Climate scientists praise global warming ‘hiatus’ science boost 

Posted: June 7, 2020 by oldbrew in climate, modelling, Natural Variation, Ocean dynamics, predictions, Temperature
Tags: , ,

So when global temperatures failed to behave as models expected due to inevitable but hard to predict natural variation, they were forced to re-think – or just think? The GWPF concludes, at the risk of stating the obvious: ‘The lesson of the hiatus is that we do not understand internal climatic variability as much as many think we do, and our predictive power is less than many believe.’
– – –
Researchers from the Universities of Princeton, California, Tokyo, Kyushu and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, say the recent hiatus in global temperature increase has led to a surge in climate science.

The global effort to understand the global warming hiatus they say has led to increased understanding of some of the key metrics of global climate change such as global temperature and ice-cover.

Searching for an answer to the hiatus, they say, meant that the scientific community grappled with difficulties with these climate metrics, in particular the fact that they do not unequivocally portray the same story about global warming.

For instance, as the global surface temperature increase underwent an apparent slowdown, Antarctic sea ice expanded, and boreal summer Arctic sea ice declined rapidly, at least until 2007. Hot and cold extremes increased in northern hemisphere continents, and the Hadley circulation shifted poleward.

Many of the changes are not ones expected due to increasing greenhouse gas forcing. For some this called into question the viability of computer models of the climate and whether these changes indicated a fundamental lack in our understanding and ability to simulate radiatively forced changes, or indeed if internal climate variability alone is sufficient to explain the changes.

The researchers point out that since the hiatus was identified just over a decade ago it stimulated advances in our understanding of the multidecadal variability of these key metrics, providing insight into internal climate variability.

As well as drawing attention to biases in the temperature record it has also improved our understanding of the role of the tropical Pacific Ocean in mean global temperature.

Despite the research progress many challenges remain, especially due to the relatively short timescale of the observations.

There are also limitations of climate models in simulating internal, multidecadal climate variability and the way radiatively forced changes interact with that inherent variability.

Continued here.

  1. tallbloke says:

    “The lesson of the hiatus is that we do not understand internal climatic variability as much as many think we do, and our predictive power is less than many believe.”

    The words “Solar” and “Sun” appear in this article exactly zero times, while “internal variability” gets eight mentions.

    The understanding isn’t just “less”. It’s the square root of f*uck all.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Even Wikipedia, which supports the IPCC version of climate theory, uses words starting with ‘varia’ (e.g. variation) 48 times on its ‘Solar cycle’ page. But they still don the blinkers:

    The current scientific consensus, most specifically that of the IPCC, is that solar variations only play a marginal role in driving global climate change,[79] since the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the forcing due to greenhouse gases.

    But solar variation isn’t just TSI, as their own page admits. The best they can do is:

    Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are proposed to potentially affect global climate, but it has proven challenging to show any link between solar variation and climate.

  3. Gamecock says:

    ‘Average of 102 model runs.’

    The average of junk is . . . junk. I never cease to be amazed by the intellectual vacancy of climate scientists.

  4. Gamecock says:

    ‘Both long-term and short-term variations in solar activity are proposed to potentially affect global climate, but it has proven challenging to show any link between solar variation and climate.’

    This is another area of intellectual vacancy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam. They don’t know what causes changes in global mean temperature, so it must be greenhouse gas forcing. Man made is the default. If they fail to find another cause – which they aren’t even trying to do – it’s Man’s fault.

  5. tom0mason says:

    Of course the fixation on averaged global temperature of the troposphere is a chimera.
    It seems to be quite unreasonable that this single metric is dubbed the controller of this planet’s climate.

    Are not other changes affecting the climate? Changes in the solar variation (and all it’s attributes that impact the Earth), oceanic movements and temperature, or global troposphere’s atmospheric pressure and humidity also as important?
    And above the troposphere — Back in 2010 researcher noted that the thermosphere had shrank, reducing by some 15% ( Of course this could not have any effect on the climate down at the surface — could it? Some research data here would be enlightening!
    Recent atmospheric displays appear to show that electrical discharges and other effect seen in the sky are on the increase — STEVEs, Green glow, etc., along with ionospheric changes appear coincident with the Earth’s magnetic variation and possible coupling to the solar variation.
    This planet’s atmosphere from ground level up to the far reaches is a dynamic entity.

