Max Planck Society Confirms Warming Pause! …Scrambles To Explain Widespread Model Failure

Max Planck Society: “Temperatures stagnant approximately since 1998, but at high level”

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated/edited by P. Gosselin]

Attempting midterm predictions

The Max-Planck Society publishes the magazine “Max Planck Forschung” on a regular basis. In its 1/2015 issue beginning on page 68 one finds the article: “…and now on the climate of tomorrow”. The German language article is also available (pdf here). The article starts:

How will the climate appear in 10 or 15 years? Scientists have been unable to provide a satisfactory answer to this question – mainly because random changes play a large role in such mid-term time-frames. A natural fluctuation is likely also the cause of temperatures barely increasing over the past 15 years. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and his colleagues all over Germany are working intensively on a system that will deliver reliable prognoses for the coming years.”

Hiatus confirmed

In other words this is about the pause in warming since 1998 and the question of why none of the expensive climate models had correctly forecast the hiatus. Indeed this is a big problem, especially for the fraternity of the climate modellers, who in Germany are led by chief modeler Jochem Marotzke. His favorite excuse: “random changes”, which in his opinion are completely unpredictable. But that’s fatally wrong. His colleagues have long known better and have identified the 60-year ocean cycles as systematic climate drivers. See for example  here, here, here, here.

Scrambling to explain faulty models

First of all the Max Planck Magazine thankfully does confirm what all temperature curves now clearly show, but what a few climate activists clearly refuse to believe:

Another resaon was a phenomenon that at the end of the past decade it was visible that there was a temperature plateau, and this continues to occupy climate scientists today. The global warming that was in high gear during the 1980s and 1990s now appears to have been making a pause since the start of the new millennium. The temperatures have been stagnating since about 1998, but at a high level.”

Jochem Marotzke has recognized that this cannot continue on. Awhile back he launched the Project MiKlip with the aim of making more reliable prognoses. In the Max Planck Forschung (MPF) magazine it is stated:

Today, almost 10 years later, the science regarding decadal climate prognoses has come a long way. From 2011 to mid 2015 the German Federal Ministry for Science has financed the project MiKlip (Midterm Climate Prognoses), that Jochem Marotzke initiated and now coordinates as its director. In the meantime the application for the second phase has been made.”

Cooling Atlantic

We’ve reported on the MiKlip project before. The main result from the initiative so far is hardly known to the media because it is just too inconvenient. See our article “Over the midterm the climate prognoses of the BMBF MiKlip Projects: North Atlantic will cool down by several tenths of a degree by 2020″. Using a Google search, the environmentally activist Süddeutsche Zeitung has yet to report on this amazing prognosis. Activist climate website “Klimaretter.info” naturally has not done so either. Thus we are very curious on whether the Max Planck Magazine is now perhaps able to talk openly about this. In the article’s  title and introduction we see that this important information is absent. In England however, the University of Southampton recently came up with the same result but was much more transparent and proactive with the cooling finding. See our blog article “University of Southampton: Cooling ocean cycle will cause Atlantic to cool by half a degree Celsius over the coming decades, global warming hiatus continues and hurricanes will become less frequent“.

Max Planck Institute refuses to see ocean cycles

But instead of following the example from England, Marotzke continues to stick to his worn out chaos meme. MPF magazine writes:

Such forecasts however are still in the early stages. ‘There is still a lot of work that remains ahead of us,’ says the Hamburg-based scientist. Over the mid-term climate prognoses are burdened by a fundamental difficulty: the chaos of the climate system. As it is so with the weather, also the climate (the mean of weather) is also subject to natural fluctuations that more or less occur randomly. […] Climate scientists refer to these more or less random fluctuations as spontaneous or as internal variability. Due to such variations the global mean temperature can vary by 0.2 or 0.3°C from one year to the next. For scientists these variations are known as so-called ‘noise’ that superimpose the actual signal of global warming.”

Models’ hopelessly faulty assumptions

Here we would like to advise Marotzke: Try just once to apply the ocean cycles, like your colleagues in England are doing. Natural variability not only contains ‘noise’, but also quasi cyclic behavior that today are empirically well-known. However the sad truth is that climate models are unable to properly represent these known cycles. The problem is not with nature, rather it is in fact in the models. Also the weighting of the individual climate drivers is poorly understood. The IPCC table of radiative forcings for solar fluctuations has assigned a much too low value, one in fact that has absolutely nothing to do with the geological-empirically determined systematic impacts of the sun.

We suspect that Marotzke has painted himself into a corner and so has to continuously find excuses and ignore the ocean cycles that have been at play over the last 20 years, though many have long been aware of them (see our article: IPCCcofounder Bert Bolin had all along been aware of the climatic role of ocean cycles).

Marotzke refuses to acknowledge low climate sensitivity

In the second part of the article the Max-Planck scientists discussed various possibilities as to why a warming pause happened. It was considered that the CO2 climate sensitivity may have been set much too high:

One possibility would be that the climate change drive in the models has been falsely assigned – i.e. the amount of radiative energy connected with a rise in atmospheric CO2 that gets trapped in the climate system or that gets reflected back out into space from aerosols. The values that the various models calculate for this magnitude vary widely. Another possibility is that the models over-estimate how sensitive the climate reacts to a rise in CO2. Some models assume that the global mean temperature will rise only 2°C from a doubling of CO2. Others assume that it will be more than 4.5°C warmer.”

But then a few lines later Marotzke and Co. abandon the possibility and return to their wild chaos theory. The MiKlip recognition of a cooling North Atlantic gets no mention at all. Instead the article concludes with a prognosis that anyone could have conjured up without millions in research money. Eventually someday the stupid temperature plateau will end. But as to when, no one really knows. An embarrassing conclusion. In the MPF magazine we read:

The temperature plateau is going to end sometime in the years ahead, as most scientists are convinced of this. It is likely that the warming of the earth’s surface will then progress even more quickly. At the latest when the trade winds blow over the Pacific more weakly the pause will be over.”

Other research groups here are clearer and more solid on this because they have a better grip on the unpopular ocean cycles than than the scientists in Hamburg do:

German Scientists: Solar Cycle 24 On Track To Be 3rd All-Time Weakest …And McCarthy Paper Points To Tame CO2 Climate Sensitivity

The Sun in May 2015, and Atlantic Waves

By Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

Our primary “fusion reactor” remains in a weak phase in its current solar cycle, number 24 since systematic observations began in the year 1749. In May sunspot activity was below normal. The observed sunspot number (SSN) was 58.8. The mean of all previous cycles for the current 78th month into the cycle is SSN=79. Thus May saw 75% of the usual activity.

Figure 1: The current cycle 24 (started in December 2008) is shown in red and is compared to the mean cycle (blue) and to cycle no. 5 (black).

A pronounced lull

Figure 1 shows that current solar cycle 24 has never exceeded the mean (blue) at any time since it began. In the 78 months since the it began, SC 24 has always been below normal. This has never been observed for any previous cycle.  The low solar activity since December 2008 is unique when it comes to its consistency when compared to the other cycles since observations began!

Even when activity reached a maximum in October 2011 in the sun’s northern hemisphere, and in February 2014 for the southern hemisphere, it remained just below the mean value. Together with the delayed start of the cycle we now have a record 10 years of quiet solar activity.

Figure 2: The accumulated sunspot anomaly of all cycle up to the 78th solar cycle month.

Figure 2 depicts a comparison of all the cycles with respect to solar activity. So far the current cycle is in 4th place in terms of low activity. But 3rd place is very reachable because SC 7 saw high sunspot values in its last third of the cycle, and so the chances are good that the total activity of SC 24 will be quieter than the last cycles of the Dalton Minimum.

Atlantic waves…

…are really high when it’s stormy. In early May off the coast of Portugal one of the co-authors of this article came to realize this in a 14-meter long sail boat. But the Atlantic also created other types of waves in the past month. A team of scientists led by Gerard D. McCarthy of the University of Southampton went on the search for internal North Atlantic variability, see www.nature.com/nature/journal.html. They determined that the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) not only has ups and downs in sea surface temperature (SST) in the extratropic Atlantic region, but that these temperature variations lead to changes in sea level (SSH) along the east coast of the USA. The pattern appears as follows:

Figure 3: The “circulation series” shown in blue. In the paper the SSH variation is determined by comparing the sea level south of and north of Cape Hatteras. The AMO is black. Source: Figure 3 of the cited McCarthy publication.

