is a strong atmospheric greenhouse effect on the Earth’s surface, which warms Earth’s surface from the 252 K to the 288 K should be ABANDONED as completely WRONG.
Christos: Scientists use various MODELS to describe the GHE, including a blackbody equivalent temperature of 255 K. Comparing 255 K to the Earth’s average surface temperature is just one way to quantify the GHE.
A far better way to quantify the GHE is to note that the average surface of the planet emits 390 W/m2 upward. However GHG in the atmosphere result in only about 240 W/m2 reaching space. So the GHE is about 150 W/m2. Unlike a hypothetical blackbody equivalent temperature, 240 W/m2 is measured from space and 390 W/m2 is easy to calculate knowing temperature and emissivity and various locations. The presence of an atmosphere with GHGs clearly allows our planet to be much warmer than it would be without GHGs.
Furthermore, the GHG’s in the atmosphere result in about 333 W/m2 of DLR reaching the average surface.
The fact that one simple MODEL for quantifying the GHE intended mostly for use by non-climate scientists is not perfect doesn’t mean climate scientists don’t understand the phenomena. A big part of the skepticism about climate change does arise because climate scientists use oversimplified explanations to make the public feel they understand what happening. With half a brain and a normal amount of skepticism, it is easy to see what is wrong with these over-simplifications. I personally find the “trapping” of heat by GHG to be an outrageously bad model for what GHGs do because I knew that GHGs both absorb and emit thermal IR. Why doesn’t doubling CO2 double both absorption and emission? Actually it does, to a first approximation! However, the existence of a temperature gradient in the atmosphere means that absorption has a SLIGHTLY bigger effect on upward radiation than on downward radiation. That means rising GHGs (with no other changes) SLOW the rate the planet radiatively cools to space – which is a far better explanation than “trapping”.
If you want to have a meaningful discussion about climate change, you need to understand what climate scientists tell each other, not what they tell the public.
“A far better way to quantify the GHE is to note that the average surface of the planet emits 390 W/m2 upward. However GHG in the atmosphere result in only about 240 W/m2 reaching space. So the GHE is about 150 W/m2. Unlike a hypothetical blackbody equivalent temperature, 240 W/m2 is measured from space and 390 W/m2 is easy to calculate knowing temperature and emissivity and various locations. The presence of an atmosphere with GHGs clearly allows our planet to be much warmer than it would be without GHGs.”
Franktoo, in this paragraph you repeat the same thesis as in the first paragraph, when you said “Comparing 255 K to the Earth’s average surface temperature is just one way to quantify the GHE.”
The values in your example are the same from the 255 K vs 288 K comparison.
This two temperatures cannot be compared, because they belong to DIFFERENT PHYSIC TERMS.
“However, Hölder’s inequality reveals that the effective emission temperature of a spherical object is a mathematical abstraction with no physical analogue; hence, any numerical similarity between Te and actual planetary temperatures measured at, below or above the surface must be viewed as a coincidence.”
No Christos, I didn’t simply restate a thesis that compares 255 K to the GMST of 288 K. The Earth is not a blackbody at 255 K. If all the CO2, CH4 and N2O in the atmosphere were removed, it wouldn’t become a blackbody at 255 K. You can’t remove all of the water vapor and clouds without getting rid of the oceans too. Even if you did, you would need to worry about unequal solar irradiation with latitude, surface heat capacity and rotation rate. After all, the moon doesn’t act like a blackbody at 255 K either. 255 K comes from a model for our planet – and a lousy model that creates unnecessary controversies.
By quantifying the GHE in terms of W/m2, we avoid all the dubious and controversial assumptions that are made when we rely on the blackbody equivalent temperature to quantify the GHE. Things are much simpler when you view the GHE from this perspective. Please try. 240 W/m2 leaves the top of the atmosphere, a number that has been measured from space. Due to the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere, the planet is warm enough to emit an average of 390 W/m2, a number we can calculate knowing the temperature and emissivity of the surface, but which we could measure if we wanted. (We can do a crude calculation using average emissivity (0.99, IIRC) and average temperature (288 K) or break the surface up into thousands of surface grid cells with real temperatures and emissivities.) Expressed this way, the magnitude of the GHE is about 150 W/m2. No models. No assumptions. No controversies. Real measurements. No claims that climate science is bogus.
Radiation transfer calculations explain why surface upward emission gradually diminishes from an average of 390 W/m2 at the surface to 240 W/m2 at the TOA. This happens because the average photon traveling upward is absorbed at a location that is colder than where it was emitted. Similar calculations explain why the average surface location absorbs about 333 W/m2 of DLR.
As is alway the case in climate science, the tricky part is converting irradiation (W/m2) into temperature. Doing so is the unsolved problem of climate sensitivity.
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #439 – Watts Up With That?