  6. oldbrew says:

    The models can’t hindcast the past temperatures, so what’s the point of pretending to forecast the future temps with them? Leave it to fortune tellers.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Brainwashing news…

    New Jersey becomes first US state to add climate change to kindergarten curriculum
    7 June 2020

    New Jersey students will start to learn about climate change at the early age of four-to-six years, as the issue will soon be taught in kindergarten across the US state.
    – – –
    How do you ‘teach an issue’? Like this…

    Al Gore congratulates NJ becoming first to teach climate change
    June 4, 2020

    Brain-rot for all.

  8. cognog2 says:

    The groupthink syndrome has really got them all into a bit of a muddle methinks. It needs someone outside the box to knock a few heads together; but sadly the box is very watertight these days.

  9. Gamecock says:

    ‘New Jersey students will start to learn about climate change at the early age of four-to-six years, as the issue will soon be taught in kindergarten across the US state.’

    Start scaring them early.

  10. gbaikie says:

    Well you teach climate change fairy tales in kindergarten, it’s better idea than sex education.
    I think one wider variety fairy tales taught in kindergarten, old ones and new ones, such as Star wars.
    Climate change in comic book form should real hit among the kiddies.And generally I think all religions should given in comic book form.
    The “greenhouse effect theory” is myth generated by some village idiots.
    Atmosphere has to do with weather.
    Global climate has to do with global oceans.
    The warmth or coolness of entire volume of ocean “controls” global temperature in longer time periods- decades, centuries, and thousands of years.
    In terms decades or less, global temperature is mostly about ocean surface temperatures.
    The average temperature of tropics is controlled average temperature of tropical ocean region. And
    the tropical ocean surface temperature is the world’s heat engine.
    Tropical ocean has thickest warm layer of ocean water, and this thick layer water at the ocean surface, maintains the high and uniform average air temperature of the tropics.
    The tropics has thick warm layer of ocean surface waters, because the tropical region receive most of energy of sunlight upon it’s surface. And the ocean absorbs both direct and indirect sunlight which strikes the ocean surface.
    When sunlight is at or near zenith, direct sunlight is about 1050 watts per square meter and direct and indirect sunlight is about 1120 watts per square meter {the tropics is only region which can have sunlight precisely at zenith]. And tropics gets most sunlight reaching surface as the sunlight spends more time closer to zenith than compared to regions outside of the tropics.
    Roughly everywhere on Earth receives 12 hours of daylight on average, and what different is tropics has higher portion of daylight with having the sunlight closer to zenith.
    Another way to say it, if you want solar panel to receive the most amount sunlight, you point the surface which collect solar energy at the sun.
    If solar panel is fixed [always pointing one direction} in the tropic you have solar panel level to surface to get most sunlight over a year’s period of time. If in say northern hemisphere a fixed solar panel points south and tilted upward away from a level surface, which is unlike the natural terrain which isn’t tilted in the same direction {“on average” and/or with the ocean, it’s level}.
    Anyways since tropical ocean receives most sunlight and has thick warm surface, it’s not effected much by the warmness or coolness of the entire ocean. The tropical stays warm whether in glacial or interglacial periods during the millions of years of our present Ice Age. And if it didn’t, tropical plant which require warm tropical conditions to live, would not currently exist.
    In term entire volume of ocean, it’s said, 90% of ocean is 3 C or colder.
    When 90% of ocean is 2 C or colder, you in glacial period. When 90% is 4 C or colder you are warmer part of interglacial period than you are now.
    Said differently in our Ice Age the average ocean temperature has range from 1 to 5 C, currently we at about 3.5 C.
    Earth’s global average temperature extreme states, are icehouse climate {Ice Age} and hothouse {greenhouse} climate which could average ocean temperature of 15 C or more.
    Unless you believe in fairy tale of Snowball Earth, which I would guess has average ocean of 0 C or less

  11. Paul Vaughan says:

    The headline
    “Climate scientists praise”
    would read
    “Climate scientist prays” for God’s help within sight.

    Material science 101: Phase change.
    Circulation 101: Wind.

    The sun’s changing pace grades different[ial] states of water.
    Monstrous moonshine 101: Ice margin keys discrete-continuous relations.

    I illustrated aggregate simplicity countless years ago.
    The mainstream was unable to accept the truth, so matters are now left in Gods hands.

    If you regress temperature on sunspots and look at the residuals you see a clear pattern. If the mainstream narrative was true, that would not be so. The mainstream narrative on solar-terrestrial relations is TOTAL bullshit — in the most satanic sense possible — LITERALLY. We are dealing with evil and this is increasingly dangerous — for real.