The relatively long time series of tide measurements at the East Coast is thus a proxy for the ocean heat content (OHC) of the North Atlantic. Its direct measurement since the 1950 entails large uncertainty. But beginning in 2004 it has been much more precise thanks to the submerged ARGO measurement buoys and the RAPID network.

What implications does this study have? First of all, the existence of natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations is confirmed, and not only as a variation in sea surface temperature (SST) as it was previously defined. It is now sure that the AMO is a large-scale North Atlantic water mass circulation pattern. It is an independent internal natural variability of our climate system, and not just one involving global temperature.

Already in January 2013 we pointed to falling North Atlantic ocean heat content (OHC) since 2007. What follows is the data plot:

 Figure 4: The ocean heat content (OHC) of the extratropical North Atlantic since 1979. Source: Climate4you.

In the paper and its accompanying press release it is explained that the current decline in the OHC means it is announcing that the probability of the North Atlantic cooling more than 10 years is very high. The AMO’s impact on temperatures in the northern hemisphere was major in the past, as the following plot shows:

Figure 5: The AMO (green) compared to temperature changes of the Northern Hemisphere (red).

If the AMO exists as an internal variability, as the McCarthy paper tells us, then that could imply that 0.5°C warming seen in the northern hemisphere since 1975 was due to the AMO and that the remaining 0.5°C of warming was due to impacts from greenhouse gases and other factors, such as varying solar activity.

For estimating climate sensitivity from greenhouse gases, this has far-reaching implications: Up to now we were not able to completely exclude the impact of aerosols on the cooling of temperatures between 1945-1975, but now it is appearing as increasingly improbable. Indeed it is becoming more evident that the cooling was due to the weakening AMO during that time period (see Figure 3).

If indeed aerosols have a lesser cooling effect than previously assumed, then the climate sensitivity with respect to greenhouse gases must be less.  Since 1975 for the northern hemisphere it was not 0.26 °C / decade increase, but rather only 0.13. This is close to being identical to the southern hemisphere. We’ve often discussed this 50:50 order here …and once again we are confirmed.

Rahmstorf’s “Fantasy” Of “A Weakening Gulf Stream” Gets Refuted Yet Again.

Norwegian University of Bergen: Gulf Stream Shows No Longterm Weakening Over Past 20 Years!

By Sebastian Lüning and Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated by P. Gosselin]

Not long ago we asked German public radio Deutschlandfunk why they mentioned only the alarmist viewpoint of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) in a report on the Gulf Stream published in March. The DLF replied that they indeed had reported on deviating models in the past.

PIK scientist Stefan Rahmstorf naturally detests it when the German media express criticism over his statements. In the Süddeutschen Zeitung of July 3, 1999 Rahmstorf was cocksure, claiming:

The Atlantic ocean current probably will weaken notably over the coming decades – here the simulations from various institutes are in broad agreement.”

Over the past one and a half decades that “broad agreement” has turned out to be a fantasy. The wide majority of scientists see no long-term change in the Gulf Stream. At the end of May 2015 yet another institute that refuses to follow the PIK has appeared. Oceanographer Kjell Arild Orvik of the Geophysical Institute of the University of Bergen has studied the Gulf Stream at the west coast of Norway and has determined that the ocean current has remained stable over the last 20 years. At the Forskning.no website (via WUWT) Orvik explains:

What we see is that the stream is lively in the sense that it varies both seasonally and from year to year. But when observing it over 20 years, it shows long-term stability.

Of course neither German national public radio Deutschlandfunk nor the Süddeutsche Zeitung have reported on this interesting development from Norway.

German Scientists Call Rahmstorf’s Selective Citing Of Literature “Embarrassing …Science-Ethically Very Unclean”

Science-ethically dubious: Stefan Rahmstorf silent on large body of dissenting Gulf Stream results in newspaper interview

By Dr. Sebastian Lüning and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
[Translated, edited by P Gosselin]

There was an interview with Stefan Rahmstorf in the German daily Märkischen Allgemeine Zeitung (MAZ) on March 23, 2015:

A tipping element on which the globe’s future hinges
Climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf and his colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research have evidence of a further weakening of the Gulf Stream.”

That’s old hat. As we have already reported here, other teams of scientists unfortunately have been unable to find any such weakening of the Gulf Stream, and so Rahmtorf is pretty much standing all by his lonesome in the middle of nowhere. And that did not did not remain unnoticed by the MAZ, which persisted courageously:

MAZ: Climate skeptics such as former Environment Hamburg Senator of Fritz Vahrenholt characterized the weakening of the Gulf Stream as part of the natural cycles.

Rahmstorf: I’d be curious to see evidence of that – unfortunately Herr Vahrenholt has published practically nothing in the scientific literature. We also looked for natural cycles and have determined that there have not been any significant fluctuations over the past 1000 years.

True, Fritz Vahrenholt did not publish anything on that topic. But others have to a great extent and Vahrenholt quoted them. This is how science works: You do not need to research everything yourself, rather you turn to the large research networks and peer-reviewed literature. Notable here are for example studies from the University of Rhode Island, NASA, University of Heidelberg, University of Hamburg. The scientists in Hamburg have just recently shown natural cycles. It is quite amazing that suddenly Rahmstorf is unable to recall any of these studies and prefers to indulge in some Vahrenholt-bashing. Apparently the MAZ also found his excuse hardly helpful and continued to persist:

MAZ: Climate scientist Mojib Latif also does not believe in the currently diminishing speed of the Gulf Stream.

Rahmstorf: The current weakening has also been confirmed by other studies. We simply track the stream with the help of proxy data further back in time. In a 2004 study fellow scientist Latif used temperature differences from the North and South Atlantic in order to determine the speed of the stream. Here it was not taken into account that we had an aerosol blocking of the sunlight because of air pollution in the northern hemisphere. This effect cannot be so clearly separated from that of a change in the stream; thus we have refined his methods.

Who believes? Rahmstorf here is peddling to a newspaper his very one-sided view as the supposed consensus within the science field. Embarrassing and science-ethically very unclean. That’s a shame.

===============

It seems Rahmstorf may have a growing habit of not playing cleanly. -PG

New Paper On Atolls: “There Has Been A 7.3% Increase In Net Island Area Over The Past Century”!

What else can be said about all the doom and gloom nonsense from UN scientists surrounding the atolls and sea level? A new paper that is just out should make them red with embarrassment.

This new paper tells us that the atolls are doing just fine and are gaining in area! Read the paper’s abstract that now follows.

Coral islands defy sea-level rise over the past century: Records from a central Pacific atoll

Abstract

The geological stability and existence of low-lying atoll nations is threatened by sea-level rise and climate change. Funafuti Atoll, in the tropical Pacific Ocean, has experienced some of the highest rates of sea-level rise (∼5.1 ± 0.7 mm/yr), totaling ∼0.30 ± 0.04 m over the past 60 yr. We analyzed six time slices of shoreline position over the past 118 yr at 29 islands of Funafuti Atoll to determine their physical response to recent sea-level rise. Despite the magnitude of this rise, no islands have been lost, the majority have enlarged, and there has been a 7.3% increase in net island area over the past century (A.D. 1897–2013). There is no evidence of heightened erosion over the past half-century as sea-level rise accelerated. Reef islands in Funafuti continually adjust their size, shape, and position in response to variations in boundary conditions, including storms, sediment supply, as well as sea level. Results suggest a more optimistic prognosis for the habitability of atoll nations and demonstrate the importance of resolving recent rates and styles of island change to inform adaptation strategies.”

Don’t you just love it when observational data clash with hysterical crystal ball model projections?

Meteorologist Joe Bastardi: Today’s Weather Patterns Seen In The Past, Asks: “Has NCEP Suddenly Become A Denier?”

