Malcolm Hill alerted me to Cohenite’s comments that are worthy of a new thread:
I’m just a middle man connecting the points first raised by John McLean and Thomas Quirk in their paper, ‘ Australian Temperature Variations – An Alternative View:’
http://mclean.ch/climate/Aust_temps_alt_view.pdf
And Bob Tisdales work with Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)
I agree with Malcolm that this is a crucial issue because if there has been no temperature increase then AGW is shot to bits.
A starting point would be a graph of PDO phase shifts over the 20th Century;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/pdo_monthly.png
There were 3 PDO’s during the 20thC; a warm and dry +ve PDO from 1905-46; a cool and wet -ve PDO from 1946-76; and another +ve PDO from 1976-2006.
A typical temperature chart of the 20th Century is as follows;
http://i32.tinypic.com/2s01m5y.jpg
The 2 upward trends at the beginning and end of the 20th Century are typical because they are similar +ve PDO’s with similar temperature regimes; if one looks at the slope and amplitude for the temperature increase at the beginning, it is identical to the one from 1977 onwards; the only difference is that the one at the beginning of the 20th Century starts from a lower base. The reason for this is not because the temperatures were lower, but because of base period bias. HadCrut uses a base period of 1961-90. This period covers the end of the middle -ve PDO and the beginning of the 2nd +PDO; an average of the 30 years of this base will cause temperatures in the 2nd +PDO period to be anomalously higher because these temperatures will not have the impact of the cooler temperatures of the base period dragging them down as occurred in the averaging process; conversely, the temperatures in the -ve PDO from 1946 onwards will be anomalously cooler because they do not have the averaging benefit of the +ve PDO temperatures; there will be, therefore a step-up in temperature after 1977 and a step-down before 1946. The base period weighting for Hadcrut is 0.15C, which would drag the temperatures of the 2nd +ve PDO back down slightly; but the weighting doesn’t prevent the step-up at 1977 or the step-down at 1946.
What Bob Tisdale has done is to remove the base period bias; he does this by the simple method of annual variance; Tn+1-Tn over the full range of the HadCrut data; the result is this;
http://i25.tinypic.com/e6zj0l.jpg
This shows only variance within the PDO climate; if there was a seperate anthropogenic signal based on increasing CO2 increases it would show as an increasing trend; there is no seperate upward temperature trend, so there is no CO2 caused temperature increase; a comparison between the 2 temperature histories is here;
http://i26.tinypic.com/2hmpw6r.jpg
It is interesting that Lucia has undertaken something similar, but from an opposite direction, when she removed the ENSO signal from all temperature indices in the post 2000 period;
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/ipcc-falsifies-gavin.gif
That Lucia shows a cooling trend would tend to suggest that if there is an anthropogenic signal, it is a cooling one.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I want to know why the base period 1961 to 1990 is used and not the annual change in temperature as shown in the graph above?
If this doesn’t show a temperature increase then what is this debate really about?
You’ve completely lost me here.
1. My understanding is that the Hadley Centre base period gives a single number that is subtracted from all of the temperature measurements. Changing the base period would move the curve up or down but the shape of the curve would stay exactly the same.
2. Plotting Tn+1 – Tn is an approximation of the derivative of the temperature curve and is thus not directly comparable with the temperature curve itself. If this ‘delta’ curve is roughly straight that just means that the rate of temperature increase is roughly constant. You’d have to look at whether most of the points where above or below zero to determine whether temperatures are going up or down, which would just be a matter of re-integrating the function that you have just differentiated.
I’m not saying that I have a great deal of faith in the HadCRU series itself. I think that we probably experienced some warming in the 20th century, some of which was due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions but that HadCRU over states this.
