The IPCC's catastrophic AGW hypothesis - and the entire climate change alarmist community - is getting hammered from all sides by the growing research that points to natural climate variation (ie, oscillations, patterns, cycles) being the principal causes of warming since the 1950s.
The latest evidence is coming from satellites that monitor the world's clouds and energy inflows.
As the adjacent charts depict (information derived from the RSS and CERES satellite datasets) at least one-third of ocean heating could be explained by the simple change in cloud cover over the oceans for a recent 20-year span.
Combine this natural cloud-induced warming with other earthly/cosmic/solar factors, which also would contribute to the modern warming trend, and it does not leave much of the recent modern warming being a direct result of the IPCC's evil CO2 mantra.
The IPCC's discredited alarmist global warming propaganda took another serious hit from a major scientific study on the empirical evidence regarding accelerating sea levels - per the study, sea levels, due to natural, long-term oscillations, likely to increase only a scant 9 inches by century-end
The IPCC's refusal to incorporate and/or accept any empirical evidence that is contrary to their climate models' alarmist catastrophe predictions is well known. As a result, the IPCC's scary global warming predictions have been shown to be egregiously wrong and terribly misleading for policymakers.
The anti-science fantasy approach to the IPCC's political-driven "analysis" has suffered another major blow from a new study by Nicola Scafetta. This latest research confirms previous studies about just how wrong the IPCC has been about those "accelerating" sea level increases.
"This is a major paper, which undertakes a comprehensive review of recent studies, which diverge widely in their findings...main reason for divergence is the length of records used in studies, and shows that the quasi-cyclic oscillations of the major ocean basins largely account for the differences in those studies conclusions...it is shown that the periodicity of the major oscillations, being 60 to 70 years, require a minimum record length of around 110 years in order to prevent polynomial fitting of long term secular trends being contaminated with shorter term quasi-cyclic variation. Using tide gauge records going back as far as 1700...compares the trends in sea level rise acceleration at widely spread geographical locations once the quasi-cyclic components are removed and finds the long term global average to be very small – around 0.01mm/yr...study suggests that sea level rise during the C21st [21st century] will be around 277+/-7mm, or about 9 inches." [Nicola Scafetta 2013: Climate Dynamics]
1. An analysis of long-term empirical evidence confirms 20th and 21st sea level increases have been a function of long-term natural oscillation forces.
2. Potential sea level rise by end of century is highly likely to be less than a foot, well below the IPCC's "scientists'" predictions.
3. The IPCC's climate-model alarmism regarding dangerous, accelerating sea levels due to human CO2 emissions is without empirical merit - summarily, an IPCC fantasy.
Global warming science facts from new research indicates that ENSO will not become a permanent feature as speculated by the IPCC's resident AGW alarmists - the massive climate phenomenon will remain variable
(Ooops....don't confuse this wonderful looking ENSO to the left with the climate variety!)
Read here. Climate alarmist scientists speculated that global warming from human CO2 emissions would somehow cause the El Niño/La Niña climate cycle to become stuck in the El Niño mode. This would be the proverbial "tipping point" potentially causing the infamous runaway warming.
Unfortunately for the alarmists, and fortunately for the rest of us, Earth's systems primarily operates in a negative feedback fashion, preventing runaway situations. In addition, Davies et al. confirmed that during past warming periods, ENSO did not become stuck in the El Nino mode.
"The authors write that "variations in the frequency and amplitude of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) recorded in both instrumental and paleoclimate archives have led to speculation that global warming may cause fundamental changes...More specifically, they state that there is speculation that "warmer climates may promote a permanent El Niño state...In a study designed to further explore this possibility...analyzed the latest Cretaceous laminated Marca Shale of California, which permits..."a seasonal-scale reconstruction of water column flux events and, hence, interannual paleoclimate variability," during what is known to have been a "past 'greenhouse' climate state."...In light of their recent findings, Davies et al. say there is "little support for the existence of a 'permanent El Niño'...that there was robust ENSO variability in past 'greenhouse' episodes and that future warming will be unlikely to promote a permanent El Niño state," which point they also emphasize in the final sentence of their abstract, where they say that their evidence for robust Late Cretaceous ENSO variability "does not support the theory of a 'permanent El Niño,'" [Andrew Davies, Alan E.S. Kemp, Graham P. Weedon, John A. Barron 2012: Geology]
Conclusion: Global warming science facts - the fear-mongering speculation that modern global warming would initiate a permanent El Niño 'tipping point' is without empirical merit. The ENSO climate pattern will retain its variability, unchanged by human CO2 emissions.
The IPCC often claims its climate models are infallible and all knowing when it comes to the climate - new study reveals major climate modeling failure as they are unable to accurately simulate Greenland's past climate accurately
Read here. Greenland's current climate is heavily influenced by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), which has a lengthy periodicity. The AMO is a natural climate variability phenomenon having a strong impact on North Atlantic's regional temperatures.
Recent analysis of the Greenland ice cores, by Chylek et al., has proven that the powerful AMO variability has been part and parcel of the Greenland climate for thousands of years, pushing temperatures higher and lower depending on the cycle point.
This natural, internal variability has no connection to external factors (forcings) such as the CO2 greenhouse gas.
In addition, the scientists determined that the climate models, favored by the IPCC and other non-empirical based scientists, are unable to faithfully mimic the ancient past AMO variability due to geographic differences (location differences) - a major climate modeling failure.
"...examine evidence of the AMO that is contained in several ice core records distributed across Greenland. The researchers were looking to see whether there were changes in the character of the AMO over different climatological periods in the past, such as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period—periods that long preceded large-scale human aerosol emissions. And indeed they found some. The AMO during the Little Ice Age was characterized by a quasi-periodicity of about 20 years, while the during the Medieval Warm Period the AMO oscillated with a period of about 45 to 65 years...The observed intermittency of these modes over the last 4000 years supports the view that these are internal ocean-atmosphere modes, with little or no external forcing...However, the geographic variability of these periodicities indicated by ice core data is not captured in model simulations." [Petr Chylek, Chris Kenneth Folland, Leela Mary Frankcombe, Henk A. Dijkstra, Glen Lesins, Manvendra K Dubey 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusion: The climate (ie, temperatures) of Greenland and other northern latitude areas has principally been driven by the periodicity of the Atlantic Multidecal Oscillation. The non-accurate simulation of this variability is another climate modeling failure that needs to be addressed.
Scientists from Jet Propulsion Lab and Univ. of Washington determine that fresh water from Russia's rivers and the Arctic Oscillation are major factors for Arctic sea ice melt
Read here. The 'Big Green' controlled IPCC and the typical Climategate scientist have publicly claimed that the recent Arctic sea ice melt is entirely due to human CO2 emissions. The majority of climate scientists don't agree with this IPCC stance, knowing full well that other natural and human influences are at work in the Arctic.
New research, by scientists from the University of Washington and NASA's Jet propulsion Lab, have now discovered that freshwater from several large Russian rivers is being relocated to certain regions in the Arctic that allows other regions to be more vulnerable to increased sea ice melt. The force that is redirecting freshwater is not human CO2 but instead nature's own Arctic Oscillation.
This latest research confirms that any speculation of human CO2 emissions being the major cause of sea ice melting is likely very wrong. (image source)
"A hemisphere-wide phenomenon – and not just regional forces – has caused record-breaking amounts of freshwater to accumulate in the Arctic’s Beaufort Sea"..."Frigid freshwater flowing into the Arctic Ocean from three of Russia’s mighty rivers was diverted hundreds of miles to a completely different part of the ocean in response to a decades-long shift in atmospheric pressure associated with the phenomenon called the Arctic Oscillation"..."In the Eurasian Basin, the change means less freshwater enters the layer known as the cold halocline and could be contributing to declines in ice in that part of the Arctic...The cold halocline normally sits like a barrier between ice and warm water that comes into the Arctic from the Atlantic Ocean. Without salt the icy cold freshwater is lighter, which is why it is able to float over the warm water...In the Beaufort Sea, the water is the freshest it’s been in 50 years of record keeping, he said. The new findings show that only a tiny fraction is from melting ice and the vast majority is Eurasian river water."
