Month: February 2017
Judith Curry explains inherent flaws of computer models
Oceans leave computer predictions no chance
A paper by Judith Curry explains inherent flaws of computer models
predicting future climate change (GWPF, Feb. 2017)
Post February 28, 2017
Not the ocean dimension and system is primarily to blame for flawed climate models but science, which does not recognizing that they have far too few data, even worst, not even been able to acknowledge that the ocean is the ultimate key to understand and protect climate from human influence.
A previous post appraised the clear language by Dr. Judith Curry in a BBC radio- interview on climate science’s inability and unwillingness to explain the warm-up 1910-1940 and cooling 1940 to 1970. Few days ago the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) released her 30 page long paper “CLIMATE MODELS for the layman”. The paper emphasizes: The IPCC does not have convincing explanations for previous 30-year periods in the 20th century, notably the warming from 1910 to 1940 and the grand hiatus of 1940–1975”. We addressed the matter HERE. Nevertheless the paper’s deficiency is its ignorance of ocean matters, while the little that is said, shows a far too narrow view.
At page 8 the paragraph ‘chaos and natural internal climate variability’ mention as external forcing solar variations, volcanic eruptions or changes in atmospheric composition such as an increase in carbon dioxide, but not the oceans. They are merely addressed with reference to El Niño/La Niña, and as internal processes within the climate system (internal variability). That indicates gross ignorance. The El Niño phenomenon is only an extreme small fraction of the ocean dimension and within the ocean system, as each square-meter at the sea surface and any cubic-meter at any ocean-depth play a comparable role all over the world.
In so far we recommend reading Guest essay by Mike Jonas at WUWT on ocean heat, which explains the intake on a daily basis, whereby solar energy is absorbed into the top fraction of a millimetre of the ocean then mixes (conducts and convects) into the top 5-10m only, and nearly all of it stays in just the top (see Fig. 2).
On the other hand Mike Jones is wrong if he subsequently assumes that during every subsequent night, all heat is lost, back into the atmosphere. This assumption ignores that immediately after any heat intake, the warmed-up water is part of the horizontal and vertical sea current system and furthermore may be pushed down by sea waves (~ 3 Bft.+) or propeller driven vessels (or other human activities) to much greater depths. For example, a hurricane can push water from the sea surface layer down to about 50 meters. From there the water moves on, and the heat may only released back to the atmosphere after several days or many years. In this way international shipping presumably has significantly contributed to the global warming since the late 20th Century. Climate models must fail if not feed correspondingly.
Climate Models For The Layman: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf
GWPF Press Release: http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=513ddf56cb
WUWT – Mike Jones : https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/18/stokes-and-the-somehow-theory-of-ocean-heat/
The SST Discontinuity in the 1940s – But no answer
The SST Discontinuity in the 1940s – But no answer
Post 25 February 2017 ; Comments welcome
Few years ago David W.J. Thompson at al. attempt to explain “A large discontinuity in the mid-twentieth century in observed global-mean surface temperature“, published in NATURE, [Vol.453, 29May2008]. Whereas they confirmed that the Earth warmed from 1910 to1940 the subsequent cooling is explained very superficially, namely by a “variety of physical factors, such as atmosphere–ocean interactions and anthropogenic emissions of sulphate aerosols” and of “uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record”. That the large discontinuity has a strong correlation with World War II is not even mentioned. Fig. 1 & Fig. 5 (Source: HERE)
Immediately Bob Tisdale (2009) question the conclusion, due to obvious similarities in the shifts of the SST , the cloud cover and the marine air temperature datasets (HERE),but either ignoring human activities at sea in the 1940s as well. One dozen years earlier two papers discussed “Temperature taken during World War II” [Pacific; Atlantic], by showing that a huge variety of observation need to be analyzed before considering any ‘corrections’. But as Tisdale wonders that Thomson et al pay not any attention to other datasets showing the discontinuity as well, he either is short in asking the question: What is the cause of the observed discontinuity in the 1940s.