Chris; the point I am interested in is not that there are not trends in temperature, but whether they are only within the larger climate pattern of the PDO, which as far as anyone can tell is natural without anthropogenic imput. Lucia’s effort removed ENSO and produced a downward trend; Bob Tisdale’s method focuses the PDO effect but allows for another determinant to be manifest; that there isn’t doesn’t mean,
“If this ‘delta’ curve is roughly straight that just means that the rate of temperature increase is roughly constant.”
but instead means that there is no rate of temperature increase/decrease at all apart from what is happening in the PDO; if it were otherwise there would not have been a downturn in temperature in 1946 at the beginning of the -ve PDO.
I corrected the small error – the second positive index does not start in 1947, but in 1976.
We dusted the entire climate for signs of human fingerprints. We found no human fingerprint whatsoever.
Paul: It appears I should comment since my name and graphs are being used as reference. Temperatures over the term of the instrument temperature record have risen. I’m confused as to why Cohenite doesn’t like the use of a reference temperature to calculate anomaly, because the same curves result when absolute temperatures are examined.
The following graphs are from my series on “NCDC Absolute Temperature.”
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/fresh-look-at-ncdc-absolute-temperature.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/fresh-look-at-ncdc-absolute-part-ii.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/fresh-look-at-ncdc-absolute-part-3.html
Absolute Land, Ocean, and Land+Ocean Surface Temperatures:
http://i29.tinypic.com/iozy2h.jpg
Annual Maximum, Minimum and Average Land+Ocean Surface Temperatures:
http://i29.tinypic.com/10f2rr9.jpg
The graph of average Land+Ocean Surface Temperatures has the same shape as an anomaly curve. The difference is that the absolute data hasn’t been shifted by a reference temperature. That’s all anomaly data is, data that’s been shifted by a reference temperature.
http://i25.tinypic.com/2igbzgl.jpg
Now for the discussion of the PDO: I don’t understand how the data sets and graphs I created for a discussion on “Annual and Long-Term Effects of El Nino/Southern Oscillation” have now become my work on the PDO. Refer to Figures 1 through 3 in the following.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/annual-and-long-term-impacts-of-el.html
I don’t believe I used those graphs in another post.
Additionally, my most recent post on the PDO, “The Common Misunderstanding About the PDO”, was intended to illustrate that the PDO is a function of ENSO. It is not a simple residual like the AMO.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/common-misunderstanding-about-pdo.html
Sorry if I’m somehow responsible for the confusion.
Regards.
Try your on Xn+1 – Xn filter on a few simple functions eg line, exponential to see how meaningless this analysis is.
The annual change graph, with about an equal number of positives and negatives, shows that the annual trend is smaller than the annual variability (noise). The temperature trend is clearly shown by the anomoly graphic.
Bob Tisdale,
Thanks for posting those links. I’ve skimmed the The article on ENSO and it looks like it deserves further study.
Bob Tisdale’s comments are interesting.
For sometime I’ve been concerned about Cohenite’s rapid growth in blog input along with several others of recent times and was about to write on the issue of absolutes in regard to certainties and a few other things that occupy endless debate.
Sure; these are interesting times and a bit of soul searching over the ever increasing human activities on the global scale will cause a lot of strife for various institutions and observers sitting on the fringe but let the full time climate scientists get on with their work unimpeded.
The location of this statement in the thread header “if there was a separate anthropogenic signal based on increasing CO2 increases it would show as an increasing trend” really worries me as we seem to have removed the “trend” then are left wondering where it went.
This removes the influence of the PDO from the rest of the data. If there is another influence that increases temps it will show. But there is not, telling us the change in temps is caused by the PDO.
It’s fairly straight forward, if hard to explain. When the PDO forces temps up you subtract the equivalent temp from the global temps and vica versa. If you still see an increase or a decrease then there is some other factor affecting global temps.
Hope that helps.
Gavin,
“The location of this statement in the thread header “if there was a separate anthropogenic signal based on increasing CO2 increases it would show as an increasing trend” really worries me as we seem to have removed the “trend” then are left wondering where it went.”
You are, as usual, making a rather large assumption. This is the same assumption we have been discussing and arguing over for years.
Can the increasing temperature trend be primarily assigned to Anthropogenic causes?