Anthropogenic CO2 emissions found to be less of a climate forcing than the UN's IPCC climate models assume
Read here. The IPCC's climate modelers purposefully designed the computer models to implicate human CO2 emissions as the major culprit for global warming and climate change. As the climatic empirical evidence kept growing though, it became obvious these models were atrocious at climate prediction, specifically due to their myopic reliance on CO2 as the principal global warming forcing.
As the majority of scientists are now coming to believe, new research from Humlum et al. determines that indeed human CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases are not the primary cause of global warming. The peer-reviewed research clearly implicates the climate's natural variability as the driving force of global warming.
"...we demonstrate how such persistent natural variations can be used for hindcasting and forecasting climate. Our main focus is on identifying the character (timing, period, amplitude) of such recurrent natural climate variations, but we also comment on the likely physical explanations for some of the identified cyclic climate variations. The causes of millennial climate changes remain poorly understood, and this issue remains important for understanding causes for natural climate variability over decadal- and decennial time scales...►We identified persistent cyclic variations in records from Svalbard and Greenland. ► Some identified cycles correspond to variations in the Moons' orbit around Earth. ► Some identified cycles correspond to solar variations. ► Warming since 1850 is mainly the result of natural climatic variations." [Ole Humlum, Jan-Erik Solheimc, Kjell Stordahld 2011: Global and Planetary Change]
Read here. The climate alarmism bozos/bimbos brigade (Al Gore, Kevin Trenberth, John Cook, Joe Romm, Heidi Cullen, Bill McKibben, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, Jeff Masters and etc.) has claimed that past severe winter conditions were the result of CO2-induced global warming. They did so without a sliver of scientific proof nor empirical evidence.
As the general public deduced, the brigade's claim that extreme winter conditions are being caused by "global warming" is a complete crock. And to the major chagrin of the likes of Kevin Trenberth, the climate modelers are now pointing their collective fingers at the real culprit - the sun. Losing the public and climate/solar science debate both - Ouch!
The team of Ineson et al. determined that a strong solar signal (positive or negative) will cause significant changes in the North Atlantic Oscillation. The NAO change produces affects on the winter circulation patterns resulting in a dearth or abundance of Northern Hemisphere severe winter storms. Using climate models, they established a firm relationship between solar maximum/minimum and the change in the NAO.
"A research team...primarily made up of scientists from the U.K.’s Hadley Centre Met Office have identified a fairly strong solar signal in Northern Hemisphere winter circulation patterns which are manifest over Europe and the eastern United States. According to their modeling studies, the difference in the amount of incoming solar radiation, in this case, primarily in the ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths, during the minima and maxima of the 11-yr solar cycle are large enough to produce a characteristic change in the winter circulation pattern of the atmosphere over North America...When the NAO is in its negative phase, more cold air can seep south from the Arctic and impact the lower latitudes of Europe and the eastern U.S., which helps spin up winter storm systems. For instance, during the “snowmageddon” winter of 2009/2010, the NAO was at a near record low value..."Given our modelling result, these cold winters were probably exacerbated by the recent prolonged and anomalously low solar minimum. On decadal timescales the increase in the NAO from the 1960s to 1990s…may also be partly explained by the upwards trend in solar activity evident in the open solar-flux record…."" [Sarah Ineson, Adam A. Scaife, Jeff R. Knight, James C. Manners, Nick J. Dunstone, Lesley J. Gray, Joanna D. Haigh 2011: Nature Geoscience]
Read here. The IPCC climate models almost complete failure at climate prediction has become an embarrassing joke within the general science community as these money-eating simulation efforts starve other science projects of funds. Almost on a weekly basis there is new research revealing the climate model failure fiasco, which likely will remain the case for the foreseeable future, per a recent study.
Wan et al. analyzed the Atlantic tropical bias that exists in the major IPCC climate models that prevents the coupled models from accurately reproducing Atlantic equatorial sea surface temperatures. This failure will not be solved in the near future they determine, which precludes these models being able to "predict" abrupt climate change.
"The authors write that "the notorious tropical bias problem in climate simulations of global coupled general circulation models manifests itself particularly strongly in the tropical Atlantic,"... they state that "the climate bias problem is still so severe that one of the most basic features of the equatorial Atlantic Ocean -- the eastward shoaling thermocline -- cannot be reproduced by most of the IPCC assessment report models,...as they describe it, "show that the bias in the eastern equatorial Atlantic has a major effect on sea-surface temperature (SST) response to a rapid change in the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC)."...ultimate implication of Wan et al.'s findings is, in their words, that "in order to accurately simulate past abrupt climate changes and project future changes, the bias in climate models must be reduced." But if "little or no progress" on this problem has been made in the tropical Atlantic "over the past decades,"..." [Xiuquan Wana, Ping Changa, Charles S. Jacksonn, Link Jia, Mingkui Lia 2011: Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography]
Read here. Scientists know that the variability of the northern Pacific has a huge impact on global climate. If IPCC climate models are ever to successfully predict future climate changes, they first need to be able to predict the variability of the northern Pacific ocean. A new study by Furtado et al. confirms what has long been suspected, the IPCC climate models are unable to deal with the Pacific ocean variability.
The North Pacific Decadal Variability (NPDV) is composed of two identified patterns of ocean variability. The first is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the second is the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation (NPGO), neither of which can be consistently predicted by the IPCC's models.
"The authors write that North Pacific Decadal Variability (NPDV) "is a key component in predictability studies of both regional and global climate change,"...they emphasize that given the links between both the PDO and the NPGO with global climate, the accurate characterization and the degree of predictability of these two modes in coupled climate models is an important "open question in climate dynamics" that needs to be addressed...report that model-derived "temporal and spatial statistics of the North Pacific Ocean modes exhibit significant discrepancies from observations in their twentieth-century climate...conclude that "for implications on future climate change, the coupled climate models show no consensus on projected future changes in frequency of either the first or second leading pattern of North Pacific SST anomalies," and they say that "the lack of a consensus in changes in either mode also affects confidence in projected changes in the overlying atmospheric circulation."" [Jason C. Furtado, Emanuele Di Lorenzo, Niklas Schneider, Nicholas A. Bond 2011: Journal of Climate]
Read here. Climate "scientists" pushing the human-induced global warming hysteria have predicted that modern global warming will soon change the ENSO climate pattern and all that will remain will be a permanent El Niño. The latest peer-reviewed research, however, doesn't support that prediction.
Ivany et al. analyzed fossilized clam remains from 50 million years ago that were located in the Antarctica region. The clams existed in a climate that was at least 10 degrees warmer than modern temperatures. By analyzing clam rings, the scientists were able to determine that during that significantly hotter period, the ENSO still retained its pattern of variation from El Niño to La Niña and back.
"The prevailing theory predicts that rising global temperatures could cause the ENSO to collapse, resulting in permanent El Niño conditions, which could have a major impact on socioeconomic and ecological systems worldwide..."The good news is that despite the very warm temperatures during the Eocene, the evidence from the clams and tree rings shows that the ENSO system was still active, oscillating between normal and El Niño years. That suggests that the same will be true in our future as the planet warms up again.” [Linda C. Ivany, Thomas Brey, Matthew Huber, Devin P. Buick, Bernd R Schöne 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. NASA has been the heart of this nation's global warming hysteria, with the most recent evidence being just a plainly bizarre "aliens hate global warming" study published by a NASA scientist.
Another aspect of NASA's being led by the hysterics of its "scientists" is the ongoing, incredible incompetence of their climate predictions. Besides the laughable, ludicrous NASA prediction that sea levels will rise by some 82 feet by 2100, there is the never-ending prediction of a Super El Niño that never seems to happen.
