Dr. Sebastian Lüning writes at the Die kalte Sonne site that alarmist climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf has been shown to be wrong with his idea of a weakening Atlantic Current. It turns out that natural factors are dominating.
Image: NASA (public domain)
================================================
Bitter defeat for Stefan Rahmstorf: Weakening of the Atlantic Current from 2004 to 2014 has natural causes
By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
(German text translated by P Gosselin)
Stefan Rahmstorf had to deal with a bitter defeat over the past few days. His idea that the Atlantic Current would gradually come to a standstill due to man-made CO2 emissions has once again been falsified.
A team of scientists led by Laura Jackson were able to show in a paper published in Nature Geoscience that short-term fluctuations of the Atlantic Current were the result of natural cycles. On May 23 2016 Climate Central reported on a study:
Abrupt Atlantic Ocean Changes May Have Been Natural
Climate change may not have been to blame for an abrupt recent slowdown of a sweeping Atlantic Ocean current, a change that delivered an intense pulse of ocean warming and sea level rise through the Gulf of Maine and elsewhere along the East Coast.
Modeling-based analysis by British scientists, published Monday in Nature Geoscience, concluded that the decline in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) from 2004 to 2014 was “part of decadal variability of the North Atlantic,” representing a recovery following a previous strengthening of its currents. […] The findings were based on analysis of data from Met Office weather forecasting models. They were generally welcomed by other scientists, who said they point to the powerful role that the whims of nature can play on the ocean cycle — even as greenhouse gas pollution causes ice sheets to melt, which prior research has shown is causing the circulation to slow overall. The decline we’ve seen is much larger than we would have expected just from increasing greenhouse gases over the last decade,” said Tom Delworth, a climate scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Princeton University. He wasn’t involved with the study.
The entire article can be read at Climate Central. The following is the paper’s abstract:
Recent slowing of Atlantic overturning circulation as a recovery from earlier strengthening
The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) has weakened substantially over the past decade1. Some weakening may already have occurred over the past century2, and global climate models project further weakening in response to anthropogenic climate change3. Such a weakening could have significant impacts on the surface climate4. However, ocean model simulations based on historical conditions have often found an increase in overturning up to the mid-1990s, followed by a decrease5. It is therefore not clear whether the observed weakening over the past decade is part of decadal variability or a persistent weakening6. Here we examine a state-of-the-art global-ocean reanalysis product, GloSea5, which covers the years 1989 to 2015 and closely matches observations of the AMOC at 26.5° N, capturing the interannual variability and decadal trend with unprecedented accuracy. The reanalysis data place the ten years of observations—April 2004 to February 2014—into a longer-term context and suggest that the observed decrease in the overturning circulation is consistent with a recovery following a previous increase. We find that density anomalies that propagate southwards from the Labrador Sea are the most likely cause of these variations. We conclude that decadal variability probably played a key role in the decline of the AMOC observed over the past decade.”
A 2014 paper also says “this decrease represents decadal variability in the AMOC system rather than a response to climate change” and “the magnitude of the observed changes suggests that they are a part of a cyclical change rather than being directly linked to the projected anthropogenic AMOC decrease.”
http://www.ocean-sci.net/10/29/2014/os-10-29-2014.pdf
Model simulations predict a decrease of the AMOC in the 21st century in response to increasing greenhouse gases of the order of one half a Sverdrup per decade (IPCC, 2007). Our observations indicate that the actual change over the last decade is much greater. The magnitude of the observed changes suggests that they are a part of a cyclical change rather than being directly linked to the projected anthropogenic AMOC decrease. [O]ur observations…show no significant change in the Gulf Stream transport over the 2004–2012 period when the AMOC is decreasing. …. We have shown that there was a slowdown in the AMOC transport between 2004 and 2012 amounting to an average of −0.54 Sv yr−1 (95 % c.i. −0.08 to −0.99 Sv yr−1 ) at 26◦ N, and that this was primarily due to a strengthening of the southward flow in the upper 1100 m and a reduction of the southward transport of NADW below 3000 m. This trend is an order of magnitude larger than that predicted by climate models associated with global climate change scenarios, suggesting that this decrease represents decadal variability in the AMOC system rather than a response to climate change. Further observations from the 26◦ N array will in time allow a better understanding of decadal variability of the AMOC and its relationship to the climate of the North Atlantic region.
Yet this article (quoting from climatecentral.org) still says: “…greenhouse gas pollution causes ice sheets to melt, which prior research has shown is causing the circulation to slow overall.”
So it doesn’t even touch the core delusion, that there is a global-warming “greenhouse effect” and consequent global “climate change”.