Nic: Let’s dissect the abstact of Zhou 2021:
“Our planet’s energy balance is sensitive to spatial inhomogeneities in sea surface temperature and sea ice changes, but this is typically ignored in climate projections. Here, we show the energy budget during recent decades can be closed by combining changes in effective radiative forcing, linear radiative damping and this pattern effect.”
The energy budget can also be closed using a greater feedback parameter (lambda_lt) rather than by adding a Pattern effect (P) to Equation 4). Occum’s razor suggests that changing the feedback parameter is likely the preferred approach to adding a fudge factor. (Einstein notoriously added a cosmological constant to General Relativity so his theory would produce a static universe.)
IMO, The idea that P is been created by unforced variability has been disproven by 100 runs of the MPI model. Not once in this set of 100 runs did unforced variability produce a P anywhere near the -0.63+/-0.27 W/m2 calculated in the paper. For this reason, we can reject the hypothesis that unforced variability is responsible.
Unfortunately, pattern effects were not calculated for these 100 historic MPI model runs. I am guessing from the variation in ECS_hist observed in these 100 runs. Is it possible to examine the size of the pattern effect unforced variability produced in these 100 runs? If unforced variability produces small pattern effects, then only possible conclusion is that models produce the wrong feedback parameter or that they don’t produce enough unforced variability. In either case, models are wrong.
“… 240 W/m2 leaves the top of the atmosphere, a number that has been measured from space. Due to the presence of GHGs in the atmosphere, the planet is warm enough to emit an average of 390 W/m2, a number we can calculate knowing the temperature and emissivity of the surface, but which we could measure if we wanted.”
240 W/m2 is the average on the entire planet surface
(1 – a)So /4 = (1 – 0,30)*!362 W/m2 /4 = 238,35 W/m2 = 240 W/m2
which gives the equilibrium temperature 255 K.
390 W/m2 is the average of 1560 W/m2 which corresponds to the 288 K .
Possible hint of the millennial cycle on Mars:
“If the new model is accurate, the surface roughness observed on the ice cap at Mars’s north pole should form in 1,000–10,000 years, the authors say, providing a starting point for understanding the climate history of the planet.”
Former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre makes some interesting insights into natural climate variability and hints at a future cooling trend:
There’s a connection indicating new physics and a Modified Newtonian gravity theory imo. The interstellar object Oumuamua, which had a mystery acceleration during it’s slingshot trajectory around the sun, also had an unusual shape.
Due to it’s high variability in reflectivity, it was deduced to be either very elongated or disc shaped. This same irregularity has been detected in the asteroid swarm which orbits ahead of planet Jupiter but not on the swarm which trails it.
I believe the asteroids have a nugget of nucleic density matter at their cores which radiate a strong gravitational force along a plane. I therefore can make the prediction that they are more disc shaped than elongated, which is the accepted explanation.
The forthcoming LUCY mission and more detailed observations will hopefully confirm the prediction.
Oumuamua was also unusually bright. It reminded me of the rings of Saturn which are water ice particles with a mystery late formation.
Harvard University Professor Abraham Loeb believes that Oumuamua is so unusual that it is of alien design:
“There are two shapes that fit the peculiarities observed—long and thin like a cigar, or flat and round like a pancake, almost razor thin.
Loeb says simulations favor the latter, and believes the object was deliberately crafted as a light sail propelled by stellar radiation.
Another oddity was the way the object moved—compounding the strangeness of its passage.”
More evidence of new physics and requirement for new gravity theory:
Astronomers from Cardiff University have been baffled by what they’ve seen, with Dr Federico Lelli saying: “We discovered that a massive bulge, a regular rotating disk, and possibly spiral arms were already in place in this galaxy when the universe was just 10% of its current age.”
“This galaxy looks like a grown adult, but it should be just a little child,” Dr Lelli added.
Most distant object in the solar system confirmed with a period of ~1000-years and low orbital inclination puts it as a contender for the millennial climate cycle imo. Note that other distant objects tend to have high inclinations. I predict it has a very low axial tilt. Only new physics with a strong gravitational interaction on a plane is required:
“Millennial Climate Cycle”
There are NO cycles of any kind that affect Earth’s temperatures.
They are driven solely by changing amounts of Sulfur Dioxide .aerosol pollution in the atmosphere, primarily from random volcanic eruptions, and, since the Industrial Revolution (circa 1850, also from changes in anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions.
Get over it, guys.
“There are NO cycles of any kind that affect Earth’s temperatures.” – Burl Henry
There’s hundreds of studies which show there is. This just one of many:
“Spectral analysis of our results demonstrates periodic changes of 1500, 1000 and 500 years of relatively warm and cold intervals during the Holocene of Siberia.”
They are all pipe dreams!
The problem, as I see it, is that volcanic eruptions occur often enough so that, if you don’;t look at their individual effects, graphical programs can tease out what appears to be recurring cycles.
If it can be PROVEN that volcanic eruptions are cyclic, rather than random, then I would stand corrected. .