This chart reveals just how wrong NASA has been with their current Super El Niño prediction. And why doesn't the public know how badly NASA has performed as a predictor of climate events? Because the mainstream press refuses to report actual climate empirical evidence to challenge the NASA press releases. That's why bloggers such as Bob Tisdale are so invaluable.
Read here. Computer programmers purposefully coded the climate model simulations to produce ENSO events that increased both in frequency and intensity, with stronger El Niños leading to more severe weather results. This was done in the belief that human CO2-induced global warming would produce such results. Unfortunately for the IPCC and its climate modelers, these simulated climate predictions were wrong.
The scientists who developed the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI) refined and expanded their research to extend the MEI capabilities back to the 1870s. By doing so, they were able to analyze earlier ENSO events as compared to those of the modern era. Their work confirmed that today's El Niños and La Niñas are no different than those of a hundred years ago.
"...the two U.S. researchers describe their efforts "to boil the MEI concept down to its most essential components to enable historical analyses that more than double its period of record,"... "designed to help...differentiate between 'natural' ENSO behavior in all its rich facets, and the 'Brave New World' of this phenomenon under evolving greenhouse gas-related climate conditions.""...report that "the new MEI.ext confirms that ENSO activity went through a lull in the early- to mid-20th century, but was just about as prevalent one century ago as in recent decades." In fact, they state that "so far, none of the behavior of recent ENSO events appears unprecedented, including duration, onset timing, and spacing in the last few decades compared to a full century before then"...So far, there is no indication of the "fingerprint of man" in any aspect of ENSO behavior over the last few decades..." [Klaus Wolter, Michael S. Timlin 2011: International Journal of Climatology]
Read here. Anti-science leftists/liberals/Democrats are particularly prone to making claims and predictions about global warming and climate change that are, in reality, unsubstantiated by empirical evidence.
Washington state Democrats have provided a classic example of this style of politics by constantly and hysterically predicting that snow will soon disappear in the Cascade Mountains due to global warming. Of course, as it always turns out, the climate did exactly the opposite of what politicians (and climate models) predicted and dumped gigantic, record snowfalls on this mountain region.
(click on image to enlarge) And not only were the Democrats, progressives and green radicals wrong about the snow, they were wrong about the temperatures. Since 1990, the Cascade Mtn. area has not been warming, but instead slightly cooling, despite all the human CO2 injected into the atmosphere since the 1950's.
A continuing huge problem for Democrats is their non-belief in empirical science, and the embracement of speculative, fantasy science. Indeed, they end up constantly making fools of themselves by consistently going hysterical about natural events with the end result being they always blame humans and society for incidents that occur naturally. Once they assign the blame to humans, they then immediately start proposing new regulations, laws, fees and taxes in the belief they can fix a non-fixable problem that is literally controlled by nature, not by humans nor bureaucrats.
If they would actually take the time to examine the climate/weather science, they would soon discover that changing snowfall and snowpacks are a function of natural climatic oscillations, not of civilization.
As this chart reveals, snowfall in the Cascades is strongly associated with the prevailing ENSO (El Niño and La Niña) phase. Human CO2 is a non-issue having zero correlation with the amount of snowfall in any region, including the Cascade Mountains.
(Note: For complete information on the Cascade snowpack issue go to the Global Warming Science site.)
Read here. The IPCC predicted, using its climate models, that it was "likely" that the melting ice of Greenland, due to CO2-caused global warming, of course, will cause cold, fresh water to flow into the Atlantic Ocean disrupting major currents, including slowing down the AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation). Hollywood climate scientists even made a movie about this subject, backing up the IPCC Climategate scientists' predictions. As usual though, actual science and empirical evidence makes a shambles of the joint IPCC/Hollywood predictions.
A new study by Zhang et al. analyzes the AMOC using the North Brazil Current as a proxy and confirms that the AMOC is not slowing down due to any modern Greenland ice melt. Their research did indicate though that the AMOC has a cyclical behavior on a decadal scale, which puts its behavior in the realm of natural oscillations, not CO2-based, like the fictional IPCC/Hollywood "science" that coastal elites believe and solely rely on.
"There has been debate as to whether the AMOC (Atlantic meridional overturning circulation) has begun slowing down due to global warming, but research on AMOC variability based on instrumental records is limited. One possible indicator of change in the AMOC is the North Brazil Current (NBC)...The researchers therefore suggest that observed NBC variability is a useful indicator of AMOC variations. They confirm this using a climate model simulation. Furthermore, the authors note that although some studies have suggested that the AMOC is slowing down due to global warming, the NBC shows multidecadal variability but no significant slowing trend over the past 50 years." [Dongxiao Zhang, Rym Msadek, Michael J. McPhaden, Tom Delworth 2011: Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans]
Read here. Climate models used by the IPCC and the national climate agencies are notoriously bad at making predictions of precipitation, including snow during the Northern Hemisphere winter months. The primary resaon for this prediction failure is the lack of input from natural ocean and atmospheric cycles. The models' perfect ignorance of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a case in point.
Shen et al. conducted research on snow coverage across the Tibetan Plateau over the last 200 years. They confirmed that snow variation was closely associated with the AMO, which climate models totally ignore.
"A paper published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters finds a strong influence of shifts in the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) on changes in snow cover of the Tibetan Plateau over the past 200 years. Major shifts occurred in the 1840s, 1880s, 1920s, and 1960s...Ocean oscillations such as the AMO are not incorporated in climate models, but nonetheless have large effects upon climate change as demonstrated by this paper and others...also finds not surprisingly that cold phases are associated with more snow and warm phases with less snow...A plausible mechanism linking the North Atlantic climate to Asian monsoon is presented." [Caiming Shen, Wei-Chyung Wang, Gang Zeng 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. What are the symptoms of a "consensus" crumbling? In a startling admission, which appears to be a subtle stab-in-the-back of NASA's Hansen's approach, an EU scientist said the following:
“To date, when trying to explain tropical climate variations, we have always looked upwards, specifically to the atmosphere. Our new data, for the first time, direct our attention towards the depths of the ocean, thereby opening new perspectives for our scientific approach,”
Over the past few decades climate research has been stuck-on-stupid with the James Hansen's CO2 hypothesis, and his CO2 driven climate models, that force every climate variation through the myopic vision of the CO2 ideology.
Unfortunately for climate science and policymakers, the trace gas CO2 has about squat to do with climate variation, which galactic sums of research money and effort have been wasted on. It now seems the atmospheric CO2-cult is being abandoned with scientists finally seeking answers from both the oceans and solar-related activity.
"Climate variability in the tropical Atlantic Ocean is determined by large-scale ocean–atmosphere interactions, which particularly affect deep atmospheric convection over the ocean and surrounding continents. Apart from influences from the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Atlantic variability is thought to be dominated by two distinct ocean–atmosphere coupled modes of variability that are characterized by meridional, and zonal, sea-surface-temperature gradients and are mainly active on decadal and interannual timescales...we report evidence that the intrinsic ocean dynamics of the deep equatorial Atlantic can also affect sea surface temperature, wind and rainfall in the tropical Atlantic region and constitutes a 4.5-yr climate cycle." [Peter Brandt, Andreas Funk, Verena Hormann, Marcus Dengler, Richard J. Greatbatch, John M. Toole 2011: Nature]
Read here. Global warming alarmists have claimed that an increase of central Pacific El Niño events and intensity are the direct result of human-induced global warming. Yeh et al. conducted extensive research using climate models (4,200 simulations) and determined that natural variability could be the cause of increased El Niño frequency and intensity instead of the claimed human cause.
