The most popular climate rule, ‘natural climate variability’, is utter nonsense.
In a recent post about global warming or climate change, Roy Spencer assumes that “we will not have much more scientific confidence ten years from now”. The problem is obvious when he wonders: “How much of recent warming has been natural?” He is not alone.
The climatologist likes to use the term ‘natural climate variability’, which is said to arise from two different sources: (1) internal variability from interactions among components of the climate system, for example, between the ocean and the atmosphere, and (2) natural external forcing, such as variations in the amount of radiation from the Sun. (Details: judithcurry.com/2016/08/08/). That is a complete irrelevant approach.
The global weather system is working according to the law of physics. The major components are water and heat. ‘Natural climate variability’, is screaming nonsense. In our previous post (HERE) we site C.F. Brooks (1918): “At all times, the diverse temperatures of water, land, and snow surfaces control weather details, which, when long continued, become large features “. The sentence is clear and leaves no room for ‘natural variability’.
The fact that the system is highly complex does not allow talking nonsense. Actually the inability to reasonable assessing and modeling the system is due to the largeness of the ocean water. With regard to the global heat system the ratio is roughly 1:1000, which means – very generally speaking – ocean observing may require a system that is one thousand-times larger than that currently used for observing the atmosphere. But instead of using a meaningless and misleading term “natural variability”, it is better to admit shortcomings, respectively to explain: ‘oceans-govern-climate’, and that more understanding and care for the oceans may minimize anthropogenic climate changes by improper ocean uses.
Post: March 26, 2017
On one hand the Atlantic sea ice extent during summer 1917 is the only one ever observed (previous post), on the other hand only few month later the United States east of the Rockies winter 1917/18 was remarkably cold. It started with an unusual autumn, explained C.F. Brooks (1918): “The advance guard of our cold winter appeared on August 8 when a strong winter type of anticyclone, or “high,” entered the United States from the Canadian Northwest”. Could that mean that naval warfare in Europe via the low Arctic winter temperature 1916/17 (see previous post) , or sea ice condition summer 1917 in the North Atlantic, contributed to a record cold winter in the United States?
The 11-pages essay by C.F. Brooks mentions: “CONTROL OF THE WEATHER BY SURFACE TEMPERATURES. At all times, the diverse temperatures of water, land, and snow surfaces control weather details, which, when long continued, become large features. These surfaces affect not only the temperatures and moisture content of the winds, but also control the paths and strengths of cyclones and anticyclones. Water surfaces, whenever warm relative to the surrounding temperatures, always become centers of cyclonic activity and, therefore, are stormy. …cont” (PDF-HERE)
Naval war in Europe had a pronounced effect on sea water temperatures around Great Britain and in Northern North Atlantic; a contributing link to US winter condition 1917/18 is not impossible – if one takes Brooks’ remark seriously.
Charles F. Brooks; The “Old-Fashioned” Winter of 1917-18; Source: Geographical Review,Vol. 5, No. 5 (May, 1918), pp. 405-414 (free download PDF)
NYT 1977; The Winter of 1917–18 Was a Cold One…
Access to sea-ice-page starting 1901, http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/climatology/months.shtml
North Atlantic sea ice in summer 1917 could
teach climate science many lessons.
Post March 15, 2017; Source: http://www.arctic-warming.com/
Never has such a high sea ice extent been observed in the North Atlantic as in summer 1917 (Fig.1a-1b). This exceptional case has never been investigated. Worst! Science seems not to have taken notice of it, even though thorough understanding of the event could possibly answer two important questions concerning climate change:
FIRST: Contribute the late icing and subsequent melting process to the sudden extraordinary warming at Svalbard and polar region since winter 1918/19, (Fig.2)?
SECOND: Contributed the naval war around Great Britain from1914 to 1918 (Fig. 3) to the exceptional icing, which lasted until 1939/40 (Fig. 4)? [A detailed WWI account –HERE]
Although air temperatures at Svalbard fell to all-time record low in winter 1917, sea ice conditions in March were usual (Fig. 1a). In general annual sea ice extent is highest in April, but succeeded average already in April 1917, but continued to rise to an unknown high level in May and June of 2017, which presumably has not happen for more than 200 years or longer. Even in late July the sea ice remained at an unusual high level. This late and extensive icing process may have had a pronounced impact and ocean water structure, from sea level to may hundred meter depth, which could have influenced the most significant climatic change in the 20th Century, namely the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere warming that started 18 months later in winter 1918/19 (Fig. 4).
Interesting that Willis Eschenbach observed a significant temperature discontinuity in the Northern North Atlantic at Vardo/Norway (Fig. 5) between 1917 and 1920. But he offers no explanation, neither mentions the naval war in Europe, nor the exceptional sea ice in summer 1917. A pity, the climatic developments in the North Atlantic during WWI could teach climate sciences many important lessons.
Posted March 10. 2017 – Comments welcome
The easiest way to grasp how climate works is to: Shell and bomb Japan severely over a couple of weeks and you will get an extreme cold winter in Japan. Here is the proof. Since late autumn 1944 the Allies warfare machinery could target location and ports in Japan, and merchant and war ships in all sea areas surrounding the island country. Immediately the winter 1944/45 (Dec/Jan/Feb) became the coldest on record since data were taken regularly, which should not come as surprise. (Fig. 1,2, and 7).
All sea areas around Japan are very deep and very cold. The average sea water temperature will hardly exceed 5 to 6 ° Celsius. Only the very top sea surface layer is up to about 15° warmer in the southern region (24°N), and only remotely higher in the North (40°N). But when several thousand merchant and warships, as well as many ten-thousand warplanes operate above, and below the sea surface, the extreme thin surface layer is ‘destroyed’ and replaced by much colder water.
The immediate result was inevitable. Japan’ winter 1944/45 (DJF) was the coldest on record. The deviation from average is very pronounced and particularly significant as it has to be attributed to man-made cause. How can climate change ever be understood, if science is unwilling and unable to understand and acknowledge such easy case on anthropogenic climate change?
|Figure 6||Figure 7||Figure 8|