As proof that Earth’s average anomalous global temperatures are due to changing levels of SO2 in the atmosphere, see:
There are other similar papers of mine that could also be cited.
We can agree that CO2 is not the control knob of global temperature but disagree on the actual cause of abrupt climate change, in the past and present.
Regarding my graph of average anomalous global temperatures, which shows complete correlation of temperature changes with respect to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, I would be interested in your explanation as to why you disagree with that data, which spans a period of ~170 years..
However, I am open to an alternate explanation.
It seems as though you thought of the hypothesis and then you see the correlation in the data. It’s appears too obvious to have been missed by the entire scientific community imo. There was the infamous year without summer due to the eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815. Volcanism as a source of climate change has been well researched, with only limited impact as far as I’m aware.
The new physics tidal forcing hypothesis was inspired by the ice age research which concluded orbital inclination was a better fit to the data than eccentricity. Only a viable mechanism was lacking:
“The existence of the 100-kyr cycle of orbital inclination does not seem to have been previously noted by climatologists. It may have been missed for two reasons. Ever since the work of Milankovitch, the implicit assumption has been that insolation is the driving force for climate cycles, and the insolation is not directly affected by orbital inclination. In addition, the 100-kyr cycle is not evident until the orbital elements are transferred to the natural reference plane of the solar system, the invariable plane.”
“It seems as if you thought of the hypothesis and then you see the correlation in the data”
No, I examined the data, and realized what was happening.
Whenever there is a VEI4 or larger volcanic eruption, average anomalous global temperatures decrease,because of the volcanic injection of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere, reaching their maximum amount of decrease in about 12 months (for a VEI4), Then temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels, or a bit higher, in about 18 months, as the volcanic SO2 aerosol pollution settles out of the atmosphere, cleansing it and allowing sunshine to strike the Earth’s surface with increased intensity, warming it.
(Being heavier, the particulate matter from a volcanic eruption settles out within a few months, or less, and its effects are local, ,rather than global, except for the larger eruptions) .
Since the Clean Air efforts that began in the mid-1970’s, were strongly focused upon the removal of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols from the atmosphere because of Acid Rain and Health concerns, it seemed likely that their removal was also causing temperatures to rise because of the cleaner air.
NASA, in their analysis of atmospheric pollutants, concluded that both volcanic and anthropogenic SO2 aerosols had the same climatic effect, both reflecting sunlight away, and cooling the surface.
Further examination of the data showed that all of the anomalous warming that has occurred is essentially identical to the expected amount of warming from the net quantity of anthropogenic SO2 aerosols removed from the atmosphere. due to global Clean Air efforts.
There is no detectable additional warming from rising levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
So,what I am offering is the result a factual analysis of Earth’s Climate, rather than an unproven hypothesis..
I agree that all of the above appears to be too obvious to have been missed by the entire scientific community. My guess is that it has been studiously ignored, because of the availability of lucrative climate research grants .
Regarding volcanism as being a source of climate change, it was the ONLY source of climate change up to 1850.. Here, I would refer you to another paper of mine;
“Central England Temps. Data Set: Key to Understanding the Cause of Climate Change”.:
No other hypotheses needed.
Burl: what’s your explanation for the 100kyr glacial cycle found in ice core isotope analysis? The ebb and flow of 5km high polar glaciers is well established as fact in the scientific community.
My explanation would be the same–the presence or absence of extensive volcanic activity..
It was responsible for the RWP, the Dark Ages, the MWP, the LIA,,and its cessation., and I would expect the same cause for the ebb and flow of the earlier Ice Ages.
You mention ice core isotopic analysis. What are their findings with respect to the presence of Sulfur?
The Chicxulub impact should have triggered a lot of volcanic activity. The resultant cooling is probably what caused the demise of the Dinosaurs
“..and I would expect the same cause for the ebb and flow of the earlier Ice Ages.” – Burl
But what is the *cause* of Earth’s volcanism so that it significantly increases on a 100kyr cycle?
The eventual demise of the dinosaurs had a distinct cause, so there must also be a causation for the ebb and flow of the glaciers.
You ask for my explanation of the 100kyr glacial cycle seen in ice cores., It is a very good question…
Volcanic eruptions are caused by magma breaking through the Earth’s crust, primarily at tectonic plate subduction zones. The plates move slowly, so there can be long periods of volcanic activity, leading to an ice age. The reality of tectonic plate motion, and sea-floor spreading, is no longer in question, so .volcanic activity from their motion is a given.
The 100kyr “cycles” roughly encompass those eruptions,
Sulfur is routinely found in ice core samples, but I have been unable to find any plot of sulfur levels and temperatures, just CO2 levels and temperatures,
although CO2 has no climatic effect. Probably an SO2 plot would be nearly identical. .
Burl: you still miss the causal link between Earth’s 100kyr orbital cycle and volcanic eruptions.