I also read a comment on the climate etc site of Judith Curry, by one of the many notorious defenders of the utterly false climate science (David Appell), reiterating that scientists have “shown” that the Sun can’t be to blame for the “global warming”, and that it must be CO2.
My short answer to everyone who believes in any part of the consensus climate science is
The Bottom Line About “Climate Science” and “Global Warming”.
That evidence is patently clear, that there is no CO2 “greenhouse effect” at all, and further that it should not be surprising that climate scientists cannot explain their “global warming” as due to variability in the Sun’s output, because THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS themselves are not to be trusted. Everybody, climate scientists included, uses 288K for the global mean surface temperature in their theories, in agreement with what the Standard Atmosphere says. Yet the Standard Atmosphere has “said” that for over a hundred years, and the global mean surface temperature “measured” today is LESS than 288K, by a few tenths of a degree, despite all the hysteria over a century of “global warming”. My 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison–which I have claimed ever since to be the definitive correction to the utterly false climate science–precisely confirms the Standard Atmosphere model, so there can be no doubt that the Standard Atmosphere describes the real atmosphere, on the global scale, and it demands no “global warming” has occurred from the time the Standard Atmosphere was developed all the way up to 1991, the time the Magellan spacecraft took the Venus data I used in my comparison.
Even some consensus scientists confirm, albeit unintentionally, my position on the lack of any proved global warming at all. I recently came across, and communicated in a comment on the jonova site, this 2014 admission from a European Space Agency scientist: “A widely reported ‘pause’ in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at the European Space Agency. Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that surface air temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as ‘lousy’.”
Yet that data is what is presented to the world, defended in every debate, and obsessed over, month after month, by both sides in the climate debate. Climate science is “lousy”, ladies and gentlemen. Period.
When the dust clears, this generation will be swept into the dustbin of history for its vehement and condescending denial of the clear truth, that there is no valid climate science and no competent climate scientists today. After all this time, I would go further, and say there is no competent scientist throughout all of the earth and life sciences today–I have neither seen nor heard of any of them, whether alarmist or lukewarmer, accepting my Venus/Earth comparison as definitive, and its clear consequences for current climate science. There simply is no excuse for the rampant incompetence in science now, although there are clear reasons for it. I have explained the biggest reason on my blog, in the context of my own unprecedented scientific discoveries: The current scientific paradigm (which my discoveries replace) is failing, and has been failing from its inception. Science has chosen to nurture false dogma ever since Darwin, and almost completely so in the last half-century.
Wait a moment. Rahmstorff thought slightly higher CO2 in the atmosphere would stop ocean currents?
HAHAHAHAHAA!
Yeah what a stupid idea that a trace CO2 molecule with a very limited IR window to absorb a few outgoing IR in that slender frequency band, can stop a huge body of water flow.
Mark Serreze also recently does another foot in the mouth babble about this years arctic ice cap condition.
A warmist stupidity disease that effects people selectively?
“Yeah what a stupid idea that a trace CO2 molecule with a very limited IR window to absorb a few outgoing IR in that slender frequency band, can stop a huge body of water flow.”
Alaska is having utterly absurd temperatures this year, 10°F above the norm:
http://ecowatch.com/2016/06/10/alaska-hottest-year/
It is utterly clear, that such strong changes can basically effect everything.
are you directly attributing the current levels of arctic sea ice to current levels of co2 ?
You know that was absolutely nothing to do with CO2
Your base-level propaganda bleating is getting seriously wacked out and idiotic.
sod: “Alaska is having utterly absurd temperatures this year, 10°F above the norm”
http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOASCJ/TOASCJ-6-111.pdf
The First Decade of the New Century: A Cooling Trend for Most of Alaska
http://akclimate.org/sites/default/files/ClimateTrends/Seasonal_Yearly_Temp_Change_77_F.png
And all along the coast of Alaska, sea level is plummeting at an average rate of -6 mm/yr. Are you sure Alaska is helping you, sod?
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_states.htm?gid=1240
Ketchikan: -0.30 millimeters/year from 1919 to 2014
Sitka: -2.27 millimeters/year from 1924 to 2014
Juneau: -13.16 millimeters/year from 1936 to 2014
Skagway: -17.59 millimeters/year from 1944 to 2014
Yakutat: -14.35 millimeter/year from 1988 to 2014
Cordova: -0.26 millimeters/year from 1988 to 2014
Valdez: -8.98 millimeters/year from 1988 to 2014
Seward: -2.66 millimeters/year from 1964 to 2014
Seldovia: -10.24 millimeters/year from 1964 to 2014
Anchorage: -0.61 millimeters/year from 1972 to 2014
Kodiak Island: -10.77 millimeters/year from 1975 to 2014
Sand Point: 0.68 millimeters/year from 1972 to 2014
Adak Island: -2.96 millimeters/year from 1957 to 2014
Unalaska: -5.26 millimeters/year from 1957 to 2014
Prudhoe Bay: 1.20 millimeters/year from 1990 to 2014
What is happening here can be easily explained:
For a start, the replies here clearly demonstrate, that some people did not even bother to read the abstract.
