Michael Mann’s and Stefan Rahmstorf’s recent AMOC paper has been promptly and widely discredited since it came out, see here WUWT, WUWT, and NTZ. The sharp criticism has since picked up.
Veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi for example blasted the paper in a comment at WUWT, calling the claims “nonsense” and reminded that renowned climatology expert William Gray had predicted what is now happening already 40 years ago.
Bastardi wrote that it is all part of the natural end-game of the Atlantic’s warm cycle. The veteran meteorologist rated the paper’s claims:
This idea borders on delusional, an attempt to self verify the idea that co2 is actually influencing the oceans, laughable since the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000x air, and co2 is only .04% of the air.”
Curry calls the paper’s methodology “remarkable”
The latest high profile climate scientist criticizing the work is Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry at her Climate Etc. site here. First she is unconvinced of the paper’s methodology of using climate model simulations and “Mannian proxy analysis” of decadal to millennial scale ocean circulations and internal variability in place of direct measurements, calling it “remarkable”.
She poses the rhetorical question:
So, who you gonna believe? Climate models and Mannian proxies, or direct and satellite observations of ocean circulation?
AMO is behind the changes
Curry says that the cooling of the high latitude North Atlantic can be traced back to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which now appears to be at the start of its descent into its cool phase. She writes there is some evidence that the warm phase of the AMO already peaked circa 2007. Moreover she hints that the transition could be sharp, as was the case in the late 1990s.
Curry scoffs at the notion that climate change is likely behind the cooling of the North Atlantic. In her summary she writes (my emphasis).
What we are seeing in the high latitudes of the North Atlantic is natural variability, predominantly associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Based open observational analyses, there is no sign of a slowdown in the Gulf Stream or the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.
Now, I am very interested in the AMO, since it strongly influences Atlantic hurricanes, Arctic sea ice, and Greenland climate. We are already seeing a recovery of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea ice, and some hints of cooling in Greenland.”
PG, prior to the great climate jamboree and gabfest coming up in Paris in December, this sort of regurgitated climate scare will keep cropping up, this is a propaganda war and Obama and the EU are spreading the lies, unfortunately the world press are printing these BS fabrications.
I have seen that report, I thought immediately with Mann’s name stuck on it, “it’s BS”.
Rahmstorf, I thought he was a little more careful with the company he kept, honestly.
Still, never let the truth get in the way of a good old climate scare whopper and as whopping great big lies go – this was some whopper.
The enormous planetary ocean conveyor, the forces which drive this mechanism are titanic and its importance and great significance for life, climate and humanity are undeniable.
Though, what is incomprehensible is to somehow link a half baked lie [man made warming]to making and causing disruption – with an oceanic phenomenon [the north Atlantic drift] which is plainly unaffected by Δ of minor fractions of the gaseous make up of the planetary atmosphere.
Lord in heaven, and to make such astonishing accusations is plain unfettered madness – spotlight on Mann and Rahmstorf – one great scam.
Congrats to both Judith and Joe for their wisdom and bravery in expecting observation as the predictive hallmark. Lesser experts may dance to the music in order to avoid the Grijalva inquisition.
I would imagine Teddy offering a heartfelt “bully” for the effort.
Climate Audit is on to it as well;
http://climateaudit.org/2015/03/25/reductio-ad-mannium/
Thanks- just had to post on that.
This is a strange form of “recovery of the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea ice”, as we just had the lowest maximum arctic sea ice cover on record:
“On February 25, 2015, Arctic sea ice extent appeared to have reached its annual maximum extent, marking the beginning of the sea ice melt season. This year’s maximum extent not only occurred early; it is also the lowest in the satellite record. However, a late season surge in ice growth is still possible.”
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/03/2015-maximum-lowest-on-record/
wishful thinking sod:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
and in addition low maximum can be expected to be followed by low minimum (see 2005 & 2006)
Thanks for the link, but you are using an outdated DMI graph.
your link is to this version “old_icecover”:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
But the new version with coastal zones not masked out looks different:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Even in the new graph, 2011 might have a lower maximum in this dataset, but the term “recovery” does not sound useful here!
Also, heat rises upwards, so it is perfectly logical that Antarctic Sea Ice has record extent under Global Warming.
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png
Nice try Sod, but the version I linked you to is not outdated (as you very well know since the latest update is stamp with a date), the “old” version stands for ice coverage above 30 % but since the data did not conform too nicely with the CAGW-alarm (due to being less prone to wind), DMI finally gave in to conformity and now publishes the 15 % coverage as their “prime” product.
“Nice try Sod, but the version I linked you to is not outdated (as you very well know since the latest update is stamp with a date),”
I am sorry, that was my fault.
But the time stamp is no indicator, as the old graph keeps getting updated as well:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php
I still do not see any evidence for a recovery. The new maximum is very low. We also have another article confirming a rather massive loss of sea ice volume. (that is the main difference to the antarctic btw, multiyear sea ice is list and will not recover easily)
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/269/2015/tc-9-269-2015.html
So what is the evidence of a recovery?
“But the time stamp is no indicator, as the old graph keeps getting updated as well”
Are you for real? You should look up “time stamp” in a dictionary. And keep checking the latest version since maximum has not been reached yet. Impatience often leads to ridicule later.
In terms of the recovery-vocabulary, I do find use of it unfortunate since it lacks specifications: from what, to what. However, there seems to be a possible change of trend since circa 2008. There are some interesting points made in here:
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/rapid-recovery-in-arctic-sea-ice-volume-back-to-2006-levels/
Go home Sod, do not pass go and do not collect $200