I could make a connection with the inclination cycle but not with eccentricity affecting insolation.
Also there’s the Mid-Pleistocene Transition around 1 million years ago when ice age cycles changed from 41kyr to 100kyr with much thicker ice sheets.
You would need to explain what dramatic change happened to give the very significant effect.
“You still miss the casual link between Earth’s 100kyr orbital cycle and volcanic eruptions”
As I still maintain, there are no such things as climate cycles, since Earth’s climate is driven by random volcanic eruptions.
Regarding the 100kyr .orbital (interglacial) cycles that you refer to, ,examination of the graphical data shows peak-to-peak occurrences for the 400kyr period occurred at 75kyr, 96kyr, 120kyr, and 117kyr intervals..
No orbital cycle would be that variable. The graphical curve-fitting of that data is misleading and useless for any projections..
The abrupt rise from glacial conditions can be explained by the cessation of a period of volcanic activity. It only takes 3-4 years for the circulating SO2 aerosol pollution from a VEI4 eruption to settle out of the atmosphere, and perhaps 25 years for a VEI7 eruption.. The resultant intense insolation because of the cleaner air would melt most of the glaciation, as happened during the MWP. period.
The above should also apply to the so-called Mid-Pleistocene transition.
Burl: why hasn’t anyone in the science community written a paper on your hypothesis for the ice ages? I assume the amount of volcanic activity isn’t enough and there’s no reason or mechanism to suggest drastic or sudden changes happened in the past. The rates of past eruptions has been carefully assessed by the lava rock deposits.
You ash “why hasn’t anyone in the science community written a paper on your hypothesis for the ice ages”
The possibility of the ice ages being caused by volcanic eruptions has been examined by others, who have concluded that even the climatic effect of a large eruption lasts for such a short time that it would not cause the extended cooling that is observed.
However, my analysis of the Central England Instrumental Temperatures (1659-present) shows that ALL temperature decreases during the period of the LIA that it covers were due to volcanic eruptions, somewhere in the world Even VEI4 eruptions affected global temperatures.
Volcanoes have been erupting for millions of years, and there is no reason for them to have stopped during the Ice Ages.
Actually, my “hypothesis is easily testable. Ice core data is available for the 400,000 year period under discussion, and a graph is available showing CO2 levels. I have not been able to find a similar one for Sulfur, but one might be available on Research Gate, since the Sulfur levels are also recorded (I do not have access)
“No orbital cycle would be that variable.” – Burl
It would be if there’s two main drivers of climate forcing: the 41kyr tilt cycle as well as the 100kyr orbital.
The hypothesis of new physics extra strong tidal forcing when on the same plane as Jupiter lends itself to more quasi-period orbits than previously calculated.
Generally, as regards rainfall they do not have much knowledge of events prior to around 1950 or so when they have good records of the lynton flood. So they are not really looking at anything more than a few decades of data on a national scale although some spot local records are better.
New physics hinted at in new study imo. The ‘big fish’ hypothesis is analogous to Jupiter, creating a thin plane of the solar system:
Astronomers are starting to understand why the dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way are aligned along a plane.
But our galaxy’s satellite group is also a bit unusual: It’s dominated by the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), a dwarf galaxy with 10 billion solar masses, about 10% of the Milky Way’s heft. So Samuel rinsed and repeated, this time looking only at simulated galaxies with a giant dwarf among their satellites. When such a big fish influences the small pond, Samuel found that thin satellite planes were more common, occurring 7 to 16% of the time, and they lasted much longer, up to 3 billion years.
There’s a fascinating report of hurricanes doubling in intensity in Bermuda:
Hurricanes are blasting Bermuda with wind speeds that have more than doubled in strength over the last 66 years.
During this time, sea-surface temperatures in the region also increased by up to two degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius),”Our research demonstrates the greater relevance of upper-ocean temperatures versus sea-surface temperatures alone in the prediction of hurricane intensity,” lead author Samantha..
..temperature of the top 164 feet (50 meters) of the water column could be used to more accurately predict hurricane intensity.
Huge changes in Earth’s core around 42,000 years ago linked with a Grand Solar Minimum and increase in ice sheets:
Ice core records suggest such dips in solar activity, known as the “grand solar minima”, coincided with the Laschamps excursion.
“We see this massive growth of the ice sheet over North America…
The Earth’s magnetic field has weakened by about 9% over the past 170 years.
The length of time of the reversal links to the power of the millennial cycle:
Sometimes, for reasons that aren’t clear, the magnetic poles’ movements can be more drastic. Around 41,000-42,000 years ago they swapped places entirely.
“The Laschamps Excursion was the last time the magnetic poles flipped,” says Prof. Turney. “They swapped places for about 800 years before changing their minds and swapping back again.”
“Earth’s magnetic field dropped to only 0-6 percent strength during the Adams Event,” says Prof. Turney.
“We essentially had no magnetic field at all—our cosmic radiation shield was totally gone.”