"...they indicate there is evidence of "increasing intensity as well as occurrence frequency of the so-called Central Pacific (CP) El Niño events since the 1990s." And the question thus arises: Is the latter a consequence of global warming?...ran a multi-millennial CGCM (coupled general circulation model) simulation "to assess whether the natural changes in the frequency of CP El Niño occurrence simulated by the model are comparable to the observed changes over the last few decades," suggesting that "if the changes are similar then we cannot rule out the possibility that the recent changes are simply natural variability."..."we cannot exclude the possibility that an increasing of occurrence frequency of CP El Niño during recent decades in the observation could be a part of natural variability in the tropical climate system," providing one more piece of evidence for the likely benign nature of recent global warming." [Sang-Wook Yeh, Ben P. Kirtman, Jong-Seong Kug, Wonsun Park, and Mojib Latif 2011: Geophysical Research Letters]
As the monthly empirical evidence keeps pouring in, the AGW hypothesis and climate model simulations that portray atmospheric CO2 levels being the principal driving force behind global temperature change looks weaker and weaker. A growing chorus of scientists worldwide are now saying that the idea that global warming is caused by 'CO2 vapours' is a quaint, 1800's European hypothesis, but severely lacking in any robust, modern empirical evidence.
While the CO2-vapours based AGW hypothesis crumbles in the face of actual climate data, other scientific explanations regarding global temperature change are looking stronger and stronger. One such hypothesis is that the Southern Oscillation (SO) accounts for some 80% of global temperature variance.
The strength of that explanation appears exceptional when viewing the HadCRUT global temperature change over the last 15 years in comparison to the the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), in the chart immediately below. The evidence suggests a strong statistical relationship for the SO being the primary driver of temperatures and potential climate change.
In comparison, the relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures is an obvious weak one, almost statistically non-existent, as the chart below depicts.
Scientists analyzing the below data are now concluding that although CO2 has some impact on temperatures, this incredibly weak statistical evidence is driving their research towards better, more complete explanations.
Read here. Scientists examined the climate model output and compared it to the abrupt warming experienced in the Northern Hemisphere post-1980. The researchers determined that the rise in temperatures was associated with both an increase in the Arctic Oscillation and a simultaneous weakening of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, neither of which were influenced by human CO2.
From the their analysis, they found that the IPCC models were unable to simulate even these major climate patterns successfully.
"The researchers report finding that the emergence of an AO-like pattern in the late 1980s and the concomitant weakening of the previously prevailing PDO-like pattern -- occurring in tandem -- were what led to the "accelerated warming in the Northern Hemisphere." And they say that these results, together with results obtained from current IPCC/CMIP3 models, "do not support the scenario that the emerging influence of the AO-like pattern in the 1980s can be attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect."...state in their concluding paragraph that "this study indicates the importance of the changing behavior of the decadal fluctuations in the recent climate regime shift," and they highlight what they call "the insufficient capability of the present state-of-the-art IPCC/CMIP3 models in simulating this change." [Tzu-Ting Lo, Huang-Hsiung Hsu 2010: Atmospheric Science Letters]
Read here, and new climate oscillation graphs below.
The global warming causes cold and snow lie continues to be spread by the left/liberal propaganda machine.
Despite the name that suggests it embraces science, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) predictably agrees with Hollywood celebrities, and other publicity hounds, who believe that cold and snowy winters are now the result of global warming. Obviously choosing the Charlie Sheens of science as their consultants, the Union must be unfamiliar with the actual climate science, and the known empirical evidence. It's time to bring them up to speed.
1. Multiple climate scientists, including one of the most prominent NASA scientists, have stated that the global warming theory really doesn't support the Hollywood myth that GW causes adverse weather events. This includes the incredibly lame, anti-science claim that winter snow and cold is now the result of warming.
2. NOAA's forensic climate group of scientists have analyzed the recent cold, snowy weather and have concluded that this season's bad weather is due to natural climate oscillations that unfortunately worked in concert to produce bad weather. In addition, NOAA's real-world climate scientists also confirmed that the 2010 summer events, including the Russian heat wave and Pakistan monsoon flooding, had nothing to do with global warming.
3. And, regardless of Hollywood's and the MSM's claims, the UCS is amazingly forgetting the known science, which finds that this winter's weather is not so extreme that it lies outside the normal, historical winter variation of past years. (And by the way, over the last 200 years, the mainstream media has recorded multiple winter bad weather events that rivaled or exceeded the 2010/2011 winter, which this site would keep the UCS easily abreast of.)
[Note to UCS: One wonders if it would really be too much to ask "concerned" scientists to actually analyze current weather records versus past weather records before inserting feet in mouths.]
4. After multiple billions of dollars being expended on climate research over the past few decades, scientists have discovered, and documented, that multiple, natural climate oscillations/patterns dictate the cold weather, extreme events. This is especially true during those rare occasions when these multiple patterns get in 'sync.'
[Honestly, the UCS and theirmouthpiececollaborators must know this, but their fanatic desire to religiously push the global warming political agenda instead, positions themselves as obvious anti-science charlatans, or would global-warming-snow 'liars' be more accurate in this case?]
In a previous post, it was shown that the 2010/2011 winter was most likely a result of multiple climate oscillations/patterns working in rare concert to bring the northern hemisphere miserable winter weather. How about previous severe winters? Did a similar, past congruence of climate patterns also result in severe cold and snow?
As people with long memories recall, the 2010/2011 winter reminded many of the extreme cold and snow weather that took place during both the 1962/1963 and the 1978/1979 winters. As European and North American regional weather records show, for certain northern hemisphere areas those winters were truly brutal, and they shared a common characteristic with the brutal 2010/2011 winter: six climate patterns in extreme sync at the same time.
The climate oscillations during the 2010/2011 winter: (click on images to enlarge)
The climate oscillations during the severe 1978/1979 winter:
The climate oscillations during the severe 1962/1963 winter:
What do these three winters have in common? As the NOAA scientists have stated, severe winters are likely to occur if both the El Nino (ONI-red curve) and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO-dark blue curve) are moving towards and/or inhabit the strong negative mode of their respective patterns. Clearly, all three severe winters (light blue-shaded areas above) depicted share those traits.
In addition, during the 2010/11, 1978/79, and the 1962/63 severe winters, the other major climate patterns (the Arctic Oscillation (AO), the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO), the Southern Oscillation (SO), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)) were also moving towards and/or inhabiting the extreme ranges of their variation. The three blue-shaded areas of the charts reveal those rare periods when these patterns are in 'sync' during winter, which will likely result in harsh winter conditions in regions of the northern hemisphere when (not if) it happens again.
As a reminder to the UCS (you are scientists, correct?), these climate patterns are not a result of human CO2, nor are they a result of global warming. These climate patterns are natural, and they are also very difficult to predict the direction and magnitude of, let alone predicting a a rare synchronization or congruence of all the patterns. Yet some who actually study weather science and these climate patterns can make fairly accurate winter predictions well before winter's onset, unlike your UCS clowns that no one should believe.
Note: For the above graphical portrayals, the SOI was fractionally reduced for each month in order for it to scale visually with the other indicies. Also, both the SOI and the AAO (the two green curves) had their numeric signs reversed to better portray visually the rare direction/magnitude 'sync' of all six patterns. Actual data for each graph above can be found here.
Previous 'C3' postings have discussed the incredibleandhysterical alarmist claims that Arctic warming was causing colder temperatures and snowstorms in more southern latitudes. As the CSI group of NOAA scientists determined, the principal culprits causing the December, January and February snowstorms were the climate oscillations known as El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation, which were simultaneously in a negative mode.
Having these two oscillations in the negative phase during winter months does not bode well for areas of Europe and the United States, in terms of cold and snow. But what happens when there are four major climate patterns all in their respective negative modes?