The convincing answer is presumably not very far away. Since September 1939 huge water masses were churned up-side-down, as a recent post mentioned. As many ten-thousand ships plugged the sea every day, and billion objects exploded and sunk to the bottom of the sea, over several dozen meters or few thousand kilometers. Aerial bombs, torpedoes and depth charges proved particularly effective. The photos are self-explanatory. One can only wonder that interest in any human impact on climate by activities at sea hardly exists.
NATURE, [Vol.453, 29May2008] = PDF
Bob Tisdale (2009)
Temperature taken during World War II” [Pacific]
Temperature taken during World War II” [Atlantic]
Global Cooling 1940 – 1975 explained for climate change experts
Global Cooling 1940 – 1975 explained for climate change experts
Post 18 Februray 2017; Continued from: dr-judith-curry-on-climate-sciences-fatal-flaw/ & warm-up-1918-1939-explained-for-dr-judith-curry-and-other/
In the previous post we lauded Dr. Judith Curry for her recent statement: “If science can’t explain climate shifts pre 1950, how can we trust today’s climate models?” One of these two shifts was the warming from 1918-1939, we covered: HERE; while the very significant global cooling period from winter 1939/40 to mid-1970s is our topic today, as it is either a widely unexplored field. In our view: the models fail because this cooling was man-made due to naval war during World War Second (WWII), at least according the work of Dr. Arnd Bernaerts (Book 2004
and Book 2012). With reference to them, we will try to explain a prima facie connection between these events, and how easy man can interfere with nature and initiate a pronounced climatic change.
Actually, not the impact of two brief naval wars on climate should be a top scientific agenda, but propeller driven motor ships. Many hundred-thousand ships transverse the oceans, up to 500 miles and more every day. During the last 170 years any ship at sea mixes the surface layer down to 20 meters and more, usually forcing more heat into the sea body than forcing colder water toward the surface. Much of the warming of global air temperature since about 1850 might have been caused in this way. Any proof in this respect is currently unavailable, as science is not aware of this point, even worse, incapable to recognize the oceans as principle driver of climate.
This scientific gap could be sufficiently eliminated by analyzing two short time periods of naval warfare during the two World Wars, while recognizing the different mechanisms that caused warming from 1918 to winter 1993/40 (HERE), and the global cooling thereon until about 1975. While the former period could be localized to an area from Great Britain to the Atlantic section in the Arctic Ocean, the caus
es of the latter period cover the entire North Atlantic (1939-1945) and the Pacific west of Hawaii (1941-1945), both with a very complex temperature, salinity and current structure, great depths, and temperatures of merely about 4°C. In this delicate marine environment, many ten-thousand war ships plugged the sea, and may billion objects exploded and sank to the bottom of the sea, over several dozen meters or thousand kilometers. Impossible that the sea structure (temperature and salinity) was not severely affected, and the ‘natural sea current profile’ not so heavily altered and diverted that it took at least one generation to erase the war impact, which lasted until about the 1970s. The attached temperature maps hardly allow another conclusion. As science has done nothing for proving anything in this respect, the impact of naval warfare on weather can be proven during the three extreme war winters in Europe 1939/40, 1940/41 and 1941/42, which came unexpected, and were in wide regions the coldest periods for more than 100 years.
With some interest and effort the three war winter can be sufficiently connected to human activities in the North Sea and Baltic since September 1939, due to the fact that these seas are fairly shallow (90m/55m), storing heat during the summer and releasing it in winter. It works like spoon stirring hot coffee, attracting cold air from Siberia (More HERE). In this respect they serve as confined research regions, like a unique field laboratory experiment. Each of the three winters produced its own finger-print, of which the most prominent are mentioned.