Most readers here know Joe Bastardi, the veteran meteorologist at Weatherbell who has a knack of getting his longer term seasonal forecasts correct far more often than not. In a reader comment he replies to warmists’ claims on ocean cycles, particularly to David Appell. I’ve upgraded his comment (with slight editing) as a post.

Question for David A: Is NCEP now a member of the vast denier conspiracy with their much more finely tuned grid that measures global temperature? Last year since the PDO decadal flip. Notice what happens after the warm ENSO event. With the AMO now turning cold, just where do you think temperatures will go after this ENSO event? But I am curious, has NCEP suddenly become a denier in the last 10 years? http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png

The answer will be given to us in the next 20 years. I offered this several times on national TV over 5 years ago, simply watch the temperatures as the oceans complete their cycle, WELL DOCUMENTED BY SOMEONE WHO HAS A TRACK RECORD FORECASTING THE WARMING, AND RESULTANT HURRICANE PICK UP BACK IN THE 1970S, DR WILLIAM GRAY: http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf

And why doesn’t total global sea ice make a difference? It certainly did when it was running below normal several years ago. And why can’t we see if the hypothesis is correct, that the increase in temperature was a function of the natural cyclical warming of the ocean, which are reversing now. Another 10-15 years, given 20 years of busted hype, is not going to hurt. And why shouldn’t people be very suspicious, given statements like this from the leaders of this movement: http://www.c3headlines.com/html

So why would I not take these people at their words as to their true motives? As I have explained many times, climate is a TOOL for me to make my forecast. I am watching people ‘blame’ the Pacific for the very idea we used last year and this year to forecast a cold winter in the east, simply by using the same idea that we saw before. So it makes no difference to me. I will still use the methodology that people are discovering (the latest is the warm blob, apparently they are oblivious to 1917-1918, or the late 1950s, or 1970s, which Jerome Nemias wrote about many years ago. Do you know who Jerome Nemias is, David? But back to the easier question. Is NCEP, which clearly shows what is going on, now in the denier camp?”

 

AMO And PDO Directly Affect The Weather, CO2 Does Not

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is defined as the variability of the North Atlantic sea surface temperature compared to the rest of the global ocean from 60°N to 60°S once trends are removed. The AMO high is usually seen off eastern Canada and north and east of Iceland. The AMO low has the pattern reversed. Compare those areas in Figure 1 with Figure 3.

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is defined as the difference between the Northwest Pacific surface and the eastern Pacific surface temperature north of the equator. Figure 1 and figure 2 show the two phases. Both the PDO and the AMO affect the weather in the Northern Hemisphere. Both show up distinctly on anomaly maps. The GISS anomaly map found here was used to produce these figures.

There are four ways these patterns can interact. Each of these four ways result in distinctly different patterns. Beginning with the most recent pattern, from last February, that buried New England in snow, when both the AMO and the PDO were high.

AMO PDO high

In Figure 1, the western Pacific north of 20°N is cool, and the eastern pacific off the West Coast of the U. S. is warm. This makes the Western U. S. very warm. The jet stream has a huge loop diversion north past Alaska and south over the eastern U. S. all the way to Florida. This is the pattern when both AMO and PDO are high.

In contrast in November 2011, when AMO was high and PDO was low, the pattern changes to Figure 2.

PDO low AMO high

In Figure 2, note that the Pacific temperatures are now reversed, the western Pacific is warm and the eastern Pacific off the U. S. coast is cool. This reverses the continental pattern with the West cool and the East warm. Note that the pattern over Europe and Asia is also reversed. This pattern filled the California reservoirs and buried Alaska in snow.

Figure 3 is the pattern when PDO and AMO are both low.

AMO PDO low

In Figure 3, both patterns were very low. Temperatures were very low over the entire Arctic and most of Canada and the northern U. S. This was during the ice age scare of the 1970s.

PDO High AMO low

Figure 4 illustrates the conditions just ten years later in February of 1981. PDO was high and AMO was still low. The western U. S. and all of Canada was warm and Europe was cool. Each land mass is responding to the adjacent sea temperature.

These cycles affect the food chain as well as the weather. Salmon stocks in the Pacific North-west rise during the cool phase of the PDO, and fall during the warm phase. In  similar fashion, Atlantic Salmon stocks follow the AMO, rising when the AMO is cool and falling when it is warm.

The recent spike in the PDO is temporary. The warm “blob” off the U. S. west coast will move south with the North Pacific/Japan/Kuroshio/California Current and be replaced by the cooler water behind it. The peak was reached in December and has fallen since then (as of March). The PDO data is available here. AMO data is available from NOAA, here.

As both the AMO and PDO affect Northern Hemisphere temperatures, and extremes are reached when both are in the same phase, it does make sense to combine them as I did in my last post on What Caused the Pause or Why Hate The Hiatus?

These cycles are weather. They can also be called natural climate cycles. They have nothing to do with CO2, and everything to do with driving many of the climate features that are gleefully pointed by climate alarmists. They determine the snowstorms, heat waves, floods and droughts pointed out by the alarmists as indications of “Climate Change”.

 

Alarmist Potsdam Institute Concedes: “Natural Variability Underestimated”…”WE ARE CURRENTLY FACING A COOLING PERIOD”!

By Dennis Ambler and Pierre Gosselin

Few institutes have been as adamant and dogmatic about man-made global warming as the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), headed by German climate doomsday professor, Herr Professor-Doktor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber.

Schellnhuber

German climate doomsday professor Hans Schellnhuber forced to postpone climate doomsday scenarios due to natural factors, but insists warming is still happening, and it will be worse – at a later time in the future. Photo: PIK

The institute has long maintained that the science was settled, and was instrumental in formulating a master-plan for re-organizing global society and watering down democracy in order to avert the modeled disaster. Their master-plan calls for allotting more power to an elite group of “visionary” scientists – like to Herr Doktor Schellnhuber himself.

So today it’s all the more surprising that they are announcing a paper that concedes natural factors indeed are more powerful than the 0.01% CO2 atmospheric concentration added in part by humans over the last 150 years. This is a milestone for the PIK, which earlier claimed they could not find any real evidence of other factors driving the climate.

Their press release writes (emphasis added):

So far it seemed there were hardly any major natural temperature fluctuations in Antarctica, so almost every rise in temperature was attributed to human influence,” says Armin Bunde of Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen (JLU). ‘Global warming as a result of our greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels is a fact. However, the human influence on the warming of West Antarctica is much smaller than previously thought. The warming of East Antarctica up to now can even be explained by natural variability alone.’ The results of their study are now published in the journal Climate Dynamics.”

They had us going there for a minute, but no, it isn’t a real admission they were wrong: global warming has been merely hiding behind natural variability as well as in the oceans, they insist.

The press release continues:

The scientists did not only analyze data from individual measuring stations but also generated regional averages. The results show a human influence on the warming of West Antarctica, while this influence is weaker than previously thought.

However, the warming of Antarctica altogether will likely increase more strongly soon.

Soon? How long are we to wait? Many are losing patience in their long wait for the promised catastrophe. Suddenly things look as if they are losing their urgency.

For several years temperatures in Antarctica, but also globally, have been increasing less rapidly than in the 1990s. There are a number of reasons for this, e.g. the oceans buffering warmth.

The study now published by the German team of scientists shows that man-made global warming has not been pausing – it was temporarily superimposed and therefore hidden by long-term natural climate fluctuations like in Antarctica.2

How do they know it’s temporary? From their models? Well, they have been wrong since day 1. Obviously there’s much more to the climate system than just trace gas CO2.

‘Our estimates show that we are currently facing a natural cooling period – while temperatures nonetheless rise slowly but inexorably, due to our heating up the atmosphere by emitting greenhouse gas emissions,’ explains Hans Joachim Schellnhuber.

‘At the end of this natural cold spell temperatures will rise even more fiercely. Globally, but also in Antarctica which therefore is in danger of tipping.”

The good Herr Dr. Schellnhuber never lets you down. Just be patient longer than we thought. The catastrophe that we promised is just taking longer to get here – but when it does, by golly, it’ll be a lot worse – you’ll all be sorry for not doing what we told you.

This is taking on comical dimensions.