You have still not presented more than very weak correlation to assign the blame to INDUSTRIALISED HUMANS!! As we can look at numerous paleo records and see increasing and decreasing temperature trends that extend for far longer than the tiny period we are discussing, the statement you take issue with is more probable than your position.
There is a positive correlation between the Geomagnetic aa Index and temperature for as long as the index has existed, since the 1980’s. Why not skip a step and go directly to the sun as the source of climate change?
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aastar07.jpg
Many thanks Bob for clarifying your views!
I don’t like the use of a reference temperature to calculate an anomoly either – the magnitude of the anomoly is dependent on the reference period ‘chosen.’ Granted, the curve should be the same.
When modern temperatures are objectively looked at in the context of the entire Holocene, one wonders what all the fuss is about!
Another point is the difference between a measurement and a statistic – a global average temperature is a (dubious) statistic, not a measurement.
ENSO tends to persist for about one year, PDO for 20 to 30 years. They may well be related in some way, but the PDO (obviously)affects the North Pacific, and ENSO the lower latitudes.
Personally, I’m a big fan of the Tsonis et al ‘climate shifts,’ taking into account known climate cycles, PDO, ENSO, AMO etc interacting, doesn’t seem to leave much of a role for the ‘enhanced greenhouse,’ least of all as the ‘main driver,’ before we get to solar, volcanoes, land use change etc.
For Garnaut’s views on temperature changes in recent years try: Climate Sceptics: Is the sky falling? http://laborview.blogspot.com/2008/08/climate-sceptics-is-sky-falling.html
Typo above. The geomagnetic aa index has existed since the 1800’s
Plea to the technically savvy folks:
As a lay person I don’t understand why HADcru would introduce a base period bias or how they chose the 1961-90 period as the base? I’m sure they have a good statistical reason, what is it? Or if a base period bias is standard procedure why isn’t adjust for in public presentations? Please explain for the wider audience some of the arcane procedure involved.
Nor do I understand why this isn’t common knowledge or part of the wider public debate? It seems to go straight to the heart of the matter.
Gavin reveals he hopes this work doesn’t attract public attention—“let the full time climate scientists get on with their work unimpeded.” Yeah, Gavin, in a very dark closet, right?
Please don’t let this thread become all jargon. Help make this work accessible to the many lay person lurkers out here, some of us are almost certainly involved in public policy decisions now that the science is settled and the time to act on “carbon pollution” has arrived. Actually we’re all involved now that we’ll be voting in some large part based on our private understanding of climate theory in the next election.
The science, Gavin, is too important to leave solely in the hands of full time climatologists any longer.
The similarity of late 20th C warming to early 20th C warming shows that, while the world has warmed a bit over the past century and greenhouse gases have increased, the actual correlation between the two is quite poor. If you calculate the increase in CO2 and the trends in (HADCRU) Temperature for twenty-year intervals you get something like
CO2 ppm Temp Deg C
1881-1900 +3 -0.02
1901-1920 +3 +0.05
1921-1940 +4 +0.18
1941-1960 +3 -0.07
1961-1980 +10 +0.04
1981-2000 +15 +.16
2001-2008 +17 -0.02
All figures are ‘per decade’.
You need a lot of imagination to see any correlation between those two sets of numbers.
Bob Tisdale; there was no intention to verbal you about the PDO and I apologise if that is how it came across; for some time I had been struck as to how the anomaly graphs, even GISS, followed the PDO phase shifts over the 20thC, with the dip in the mid 40’s through to the second +ve PDO of the century beginning in ’77; as you are no doubt aware there had been a concerted effort to minimise that dip in the ’40’s via such efforts as the ‘Bucket’ paper from Jones et al; but it seemed to me that given the consistent increase of CO2 over the century that it was ludicrous not to look for natural causes for any (slight) temp increase over the century; intuitively (ha!) it seemed that since there were 2 warming regimes (PDO’s) in the century, and only one cool one, that that fact would be a prominent reason for the temperature movement. And I should clarify that when I say no temperature movement, I mean no temperature movement which can be solely or dominantly attributed to CO2 increase.