  12. stpaulchuck says:

    not once do I ever hear these warmists getting up from their entrails of sheep to test any null hypothesis. Not one. Yet lying around in easy reach are all sorts of great papers with alternative theories that actually do account for the climate over time. We’ve read them here: Scafetta, Nikolov & Zeller, etc.

    But because it is now a religion none of the priests will hazard being called apostate by even reading these wonderful papers. Here’s a great line that also nails their idiot junk science right from the horses mouth (or other end).
    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” – IPCC TAR WG1, Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
    and then they keep trying to “adjust” their computer models to keep up with the actual climate and fail and fail and … etc.

  13. stpaulchuck says:

    just like the recent debacle over at The Lancet with totally fake data, here’s just one example of the nonsense being used to try to do science (GIGO)
    Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2
    Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

    [in part]
    For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man’s activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.

    [presentation of facts, then...]

    The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.” – Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski – Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection Warsaw, Poland []

  14. 1) There is no “radiation forcing” of the global mean temperature, of any kind, but especially of a “greenhouse effect” due to radiative “greenhouse gases”.

    2) The ocean also does not control the global mean temperature, simply because:

    3) Heat transport — whether by radiation, convection or conduction (and nobody can separate the three anyway, beyond arbitrarily defining an “effective range” of each) — depends only upon the temperature gradient. It is ALL about the temperature gradient, between the planetary surface and the tropopause, the top of the troposphere.

    4) The fundamental vertical pressure distribution within the troposphere, for a planet with sufficiently massive atmosphere, defines the temperature gradient within the troposphere. Above approximately 200 mb pressure, the vertical pressure distribution (fundamentally, for a gas held down only by gravitational attraction of the planetary body) enforces the well-known HYDROSTATIC condition, in which the pressure at any given level in the troposphere is just the weight of the atmosphere ABOVE that level.

    5) The century-and-a-half old Standard Atmosphere model enshrines the hydrostatic condition of the global troposphere, by defining its immediate consequence, the vertical temperature “lapse rate” structure, of a constant -6.5K/km of altitude temperature gradient in the troposphere. This and this alone governs the global mean temperature — and since it is unchanging, this means there can be NO global warming OR global cooling, so long as the mass of the atmosphere and the distance from the energy source, the Sun, remain the same (one can talk about variation in the strength of the solar radiation, but it is small: for the past 10,000 years, the global mean temperature has varied by only about +/- one-half of one degree Celsius; beyond that 10,000 years past, it is all empty speculation, at best, and at worst, “Ice Age” propaganda). Even IF the ocean surface temperature changes, on a global scale, it cannot affect the atmospheric temperature gradient, nor in consequence the temperature at any level in the troposphere, from the surface all the way to the tropopause.

    6) The all-powerful hydrostatic condition — it is only broken locally and transiently, however often, not globally — means the atmosphere is not warmed by the heated Earth surface. It is heated, or maintained at constant temperature, by direct absorption of incident solar radiation. That part of the solar radiation that DOES heat the surface, merely does so unevenly, and thus drives the weather (including the wind circulations), but NOT the global mean surface temperature. The constancy of temperature in near-surface caves, at around 57-59F worldwide, demonstrates this fairly well.

    7) The climate “scientists” are learning NOTHING. There is no valid consensus climate science, and no competent climate scientists, after the worldwide miseducation of scientists, effectively since they turned away from the unchanging Standard Atmosphere model in order to chase a chimera of runaway global temperature. The atmosphere is STABLE, period, against either warming or cooling.

    My 2010 Venus/Earth temperatures comparison proves all of this (see “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect” and my name, if you are interested enough to check it out). The temperature-pressure (T-P) curves of both tropospheres are essentially the same, over the full range of Earth tropospheric pressures, when the Venus curve is adjusted only for Venus’s different distance from the Sun, very precisely. This, despite Venus’s atmosphere being almost pure CO2 (96.5%), while Earth’s CO2 is only a trace (0.04%).

  15. oldbrew says:

    Many of the changes are not ones expected due to increasing greenhouse gas forcing.

    What do they learn from that, apart from nothing and asking for fancier computers?

  16. Stephen Richards says:

    The UK sinks further and further into a massive global warming debt hole pushed there by the most left wing right wing government ever.

    Come on Farage. Get out of that radio studio and do something.