If all four patterns are in the negative mode, the predictability of foul winter weather happening in large areas of North America and Eurasia becomes incredibly high - and it has absolutely nothing to do with human CO2 and/or Arctic warming. These climate patterns are natural. (click on images to enlarge)
Note: The black curve in each graph represents a polynomial attempt at curve fitting. The curve indicates where the data has been in terms of overall direction at different periods. The curve has no statistical predictability value.
Update of interest, 3-2-11: While examining both the Antarctic Oscillation (AAO) and Southern Oscillation (SO), it appeared to the naked eye that both of these indicies were usually in their own negative mode when the El Niño was in its positive mode, as represented by the ONI index. By flipping the plotted data for both the SO and the AAO, the similarity for latter part of 2010, and previous periods, becomes more apparent.
The graphical depictions of these six climate patterns reveal that all were moving towards and/or occupying extreme points of their historical variation ranges, while the winter weather in the northern hemisphere was getting worse during the 2010/2011 winter (in terms of cold and precipitation).
Read here and here. The recent cold and snowy weather that some regions of the northern hemisphere have recently suffered has been determined by climate scientists to be a direct result of major ocean/atmospheric oscillations - namely, the combined, simultaneous negative modes of: the NAO, the AO and the El Niño. In the most prominent analysis, NOAA climate scientists revealed what the greenhouse gas-based climate models predicted in terms of winter precipitation (top chart) and what was actually observed (bottom chart). (click on images to enlarge; images source here)
By comparing these two charts, the virtual world versus the real-world, it is obvious there are significant issues (problems? failures?) with the government, bureaucrat-scientist designed climate models.
Those issues? One, climate models are totally inept at predictions and forecasting, even in the short-run of several months. Two, CO2 and other human produced greenhouse gases have little, if any, causation for producing severe weather, such as cold and precipitation. Or, three, a combination of the latter two, which help explains why climate modellers are sooo wrong, sooo frequently.
To put this into greater context of CO2-based climate models' and modeller failures, recall the utter failure of recent hurricane/cyclone seasonal forecasts for their being more intense and frequent; the prediction failure of the 2010 Russian heat wave; and, the concurrent failure to predict the large Pakistan rain/flooding event.
Yet, left/liberal/progressive "scientists" pushing their favored political agenda continue to proselytize the idea that CO2 and global warming are the cause of severe weather events, including the current severe cold and snow. Their denial of both the actual empirical evidence and peer-reviewed scientific literature is a conclusive testament to the left's anti-science mentality and propaganda.
Read here. IPCC's Climategate scientists and big government funded alarmists have claimed that atmospheric CO2 increases and "associated" warming will cause more frequent extreme dry (drought) and wet (flood) periods. The latest research, however, clearly documents that extreme dry and wet periods have naturally occurred over thousands of years, with larger shifts starting about 1000 years ago - well before the growth of CO2 levels.
The takeaway point: the level of CO2 is completely irrelevant in terms of climate change, as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study by Nelson et al. shows. h/t WUWT (click on image to enlarge)
"The researchers analyzed a sediment core from Castor Lake in north central Washington to plot the region’s drought history since around 4,000 BCE and found that wet and dry cycles during the past millennium have grown longer. The team attributed this recent deviation to the irregular pressure and temperature changes brought on by El Niño/La Niña.....“Western states happened to build dams and water systems during a period that was unusually wet compared to the past 6,000 years,”...“Now the cycle has changed and is trending drier, which is actually normal..."...Analysis of the sediment core revealed that the climate of the Pacific Northwest fluctuated more or less evenly between wet and dry periods for thousands of years.....since around 1000 AD, these periods have become longer, shifted less frequently, and, most importantly, ushered in more extreme conditions.....The change in cycle regularity Abbott and his colleagues found correlates with documented activity of El Niño/La Niña."[Daniel B. Nelson, Mark B. Abbott, Byron Steinman, Pratigya J. Polissar, Nathan D. Stansella, Joseph D. Ortiz, Michael F. Rosenmeier, Bruce P. Finney, Jon Riedel 2010: PNAS]
Read here. In an attempt to hype global warming fears, the IPCC Climategate AGW-scientists have speculated that human CO2 emissions would massively influence ocean climate modes such as ENSO and the North Atlantic Oscillation. This speculation led to the hysterical hypothesis that increased CO2 emissions would cause a permanent El Niño condition. Like most IPCC claims designed to pressure policymakers, this one was also pure science fiction.
A study by Kemp et al. determined that the wide variability of modern ocean climate patterns is very similar to the natural variations found some 75 million years ago during the Late Cretaceous period. That period also had extremely high levels of atmospheric CO2 but no El Niño "tipping point" ever resulted - the natural ocean modes just kept on being variable.
"Based on reconstructions of Arctic climate variability in the greenhouse world of the Late Cretaceous, scientists have concluded that man-made global warming probably would not greatly change the climatic influence associated with natural modes of inter-annual climate variability such as the El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO) or the Arctic Oscillation/ North Atlantic Oscillation (AO/ NAO).....“A key question is how an Arctic without permanent ice cover will affect atmospheric circulation and climate variability, particularly over high and mid latitudes,”.....“Understanding Late Cretaceous climate should inform debate about future climate trends and variability under greenhouse conditions,”.....“Based on our findings, it seems unlikely that man-made global warming would cause a permanent El Niño state." [Alan Kemp, Andrew Davies, and Heiko Pälike 2010: Geophysical Research Letters]
Read here. IPCC and national climate agency climate models have failed spectacularly at predicting the ENSO climate pattern changes that results in major regional weather conditions. A new peer-reviewed study helps expalin why the climate models fail consistently: the under estimation of both the Sun's impact and a powerful negative feedback ('ocean thermostat').
"A report in the December 3, 2010, issue of Science has reinforced what many scientists have suspected all along: variation in the Sun's output causes significant change in Earth's climate.....This new work indicates that even small variations in the Sun's output can have significant affect here on Earth. This is unsurprising, since the energy that drives Earth's climate comes from the Sun. Monsoon floods and decades long droughts are both part of the natural variation driven by our neighborhood star, but every climate fluctuation that causes human discomfort is blamed on anthropogenic global warming.....Their [Marchitto et al.] work is in agreement with the theoretical “ocean dynamical thermostat” response of ENSO to radiative forcing. Here is their description of the work: The influence of solar variability on Earth’s climate over centennial to millennial time scales is the subject of considerable debate. The change in total solar irradiance over recent 11-year sunspot cycles amounts to <0.1%, but greater changes at ultraviolet wavelengths may have substantial impacts on stratospheric ozone concentrations, thereby altering both stratospheric and tropospheric circulation patterns.....This model prediction is supported by paleoclimatic proxy reconstructions over the past millennium. In contrast, fully coupled general circulation models (GCMs) [IPCC climate models] lack a robust thermostat response because of an opposing tendency for the atmospheric circulation itself to strengthen under reduced radiative forcing." [Thomas M. Marchitto, Raimund Muscheler, Joseph D. Ortiz, Jose D. Carriquiry, Alexander van Geen 2010; Science 3 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6009 pp. 1378-1381]
Read here. Climate models are purported to be able to predict the climate and major climate components. These climate model claims are made mostly by government sponsored scientists who are attempting to sustain or increase their government funding. Their research grant greed and personal financial security cause these "scientists" to make false claims about climate model capabilities.
The most recent example of this gross misinformation campaign is the bogus claim that climate models can predict the ocean oscillation climate pattern known as ENSO. If these models had an iota of successful prediction capability, they would have predicted the significant La Niña condition that currently exists. Instead, as the image below indicates, all the climate models failed to accurately predict this last November (2009). (click on image to enlarge; image source)
Read here. Climate models are unable to predict the ENSO climate pattern (El Niño and La Niña) with any degree of accuracy, which makes them entirely worthless for projecting future climate conditions. Why?
New peer-reviewed research is now pointing to a relationship between seismic activity (earthquakes and volcanoes, especially the under water variety) and ENSO events. It is postulated that the energy released by these crustal activities are inducing ENSO responses. If true, climate models will continue to fail their purpose until the seismic activity is incoporated into the models as a climate forcing/influence.