With the ist PDO of the 20thC beginning at a lower base I admit it didn’t occur to me that it was starting at a lower base because temperatures have been gradually increasing since the LIA and that would be reflected in the ist PDO starting point; and a digression here; the US data manipulation scandal is an interesting aspect of this because the uncorrected data there shows the early part of the 20thC was hotter than the latter, so this disagrees (?) with global measurements;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
The US data I’m referring to is the ’99 and 2007 versions of GISS temperatures; interestingly, both versions show the mid-40’s dip with a pronounced dip from 1960 onwards; I note Bob looks at a solar connection for that 1960 decline.
I was also concerned about the step-up in the temp base noted in the McLean and Quirk paper about the Great Pacific Event in ’76, which they tied in with HadCrut’s anomaly base, and which once again coincided with the PDO phase shift.
I note Bob has undertaken a comparison of the 10 years before the ’97-98 super El Nino with the 10 years after; to my untrained eye it seems to indicate that with the ENSO removed that the post ’97-98 temps are still higher than before (these are FIG’s 3.10); as I noted lucia also did a removal of the ENSO and found a downward trend POST 2000; Bob, I wonder what your take on that is?
Speaking of untrained eyes; thanks gavin; I gather you think I should skulk back to the cave allocated to ‘non-scientists’, and that this ‘disaster’ confirms in your eyes the damage that non-scientists can bring to this debate; well mate, too bad; if I miss a point occasionally or commit a scientific gaffe in my quest to understand the reasons for AGW, I’ll readily admit my need to do better; but I’ll allocate most of the blame to where it belongs; namely the jokers running this AGW business/church and their failure, no that’s not right, success, in keeping the masses in a state of ignorance. Your comments are really reasonant gavin and you need to have some quiet reflection in one of your wilderness areas.
KK: “the statement you take issue with is more probable than your position”
For the general reader I will note here a few observations beginning with a quick review of my experience dealing with “new applications” in various forms of technology. My last position was in a small team building information to support major changes for users of the radio spectrum (DC to light) where projects were scoped in 3D but mostly on a “flat earth” environment. We did satellites and space too.
Having retired over a decade ago I have probably forgotten far more math & physics than we can learn from playing around with these blogs. However I managed to avoid massive calculations even back then despite a constant barrage of technical questions from across governments and industry on a daily basis. Learning quickly who you could depend on was a big factor in all my decisions and many shortcuts followed despite the policy implications. This attitude came after years of work in industry.
Folks: I often chat about the essential grass roots processes that lead to vital Memorandums of Understanding MOU’s that support all our modern trade negotiations and outcomes. Critical assessment becomes an art that is basically dependent on trust. I can say many blogs are acting well outside this loop when it comes to recognizing the values of say the IPCC.
I suspect many contributors here have no status outside this narrow blog loop and that’s why I often Google names to discover their www splatter.
http://landshape.org/enm/stats/?stats_author=kuhnkat
As the waves of other good science dump loudly on our shores we should remain amused if we can. ABC TV ran interviews this week with experienced scientific crews on two research vessels and I have to say it was so familiar to hear their direct opinions.
So SJT is essentially saying, “trust me, I’m from the IPCC”? Yeah, right, how much for the bridge?
This data certainly suggests some influence from CO2 for a very simple reason – the two +ve PDO periods show significant warming, but the -ve PDO (1945-75) shows only slight cooling. It is bizarre to insist this data indicates nothing but natural variation.
The interesting question is how large a proportion of the overall temperature increase might be attributed to CO2.
I cant understand why Cohenite thinks that no trend in annual variance means no longer term trend. They are very different measures. Cohenite should leave this sort of thing to Tisdale and others
This data certainly suggests some influence from CO2 for a very simple reason – the two +ve PDO periods show significant warming, but the -ve PDO (1945-75) shows only slight cooling. It is bizarre to insist this data indicates nothing but natural variation.