During the magnetic field breakdown, the Sun experienced several ‘Grand Solar Minima’ (GSM), long-term periods of quiet solar activity.
“During the magnetic field breakdown the Sun experienced several “Grand Solar Minima” (GSM) , long term periods of quiet solar activity”
As I pointed out earlier, it is IMPOSSIBLE to infer any changes in the Sun’s activity by ANY proxy measurements when there are any volcanic SO2 aerosols circulating in the atmosphere..
The paper which you cite uses tree-ring data to infer decreased solar activity during periods of magnetic reversal , and therefore all of hiss conclusions can be discarded.
“As I pointed out earlier, it is IMPOSSIBLE to infer any changes in the Sun’s activity by ANY proxy measurements..” – Burl
Did you watch the embedded video of the two professors describing the research?
“The kauri trees are like the Rosetta Stone, helping us tie together records of environmental change in caves, ice cores and peat bogs around the world,” says co-lead Professor Alan Cooper, Honorary Researcher at the South Australian Museum.
Over long timescales, quantitative information about past solar activity can only be obtained using a method based upon indirect proxies, such as the cosmogenic isotopes 14C & 10Be in natural stratified archives (e.g., tree rings or ice cores). We give an historical overview of the development of the proxy-based method for past solar-activity reconstruction over millennia, as well as a description of the modern state.
I said ANY proxy measurements. This includes all indirect proxies,, including 14C, and 10Be. I
Measurements of the sun’s irradiance can only be made above Earth’s atmosphere, by satellites.
Just out of interest, what’s your opinion on the validity of Einstein’s gravity theory? Do you accept his mathematical description of gravity at large scales which is based on Newton’s gravitational equation? Is it possible that it’s fundamentally wrong and that an early underlying assumption has led to global groupthink? What’s your solution to reconciling the quantum world with the macro world of gravity theory?
I’d be very interested if you give the philosophy of such questions careful consideration.
The ‘Adam’s Event’ could also be the reason modern humans began wearing animal furs. It would have shielded them from the harmful radiation when venturing out of their caves during the day.
They would have had no inkling that radiation, if it existed, could be harmful.
They were sheltering in caves because of the colder climate, and the wearing of furs helped them survive
The researchers theorise that the dramatic environmental changes may have caused early humans to seek more shelter. This could explain the sudden appearance of cave art around the world roughly 42,000 years ago.
“We think that the sharp increases in UV levels, particularly during solar flares, would suddenly make caves very valuable shelters,” says Prof. Cooper. “The common cave art motif of red ochre handprints may signal it was being used as sunscreen, a technique still used today by some groups.
You’re not very open to any other thoughts than your own Burl.
“You are not open to any other thoughts than your own, Burl”
Especially when I encounter nonsense.
Professor Cooper uses various proxies to conclude that the sun was flaring, then pure speculation to conclude that early man sought shelter in caves as protection from the flares.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, it is completely impossible to use ANY proxies to determine the state of the sun, at any time.
Approx. 42,000 years ago, the Earth was in an Ice Age, and, in order to survive, they would have sought shelter in caves, and worn furs. He also speculates that red ocher was also used as a sunscreen–during the frigid temperatures!
“Especially when I encounter nonsense.” – Burl
I noticed you declined to respond to the questions regarding the validity of Einstein’s gravity theory. Do you believe it’s possible that GR is fundamentally flawed and that a Modified Newtonian gravity theory is an acceptable subject for debate?
Certainly, any subject can be debated.
However, within our solar system Newtonian gravity completely suffices, in the sense that we able to launch robot explores to distant asteroids or planets with pinpoint accuracy..
I see no reason to suspect that any corrections need to be made. Beyond our solar system, I will pass. , ,
Your knowledge is woefully lacking in both paleoclimate science as well as gravitational theory.
Imagining gravity as a strong force acting between nucleic density cores and mediated by a spinning corkscrew graviton lends itself to solving it’s role inside the atom:
Launch yourself from a great enough height and it won’t take long to see which would win in a battle between gravity and the forces that bind solid ground.
Gravity’s relative weakness, at least compared to the strength of electromagnetism and the nuclear forces, appears to limits its power to phenomena on the vast scales of planets and galaxies.
For this reason, together with the challenge of marrying general relativity with quantum physics, physicists tend to hand-wave gravity’s role in the formation of particles by fudging it with a rather arbitrary correction factor.
With regard to the extinction event ~66 million years ago, I believe there’s a case for new physics and much higher energy being imparted through the entire Earth to the other side of the planet.
The Deccan Trapps in western India are at the same latitude as the Chicxulub crater and located on the opposite side of the globe. Surely more than a coincidence?
Since then, evidence in support of an asteroid impact has only grown stronger, with models going so far as to suggest the angle, as well as the location of the Chicxulub impact, played crucial roles in the magnitude of the extinction event.