 

What Caused the Global Warming Pause or Why Hate the Hiatus?

Depending on which global temperature data one looks at, temperatures have not increased in the last 18 or so years. The reasons proposed have been various, ranging from natural cycles to increased aerosols, to heat escaping to space or the deep ocean.

Perhaps there are some other reasons that have not been considered. The following is a simple list, with illustrations. The list is divided into two sub-lists. Things that are natural and things that are anthropogenic or man made.

SOME NATURAL REASONS

 1. It’s The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)

AMO
The AMO has been at the top of it’s warm phase since 1998. The index doesn’t get much higher than it is now. It can only go down from here. It was at a similar peak during the warm 1930s through the 1960s. It was negative during the cool 1970s. The peaks of the AMO tend to be flat for a couple of decades before flipping cool. We don’t know what drives the AMO. Data here.

2. It’s The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)

PDO
The PDO has been trending down since the early 1980s. It also was up during the 1930s and negative during the 1970s. The AMO and the PDO are the natural ocean cycles that climate scientists talk about. The PDO reached a peak in the 1980s and has been declining since. This index is volatile. The PDO has a huge effect on weather on the Pacific Coast of North America. Data here.

 3. It’s The AMO and PDO together

AMO+PDO
They are sometimes roughly added together. (Even though they are not measuring the same thing.) If one adds them together, it can be seen why the late 1930s were warm and the 1970s cool. The sum (green trace) reached a peak in 2000 and is now declining because of the declining PDO. (Computed by author.)

4. It’s the sun

SSN Average

The sunspot number (SSN) average has declined since the mid-1990s. One can see a cause for the 1970s cooling in the SSN, but not for the 1930s warming. The early 20th century cooling may have been caused by the low SSN around the turn of the century. The sun is excused for the recent pause because the total solar index (TSI) changes only by a fraction of a Watt/m2 over large changes in SSN. But other factors may be in play. (Source: WDC-SILSO, Royal Observatory of Belgium, Brussels.)

Oulu Neutron Count

5. It’s cosmic rays

The neutron count is an indicator of the cosmic ray flux at the top of the atmosphere. Here is the neutron count at Oulu, Finland since 1965. It is thought that cosmic rays seed cloud formation. Therefore high recent count is providing cooling clouds. Graphic downloaded from here, the Sodankyla Geophysical Observatory, University of Oulu, Finland.

SST & Albedo

6. It’s clouds and earth’s albedo

Albedo and cloud cover reached a peak in the 1998-2000 era, at the beginning of the pause. Clouds, especially high clouds, reflect solar energy. Each 1% of albedo change translates to 1 W/m2. There is another graphic of albedo from the EarthShine project, here. All the albedo data show a significant rise in albedo after 1998. The cosmic ray/neutron count may not match the albedo/cloud cover, but cloud cover really did increase. Graphic used by permission of Dr. J. Floor Anthoni, and seen here.

PAUSE IS ANTHROPOGENIC

I mean by anthropogenic that man may have caused the pause by manipulating the temperature data. These manipulations seem to enhance the warming trend in support of politics, though the stated intent for many was to enhance accuracy. Here are some examples:

TOBs adjustments

7. It’s the time of observation (TOBs) adjustment

Observing times have been gradually changed from afternoon to morning hours. The bias from this adjustment was about 0.2°C for TMax and 0.25°C for TMin. This impacts the historic data, but also, this adjustment is now finished. Most measurement sites now use morning observing times and no more changes will be made, hence the pause. No more warming will come from this source. The TOBs adjustment is clearly visible in the DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RAW AND FINAL USHCN DATA SETS graphic below, though it is only half of the total. Figure from here.

Difference between raw and final

8. It’s all adjustments including TOBs

This graphic shows the result of all adjustments: homogenization, sensor changes (CRS vs MMTS), and TOBs. Note also that the warming due to all these changes is about 0.5°C, much of the warming that is supposed to have taken place since 1950. Note that these changes went flat during the 1990s decade.  Note the similar shaped curve to the TOBs adjustment with a flat shape in recent times. There should be no more warming from this source. Figure from NOAA/NCDC here.

9. It’s the number of stations

Number of stations

Since 1980, the number of stations reporting temperature data has declined by half. Some of the decline was due to the collapse of the Soviet Union. This resulted in loss of data from the Russian high arctic and Siberia, among the coldest land stations in the Northern Hemisphere. Some of these stations have resumed reporting in recent years, but most have not.

Other stations in Africa and Asia were closed by newly independent former colonies. World-wide, many stations closed instead of being upgraded. On average the remaining stations are at lower elevations and in warmer, populated areas. This situation has now stabilized. Figure from NASAGISS here. A discussion of this problem is here.

These are nine possible reasons for the pause. One or two are sufficient. Nine is overkill.

 

CO2 Emissions And Ocean Flux: Long-Term CO2 Increase Due To Emissions, Not Ocean Temperature

If you take the annual CO2 atmospheric content, and differentiate it, that is calculate the year-to-year change, then you get a plot that looks a lot like the ocean temperature. This has led many people to think that the ocean is the source of the additional CO2. This is not the case.

The additional CO2 is from about one-half of our emissions. The year-to-year “noise” is from the year-to-year change in ocean temperature riding on the change from our emissions. Changes in our emissions are somewhat filtered by the time constant of CO2 biosphere absorption. Here is what happens.

Many of you will be familiar with the concept of “half-life” from radioactive decay. For a radioactive element, half of the radioactivity will decay in a certain period of time, then half again in the next period, and so on until the radioactivity can no longer be detected. The same principle applies to absorption. Half of a compound will be absorbed in a certain period, then another half in the next period, then another half, and so on. Here is the curve for a pulse of CO2 absorbed into the biosphere.

CO2 Fraction Absorbed

Figure 1 is the absorption curve for a single pulse of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. The half-life of that pulse is a bit over 8 months. It is undetectable after about six years.

Imagine that you have just taken a deep breath, held it until the maximum CO2 has been exchanged, then exhaled. Half of the CO2 in that puff will be gone from the atmosphere in 8 months, 33% will remain in a year, only 11% will be around in 2 years, and so on. The series is actually 1/3, 1/9, 1/27, 1/81… Now add up all breathing for many years, or all the fossil fuel emissions.

Summation Half-Lives

In Figure 2 above the top gold trace is the summation of all the individual annual half-life traces. For instance, year one is the sum of the remainders from year -4 to year zero. It is the sum of 1/243 + 1/81 + 1/27 + 1/9 + 1/3 = very close to 1/2. The CO2 fraction that we observe is close to 0.5. If emissions completely ceased in year six, the extra CO2 added to the atmosphere would be nearly zero in year 10.

Annual Emissions and Remainder

Figure 3 is a plot of annual fossil fuel emissions and the amount of those emissions that annually remain in the atmosphere. The remainder plot has been corrected for half-life.

Remaining Fraction Compared

Figure 4 is a plot of the fraction of emissions that remain in the atmosphere, the ocean temperature anomaly (from UHA satellite data), and the change (delta) in emissions with the data corrected for half-life using the fraction change data. (The half-life has been decreasing over time by 2.8% per decade). The left scale is for both the remaining fraction and temperature anomaly. The right scale applies to the delta emissions (the annual change in added emissions). This is scaled to match the fraction change. On a year-to-year basis the ocean temperature changes overwhelm the emission changes, but not the emissions themselves.

SST Change CO2 Change

Figure 5 is a plot of  change: SST, CO2, and annual emissions added since 1980. This is the annual delta (differential) of all three. The Mt. Pinatubo cooling and the 1998 and 2010 El Niño warming is clearly visible in the CO2 data. It looks like the CO2 increase is due to ocean temperature, but this is an illusion. The annually added emissions are much larger than the ocean temperature CO2 flux change.

CO2 vs UAH SST

Figure 6 is a scatter plot of CO2 and SST anomaly with a linear trend applied. The trend is 17,239 million metric tonnes of CO2 emitted per degree C of SST change. Now look back at Figure 6. The long term change in temperature is about 0.3°C. This would be equivalent to about 5 billion tonnes of CO2. But the increase in CO2 over that time period was 483 billion tonnes, about 100 times that amount. The long-term CO2 increase is due to emissions, not ocean temperature. Temperature drives only the short-term changes.