Winter 1939/40: From 1st September 1039 on the Southern North and Baltic Sea were covered by unprecedented activities from navigation, shelling, bombing, sea mines and so on. Very soon temperature fell from Brussels to Kaliningrad to levels not seen for several generations, and sea ice cover for many dozen years. In Berlin January and February temperature were second to the coldest ever recorded after 1709.
Fig. 4; Mid-January 1940 |
Fig. 5; Jan/Feb 1940 |
Fig. 6; Mid_February 1940 |
Winter 1940/4: During 1940 military activities concentrated from Narvik to Brest, and since April while occupying Norway, particularly affecting the Skagerrak aera. Subsequently the winter ‘cold pole’ covered Southern Norway, Western Sweden and Northern Denmark.
Winter 1941/42 is a particular illustrative case. The ambush on Russia since June 1941, included intensive naval warfare in the Eastern Baltic over seven months until sea ice prevented further activities. The Baltic region was thrown back to Little Ice Age condition, for example into the coldest winter in Stockholm since 1756, and unbelievable condition in Tallinn – see Fig. 9.
Fig. 7; Winter Denmark |
Fig. 8; Winter Stockholm |
Fig. 9; Winter Tallinn |
In Summary all three winters are so closely connected to naval war activities (outlined in detail over 160 pages – HERE that ongoing ignorance is irresponsible. Any proof, whether by a minor or high percentage, would ultimately require an indepth research on naval warfare on the global cooling 1940-1970s, and subsequently of merchant shipping and other ocean uses on global warming since 1850, which would quickly stand correctly for ‘AGW’ (anthropogenic global warming).
NOTE: The next post explicate a few further aspects on “Warming and Cooling since 1850″.
Book 2004: http://www.2030climate.com/
Book 2012: http://www.seaclimate.com/
Dr. Judith Curry on climate science’s fatal flaw
Dr. Judith Curry speaks out on climate science’s fatal flaw –
the failure to explore and understand uncertainty
Post: February 10, 2017 ; Comments welcome
Dr. Judith Curry speaks out on climate science’s fatal flaw but does she understand the climate change matter at least a little bit better? Unfortunately not, or have you heard her ever talking on the overwhelming predominate influence of the seas?
It was in a recent interview on British radio, February 6th [More at WUWT] that she mentioned climate science’s fatal flaw – the failure to explore and understand uncertainty, as a yet unaddressed issues of how ‘natural climate change’ drivers impact the earth’s climate, which indicates: Not understood’.
Judith Curry is to praise when mentioning:
___”If science can’t explain climate shifts pre 1950, how can we trust today’s climate models?”, and that
___“……the models fail to simulate the observed warming between 1910 and 1940.”
Actually, both time periods are closely correlated with the two great naval war activities about 10 and 7 decades ago. World War I presumably initiated the extreme warming from about winter 1918/19 to winter 1939/40, which saw the commencement of a three decades long global cooling. That is anthropogenic making pure and presumably one reason because computer models fail. But surely not alone!
More important is the most basic lack of understanding. Earth weather (and subsequently ‘climate’) is based on the law of physics. In this system the ration between ocean and atmosphere is 1000:3, in regard to average temperature about +4°C to 14°C. The vast dominance of the oceans concerning physical parameters is very obvious. If it is too big to understand, to assess, and to feed into computer models, should not allow speaking instead about ‘natural climate change’. A thorough investigation of the impact of the World Wars on the most pronounced climatic shifts since the end of the Little Ice Age about 170 years ago will demonstrate how easy major human activities – at sea – even over a short period of time may influence weather (and climate).
At the end of the interview Dr. Curry encourage people “who have concerns about the validity of arguments alleging man made climate change to continue to speak out about their concerns”, which we pick up by adding to the reasoning above: Any reference to “natural climate change’ undermines serious climate research.
More at WUWT: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/02/09/dr-judith-curry-speaks-out-on-climate-sciences-fatal-flaw-the-failure-to-explore-and-understand-uncertainty/
Not understood: https://oceansgovernclimate.com/703-2/
Recent Comments