  17. gbaikie says:

    –harrydhuffman (@harrydhuffman) says:
    June 8, 2020 at 1:50 pm
    1) There is no “radiation forcing” of the global mean temperature, of any kind, but especially of a “greenhouse effect” due to radiative “greenhouse gases”.–
    Is there any kind of warming from any greenhouse gases?
    Does increase in greenhouse gases cause any kind radiant heat loss or gain.
    Or radiantly do any greenhouse gases cause warming or cooling.
    Do any greenhouse gas cause any kind of warming or cooling.
    Or claiming there is no effect of any kind in terms cooling or warming
    from adding or removing any greenhouse gas.

    It seems there some effect and I don’t think greenhouse gases cause a lowering
    of global average air temperature.
    Though I think there can appear to be a cooling effect. As in CO2 levels rise and then later global temperature always appears to lower.

    And it appear to me, that clouds of Venus cause a warming effect.
    And it appears that clouds on Earth have warming effect.
    But appears to me, the Earth ocean temperature- both entire ocean temperature
    and the ocean surface temperature controls global air temperature.
    One can say ocean and clouds have cooling and warming effect, but mostly the net
    result is increasing global air temperature.
    It seems O3 has warming effect. And CO2 have warming effect.
    I would say the warming effect of doubling say 300 ppm to 600 ppm of CO2 is increase
    of global air temperature within the range of zero to 1/2 a degree C.
    As likely. It might cause cooling and might cause warming effect as much as, say 1 C.
    But amount of CO2 does not seem to force global temperature, it seems to follow global
    And major element of Earth climate is the temperature of surface of the tropical ocean.
    Or as is commonly said the tropical ocean is the heat engine of the world.
    And idea that tropical ocean could ever freeze, is a very far fetched idea.
    As tropical ocean receives far more sunlight than the rest of the world.

  18. gbaikie says:

    –2) The ocean also does not control the global mean temperature, simply because:

    3) Heat transport — whether by radiation, convection or conduction (and nobody can separate the three anyway, beyond arbitrarily defining an “effective range” of each) — depends only upon the temperature gradient. It is ALL about the temperature gradient, between the planetary surface and the tropopause, the top of the troposphere.–
    It seems it should 2a) heat transport…”
    Well I would heat gradient of air and ocean where air is warmest at bottom of atmosphere and ocean waters are warmest at the surface, has large effect upon the NUMBER of 15 C.
    Or the number of 15 C has global temperature is largely a choice or an arbritary way to measure Earth’s temperature or more accurately Earth surface when taking the skin of the large molten rock ball called Earth. Skin or surface is of scale of kilometers thick, and that skin/surface is not 15 C.
    So would rather say Earth’s surface temperature is basically the average temperature of the volume of ocean, which is 3.5 C.
    Which apparent by chance is about the temperature of a ideal thermally conductive blackbody surface in a Vacuum at 1 AU distance from the Sun. Or such ideal thermally conductive blackbody
    uniform temperature is about 5 C.

    If you squint. and perhaps misuse language {as surely a space alien might do with the English language] one can apply this to Venus.
    The main thing about Venus is it’s surface is mostly it’s clouds.
    One can’t say that Earth surface is mostly it’s clouds. One can say Earth surface is mostly the Earth ocean. And most important part of Earth’s ocean is the tropical ocean, which is 80% of area of the tropical zone. But Earth has some clouds, and should not completely ignore this smaller factor.
    But mostly with Earth it’s about the Earth ocean and on Venus it’s mostly about it’s thick clouds.

    If Venus is mostly about it’s clouds, what about atmosphere which 94 times more massive than Earth atmosphere. As clue, I would say Venus is like a gas giant. I might call it a small hot gas giant even though it’s far cooler than icy gas giant or the bigger non icy gas giant.
    Wiki, Ice Giant:
    “An ice giant is a giant planet composed mainly of elements heavier than hydrogen and helium, such as oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. There are two ice giants in the Solar System: Uranus and Neptune.”
    But Venus as hot gas giant has got a small atmosphere, so why I call small and hot gas giant.
    But probably better label would be that Venus is a small gas giant with surface of clouds in which the clouds are heated by sunlight and surface of atmosphere near rocky surface is hot.
    Or a small gas giant in which the gas is warmed by a cloudy surface which is heated by sunlight.
    Or further from the Sun, Venus is frozen planet. And don’t need to go far, just at or beyond Mars distance from the sun.