About half of fossil carbon emissions appear to be responsible for the atmospheric CO2 rise, and that fraction is decreasing. The year-to-year changes in the CO2 rise are mostly due to ocean temperature changes, but those changes should be considered weather.

 

CO2 Emissions Have Been Flat For Four Years. What Does This Mean For The Future?

The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has been steadily increasing since regular measurements began at the Mauna Loa Observatory. This increase is partially driven by fossil fuel use but the year to year rate of increase is driven by ocean temperature. This was discussed in October 2012 here.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) tracks fossil fuel use and has reported here that emissions due to fossil fuels have flatlined for the last two years. Actually, it has nearly flatlined for the last four years according to their own figures. The increase from 2011 to 2012 was less than 0.5%, and from 2012 to 2013 it decreased by 0.03%.

Total Emissions

Figure 1 is a plot of annual world fossil fuel CO2 emissions since 1980 from IEA.

In that time, CO2 in the atmosphere has grown from 338 parts per million (ppm) to 398 ppm. In the next figure, that quantity has been converted to metric tonnage.

Acumalated Emissions and CO2

Figure 2 is the accumulated emissions compared to accumulated CO2. 

Note that only about half the emissions have stayed in the atmosphere. The remainder has been absorbed somewhere else.

Annual emissions, uptake, & CO2

Figure 3 is a plot of annual Carbon Dioxide emissions, the annual uptake by the biosphere, and the resulting atmospheric CO2 concentration, with projections of each into the future.

Global Greening

Figure 4. Estimated changes in vegetative cover due to CO2 fertilization between 1982 and 2010 (Donohue et al., 2013 GRL). For a discussion of this image and other similar images see Roy Spencer here.

The “somewhere else” is the biosphere, the “greening” of global photosynthetic life along with absorption by the oceans. Each year, on average, those sinks take up 251.35 million extra metric tonnes of CO2 as the biosphere pulls things back into balance. That sounds like a lot, but keep in mind that the atmosphere contains more than 3 trillion tonnes of CO2, land based vegetation about 4 trillion tonnes, the surface ocean something like 5 trillion tonnes, and the deep ocean 150 trillion tonnes. The total annual flux from atmosphere to the biosphere and back is about 400 billion tonnes. So that annual difference is only about 0.5%. (I am using the American counting system: 106 is a million, 109 a billion, 1012 a trillion. I’m also using the weight of CO2, not just the carbon atoms.)

The uptake decreases with increasing temperature. The downward spike in uptake in 1998 was due to the El Niño of that year. The increase in uptake in 1992 and 1993 was due to the Mount Pinatubo cooling. The uptake also increases with increasing CO2. On average, the uptake is increasing. Over the last 35 years, it has increased by 251.35 million extra tonnes per year.

If this increase holds, and the global fossil fuel emissions remain constant at the same level as the last four years, the uptake will equal the emissions late in this century, in about 2083. At that time, CO2 in the atmosphere will reach a maximum at about 475 ppm and begin to decrease. In my humble opinion, this projection is pessimistic. If emissions are reduced below the current level, the date and level of the maximum will be earlier and lower. If ocean temperatures decrease, the same thing will happen. If warming occurs, and/or emissions increase, the date of the maximum will be pushed toward 2100, and the maximum level will be slightly higher. Ocean temperature is a positive feedback on CO2 increase and a negative feedback on CO2 uptake. A cooler ocean takes up more CO2, a warmer ocean less.

The current policies in most developed countries are toward lowering emissions. To date, these policies have been successful in holding emissions at the current level for the last four years. If governments allow the development of nuclear power, other renewables increase in a non-destructive fashion, and if natural gas continues to replace coal-fired power plants, carbon dioxide emissions will likely fall below the current level. This will pull the CO2 peak to an earlier date and a lower level. That date is where emissions cross the uptake trend line. Here is my optimistic view: If emissions fall back to the level of the year 2000 by 2050, looking at Figure 3, one can imagine that the CO2 level will peak at about 450 ppm near that year and fall after that.

What will this do to global warming? The slight increase in CO2 induced warming might just offset the coming sun-induced cooling. Perhaps we will have a century of constant temperature.

Climate Audit On Rahmstorf/Mann: “Dreck”…”Reputable Science Community Should Cringe With Embarrassment”!

Global warming science nemesis Steve McIntyre of the solid Climate Audit site calls the new paper by Rahmstorf and Mann making claims about Atlantic Ocean currents based on proxies rather than on measurements “much worse than we thought.”

Hat-tip: Reader BruceC

Rarely does one see science get so harshly criticized.

“Dreck” in peer-reviewed literature

One problem, McIntyre writes, is that Rahmstorf’s and Mann’s results are not based on proxies for Atlantic current velocity, but on a network consisting of iffy proxy series which are “statistically indistinguishable from white noise“. McIntyre comments: “It’s hard to understand why anyone would seriously believe (let alone publish in peer reviewed literature) that Atlantic ocean currents could be reconstructed by such dreck...”.

Obviously Rahmstorf and Mann are unable to come to terms with the results derived from real observed data, and thus feel compelled to create another reality based of very fuzzy, indirect data that can be interpreted as desired.

“Balderdash” getting by peer-review process

So how does “dreck” end up getting published in journals? McIntyre quotes Andrew Weaver:

They let these random diatribes of absolute, incorrect nonsense get published. They’re not able to determine if what’s being said is correct or not, or whether it’s just absolute balderdash.” […].

The reputable climate science community should collectively cringe with embarrassment.”

The Canadian statistics expert also writes that the proxies that Mann and Rahmstorf used “do not contain any useful information on the past history of the AMOC.”

McIntyre ends by assigning readers little homework. The answers aren’t that tough.

Read entire post here.

I think an investigation needs to be launched to determine why taxpayer money is being spent on creating such rubbish. Taxpayers have the right to get answers.

 

Georgia Tech Climatologist Curry: “No Sign Of Slowdown” In AMOC…Sees Atlantic “Arctic Sea Ice Recovery”, Hints Of Greenland Cooling

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.”

Dead At Birth! German Warmist Scientists Slap Down Rahmstorf/Mann AMOC Paper: “Offers No Strong Indication”

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has been loudly trumpeting its latest paper on Atlantic ocean overturning circulation today, claiming there’s been an “exceptional twentieth-century slowdown“. The authors, who include Stefan Rahmstorf and Michael E. Mann, even suggest that the “possible cause of the weakening is climate change“.

Some sites, like Climate Central here, have been unable to contain their glee over the news of the potential climate-change induced oceanic shifts being served up by the PIK. For example the site called the findings “dramatic” and writes (my emphasis):

If the climate relationships identified by the researchers, led by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, hold true, growing melt rates in Greenland ‘might lead to further weakening of the AMOC within a decade or two, and possibly even more permanent shutdown’ of key components of it, the scientists warn in their paper.”

The “new” weakening Atlantic meridional overturning circulation.
Credit: Nature Climate Change.

Spiegel and the FAZ pour cold water on paper

Fortunately other media sources have been somewhat more critical and report that there’s skepticism on the paper – coming from warmist circles, no less.

Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) here for example writes that Rahmstorf is puzzled that a part of the north Atlantic has cooled over the last 100 years: “The cooling was stronger than what most computer models calculated it would be,” the FAZ reports. Models wrong again!

The FAZ then writes that, “An independent expert assesses the estimation skeptically”, adding:

Climate scientist Martin Visbeck of the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel sees Rahmstorf’s assertion of the results critically: ‘The study’s focus on the sub-polar part of the Atlantic and the spectral analysis are interesting,’ he says. But there are other AMOC assessments that point to a completely other development. The paper does not offer any strong indication of the development of the AMOC during the past fifty years.”

When a warmist dismisses another warmists’s science, then you know it’s likely pretty slipshod.

Der Spiegel reports that the study is lacking

German flagship online news weekly Der Spiegel echoed the FAZ, quoting Michael Hofstätter of the Austrian national weather service: the Zentralanstalt für Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG) in Vienna. Spiegel writes that Hofstätter also “rates the Rahmstorf study with skepticism“.