Signs that a zone of intense geological activity in western India called the Deccan Traps was contributing vast amounts of greenhouse gases at the time meant the volcano hypothesis has never been entirely ruled out, at least as a possible contributing factor.
In addition to the Deccan traps, the Siberian traps have also been attributed to the anti-podal impact that formed the Wilkes Land crater in Antarctica.
The force of those impacts transmitted through the earth would explain the intense volcanism that occurred for a million or so years, afterward.
No need to surmise “new physics”
Why isn’t this force transmitted through the Earth from the Chicxulub impact to cause anti-podal volcanism ever mentioned in scientific papers and articles??
Why can’t you post a link to any scientific paper which estimates the energy required from such an asteroid impact event?
“Why isn’t this force transmitted through the Earth from the Chixulbub impact to cause anti-podal volcanism ever mentioned in scientific papers and articles??”
There is a paper titled “Triggering of the Largest Deccan Eruptions by the Chixulbub impact”, Richards, M.A., et al, (2015)
Also, in the Wikipedia article on the Siberian traps, they say “another possible cause may be the impact that formed the Wilkes Crater in Antarctica, which is estimated to have occurred around the same time and been nearly anti-podal to the traps”  ((2009)
Here’s a good article on the issue although the energy requirements relative to the size of the impact crater involve a lot of hand-waving imo.
A better explanation is nucleic density impact events that occur on a much smaller scale around once a year but leave no crater:
You have the same personality as RIE. You miss the point and take things out of context.
The nucleic density impactor hypothesis inducing antipodal lava eruptions holds true for *both* the extinction event that occurred ~66mya as well as ~250mya.
The eruptions continued for roughly two million years and spanned the Permian–Triassic boundary, or P–T boundary, which occurred between 251 to 250 million years ago.
Another possible cause may be the impact that formed the Wilkes Land crater in Antarctica, which is estimated to have occurred around the same time and been nearly antipodal to the traps.
A large nucleic density impact event is also a candidate for the mystery outgassing of CO2 on Venus circa 700mya:
But something happened around 700 million years ago that remains a mystery, although the researchers think its connected to volcanic activity. Magma would have released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and as the magma cooled, the gas couldn’t be reabsorbed in the surface.
Whatever happened, so much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused a runaway greenhouse effect, evidenced in the scorching hot temperatures on the planet now.
“Something happened on Venus where a huge amount of gas was released into the atmosphere and couldn’t be re-absorbed by the rocks. On Earth we have some examples of large-scale outgassing, for instance the creation of the Siberian Traps 500 million years ago which is linked to a mass extinction, but nothing on this scale. It completely transformed Venus,” Way said.
It could also have flipped the planet over 180°, creating it’s retrograde rotation.
“A large nucleic density impact”
Please explain exactly what you mean with respect to “nucleic density”
Thank you for your explanation of nucleic density.
Now, could you also explain what a “nucleic density impact” means. That is, what does the impactor consist of?
“Please explain exactly what you mean with respect to “nucleic density”” – Burl
It’s an alternative view of matter and gravity wrt Newton’s imagery and supporting equation. He essentially said that all matter is similar but I’m proposing that everyday matter is candyfloss compared to matter which exists at Earth’s core.
It’s based on an alternative explanation for the ocean tides. I proposed a *strong* gravitational interaction between the cores of the Moon and Earth. The solid rock bulges under the unimaginable forces and creates solid body earth-tides. The oceans are pushed from underneath to create the tides.
It’s an entirely new vision of how the world works. It’s a paradigm shift comparable to Copernicus suggesting that the Sun doesn’t revolve around Earth but that it is at the centre and all the planets orbit around it.
“That is, what does the impactor consist of?” – Burl
The same exotic-type matter that exists at the cores of neutron stars:
“The same exotic -type matter that exists at the cores of neutron stars”
As you must know, neutron stars are formed by the collapse of a giant star down to a diameter of about 15 miles
Its gravity is so intense that no “chip off its surface” could ever escape.its gravitational field.
So it is impossible for any such piece of such exotic matter to be drifting around anywhere in the universe..
You also stated that tides are caused by the flexing of oceanic rocks by the gravity of the moon. Warming due to the gravitation flexing of their crust is thought to explain the liquid oceans under the ice of some of Jupiter’s moons, One would therefore expect our ocean bottoms to be warm, rather than frigid, as they are.
You need to seriously re-think your hypotheses. What ARE you smoking?
“Its gravity is so intense that no “chip off its surface” could ever escape it’s gravitational field.” – Burl Henry
I don’t have that visual imagery. I have a mental simulation which allows nucleic density matter to have been formed in the early creation of the universe. These cores would act as seeds for ordinary matter to coalesce around.
There is no satisfactory simulation modelling of planet or star formation. It’s another very grey area of cosmology. There’s also the logical problem that under Newtonian gravity, dust or pebbles wouldn’t gravitationally coalesce.