This is a single research paper, that got cherry picked, because it supports the position popular here (and at other “sceptic” sites).
If i had told people a week ago, that the AMOC had been weaking, the majority would have simply denied that fact.
If i had called this paper as a good support of warmist theories, it would have been refuted on the fact that it is using models alone.
But now that it agrees with sceptic positions, every thing it says is immediately accepted. You surely love their model (of which you have never heard before, by the way!)?!?
So instead of dismissing the paper as model garbage, it gets celebrated, completely ignoring the fine details: This article does not contradict the effect of humans on the AMOC. It just claims, that recent weakening can be explained by natural causes when using a certain model.
Please read the climate central article:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/atlantic-ocean-changes-may-have-been-natural-20367
Your reply to Kenneth Richard’s Alaska data post is eagerly awaited.
“This article does not contradict the effect of humans on the AMOC.”
Doesn’t need to.. There is no effect.
Hard to contradict something that doesn’t exist.
The idiot savant sod is too dumb to be able to tell anyone on this panel the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature of a gas in gas chemistry.
He’s a thermobilly and thermodynamics hick who thought magic makes the sky get hot.
He’s too dumb to come here and tell you all, and me,
the name of the law of thermodynamics for solving temperature
of an atmospheric mix
in chemistry.
He is an idiot and he shall not come here and tell us what the equation for the law is,
what the factors stand for,
and which of them represents his thermobilly magic gais uh-fekt.
He is too ignorant to even tell us here, guys-
the name of the law of thermodynamics,
to simply check what the temperature of any atmospheric mix, is.
He doesn’t know it, he’s a pose. He’s posing because he is too dumb to know,
the law of thermodynamics for solving gas chemistry temperature –
formally
forbids
solving temperature based on molecular light-frequency mechanics.
Furthermore there are actual charts which show clearly, more CO2
in
any standard atmospheric air mix,
causes that gas mix to be able to retain, LESS heat. Not MORE.
That is simply how it is.
There is a law for solving temperature of gas and gas mixes.
There is a factor for every atmospheric mix, that is applied, to –
that’s right, every atmospheric fractional species; all component gases in the mix are assigned the i.d.e.n.t.i.c.a.l. specific energy.
With one,
sole,
exception,
and that exception: does NOT refer to molecular interaction with light:
that sole one, which gets a different energy assignment in the law of
what?
The law of thermodynamics for solving
gas mix and atmospheric mix temperatures-
is H20.
Carbon dioxide, Oxygen, Methane, Nitrogen, Argon, -they all get the identical energy value
as fractions of an atmospheric mix. With
water,
and
WATER ALONE, getting a different specific energy, in solving for atmospheric temperature in gas chemistry.
That’s all there is to it, the law: THE law – for CHECKING whether THE GREEN HOUSE EFFECT is
EVEN POSSIBLE,
f.o.r.m.a.l.l.y. f.o.r.b.i.d.s. there being a green house gas effect.
It FORMALLY FORBIDS it by ASSIGNING ALL the gases but ONE – that one being water,
due to that high energy containment, Hydrogen lends it-
and the very f.o.r.m.u.l.a. of the l.a.w. i.t.s.e.l.f,
assigns those specific energies to the gases without reference of any kind, to specific light handling characteristics because the light the molecule can interact with,
is a function of the distances between the nuclei of the molecule first, and not a function of the electrons’ total energy containment in solving temperature, E.V.u.R.
No matter HOW many THERMO-BILLIES BOUNCE on the HEAD of a PIN screaming HOT AIR is going to KEEP them ALOFT.
That’s how it IS,
That’s how it was, when James Hansen got the idea to remove the
compression mathematics
from
standard atmospheric mechanics,
and start squealing he didn’t have a.n.y. idea where a.l.l. that h.e.a.t. is coming from, so it must be MAGIC. Magic Gais, colder than a rock, making it hotter,
than if the rock were being warmed by full light loading
not having the frigid fluid gas bath, washing the heat off like – say,
a fan cooling any other sun warmed rock.
See you can’t wash a warm object with frigid fluid,
and leave it warmer, than when you warmed the object with more light – the atmosphere stops double digits light ever hitting the planet –
and WEREN’T washing the heat off, with –
frigid
turbulent
fluid
gas bath.
That’s all there is to it.
Peace on you real thermodynamicists, chemists, and physicists who can analyze a thermometer or a hot rock in a frigid fluid bath, properly.