The interesting question is how large a proportion of the overall temperature increase might be attributed to CO2.
I cant understand why Cohenite thinks that no trend in annual variance means no longer term trend. They are very different measures. Cohenite should leave this sort of thing to Tisdale and others
Naah; I’ve been chewing on this all morning and it still doesn’t taste right; let’s go back to first principles; Bob says that it makes no difference whether we are dealing with anomalised data referable to a base period or actual data; the curve will be the same; granted; but the step-up or down is the issue; I know Bob is an ENSO man but there is still a PDO effect; the PDO effect is in 2 phases, hot and dry and cool and wet, place an er were you see fit; that being the case my original point about averaging between 2 phases holds; I’ve mentioned already that when looking at Bob’s HadCrut graph there are 2 upward trends, one at the beginning of the 1905 PDO and the other beginning at the commencement of the 1977 PDO; let’s reduce this to its fundamental point, and we’ll refer to Mr PDO/IPO, Stewart Franks;
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/Conf2007/Franks2007.pdf
Slide 7 is the relevant one; it quite clearly shows the upward trend from approx 1905 is effectively identical to the upward trend beginning in approx 1977; and let me digress to account for BillC’s double post above; if CO2 was the culprit here why would the earlier slope be the same as the latter; if CO2 was dominating the latter slope would be steeper surely, because CO2 concentration has increased over the century? But that isn’t the main issue; the main issue is why the starting point on the first upward trend is lower than the starting point on the second; in my prior post I suggested that was because of the gradual immergence from the LIA; certaintly longer temp data such as CET suggests this; but again this is irrelevant, and anyway, I was momentarily confused by gavin’s white noise (ha!); simply put, if the actual starting temp for the ist upward trend is NOT less than the starting temp for the 2nd upward trend the curve has been tainted by the base period. If that is the case any temp increase over the century can be attributable to natural process, most likely EL Nino dominated PDO as this 2nd Franks graph shows;
http://www.ema.gov.au/agd/EMA/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(A80860EC13A61F5BA8C1121176F6CC3C)~AJEM_May2006_Kiem.pdf/$file/AJEM_May2006_Kiem.pdf
The graph on the right on p. 54 clearly shows a match of IPO movement with temperature; if the starting temp is not lower, as I say, IPO/PDO must be the culprit.
If the starting temperature for the first upward slope is actually (not anomalously) less than the starting temp for the second upward trend than I will praise gavin publicly.
Cohenite,
Well observed and said.
That negative PDO that ended in 1976 brought an abrupt end to the cyclonic depredations to SEQ overnight and the positive PDO that followed may have had a correlation with progressive warming but not with ACO2 for obvious reasons.
That 1976 -ve/+ve PDO change was a defined climate shift!
Like we appear to be having [only in reverse] at present.
No ACO2 alibis here.
Kevin – thanks for the biased views of Labor’s tame economist.
Next!
Cohenite I like this version better
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
They say PDO is a function of ENSO.
So the question you should be asking is if there is an anthropogenic influence on ENSO.
These people also agree that PDO is caused by ENSO
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3527.1
And these people suggest that the PDO was negative in the “Medieval Warm Period” – suggesting parts of Earth weren’t so warm.
This long term reconstruction of the PDO doesn’t match Global temps…
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/geog/downloads/634/260.pdf
OK NT, the null hypothesis is that the PDO is not anything but “the sum of direct forcing by El Nino-Southern Oscillation”, and over a consistent period for the last 200 years a regular and dominant pattern of El Nino events (+ve PDO) was systemically distinct from another dominant pattern where El Nino were relatively rare and dominated by La Nina (-ve PDO); this is a bit chicken and egg for our purpose here; which is, as I attempted to make as simple as possible, to ascertain whether the actual temperature at the beginning of the ist 20thC +PDO (for covenience) was higher or lower than the actual temperature at the beginning of the 2nd +PDO; if the temperature was lowewr, the base period is exonerated; if it was the same or higher the base period is a distorting feature of the internal climate consistency and cross inconsistency of PDO phases and adds immeasureably to a conclusion that AGW doesn’t exist, at least to the extent IPCC have predicted.