I found some links to suspect meteorite impacts which leave no crater:
The macro dark matter has nucleic density & very high velocity meteors would penetrate granite rock, liquidising & recooling as it passes through. The Tunguska event was a much larger version of the Rhode Island beach explosion imo:
You speculate that nucleic density matter was created during the Big Bang. No, it was not. For .the first few hundred thousand years, there was nothing but dense gas.
Any nucleic density matter every created would have been from the collapse of a giant star (but less than 10 solar masses (according to Wikipedia). Larger stars would have formed black holes.
You are also ignoring the immense weight of nucleic matter. A match box sized amount would weigh ~ 3 billion tons.. If a piece of nucleic matter had ever struck the Earth, it would not have shattered, but would remain embedded in the Earth. Such an embedment would show up as a huge gravity anomaly, and easily detected by satellites.
“One would therefore expect our ocean bottoms to be warm, rather than frigid, as they are.” – Burl Henry
You’re wrong yet again. The abyssal ocean bottoms *are* warming:
“You speculate that nucleic density matter was created during the Big Bang. No, it was not. For the first few hundred thousand years, there was nothing but dense gas.”
(Lol). That’s pure speculation as well(!).
“You are also ignoring the immense weight of nucleic matter. A match box sized amount would weigh ~ 3 billion tons.. If a piece of nucleic matter had ever struck the Earth, it would not have shattered, but would remain embedded in the Earth. Such an embedment would show up as a huge gravity anomaly, and easily detected by satellites.”
You’re assuming that Newton/Einstein gravity theory is correct. Even if crust-embedded matchbox sized nucleic density matter experienced such a large force due to the high flux rate of gravitons emanating from the inner-inner core (ie. super heavy), it doesn’t mean that a baryonic matter satellite would detect any anomaly.
It’s a completely different theory of gravity which requires the correct mental imagery to understand it. Baryonic matter is too candyfloss-like to notice the super high flux density of gravitons because most of them would simply pass through without any interaction.
You said “(Lol). That’s pure speculation as well (!)”
You may be correct, but it’s not mine.
This is the reason for the Allais Effect – a change in swing of a pendulum during a solar eclipse. The nucleic density matter core of the moon briefly blocks the high graviton flux emanating from the sun. The entire Earth shifts slightly as a consequence, which is detected in the pendulum swing.
The effect, although controversial, has been replicated many times:
A simple test for this would be to accurately measure the rotation rate of the Earth during a solar eclipse.
The same effect has been detected by seismometers on Mars when Phobos regular passes directly across the centre of the solar disc during an eclipse.
“A simple test for this would be to accurately measure the rotation rate of the Earth during a solar eclipse.”
A new laser system has been developed to compliment traditional methods of measurement:
These results demonstrate by far the highest sensitivity and stability of any optical interferometer measuring Earth’s motion, says Schreiber. “We’re getting to a point where watching the Earth’s motion in real time is becoming a reality.” But he says that the performance in this initial test is still far short of VLBI systems.
Johannes Böhm, who works on VLBI at the Technical University of Vienna, is impressed. “The fascinating aspect is that one can measure rotation variations with just one instrument at the Earth’s surface, without observing satellites or extragalactic radio sources,” he says.
ROMY will not, however, render satellite measurements obsolete. As ROMY’s sensitivity and precision become more sophisticated through technical improvements, such as further stabilization of the laser cavities, its continuous observations will be complementary to space-based ones. Schreiber sees advanced ring lasers providing “short-term, high-resolution measurements, while satellite systems and VLBI ensure the long-term stability.”
“A simple test for this would be to accurately measure the rotation rate of the Earth during a solar eclipse.”
It’s pleasing to know that humanity will soon have indisputable proof of a change in rotation rate during a solar eclipse:
Since the 1970s Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) has proven to be a primary space-geodetic technique..well on its way to fully defining a next generation VLBI system, called VLBI2010.
The goals of the new system are to achieve on scales up to the size of the Earth an accuracy of 1 mm in position and of 0.1 mm/year in velocity. Continuous observations shall be carried out 24 h per day 7 days per week in the future with initial results to be delivered within 24 h after taking the data. Special sessions, e.g. for monitoring the Earth rotation parameters, will provide the results in near real-time.
Why isn’t the science community taking this inexpensive test of gravity theory much more seriously?
Results confirming observation of the Allais and Jeverdan-Rusu-Antonescu effects during the annular solar eclipse of September 22, 2006 were presented the following year by a Romanian team, with a quantization of the behavior of the paraconical pendulum. During the solar eclipse of August 1, 2008, a Ukrainian team and two Romanian teams worked together hundreds of kilometers apart with different apparatuses: five independent miniature torsion balances for the Ukrainian team, two independent short ball-borne pendulums for a Romanian team and a long Foucault pendulum for the third team. All three teams detected unexplained and mutually correlated disturbances. The same teams repeated a dual experiment during the annular solar eclipse of January 26, 2009, this time outside of the umbra, with the same significant correlation between the behavior of light torsion balances and a Foucault pendulum. They also registered similar anomalies using a Foucault pendulum and a very light torsion balance, both located underground in a disused salt mine with minimal interference, during the partial solar eclipse of June 1, 2011.