Those who can’t – off to Magic Gais and Bigfoot/Area 51 with you. And your gurus. Ask them if the government’s employees are still claiming pot is like heroin, in that chemistry scam, too, while you’re at it.
Make fun of em and ask em – is that how pot became like heroin, government chemists and dozens of critically peer reviewed papers say so, so it must be real?
Bah. BAH!
You guys stick to the truth with every thermobilly you meet and you go check what I’m telling ya. The law of thermodynamics
for solving temperature of atmospheric mixes,
formally,
specifically does NOT refer to the frequency light handled by the
component,
fractional species
comprising the mix.
E.
V.
E.
R.
Because total energy held is of course – a function of ALL the energy, on ALL the molecule’s electrons.
Listen you get so you’re confused how you’re winning so swiftly. Most people can’t believe what you are saying to them until they go check what you tell them – this hoodoo fraud isn’t even a POSE for real scientific endeavor, it is by very nature of DISCUSSION of POTENTIAL for there being an effect of A.N.Y. KIND – due to some ‘green house gas’ – discussion of THERMODYNAMIC LAW V.I.O.L.A.T.I.O.N. intrinsically.
The concept is intrinsically forbidden in the formula
containing the factors for solving temperature, in atmospheric mix, in chemistry.
Not maybe, not sometimes, not when the Chairman decides to jiggle the Yuan and pick up that sexy property down by the Harbor, all the Capitalists are falling all over themselves, about.
Always,
All the way,
without one single syllable of back-talk from reality in atmospheric gas chemistry mathematics, and the physics of how atmospheric temperature is solved.
James Hansen’s scam,
was to REMOVE all the COMPRESSION WARMING from STANDARD GAS EQUATIONS,
then SWEAR BEFORE CONGRESS HE HAD NO IDEA, where all that heating comes from.
Yes,
He,
Did,
and I watched him do it knowing he was lying and how he was lying before he testified, because I was following his work before he testified, having heard from his supervisor, what his scam was.
And since I started out my life in my first part time job as an applied atmospheric chemist, and was at the time he told me
attending school to complete my Bachelors’ in Radiation Communications Electronic Engineering – the generation, encoding and transmission, capture and recovery of intelligence
from atmospheric radiation,
radiation through vacuum of space,
and inside the solid state components of the chemical compounds making up the field of electronic engineering and the worlds we radiate intelligence to, and capture radiation from – it was simple as pie,
to understand, what he told me. He told me what I told you above, basically, and I understood every single word he said when I heard it,
the way most all of you understand every single word I’m telling you about it today, because it’s the simplest of all the phases of matter and energy.
Atmospheric mathematics are the simplest field of physics. There are the fewest laws applicable to them hence all those
degrees of freedom in expansion, and motion of all kinds applicable to gases.
This is not complicated and when some thermobilly posing fake starts trying to do the con job on you,
YOU ASK THAT THERMOBILLY to TELL YOU the NAME of the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS for SOLVING TEMPERATURE of GAS in ATMOSPHERES; and when that hillbilly seizes up like cheap roller skates in the rain,
you then tell him ”you tell me the formula” -it’s PV = nRT – “and you tell me what each factor stands for, or you’re a lying posing fake, and I’m here to prove to everyone you are one.
You either name it or every time you see me I’ll be telling everyone to watch, how I reveal to them, what a FAKE you are.”
That’ll have that stupid hack changing the subject to a hundred different discussions on genitals, his hatred, his befuddlement,
ANYTHING but GAS CHEMISTRY and the LAW of GAS CHEMISTRY for SOLVING the TEMPERATURE of GAS.
Ok now I’m through, I have to admit I didn’t read everything, I came here from Harry Huffman’s site, and thought I wanted to try to say something myself regarding how SIMPLY – how EASILY – you can derail ANY FAKE ATMOSPHERIC CHEMIST in a blog or ANYWHERE.
Anywhere. They LOCK UP like BAD BRAKES when you slap them bloody-nosed with that one, and they ALSO lock up when you simply tell everyone to GO CHECK and ASK – WHERE are the COMPRESSION MECHANICS in the
green house magic gais story? Tell them SHOW me or YOU’RE a f***g FAKE.
And – as I am telling you about that sod hick, he’ll start pointing, “LooK! A DEFLECTION! LooK! Don’t CALL me on NOT being able to even NAME the LAW of THERMODYNAMICS for CHECKING the BULLSHIT STORY I’m SELLING YOU!”
Later all, and you guys keep beating them down with the simple, straightforward truths, till you’re an instant master at destroying the posing and ludicrous, bombastic,
ignorant, thermobilly bullshit story called ‘Green House Gas Effect.’