"O. Molchanov of the Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of the Physics of the Earth makes a case for the hypothesis that, at least partially, global climate changes and corresponding activity indices such as the ENSO phenomenon are induced by similar variations in seismicity.".....it was determined, first of all, that (1) the "climate indices show expected ENSO variation," and "amazingly," as Molchanov describes it, that (2) the earthquake indices demonstrate "similar quasi-ENSO variations." So the next questions were obviously: (1) which is the action? ... and (2) which is the reaction? From a number of other factors considered by the Russian researcher, he concludes that it is "more probable" that earthquake activity is "forcing the ENSO variation in the climate" than vice versa."
Read here. At one time, the hubris of global warming scientists led them to believe their climate models could explain/predict the future ENSO variations. As usual, Mother Nature made fools of the scientists, so they went back to investigate what they and their models could actually explain/predict about ENSO.
End result of peer-reviewed study?
"...they state that "it is not yet possible to say whether ENSO activity will be enhanced or damped, or if the frequency of events will change."....."it is not clear at this stage which way ENSO variability will tip ... As far as we know, it could intensify, weaken, or even undergo little change depending on the balance of changes in the underlying processes."....."by a team of twelve researchers hailing from six different countries (Australia, France, India, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States), wherein they review the findings of what they describe as "a hierarchy of mathematical models [that] have been used to explain the dynamics, energetics, linear stability and nonlinearity of ENSO,""
"The authors write that "the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is a naturally occurring fluctuation," whereby "on a timescale of two to seven years, the eastern equatorial Pacific climate varies between anomalously cold (La Niña) and warm (El Niño) conditions," and that "these swings in temperature are accompanied by changes in the structure of the subsurface ocean, variability in the strength of the equatorial easterly trade winds, shifts in the position of atmospheric convection, and global teleconnection patterns associated with these changes that lead to variations in rainfall and weather patterns in many parts of the world," which end up affecting "ecosystems, agriculture, freshwater supplies, hurricanes and other severe weather events worldwide.""
Back in February, Phil Jones, of Climategate infamy, did an interview with the BBC. Out of that interview came some very significant revelations that boarded on AGW heresy, including:
"neither the rate nor magnitude of recent warming is exceptional.
There was no significant warming
from 1998-2009. According to the IPCC we should have seen a global
temperature increase of at least 0.2°C per decade.
The IPCC models may have
overestimated the climate sensitivity for greenhouse gases,
underestimated natural variability, or both.
This also suggests that there is a
systematic upward bias in the impacts estimates based on these models
just from this factor alone.
The logic behind attribution of current warming to well-mixed man-made greenhouse gases is faulty.
The science is not settled, however unsettling that might be.
There is a tendency in the IPCC
reports to leave out inconvenient findings, especially in the part(s)
most likely to be read by policy makers."
Now, several months later, Jones has published a paper with others that concludes the 1970's land surface cooling was due to cooling in the North Atlantic Ocean. Obviously, Jones and company are now recognizing that natural, large-scale factors are forcing global changes in temperatures besides the IPCC favored trace gas CO2 from human emissions.
Update: More fascinating information, including this chart immediately below, that seemingly supports the ocean oscillation and land temperature relationship of the Jone's paper.
And apparently, Jones and company are not claiming that human CO2 is the cause of the ocean oscillations that are associated with sea temperature changes in the first place. Gee, I wonder why.....could it be that CO2 levels have zero influence on ocean cycles/oscillations as the below charts suggest? Or, phrased another way, could the actual CO2 level at a given time be the cause of the given peak/valley of an ocean oscillation at that same point in time?
The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (like other ocean oscillations) is a climate pattern with a mode of variability, which seems to naturally occur regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"A climate pattern may come in the form of a regular cycle, like the diurnal cycle or the seasonal cycle; a quasi periodic event, like El Niño; or a highly irregular event, such as a volcanic winter.....A mode of variability is a climate pattern with identifiable characteristics, specific regional effects, and often oscillatory behavior.....the mode of variability with the greatest effect on climates worldwide is the seasonal cycle, followed by El Niño-Southern Oscillation, followed by thermohaline circulation."
Other well-known modes of variability include: The Antarctic oscillation; The Arctic oscillation; The Atlantic multidecadal oscillation; The Indian Ocean Dipole; The Madden–Julian oscillation; The North Atlantic oscillation; The Pacific decadal oscillation; The Pacific-North American teleconnection pattern; The Quasi-biennial oscillation.
Of course, Jones is well aware that climate patterns, like ENSO, have existed for thousands of years, well before any traces of industrial CO2 entered the atmosphere. Again, these climate patterns with large variability are happening regardless of CO2 levels. (click on images to enlarge)
The above charts have the historical atmospheric CO2 levels (red curve) simply super-imposed on the various oscillations. For more information on natural ocean oscillations, go here, here and here.
[Note: Other prominent deniers of natural factors being principal agents in climate change are also starting to see the light.]
The evidence keeps mounting that mother nature is mocking the "2010 is hottest" claim being made by climate alarmist scientists and their hysterical, MSM parrots (ooops, "reporters"). The coming 6 months could indeed be very cool based on what's happening across the globe.
Read here. It's amazing what you learn from reading blogs. I had no idea that Hawaii once had glaciers (Hawaii?). But thousands of years ago, during the last glaciation, Hawaii's highest peaks sported glacier ice. And, this glacier ice's retreat and surging during the end of the glaciation age left clues that natural Atlantic Ocean current oscillations were the primary factor affecting the tropical Pacific - not the trace gas CO2.
"However, the new research found that the glacier on Mauna Kea began to re-advance to almost its ice age size about 15,400 years ago. That coincides almost exactly with a major slowdown of what scientists call the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, or AMOC, in the North Atlantic Ocean.....But scientists have found that the AMOC does more than just keep northern Europe habitable. Its effects can extend far beyond that...“The new data from Mauna Kea, along with other findings from geological archives preserved in oceans and lakes in many other areas, show that the decline of the AMOC basically caused climate changes all over the world,” Clark said. “These connections are pretty remarkable, a current pattern in the North Atlantic affecting glacier development thousands of miles away in the Hawaiian Islands...“The global impact of the AMOC changes,” Clark added, “was just massive.”"
Read here. Scientists seeking more funding for their global warming research love to gain media attention by constructing press releases that mislead and misinform. They do this because they know a gullible and stupid press corp will pick up on the global warming nuances and run with that as the headlines. The latest case of this practice of science by press release is the JPL study claiming that a newer type of El Niños is getting stronger. (click on image to enlarge)
Well, if mainstream reporters has gotten off their collective lazy rear-ends, they would have easily found that the JPL press release was flat-out wrong about the central Pacific (CP) El Niño being "relatively new" - ahem....the CP El Niño has been around at least as long as they've been taking official instrument temperatures of the central Pacific. And, they would have discovered that the claim of "getting stronger" swims in the deep waters of bogosity. As Bob Tisdale charts indicate, the JPL "press release" science is pretty lame, which means mainstream outlets like the NYT and LA Times will swallow it, hook-line-and-sinker.
Read here. As the satellite data depicts below, Pacific Ocean temperatures are in a dramatic, accelerating free-fall. If this trend continues, we will be witnessing unprecedented ocean cooling, which will drive global temperatures and climate change.
We are already seeing the climate result from this La Niña phase of the ENSO cycle:
Read here. As multiple studies have found before, the scientific sea level observations contradict the predictions of the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen. The accelerating sea level claim is at this point a pure fantasy concocted to fool the low IQ of MSM-types and Hollywood celebrities.
The study identified natural ocean and climate patterns to be the prime cause of sea level variability.
"The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records.....The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior.....On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years."