  19. gbaikie says:

    –4) The fundamental …–
    Which I would 2b.
    I don’t find anything to say about it- I guess I agree.
    –5) The century-and-a-half old Standard Atmosphere model enshrines the hydrostatic condition of the global troposphere, by defining its immediate consequence, the vertical temperature “lapse rate” structure, of a constant -6.5K/km of altitude temperature gradient in the troposphere. This and this alone governs the global mean temperature — and since it is unchanging, this means there can be NO global warming OR global cooling, so long as the mass of the atmosphere and the distance from the energy source, the Sun…–

    Except we have glacial and interglacial periods.
    And when not in our Ice Age, Earth has had much warmer ocean and much higher average global air temperature.
    And I should note that what a much higher average temperature means, is it is a more uniform temperature. Or the tropics is not very hot, the tropics has an extremely high average temperature because it has far more uniform temperature.
    Or tropical island paradises are not hellishly hot. Instead they are always somewhat close to ideal temperature for a tropical creature, that we call a human.
    So Earth has a high average global air temperature, and that means most of earth air temperature has near tropical temperature, poleward it’s a cooler uniform average temperature than a tropical island paradise.
    Or one rarely gets close to 0 C or colder, unless you are at high elevation. Or in tropics one has freezing temperature when at higher elevation.
    Or it’s said Europe’s average temperature is significantly increased by the Gulf stream. Europe’s average temperature is about 9 C and would colder than 1 C if not for warming effect of Gulf Stream.
    Rather than localized effect of Gulf Stream, it’s global effect of the warming effect of Gulf Stream. And Europe average temperature instead of 9 C, could more than 15 C. Which is 9 C cooler than India which has average temperature of 24 C [75.2 F}.

  20. hunterson7 says:

    So now there was a hiatus. Better clear this with Mann. He still denies there ever was one.

  21. hunterson7 says:

    Hmmmm…the hiatus ended over a decade ago?
    Not according to the data..
    The post hoc assertion that the hiatus helped prove the consensus pile of crap is like when the Church stopped burning and jailing astronomers, the Church rationalized that the astronomers actually proved the Church correct and in fact perfected the Faith.

  22. Paul Vaughan says:

    We have to have some fun switching it up.

    Debating about climate is a bad sign.

    It signals that people are not accepting the very serious reality that we are dealing with people who are resorting to “bold” extremes.

    When dealing with people who explosively escalate savage trickery like this one has to realize they’ll make all sorts of OTHER very serious — and unlimited — trouble because they’re not getting what they want.

    The time has come to call them out as terrorists — primarily financial and health terrorists at this stage, but that will escalate into more dangerous forms of terrorism if they don’t get what they want because they are fanatically resolved to “bold” action. (Never forget what Christine Figures let slip.)

    I sincerely hope our intelligence agencies are SHARPLY focused on what types of savage stunts will be pulled next and later in the series (they have a ten year series of events planned).

    Realize it will have NOTHING to do with climate. THEY know climate “debate” is dead just as well as we do. Their provocations will come ANYWHERE on ANY issue. It’s getting dangerous. They’re angry. They’ll resort to whatever. The lockdowns (a grave government error) awoke the worst in people. That can’t be erased. Now society will bear long-lived effect.

    The game has changed. It’s no longer same-old.

    What does it mean to adapt to the new game? Well, first off being lost in TOTALLY PREDICTABLE debate is a pretty bad sign given the enemy’s ambushing on multiple (non-climate) fronts.

    Making statements is fine (especially brand new and unexpected ones), but oldschool debate signals to the enemy the surrender of free speech. Saving free speech will be a scramble. Being entirely predictable and straightforward only makes free speech a laughable target.

    Those who keep “debating” a dead issue are putting us in danger. It makes the enemy take us as naive targets. My instinct is to regard anyone still debating (as if it’s a meaningful activity) as working for “the other side”.

    Who are we dealing with? The enemy is not some naive teddy bear. The enemy is a savage, psychotic tiger preying on western civilization. The time for naivety has passed. Everyone: Please retool your messaging. The psychology of 2008 climate discussion was for the era of pussy-cats.

  23. oldbrew says:

    Recent global-warming hiatus tied to equatorial Pacific surface cooling

    Oh! First of all, the peer review journal Nature recognises that there was a global-warming hiatus, and then they published (on 28/8/2013) “the annual-mean global temperature has not risen in the twenty-first century, challenging the prevailing view that anthropogenic forcing causes climate warming,”

    Here is the abstract: (
    – – –
    The paper concludes:
    Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability, tied specifically to a La-Niña-like decadal cooling.