Spiegel reminds its readers: “Most studies are assuming that the current is in fact stronger.” Spiegel continues:

The temperature fluctuations could also be a ‘temporary natural variation,’ Hofstätter told the online service of the ORF. The measurements covered a time period that was too short to allow concrete forecasts.”

Other websites censored reports of skepticism and uncertainty

For example the end-of-climate conspiracy theorists at German alarmist site Klimaretter of course could not be bothered to mention the study is disputed even by fellow warmist scientists.

Dr. Mann blocks critic at Twitter

Michael Mann also did not want to hear any non-alarmist opinion as well. At Facebook he blocked fair comments left by Jaime Jessop, who kept a screen-shot:

Overall the latest paper by Rahmstorf and Mann did not even survive birth.

Anthony Watts has lots more here.

 

Spiegel: NOAA “Embarrassment” Over “Four Years Of Failed El Niño Forecasts” …”Numerous Buoys Have Ceased To Function”!

We keep hearing that the climate and weather forecasting tools are gaining in sophistication, and correspondingly in reliability. Climate model simulators claim to be able to see decades, even centuries, into the future!

Yet Spiegel Science journalist Axel Bojanowski has an analysis here which looks at the recent spate of failed El Niño predictions by the NOAA, and shows that these forecasting tools are still terribly lacking. His latest piece: “Change in global weather: El Niño embarrasses meteorologists“. (Here I’m not sure why Bojanowski (or his editors) chose the term ‘meteorologists’ because much of the work is arguably done by climate scientists.)

It is an accepted fact that the El Niño cyclic changes in the equatorial Pacific surface temperatures have major impacts on the global weather, especially the northern hemisphere. Thus it would be useful if scientists were able to predict them with some degree of rough accuracy.

Unfortunately accuracy is still a long way off as forecasters falsely predicted an El Niño four years long, and only now has it finally begun to take hold. Bojanowski writes:

Seldom have meteorologists been made to look so foolish. Four years long they published the same prognosis: Soon an El Niño would be taking hold in the Pacific.”

The Spiegel journalist describes how last June experts were “80% sure” a powerful El Niño was in the works, and how in 2013 “a peer-reviewed paper in a well known science journal” boasted of new forecasting methods for El Niños. Sadly, these experts aren’t anywhere near getting it right. So, as a result, Bojanowski writes, they have recently become “considerably more cautious” with their forecasts. Embarrassment does that.

Bojanowski describes how the ENSO’s impact on global weather patterns, wildlife, and even regional sea levels, and how NOAA experts have had to admit the latest El Niño has been an unexpectedly tame one – in stark contradiction to forecasts made earlier. He writes: “The inaccurate forecasts of the past year has forced the scientists to rethink their methods, said NOAA expert Gabriel Vecchi in the journal ‘Nature’.”

Numerous buoys out of order!

Bojnowski also writes that the biggest problem is reliably predicting the weakening of the tradewinds, and says this has become difficult because “numerous buoys have ceased to function over the years” and so are no longer able to measure the changes in sea surface temperature.

That is certainly an interesting revelation presented here by Bojanowski. Still, NOAA El Niño forecasters should not feel too bad about their measurement and forecasting woes because it could be much worse. For example their climate colleagues haven’t gotten their global temperature forecasts right in over 18 years!

And concerning what can be done in place of the “numerous” out-of commission buoys, perhaps the NOAA El Niño scientists could consider using the “filling in the data” method and simply apply the measurements made by the closest functioning buoy (even if it is 1000 kilometers away). After all the global surface temperature scientists seem perfectly satisfied with that particular method. The data-fill-in method would surely allow the NOAA El Nino experts to make forecasts that are just as spectacularly accurate as those of the global warming climate scientists.

Flashback: wattsupwiththat.com/el-nino-sea-monitoring-half-dead-already/

 

European Institute For Climate And Energy: Ocean Cycles Are Main Driver, No Relationship Between Arctic Sea Ice And European Winters!

Two days ago I wrote about the first part of an analysis (on Germany winter temperatures) by Kowatsch and Kämpfe appearing here at EIKE. Winter temperatures in Germany have been falling for a quarter of a century now. Much to my satisfaction, that post has been widely shared among social media.

Today I’m writing about the second part: What is the primary driver behind Europe’s variability, i.e. what causes periods of cold winters and periods of milder winters? The main drivers, Kowatsch and Kämpfe conclude, are oceanic cycles.

Figure 1 below shows a plot of German winters since 1881. Shown is the temperature lower curve and the number of days with westerly winds (upper curve) – along with their corresponding smoothed curves.

Figure 1: Germany’s mean winter temperature (lower blue curve) follows the course of the frequency of days with mild westerly winds (W, SW and NW, violet upper curve). Both are accompanied by a smoothed curve).

It’s no surprise that the more days a winter has with winds coming from the west (Atlantic), the milder the winters turn out to be. A correlation here does not surprise us. Here the mechanism that drives Europe’s winters is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is the pressure difference between southwest Europe (Portugal to the Azores) and northwestern Europe (Iceland).

When the NAO is very positive it means there is a powerful Azores high and a powerful Icelandic low which serve to pump Atlantic air eastwards into Central Europe (Figure 2, right). If the Azores high and the Iceland low are both weak, then cold air from Eastern Europe or Siberia can make its way over across Europe and the winters tend to be much colder (Figure 2, left).

Figure 2: Prevailing weak NAO pattern shown left leads to cold Europe winters. Strong positive NAO pattern shown right leads to mild winters (Source: UKMO).

Next Figure 3 shows the NAO chart for the past winter, which was most of the time was highly positive, meaning many mild westerly winds swept in from the Atlantic and over Europe.

Figure 3: Winter 2014/15 saw an overwhelmingly positive NAO, thus producing a mild winter for Western and Central Europe.

So what drives the NAO air pressure difference? Kowatsch and Kämpfe have analyzed this and found there is a strong correlation between NAO and the Atlantic Multidecadal Osciallation (AMO). Figure 4 below shows the inverse relationship between the AMO and the winter-time westerly wind frequency over Europe:

Figure 4: The higher the AMO value, the less westerly weather that occurs.

Not only does the AMO drive the NAO, but it is also is a major factor driving Arctic sea ice extent. Arctic sea ice extent does not drive the winters over Europe, as some scientists have been hypothesizing over the recent years. Rather it is the AMO that is driving the Arctic sea ice and the European winters as well.

Although good satellite sea ice data records for the Arctic go back only 35 years, one sees a distinct relationship between the AMO and wintertime Arctic sea ice, see Figure 5 below:

Figure 5: As AMO values rise (green curve), sea ice area (blue) reduces significantly.

EIKE adds:

And there are clear indications that this relationship applies over the long-term as well. During the 1930s, i.e. during the last AMO positive phase, large melting of the sea ice and strong melting of the Greenland glaciers were observed.”

And when the severe winters of 2009/10 and 2012/13 caused the proponents of the global warming theory to scramble for an explanation, they concocted and put out the tale that “melting Arctic sea ice was disturbing the large scale circulation and thus favored winter cold at the middle latitudes“.

The scientists claimed that especially the low levels of Arctic sea ice in September were suddenly responsible for causing cold winters. Yet, the following chart shows no relationship at all:

Figure 14: The extent of September Arctic sea ice has no impact whatsoever on winter temperatures over Central Europe (Germany). Arctic sea ice cover in blue; Germany winter temperatures in red. The same is true for other times of the year (autumn ice cover or winter ice cover to winter temperatures show no relationship).

EIKE warns that the climate system is much more complicated than meets the eye: “Still the complicated and yet to be researched relationship between ocean currents, AMO, sea ice and large weather patterns have with a high probability an impact on Europe’s climate and weather, and there exists no easy explanations”. Studies have shown that solar activity also play a role in Europe’s winters.

At the end, Kowatsch and Kämpfe look at the (lack of) success that institute’s and experts have had in forecasting the winter of 2014/15. It shows that the science of forecasting is lacking terribly. Of the 7 forecasts examined, 2 were completely faulty, 3 were poor, and 2 were only about half correct and would not earn a grade any higher than a C -.