Read here. Researchers from Cryospheric Processes Laboratory and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) monitor various attributes of the S. Hemisphere/Antarctica and have documented that recently the snow melt index for the southern continent has reached its lowest point ever. Their research indicates the snow melt index is likely driven by the major ocean and atmosphere oscillations for that area of the world - in other words, Antarctica melting/warming has nothing to do with human CO2 emissions over the last 30 years.
We've superimposed the linear-like growth of CO2 levels for the past 30 years on the chart below. Clearly, the Antarctica climate is not warming due to the rapid growth of human CO2 emissions. Nor does it even appear to be influenced by CO2 levels. The alarmist AGW prediction that Antarctica was going to melt due to CO2 was (and is) absolute rubbish. (click on image to enlarge)
"Tedesco and Monaghan begin by noting “Melting over Antarctica has been monitored since 1979 using spaceborne passive microwave observations. The sign of the melting trends over Antarctica is variable at regional scales, depending on the period analyzed and on the indices used, with the continent-averaged trend being negligible.”.....observed that snowmelt was at a record low for the 30-year period between 1979 and 2009. Specifically, the Antarctic snowmelt index (the number of days on which melt occurs multiplied by the area subject to melting) in 2008–2009 set a new historical minimum.” They explain further “Negative melting anomalies indicate that melting occurred fewer days than the average over the past 30 years.”.....with only one small exception, the entire coastline of Antarctica experienced a low amount of melting – this was widespread and not regionally confined. Claims that Antarctica is melting are simply not consistent with the facts!"
Read here. In previous postings (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3) we pointed to several indicators that the world is likely to be entering a global cooling phase. This image from Watts Up With That provides additional evidence of the power of this La Niña's cooling.
Read here. Researchers using lake sediment cores determine that severe weather for the northeastern United States has followed a cyclical pattern with a 3,000 year gap between each peak. The latest severe weather period began some 600 years ago with onset of the Little Ice Age. The major forces driving this natural cycle are thought to be solar changes, along with changes in the Atlantic Oscillation (AO).
Atmospheric CO2 levels are not even considered to be an influence on this natural cycle of storminess.
"The authors' data indicate that "the frequency of storm-related floods in the northeastern United States has varied in regular cycles during the past 13,000 years (13 kyr), with a characteristic period of about 3 kyr." There were four major storminess peaks during this period; they occurred approximately 2.6, 5.8, 9.1 and 11.9 kyr ago, with the most recent upswing in storminess beginning "at about 600 yr BP [Before Present], coincident with the beginning of the Little Ice Age.".....authors say that the pattern they observed "is consistent with long-term changes in the average sign of the Arctic Oscillation [AO], suggesting that modulation of this dominant atmospheric mode may account for a significant fraction of Holocene climate variability in North America and Europe.".....authors also report that "during the past ~600 yr, New England storminess appears to have been increasing naturally," and they suggest that "changes in the AO, perhaps modulated by solar forcing, may explain a significant portion of Holocene climate variability in the North Atlantic region." They further state that their explanation is appealing "because it makes a specific prediction that New England storminess should be at its greatest when Europe is cold (characteristic of the low-phase AO)," such as during Little Ice Age conditions"
Read here. Great explanation of the what-and-why of hurricane seasonal activity. In summary, if a weak La Niña (an ENSO phase) develops in the Pacific, and in combination with warmer Atlantic Ocean waters, the number of 2010 hurricanes could be large. Update: here.
"Last year, there were only three hurricanes. The long-term average is 10 tropical storms, six that develop into hurricanes. The season runs from the first of June to the end of November — hurricanes only form over water that is 80 degrees or warmer, as the Atlantic Ocean is usually not warm enough to support hurricanes in June and July. But this year, we’ve already got Alex, so we are off and running. Generally the warmer the water, the greater the chance there will be a stormy season. But there are other important factors.....It is a radically different picture this summer. The water is very warm in the hurricane breeding grounds, and there are signs of a La Nina developing. In fact, the water is at least as warm as 2005, and the developing La Nina will reduce the winds over the Atlantic. These two major factors would seem to indicate that this hurricane season will be another one for the books."
Read here. The long and wide acceptance of the oceans' conveyor belt theory was, until recently, a confirmed scientific consensus. The conveyor belt theory was also a foundational cornerstone of all climate models. But, as oceanographers did more research and scrutinized the empirical evidence, they determined the popular, consensus conveyor belt theory was no longer sustainable, nor valid.
Where's that leave the IPCC's climate models then? Up a certain creek, without the proverbial paddle.
"Here is a list of recent discoveries that have shaken the foundation of the conveyor belt theory.
Most of the subpolar-to-subtropical exchange in the North Atlantic occurs along interior pathways.
The deep deep western boundary current (DWBC) breaks up into eddies at 11°S.
There is little meridional coherence in the overturning transport from one gyre to the next.
Wind forcing, rather than buoyancy forcing, can play a dominant role in changing the transport of the overturning.
The southward transport of deep waters at 8°S, off the Brazilian coast, was shown to be carried entirely by migrating coherent eddies.
Floats launched within the DWBC at 53°N do not follow a continuous boundary current, but instead take multiple paths to the subtropics, including interior pathways far removed from the DWBC.
Two recent studies have found unexpected pathways in the upper ocean.
A recent study shows that MOC transport in the subtropical North Atlantic is susceptible to variability in the "leakage" of warm and salty water into the South Atlantic.
Studies showing little to no coherence across gyre boundaries have prompted interest in monitoring the overturning circulation in the South Atlantic and the subpolar North Atlantic.
The connectivity of the overturning and, more importantly, of the meridional heat transport from one basin to the next can no longer be assumed on interannual time scales.
When all of these observations are combined, they indicate that the conventional conceptual model of ocean overturning needs revamping....."As the study of the modern ocean’s role in climate continues apace, the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well— not because it is a gross oversimplification but because it ignores crucial structure and mechanics of the ocean’s intricate global overturning."....."I repeat my earlier assertion: if the conveyor belt model is wrong then
none of the IPCC's model results can be taken seriously.""
Read here and here. In an effort to rally the MSM propaganda troops around the "global warming" flag, Al Gore, James Hansen of NASA, and the scientists at NOAA/NCDC have now chosen to utilize absurdly short-term changes in temperature as a sure sign that recent warming is "out-of-control." The implication of their hyped claims being that the recent warming burst is due to human CO2 emissions and, of course, it is unprecedented and exceptional.
As for the recent burst in warming being due to CO2, that is a false implication since it is well known that recent surface and atmospheric warming has primarily been driven by the existing El Niño conditions:
"Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, adds what is missing from the article mentioned earlier: “We have seen rapid warming recently, but it is an example of natural variation that is associated with changes in the Pacific rather than climate change.”"
Although today's temperatures are absolutely not unprecedented versus historical temps, when compared to the short history of thermometer readings maintained by the NCDC, today's temperatures are indeed some of the warmest recorded since 1880. But in reality, that's totally expected since global temperatures have been on the rebound (increasing) since the Little Ice Age (LIA). So far, the NCDC thermometer records show temperatures increasing at a +0.7°C rate per century over the last 130 years.
What's the LIA mean for absurdly short-term temperature changes? Simply put, the natural Little Ice Age warming rebound is naturally going to cause some days, some weeks, some months, some calendar quarters, and some other short-term periods to be the "warmest" - it's unavoidably natural.
So, if the recent January to May short-term period is the "warmest" ever because of a combination of natural forces, the El Niño and the LIA Rebound, how then does this period's temperature change compare to previous January to May periods? When reviewed in the different context of per cent change terms, the 2010 January-May temperature change turns out to be rather unexceptional. (click on image to enlarge)
Every year, the January through May time period sees a global temperature increase from the past December levels. This chart reveals how large those temperature increases have been in the past. In terms of temperature percentage change, the most recent January through May temperature change was rather modest. As can be seen, this specific five-month time period is experiencing a downward trend in per cent change increase over time, especially since the 1920-30's era.