    Then they forestall the alarmist critics by adding:
    Although similar decadal hiatus events may occur in the future, the multi-decadal warming trend is very likely to continue with greenhouse gas increase.

    *Very likely* is empty assertion.

  24. oldbrew says:

    Gerald E. Marsh
    Argonne National Laboratory (Retired)

    From the paper [bold added]:
    Hartmann has estimated that a 10% change in cloud cover corresponds to a doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, which itself corresponds to ~2C temperature rise [See Fig. 10(b)]. Thus the 2% drop in cloud cover from 1987-1997 shown in Fig. 12 corresponds to essentially all of the temperature rise of ~0.3C during these years. Note that from 1998 to 2008 there was very little change in cloud cover and temperature, which continue to track each other. The ten years from 1987-1997 show that the increase in insolation is closely followed by the rise in temperature although the rate of rise is slower until just before 1997. The implication is that the Earth’s time constant could well lie in the range of [5-10 years], and is probably closer to 10yr.

    From the summary:
    The conclusion is that variations in Earth’s surface temperature due to SIM is comparable to that due to the changes in global cloud cover and temperature change during the period of 1987-1997. Such variations should be taken into account when estimating surface temperature changes of the Earth due to other types of forcing.

    Click to access 2003.01374.pdf

  25. gbaikie says:

    “Clouds are the bête noir of climate modeling but there is some
    work that has been done on cloud formation to explain variations in low cloud cover. ”
    Clouds are complicated.
    The paper seems more weather than global climate.
    Anything about weather is going to very complicated.
    Anything about global climate is going about topography of land and mostly the ocean floor- of course in terms weather mostly land topography.

    For predicting clouds {or mostly weather] I would remove the global topography AND cover Earth with an ocean [have no land}. That would seem to complicated if include all variation mentioned in the paper.
    I would assume Earth covered with ocean should average temperature of about 25 C.
    If can model ocean only, than add Earth’s current the land topography. And should make the weather more complicated.
    But it seems to me it’s mostly the ocean’s topography which should lower the global average temperature. Or weather isn’t driving ocean circulation.

  26. Paul Vaughan says:

    Review — climate modes:

    Mode 1 is sunspot integral / SAM.
    Mode 2 is solar cycle deceleration.
    Mode 3 is north-south 96 year geologic asymmetry.
    Mode 4 is east-west ENSO — the hypnotic facilitator of power plays by luminaries WHO KNOW BETTER. ENSO’s just a zero-sum bounce amounting to 12% of variation.

    B-level climate “skeptics” mix modes 2, 3, and 4 in a fantasy that helps the left-wing fanatics soft-face the savage surgical precision of the really dangerous players for whom “the truth” is always a distant peripheral consideration treated with a good sense of humor.

    When B-skeptics mix 4 with 2 that’s bad, but those who mix 2 with 3 have done irreparable damage to North Atlantic climate conceptualization (probably a factor in failing NATO strategy). There is no scope for correcting these people and that was a FINAL conclusion years ago.

    More general commentary — politics and strategy:

    Debating climate won’t stop the enemy. They’ll just leverage on non-climate factors. They’re angry enough to be motivated and feel justified in exponentially ramping their agenda on any opportunity they can naturally catch or brilliantly engineer. They have smart dangerous people. Amateur side-show debate won’t stop them. It takes heavy hitting surprise shots and impenetrable defense to deter aces. Remember that they’re not aces because they know climate. They’re aces because they’re aces. Tiger aces with claws, teeth, no mercy, and a good sense of humor about “the truth” ….”whatever the f*** that is!” you can hear them laugh while they rip into the soft underbelly of your weakest ally.

    My tip: Change with the game to save freedom. Same-old = sure surrender (predictable easy target for laughing, savage enemy).

    If the concern is keeping funding coming to GWPF or whatever, retool for expanded services. The discussion has to be broader to save freedom. They must just laugh at how we put everything in nicely SELFcontained boxes that limit discussion to self-isolated disconnection from the bigger picture. I support retooling services for broad-level focus on saving freedom, while appreciating it may take months to figure out how to do that in practice.

  27. Paul Vaughan says:

    I tend to assume everyone knows the card game “Hearts”. See Suggestions-43. In Hearts there’s a move we called “going for control”. On wikipedia they call it “shooting the moon” with a variant called “shooting the sun”. I propose shooting the galaxy.