Fluctuating Atlantic … German Experts Say “Things Could Become Very Bitter For The IPCC Forecast Models”!

The latest post by Frank Bosse and Fritz Vahrenholt looks at solar cycle 24 in January, and the climate impacts of the North Atlantic. The two authors write that the IPCC models may be in for a bitter surprise.
==================================

The sun in January 2015 and Atlantic prognoses

By Frank Bosse and Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt
(Translated, edited by P Gosselin)

Solar report January 2015

Last month the sun reached a sunspot number of 67.0 and thus was once again below normal in activity: It reached 85% of what is normal for the particular cycle month.

Fig. 1: The mean activity of the sun since systematic observations have been conducted is shown in blue and the current cycle (24th cycle, red), along with the relatively similar Cycle No. 1 of 260 years ago.

The red curve shows that the sunspot maximum is now over. Up to now that was not so easy to identify because instead of the usual pronounced maximum (compared to the mean curve in Fig. 1), there have been two peaks with a pronounced dip between them.

Observation of the sun’s polar magnetic fields brings certainty rather than guesses. We reported on this in detail before the end of the year. In short the polar fields have a zero polarity during the solar sunspot maximum. The difference of north polar field and south polar field is zero, yet it can occur often when the fields do not reverse at the same time. During the current cycle the fluctuation about the zero line was quite intense:

Figure 2: The difference between the polar fields of the sun, source: leif.org.

The zero value was first approached in fall 2012, in early summer 2013, and again at the beginning of 2014. The maximum dragged on for some 15 months. But now the trend appears to be clearly away from zero and the maximum to be behind us for good. The month with the highest activity was month no. 63 of the cycle, February 2014, with a SSN= 102.8.

We are seeing an unusually weak cycle with a delayed start and delayed maximum. Another thing is noteworthy: The polar fields are building up only very slowly, especially the solar north pole is dipping as before close to zero. Could that be an indication of an even weaker cycle to follow? It is still too early to determine this, but we will know in a few years. What follows is a comparison of all the cycles:

Fig. 3: The summed deviations from the mean value (blue in Fig. 1) for all cycles for all months up to the current one. The right bar in Fig. 3 is growing deeper into negative territory. This indicates a strongly reduced solar activity since approx. 2006.

North Atlantic harboring a bitter surprise?

As some readers may recall, we reported earlier here on the North Atlantic and we suspected that a relatively significant reduction in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) could be in the pipeline. Since then there have been additional mesurements of this near surface warm current, which impacts the Atlantic part of the Northern Hemisphere and to some extent other large regions of the Northern hemisphere. Our earlier prognoses are now confirmed:

Fig. 4: The AMOC strength between 2004 and spring 2014. Source: climate-lab-book.ac.uk.

It is the decisive element that controls the AMO, and probably the approximately 65-year temperature oscillation. Earlier it had been positive, the transition from negative to a positive phase precisely coincides with the time frame that most climate models were parameterized: between 1975 and 2004.

Fig.5: The AMO since 1870, Source: climatedataguide.ucar.edu. The signal is determined by measuring surface temperatures of the entire North Atlantic and the deviation from the linear long-term trend. The AMO thus expresses an internal variability.

The additional added heat from the variable oscillation may have led to the models having calculated an excessive forcing from greenhouse gases, just as the AMO will also not be accounted for in the newest CMIP5 models when it comes to the global and northern hemisphere temperatures.

Getting back to the AMOC, if it weakens, it will lead to a falling heat content in the North Atlantic at depths from 0 to 700 meters and so less heat getting conveyed towards the North Pole. This is precisely what has been observed since 2007:


Fig. 6: The heat content of the upper 700 meters in the region of impact of the AMOC, Chart source: Climate Explorer.

It is highly likely that the focus of the AMOC-effect can be found in the sub-polar gyre, which is a relatively small area of the sea in the North Atlantic located off the southern tip of Greenland: 45°N…60°N; 50°W…20W°. Here we are seeing truly dramatic events:

Fig. 7:  The heat content of water between 300 meters depth and 125 m of the sub-polar circulation. The depth limit was chosen in order to exclude falsifications from the effects of atmospheric processes. (Image source: Argo Marine Atlas)

Beginning in the spring of 2014 (after the end of the available direct measurement in Fig. 4) we see the occurrence of a steep drop. Also the forecast of the British Met Office for the next years is now taking this development into account and foresees with some certainty for the next ten years global temperatures at the lower end of the models’ ranges. It is also stated very carefully that a temperature stall could occur over the next 10 years, which for the models would be a real large-scale catastrophe. Just as we wrote back in January, 2014:

The AMO] is not accounted for in the IPCC models and would limit the trend rise in global temperatures since the beginning of the impact of greenhouse gases to about 1°K/ century.  How much longer will we have to wait before the IPCC finally accepts the multidecadal oscillations, as it already has here and is shown in other works?”

The North Atlantic is indeed a special region and could contribute much to understanding our climate. Also a greater impact by the sun than what has been considered up to now would be possible. A new paper by authors in China and Scandinavia examined high resolution proxy summer temperature data from northern Iceland and came to the result that the fluctuations there over the last 3500 years correspond to solar activity, and do so significantly over long time frames (centuries and millennia).

Fig. 8: The coincidence between North Atlantic summer temperatures and solar activity in the gray range over the last 3500 years (top), with the correlation (middle) and significance (bottom – the lower the p -value, the greater the certainty) of the relationship . Source: Figure 5 of the above-mentioned paper.

When one looks very closely at Fig. 8, one sees a time delay in temperature with respect to solar activity characteristic numbers. And when one now looks at Figure 3 of post and notice the especially high activity until the end of the 1980s and the rather dramatic drop afterwards, what do you think the solar drive will do to the Atlantic temperatures?

Things could become very bitter for the IPCC forecast models! With much excitement we look forward to how the climate unfolds.

 

Joe Bastardi Schools Dr. Michael Mann On How To Read A Weather Chart … Heavy Snow “Is Because It’s Cold”

The Northeast USA is being socked by frightful cold and massive snow. The brutal New England winters are back and now we are witnessing last ditch efforts by disgraced climate scientists to blame the brutally cold winters on a warming planet (which in reality has not warmed in 18 years).

At his latest Saturday Summary at WeatherBell Analytics, chief meteorologist Joe Bastardi delivers a stinging critique of Michael Mann’s recent claims: “Sea surface temperatures off the coast of New England right now are at record levels, 11.5C (21F) warmer than normal in some locations.” Mann also claimed there’s two times more moisture in this warm air, and thus is responsible for the turbocharged snowy icebox winter Boston has been experiencing.

At his Saturday Summary Joe thoroughly demolishes these claims.

Falsehood 1: It’s 11.5°C warmer than normal “off Cape Cod”

Joe calls Mann’s assertions a mistake, and shows that the area of warm sea surface water “off the coast of Cape Cod” is in fact way off the coast. At the 2:25 mark Joe shows how the waters along the eastern seaboard “are close to normal” and that a small patch of 3°C above normal water is some 1000 kilometers off the coast, and that a larger patch of 5°C above normal water is in fact 2000 kilometers off the coast (see following figure):

SatSum 14 Feb 2015

Dr. Mann’s warm water is in fact 2000 kilometers “off the coast”. Cropped from WeatherBELL.

Joe tells his viewers, and Dr. Mann, at the 3.00 mark:

There’s no way that that moisture is getting fed back into New England.”

Climatologists need to learn how to read a weather chart

So why would a climatologist like Mann make such an absurd claim? Joe tells us that a climatologist making a statement does not understand how the weather works, and advises them to first learn how to read a weather chart (2:15) before making such statements.

Falsehood 2: Heavy snow due to warm sea surfaces

The real reason it snowed so much over New England, Joe explains, is because of the “tremendous horizontal temperature gradient” in the area where extremely cold Arctic air clashes with normal temperature maritime air (3:30). It’s the cold, stupid!

At 5:27 Joe explains:

Where this storm was embedded, it’s cooler. You cannot use the argument that we use for warm eddies, and hurricanes where we see some blow up over the warm eddy. You can’t use that with these.”