“You may be correct, but it’s not mine.” – Burl
Is that it? Is that all you got?
Did you read the other posts I made? Any comment on the Allais effect? Any comment on Phobos eclipse & Marsquakes? Any comment on the cycle of earthquakes and the outercore/mantle boundary?
You were telling fibs when you said you were open to alternative ideas. You’re just as close-minded as everyone else. It’s a shame but something I’ve come to expect over the last decade of research.
Thank you for the opportunity to express myself. All the best.
New physics is required to solve the Crisis in Cosmology. The concept of nucleic density matter cores resolves the enigma described by Dr. Becky at 9:45
The crisis involves inconsistencies between methods of measuring the Hubble constant. The concept of neutron star matter cores is balderdash.
Amazing footage of Mount Etna erupting in Sicily, raining down black pumice & ash:
A major eruption of Sinabung volcano with 40,000ft ash plume in Sumatra, Indonesia. It’s a sign of things to come perhaps?
Definitely a sign of things to come, IF they are VEI4, or larger, eruptions.
Here’s a fairly recent eruption involving sulphur dioxide aerosols:
On June 15 1783, Dr John Purcell went outside his house in Edinburgh, looked up at the clouds and wrote in his diary how dark and gloomy the sky was. The dark skies, he reported, continued for seven days followed by two or three days of fine weather. Then, on June 25 he began to describe the presence of a choking sulphurous haze that lingered over Edinburgh for the rest of the summer.
Although Laki is now dormant, the eruptions of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010 and Holuhraun in 2014, and now news that Mt Keilir, just a few miles south of Reykjavik is showing signs of “near-constant seismic activity”, demonstrates just how much volcanic eruption is an ever-present threat in Iceland. Were another eruption of Laki’s magnitude to occur, Scotland and the other countries of the British Isles could face a serious respiratory crisis.
Here’s potential evidence supporting a collision/capture nucleic density impactor for the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution circa 1mya:
It is thought that the Martian meteorite was created when an asteroid or comet plunged into the planet about 600,000 to 700,000 years ago, spraying debris into space. One of those pieces of rubble swept across the solar system and eventually crashed on to Earth. That meteorite – now known as SAU 008 – was discovered in Oman in 1999 and has been in the care of the Natural History Museum since then.
I’m proposing that circa 1mya, an extrasolar nucleic density comet came in perpendicular to the plane of the solar system and eventually impacted Venus’s inner inner core, tipping the planet 180°, then exited at reduced velocity, eventually being captured by Jupiter, evidenced by the Trojans.
The Venusian collision would have been so powerful that high velocity debris would have impacted Mars, ejecting meteorites that would eventually make it to Earth and other bodies.
If correct, the evidence should be found by Mars explorers in the very near future.
This is the cause of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution imo and the beginning of the millennial cycle.
The Oman meteorite SAU 008 is more likely to have originated from Venus, if the proposed collision/capture hypothesis for the Mid Pleistocene Revolution is correct.
A small chunk of Mars will be heading home when the US space agency launches its latest rover mission on Thursday.
It’s also possible that unexpected interplanetary dust detected by Juno, originated from the proposed Venusian impact and *not* Mars:
While there is good evidence now that Mars, the dustiest planet we know of, is the source of the zodiacal light, Jørgensen and his colleagues cannot yet explain how the dust could have escaped the grip of Martian gravity. They hope other scientists will help them.
A recent nucleic density matter impact event of Venus appears to have the potential to solve the mystery of the dual nature of meteorites:
New research has shown that these meteorites appear to belong to the same parent body, providing evidence that the rocky body from which they came was both melted and broken in a pile of rubble. A real puzzle for researchers.
Here’s a new science finding which relates to the Middle Miocene closure of the Central American Seaway and ice ages:
“Without the extra support generated by this flow in the asthenosphere, portions of Central America would still be below sea level. The Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans would be connected without a need for the Panama Canal,”..
It makes me suspicious of a nucleic density matter impact event.
The date given of 8.5mya for the ‘river of rocks’ is not that far off from the circa 1mya of the Mid-Pleistocene Revolution. It’s conceivable that an antipodal nucleic density matter impact event occurred, which exacerbated the mantle plume, pushing up the lithosphere to close the Central American Seaway.
The antipod location of the Galapagos is south of the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean. Any previous impact would be difficult to detect.
The millennial cycle could be the reverberations of the inner-inner core, which is still oscillating to this day.
“The antipod location of the Galapagos is south of the Bay of Bengal in the Indian Ocean.”
This is the location of a mystery warm pool: