Posted December 28. 2016
“The best kept secret in the ‘climate world’ probably is: the cooling capacity of the deep sea. Some attention is paid to the heat uptake by the oceans, but there is no attention for the cooling capacity of the deep sea. That capacity is huge and might be (and might have been) of decisive importance in climate and climate change”; says Wim Röst in a guest past at WUWT (26.Dec.2016).
The assessment is important, and the essay is recommended to be read due to the fine presentation of the oceanic dimension and temperature structure. But if Röst assume “Warming by [less] Upwelling of Cold Ocean Water”, he is speculating, as no data in this respect have been collected. Even if several ten-thousand devices would be put in place, it would require several dozen decades, before it might be possible to analyze a globally relevant correlation.
As outlined in a previous post (HERE) the only prolonged cooling period since 1850 occurred simultaneously together with the sinking of many ten-thousands of ships and air-planes, and billions of ammunition, as shells, torpedoes and depth-charges, arial bombs. Not only the surface layer is affected, but the entire water column, sometimes down to 10’000 meters, with the inevitable impact that cold water is pushed to the sea surface layer. The net result is cooling.
WUWT (26. December 2016) Wim Röst “Warming by [less] Upwelling of Cold Ocean Water”
posted Dece mber 26, 2016
After decades of warming, suddenly winter 1939/40 became the coldest in Europe in more than 100 years, which was the beginning of a global cooling for more than three decades. The reason has never been seriously investigated, although World War Two represents an unprecedented field experiment. Instead of assessing the impact of naval warfare on weather and climate, the discussion is merely about the interpretation of temperature statistics, as indicated in the two images. Are they misinterpreted?
The full title of a recent post at WUWT (Dec.15, 2016) is: “Global Cooling and Wikipedia Fake News”, referring to:
___an excellent new post up at notrickszone.com (Sept.13, 2016) on the global cooling scare of the 1970’s and the efforts to erase it from the record by the climate alarmists at realclimate.com. For some the scandal at Wikipedia over William Connolley deliberately posting false articles and altering factual ones on climate is old news. This is for those who missed the story. William Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. “Fake news” is an old story, used extensively by radical climate alarmists and environmentalists. Indeed, Greenpeace seems to be based on the concept of fake news.” More at NTZ. As NTZ mention:
___”, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5°C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3°C globally between the 1940s and 1970s.”,
one need only to ask what did naval warfare contribute since September 1939, to the extreme winters in Europe and global Temperature decline, noting that naval war took place primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, which resulted in lower mean temperatures than globally over several decades.
WUWT, 26.Dec.16; https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/25/global-cooling-and-wikipedia-fake-news/
notrickszone.com (Sept.13, 2016): http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.qs6tEItL.dpbs
The New York Time brought the news on the front page of the December 9th 1941 issue: “US declares war” and that the “Nazis give up idea of Moscow in 1941. Winter forces abandoning big drives in the north (N- Europe) until spring, Berlin says”. Since November temperature and snow conditions became worse than the wildest imagination. What is not known is that Hitler could only blame himself and his weather-advisors for this enormous miscalculation. They had expected a mild winter. (More) They had not learned anything from the previous two cold winters 1939/40 and 1940/41, and the role that naval war had played.
And again, Hitler’s great field experiment in climate-change by naval war in the seas around Europe showed quick and thorough results. Europe was unexpectedly back in the Little Ice Age. A number of locations got the coldest winter ever recorded. The ‘great commander’ had shot himself in the back. The weather conditions Hitler’s warfare forced to arrive marked the beginning of the end of the Third Reich.
And what did climatology learn from this “experiment”? Nothing! They never even showed any interest in the three war winters 1939/40-1941/42 (More: essay in PDF, 13 pages . . Anyone who claims to understand climate change must also be able to explain these events. Anyone who can explain these events will recognize that the oceans play the key role in any and all questions of the climate.
Arctic Report Card 2016 – An Insufficient Work
Posted December 19, 2016
“It’s crazy.” Since 2006, the Arctic Report Card is issued annually, and the four dozen authors, miss the most fundamental aspect in their annual review ever since; facts and discussion of changes in the sea water structure concerning temperatures and salinity. There are hundreds of military, commercial , research and leisure ships navigating the open and ice covered Arctic Ocean, but science is not even able to mention the threat by human activities. That is crazy.
While it is a fact that a persistent warming trend and loss of sea ice trigger Arctic changes, it is necessary to acknowledge that the prime source is the sea water column, which is extreme sensitive to human activities (see image), particularly in those sea areas which are ice covered. But the repot does neither acknowledge this aspect, nor does it offer any information. Instead the “surface air temperature” is in focus and one of the leading scientists Mark Serreze, is quoted: “Personally, I would have to say that this last year has been the most extreme year for the Arctic that I have ever seen. It’s crazy.” Indeed, the report is waste of time and money without details on changes in the water column, and telling the public about any possible impact scientific research and other activities in the Arctic may have on air temperature and sea ice cover.
Web-Site to the report: http://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card
The Report in PDF: ftp://ftp.oar.noaa.gov/arctic/documents/ArcticReportCard_full_report2016.pdf
Posted December 16, 2016
Soon Shinzo Abe is to make a historic visit to Pearl Harbour, the first by a Japanese leader. By a devastating sneak attack on Pearl Harbour on Dec. 7, 1941, a prolonged naval war across the Western Pacific commenced. This naval war pushed the Pacific in a cooling mood, contributing to the global cooling period from 1940 to the mid-1970s. The dramatic shift in the early 1940s in the “Pacific Decadal Oscillation” (PDO) is known for decades, but nothing about its causation. Science is unaware of the profound correlation between naval warfare and its impact on climate, and that after 75 years have passed. A profound analysis is HERE.
This major topic in a world that fears anthropogenic climate change will not be raised during the meeting of Abe with Obama in Pearl Harbor on Dec. 26 and 27. Decades have passed and no lesson learned from the impact of many thousand warship and several ten-thousand air planes involved in dozen of naval activities; bombing, torpedoing, shelling, and ploughing the sea. Any activity penetrated and revolved the sea down to dozen, in many cases down to several hundred meters. Many million objects, vessels, air planes, shells, torpedoes, and so on, sunk to the sea bottom, sometimes over many thousand meters.
It was a grand human filed experiment on climate change. It worked perfectly, while world leader pretend doing everything to minimise human caused climate change, are still unable to see the only benefit the naval war has offered: to understand Oceans Govern Climate. What a failure!
Climate models have problems. The problems are as old as science attempts to understand climate change by model simulation. That will last until a thorough ocean observation system is in place, and overriding impact of the oceans on climate is accepted, understood and applied in climate sciences..
But the narrow vies continues to prevail, as recently expressed by Dr. Patrick Brown (2016/12/05), when saying:
Since it is known that unforced GMST (‘global mean surface temperature’ ) variability is heavily influenced by tropical Pacific surface temperatures, it might be tempting to suppose that the large inter-model spread in the simulated magnitude of GMST variability is due to model disagreement in the amount of simulated tropical Pacific variability. Perhaps surprisingly, our study shows that this is not the case and that the spread in the magnitude of model-simulated GMST variability is linked much more strongly to model disagreements over high-latitude oceans. Our findings suggesting that improving the simulation of air-sea interaction in these high-latitude ocean regions could narrow the range of simulated GMST variability, advance our fundamental understanding of natural variability, and appreciably improve our ability to forecast global warming on policy-relevant timescales.
With this understanding science is unlikely to make any progress, as the analysis ignores completely the changing of internal oceanic forces, with a physical capacity 1’000 times higher as of the atmosphere. However it is to acknowledge that Dr. Brown realizes that further progress is not possible without more attention to the sea.
REFERENCE: Why do climate models disagree on the size of global temperature variability? Posted on December 5, 2016 by ptbrown31
Afraid of Scott Pruitt? – Blame yourself!
Posted: December 11, 2016
Emerge now the unique chance to review the whole climate change matter, since Donald Trump selected the sceptic Scott Pruitt to serve as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The pick of the Oklahoma Attorney General has been described as “putting an arsonist in charge of fighting fires”, with some warning “the whole country is in danger”, even an “existential threat to the planet”.
The concern has merits, but is that Pruitt’s fault? Could Pruitt be not right when casting doubt on whether human activity is causing the planet to warm – in opposite to 97% of the scientific community? For sure if he addresses only the arrogance of the 97% who believe in the warming by carbon dioxide, but wrong if Pruitt would generally deny a serious correlation between human activities and global warming since industrialization during the last 170 years; as the oceans matter.
Since the end of the Little Ice Age about 1850, huge shipping fleets plough through the sea, pushing more heat in the sea, as the sea can release again soon. The net result is warming the seas. Due to human activities at sea the oceans warm, and the atmosphere as well. But as 97% of the scientific community is ignorant in this respect, main stream science lack the arguments to challenge President-elect Donald Trump and soon-to-be EPA chief Scott Pruitt on anthropogenic climate change matters. They should blame themselves if the protection of climate is not addressed appropriate.
Holy Molly – A young Lady and Al Gore
The future first daughter is reportedly planning to make climate change one of her signature issues. On Monday the 5th of December Ivanka Trump met with former Vice President Al Gore to discuss “climate issues”. After the meeting, Gore disclosed he had also met with the president-elect, describing the conversation as “very productive” and a “sincere search for areas of common ground.”
Holy Molly what is Rep Senator Jim Inhofe going to say, who calls Climate change talking the “Greatest Hoax”, confirming this assessment in a statement only one month ago: “Americans do not support …economically damaging mandates that have no measurable impact to climate change.” (More HERE) That hardly fits together. On one side a man who once said that “the world had until 27th January 2016 to end its addiction to fossil fuels or it would come to an end; and on the other hand someone who promises to “make America great again”. How those shall work, and worst if based on a far too narrow knowledge base – as outlined in the pervious post.
But hope moves mountains, as an Opinion by Thomas L Friedman in the NYT (Int. Edition 12/08/16)* indicates: “I don’t expect Trump to abandon his effort to increase oil drilling or to ban coal”; while concluding his text with the hope: “As long as Trump is open to learning on the environment, we have to push our best and brightest through the doors of Trump Tower to constructively engage him”.
That leaves here only room for two questions.
(A) Belongs Al Gore to the brightest in America?
(B) Have there been serious indication over the last 12 months, that the President-elect is able and willing to learn?
Even it is eventually a little bit the case, are Jim Inhofe and his colleagues not immediately crying fool?
Contrary to all expectation, can ‘a Beauty and a Beast’ make a difference?
*) NYT, Thursday, December 8, 2016, p1 &13: “Say what, AL, Donald and Ivanka” Opinion by Thomas L. Friedman.
Posted 07 December 2016: Comments: open
On Wednesday November 9, 2016, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW), released a statement on future of the United States’ commitment to the Paris Agreement (A).
If someone regards global warming as the conspiracy and has written a book about the subject (B) in which he claimed that “our rigorous oversight of the IPCC began with my “Greatest Hoax” speech in 2003”, the announcements made four weeks ago, “that a future administration will have numerous options to forego political commitments under the Paris Agreement” will change the general scenario considerably.
Presumably Jim Inhofe talk is as much vacuous as that of his opponents is. Both ignore the fundamental climate driver, the oceans. Both are incapable to define the term CLIMATE in a meaningful manner (more here). To deny ‘global warming’ over the last 150 years since the end of the Little Ice Age is as ignorant, as the claim by his opponents on AGW by carbon dioxide.
The Republicans are soon in a comfortable position to challenge IPCC and the Paris Accord. It would be time for J. Inhofe to look more serious into the matter, ensure that wrong facts, or a gut instinct, are used to formulate politics to minimize anthropogenic interference in weather matters, which is a highly possible issue, if one no longer ignores, human ocean uses since the mid-19th Century.
(A) Inhofe Statement On The Future Of U.S. Commitments To The Paris Agreement. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases-republican?ID=1112F3E4-1DF6-41B8-9423-C2945C8E779D
(B) US Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.); The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future 1st Edition -2012; https://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493
The 1430s: A Cold Period – Why?
Posted December 03, 2016; NOTE: Comments Section Activated
A recent paper (A) by 32 scientists assume, “that the 1430s were the coldest decade in north-western and central Europe in the 15th century, and that this decade is characterised by cold winters and average to warm summers”. No surprise that WUWT titled the story: “Cold Kills: The coldest decade of the millennium”, but merely asking: “cold kills, so why all the whining about warming?”(B), while remaining silent about the papers notion, that “…these conditions occurred by chance due to the partly chaotic internal variability within the climate system”. This is shocking. What is “internal variability”?
Leading scientists seem incapable to understand that climate (and weather) is physics, plain physics, and that the oceans, next to the sun, are the driver of the system. The oceans are so big and so cold that they can provide a cooling within a few months, sustain it over years and generate a new ice age. Referring to internal variability is a confession of failure. Chantal Camenisch and her colleagues lack the necessary competence, if they are not even able to ask what influence the oceans might have had. Why are they not being challenged to explain that the oceans have, or not have contributed? Not mentioning the oceans at all is a serious scientific default.
(A) The 1430s: a cold period of extraordinary internal climate variability during the early Spörer Minimum with social and economic impacts in north-western and central Europe.