Read here. New peer-reviewed research finds that at least 50% of the Swiss Alp glacier retreat and melt is due to natural variability, not the 100% man-made cause assigned by the IPCC. The study also suggests that the natural glacier variability is probably true for all glaciers, worldwide.
"In the relatively well-monitored Swiss Alps, however, Huss and his team managed to gather some 10,000 in situ observations that had been made over the past 100 years, and constructed three-dimensional computer models of 30 glaciers. By comparing a time series of daily melt, snow accumulation and ice and snow volume readings of the glaciers with a widely used index of the AMO [Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation], they teased out the impact of natural climate variability. Although the mass balance of individual glaciers varied, the long-term overall trend followed the pulse of the AMO.....Natural climate variability is likely to have driven twentieth-century glacier shrinkage and thinning in other parts of the world, says Kaser. For example, his own research on the glaciers of Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania suggests that their dramatic recession is mainly due to multidecadal fluctuations in air moisture"
Read here. Much has been made by global warming alarmists about the warming of Alaska since the 1970's and thus inferring it is due to human CO2 emissions. What they conveniently fail to mention is that most of the warming was due to a major PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) shift to a warming phase that took place during the late 70's.
And, they always fail to point out that peer-reviewed research shows that the Alaskan climate was both warmer and cooler than the current climate over the last 2,000 years. (click on image to enlarge)
"In commenting on these findings, Hu et al. remark that "the warmth before AD 300 at Farewell Lake coincides with a warm episode extensively documented in northern Europe whereas the AD 600 cooling is coeval with the European 'Dark Ages'." They also say that "the relatively warm climate AD 850-1200 at Farewell Lake corresponds to the Medieval Climatic Anomaly, a time of marked climatic departure over much of the planet." And they say that "these concurrent changes suggest large-scale teleconnections in natural climatic variability during the last two millennia, likely driven by atmospheric controls.""....."Noting that "20th-century climate is a major societal concern in the context of greenhouse warming," Hu et al. conclude by reiterating that their record "reveals three time intervals of comparable warmth: AD 0-300, 850-1200, and post-1800," and they say that "these data agree with tree-ring evidence from Fennoscandia, indicating that the recent warmth is not atypical [it's not unusual] of the past 1000 years,"
Read here. Scientists determine that CO2 had nothing to do with the "faint sun" paradox and global warming. Climate alarmist scientists contended that CO2 and other greenhouse gases kept Earth warm when Sun was not as energetic as today. Latest peer-reviewed research demolishes that hypothesis, and as we often learn about any GHG hypothesis, another-one-bites-the-dust:
Read here. Whether it's El Nino, the ENSO, the PDO, the NAO, or whatever, the climate models don't do ocean oscillations. They can't predict when they will happen or their intensity/severity, which makes predicting climate conditions just about impossible.
"The only scientist to make accurate forecasts of ENSO events was the late Dr Theodor Landscheidt. He explains, “My forecast is exclusively based on cycles of solar activity. This does not conform to the dominating trend in official science.” And therein lies a major part of the IPCC failures. As Landscheidt says, “This is irreconcilable with IPCC’s allegation that it is unlikely that natural forcing can explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century. In declarations for the public, IPCC representatives stress that taxpayer’s money will be used to develop better forecasts of climate change. What about making use of those that already exist, even if this means to acknowledge that anthropogenic climate forcing is not as potent as alleged.” I find no reference to Landscheidt’s work in the IPCC Reports, but then they effectively ignore the sun and many other mechanisms."
Take a close look at the chart. It shows the warming (or cooling) per century growth rate at the end of each decade. Notice how the reddish bars keep shrinking after the decade ending 1919, with the shortest bar being in the hottest decade evaaar, the decade just ended in 2009. Of course, the chart does have that one outlier bar ending in 1999 - doesn't that bar just seem way out of place? (It should.) What's going on in this chart? Well, read on..... (click on image to enlarge)
First, the easy stuff. The green line represents the decadal growth in atmospheric ppm levels of CO2 as a percentage by decade (the right axis). So, for the decade ending in 1999, CO2 ppm increased by some 4.25% over the 1989 CO2 level. For the decade ending 2009, CO2 increased another 5.2%. Definitely, since the end of WWII, CO2 levels are growing at a healthy pace.
What about that global warming, though? With those hefty increases in CO2, the global temperatures should be skyrocketing into the realms of the never-before-witnessed phenomenon of the terrifying "climate tipping point" that, ya' know, those climate alarmists and the MSM parrots keep screeching about. We've all heard from the climate alarmist scientists that global warming is "accelerating" but is it really?
As expected, global temperatures have been increasing in a sporadic fashion since the end of the Little Ice Age during the 1800's. This is a normal warming reaction that happens after every cooling period. At some point, the global warming is going to fade as the world reaches an equilibrium point coming out of the big chill, which the above chart actually provides evidence of.
At end of 1919, that decade saw temperatures increasing at a 1.96°C per century trend. At the end of the following decades, that global warming per century trend kept dropping, with the exception of the decade ending in 1999 when all of a sudden there was a huge jump. Was that large jump in the per century warming rate finally due to the CO2 increase as advertised by alarmists? Nope. That jump was entirely due to the Super El Niño.
The Super El Niño of 1997-1998 caused a huge spike in global temperatures that was only temporary in nature, but long enough to impact the entire decade's per century warming rate. If the years 1997 and 1998 instead had temperatures that equaled the average of the other eight years of the decade, the decade-ending per century trend would have produced a bar on the chart about the same size as the decades ending 1989 and 2009. Those two Super El Niño years literally breathed new life into the global warming catastrophe movement, and enriched Al Gore, despite the warming being entirely due to a natural, ocean oscillation phenomenon.
Despite all the hand-wringing, hot rhetoric, and impending doom talk, natural global warming looks to be in a dying phase regardless of the amount of human CO2 emissions. The decade ending in 2009 may have been the "hottest" since WWII, but the global warming underlying trend is one of deceleration, not acceleration, as this chart reveals. As some global warming scientists have recently admitted, global cooling could well be our near termfuture, with a few El Niños thrown in providing some very welcome "hot" years.
Read here. Often climate alarmists will point to warming ocean temperatures, or sea ice melting, and actually conclude that these conditions are caused by human CO2. Although there is no scientific evidence that even remotely suggests CO2 causes ice to melt or oceans to warm, that does not dissuade alarmists from spreading the bogus claims to the gullible MSM.
Real scientists are actually investigating the observed ocean temperature cycles across the world, and in the Arctic areas at least, the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing to the natural Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) as the culprit. (click image to enlarge)
"We present area-averaged time series of temperature for the 100–150 m
depth layer of the Barents Sea from 1900 through 2006. This record is
dominated by multidecadal variability on the order of 4C which is
correlated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation Index."...."The hint in the conclusion (which the authors stop short of defining)
is that the pattern of data, seen below, might be linked to the recent
pattern of Arctic sea ice melt and some partial recovery seen in the
last two years."
Read here. More often than not, we think of El Niño (or La Niña) events as contemporary climatic conditions. But researchers have determined that the ENSO climate behaviors were also important in climate history, on both sides of the Pacific Ocean.
[It should be remembered that climate models are incapable of correctly predicting these events despite their massive influence on the world's climate. After spending $79 billion on climate research that's a pretty sad statement.]
"The nine researchers conclude that "the finding of similar century-scale variability in climate archives from two El Niño-sensitive regions on opposite sides of the tropical Pacific strongly suggests that they are dominated by the low-frequency variability of ENSO-related changes in the mean state of the surface ocean in [the] equatorial Pacific." And that "century-scale variability," as they describe it, suggests that global warming typically tends to retard El Nino activity, while global cooling tends to promote it."