Falsehood 3: Two times higher water vapor in the air

At the 5:45 mark the veteran Penn State graduate meteorologist shows the water vapor situation in the region where the storm developed:

During this time of the snow blitz over New England, the mixing ratios, which is the water vapor, is below normal! It’s below normal! It’s not above normal! In the area that we’re targeting, this period that we’re looking at, that had all this snow, is below normal.”

Snow (surprise!) is due to cold

The reason why water vapor is so low is “because it’s so darn cold”. The heavy snowfalls are related to the extreme cold, and not the unrelated warm patch 2000 kilometers “off Cape Cod” (6:10).

At the 7:47 mark Joe summarizes on warmist climatolgists’ claims:

If they’d looked at this, they would have seen how bogus their argument is. There is nothing above normal in that area. What happened was that it was so darn cold that it creates a very strong horizontal temperature gradient. […] It’s not because it’s so much warmer and humid off the eastern seaboard; it’s the exact opposite reason in this particular case. […] It’s because it’s cold.”

At the 9:30 mark Joe shows a chart of the AMO which that he says “has major implications“. The AMO has dipped sharply downwards, and although the current PDO is warm, it will turn colder within a couple of years. Implication: don’t expect global warming anytime soon.

Also Joe explains how cold winters across the United States are predominantly dependent on the ENSO. In years of El Nino spikes, US winters do greatly tend to be colder.

In summary this year’s brutal New England winter has nothing to do with the bogus, made-up explanations being served up by climatologists who are desperate to salvage their disgraced science.

 

The Sun And Ocean Cycles Drive Global Temperature…Natural Factors Bringing Cooling For Next 30 Years

It has been clear for a long time to those who simply observe climate that temperatures are driven by, in the long term, orbital and Earth tilt cycles, the Milanković cycles, in the medium term by solar cycles with ocean cycles. like the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO), and in the short term, by ocean and atmosphere cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

A few researchers have used this information to project the future. An example can be found on the sidebar of this blog. A problem with these projections is that factors such as volcanoes cannot be predicted. Due to the chaotic nature of most ocean cycles, these also cannot be used to predict the future. Only the AMO is regular enough to extend into the future, and then only for one or two cycles.

The sun is our source of energy, and it also has cycles. The 11-year sunspot number cycles (SSN) are regular but seem not to affect climate in any cyclic way. Only the integrated energy over whole cycles seems to push temperatures, and this affect seems to be delayed by about one whole sunspot cycle. Here is a history of the last 150 years and a simple projection to 2050.

Global Climate Model

 

Figure 1 is a chart of the main influences on global temperature over the last 150 years. The red trace is based on the SSN processed with an 11-year trailing average. The purple AMO trace has been smoothed with a 9-year centered average. These were then combined with the annual average central Pacific El Niño 3.4 to produce the orange trace. The orange trace is a model of global temperature before volcanic cooling. The vertical green lines are named volcanic eruptions, the height of the lines is the volcanic eruption index (VE) using the right side scale. The blue trace is the global annual temperature average as published by GHCN.

For over a hundred years, the orange model follows the GHCN temperature closely except where perturbed by volcanic activity. Volcanoes can warm the atmosphere if they are primarily ash eruptions, or cool the atmosphere if they loft large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere. The Askja eruption and caldera collapse in Iceland in 1875 produced primarily ash. That eruption plus a Grand El Niño the following year produced a warm year in 1876. The VE6 eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 and Tarawara three years later, produced five years of cool climate.

Santa Maria and Novarupta were two more VE6 eruptions, that along with a cool sun and a negative AMO sent temperatures plunging in the early 20th century. From 1918 until 1975, temperatures followed the ocean cycles and the sun very closely. Smoke and soot from WWII, along with a strong El Niño in 1942, may have caused the warming from 1939 to 1945. In contrast, a strong La Niña in 1975 that lasted for two years produced a pronounced cooling. This was the “ice age scare” of the late 1970’s.

After 1978 a serious divergence began between this model based on sun and ocean cycles and the GHCN measurements, leading to the current 0.6°C difference. For UAH satellite measurements this difference is less, from 0.3°C to 0.45°C, depending on the level set for the 1979 record beginning relative to GHCN.

To account for this difference, the reader is urged to note the changes over the years to the global temperature records as found by the following reporters:

– Steven Goddard: Data Tampering At USHCN/GISS and about a thousand other posts on the same subject.
– Paul Homewood: Posts Tagged Temperature Adjustments, and Another GISS miss: warming in the Arctic – the adjustments are key
– Ira Glickstein: The PAST is Not What it Used to Be (GW Tiger Tale)
– Willis Eschenbach: The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero.
– MS at The Hockey Stick: Paper finds more smoking guns of temperature data tampering in Northern Australia.
– Ed Caryl: A Light In Siberia. This was also posted here. And Is GISS Also Cheating In The Arctic?
– Jennifer Marohasy: Corrupting Australia’s Temperature Record, along with here, here, and others.
– Michael and Ronan Connolly: Global Warming Solved

These adjustments can account for the whole difference between the model and the GHCN temperature record. It is not necessary to invoke any CO2 warming. If it is there, it is very slight, on the order of 0.1°C.

The model indicates that it has been cooling since 2010, and that the cooling will continue as solar output declines and the AMO goes negative. Yes, the years from 1998 to 2010 were warmer than the 20th Century average because the globe was at the peak of all the natural cycles. But it is all downhill from here.

Cooling next 30 years

Solar activity is going into a decline as well. We don’t yet know if this decline will be to a Dalton Minimum-like level or a Maunder Minimum level. The model projection into the future does not contain ENSO or volcanic data as that data cannot be predicted. But it will get cooler for the next thirty years. The AMO will turn positive some time in mid-century, and solar output may not decline as much as indicated, so another full-blown ice age is not beginning, but a Little Ice Age may be starting. See here for further projections into the future based on the deVries 230-year cycle and the 1000-year Suess cycle.

 

Sea Level Goes The Way The Wind Blows…Wind, Pressure Play Major Roles

This is one of those posts about things noticed, remembered, and linked while surfing the web.

It is well known that the local sea level is heavily influenced by wind speed and direction as well as barometric pressure. Most people are aware of storm surges associated with hurricanes, for example. The same thing happens on a near-global scale, and some of it is near-permanent. Here is a global map of sea level anomaly from the University of Colorado.

sea-level-rise-rate-western-pacific

Figure 1 is the sea level rise trend since satellite radar altimetry began.

In Figure 1, the sea level in the Western Pacific has risen 10 or 12 mm per year, while the eastern Pacific, parts of the Southern Ocean, and a spot in the Atlantic, have fallen by 3 to 5 mm per year, over the satellite era.

The next interesting map comes from the European Space Agency (ERA). This map is generated by taking the sea surface height as measured by satellite and subtracting the gravity model from GOCE. The result is the sea surface height over the geoid.

Mean_dynamic_topography_node_full_image_2-1

Figure 2 is the sea surface height over the Geoid.

Note the difference in height between the western Pacific and the Southern Ocean, about 3 meters. The difference in height between the western Pacific and the coasts of North and South America is over a meter. These height differences drive ocean currents. These differences are maintained by wind and pressure differences. If wind and pressure change, the sea level changes accordingly.

SLP Changes WP Winds

Next are plots (Figures 3 and 4) from Garza et al 2012, of Sea Level Pressure (SLP), and wind changes over the 1980 to 2009 epoch.

The SLP has increased over the eastern Pacific and decreased over the western Pacific. North of 10°N, easterly trade winds have increased in the eastern Pacific and south of 10°N, they have decreased. These small changes, along with thermal expansion, have changed the relative sea level between the two sides of the Pacific Basin by 1%, one centimeter out of one meter. My point is that not all of the western Pacific sea level rise is due to warming, a great deal of it is due to wind and SLP change.

Do you remember the controversy last year about the trade winds? One paper had them increasing, due to global climate change; the other had them decreasing due to climate change. They were both right. They were just looking at different parts of the elephant. North of 10° North the winds increased; south of 10° North the winds decreased.