As to the uneven temps prevailing during the MWP; this just confirms the uselessness of the concept of the global average temperature as an indice of climate change, because regional variations, weather, are the crucial thing; local thermal equilibriums will always be in dynamic balance with each other so that if one spot is becoming relatively warmer, another is becoming relatively cooler; see Stewarts Law.
Cohenite: “If the starting temperature for the first upward slope is actually (not anomalously) less than the starting temp for the second upward trend than I will praise gavin publicly” lets see, hey.
Recall? I don’t subscribe to the concept of a global MWP for starters.
Off topic, since my youthful days I have maintained that our historic tall old growth wet forests contained a lot more wood than these younger ones (regrowth after early harvests). This week I felt vindicated with the latest ANU report on their carbon potential yet to be acknowledged by some diehards as we go into emissions trading. I don’t expect Cinders, Dave or Ian to come in back slapping.
See “Untouched forests are carbon warriors”
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/08/05/2324476.htm?site=science&topic=latest
Someone else on here should have acknowledged this report by now.
gavin; just get me that temperature; I’m ready for penance; but all I can find are anomalies and data which has been adjusted to death; if I don’t get the temp, then I’m looking at this;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
I’m looking at the 1999 version of GISS, and it sure looks like the temps for 1905-8 are higher than the temps for 1976-8; so I’m going to make a call if I don’t hear different.
Gavin:
“Recall? I don’t subscribe to the concept of a global MWP for starters.”
These guys must have just been on the wrong boat I guess.
Goosse et al.(2003)
A Delayed Medieval Warm Period in the
Southern Hemisphere?
Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 5, 03382, 2003
Domack et al. 2000. Chronology of the Palmer Deep site, Antarctic Peninsula: A Holocene palaeoenvironmental reference for the circum-Antarctic. The Holocene 11: 1-9.
Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.
Leventer, A. and Dunbar, R.B. 1988. Recent diatom record of McMurdo Sound, Antarctica: Implications for the history of sea-ice extent. Paleoceanography 3: 373-386.
Leventer, A., Domack, E.W., Ishman, S.E., Brachfeld, S., McClennen, C.E. and Manley, P. 1996. Productivity cycles of 200-300 years in the Antarctic Peninsula region: Understanding linkage among the sun, atmosphere, oceans, sea ice, and biota. Geological Society of America Bulletin 108: 1626-1644.
Cook et al. (2002) Evidence for a ‘Medieval Warm Period’ in a 1,100 year tree-ring reconstruction of past austral summer temperatures in New Zealand.
Geophysical Research Letters 29 (14): 1667
Williams (2007) A 2000 year atmospheric history of methyl chloride from a South Pole ice core: Evidence for climate-controlled variability. Geophysical Research Letters 34(7)
Mooney (2006) Two proxy records revealing the late Holocene fire history at a site on the central coast of New South Wales, Australia. Austral Ecology 31(6)
Mayewski et al. (2004) A 700 year record of Southern Hemisphere extratropical climate variability. Annals of Glaciology 39: 127-132
Tyson et al. (2000) The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming in South Africa. South African Journal of Science 96: 121-126
Villalba (1994) Tree-ring and glacial evidence for the medieval warm epoch and the little ice age in southern South America. Climatic Change, 26: 2-3
Renssen et al. (2005) Holocene climate evolution in the high-latitude Southern Hemisphere simulated by a coupled atmosphere-sea ice-ocean-vegetation model. The Holocene, Vol. 15, No. 7, 951-964
Xavier Boës Ph.D. thesis: High resolution sedimentological studies of lacustrine series, search for annual climatic proxies and interhemispheric comparison (examples of Lake Baikal, Siberia, 50 °N and Lake District, Chile, 40°S.)
In Southern Chile, Lago Puyehue varved sediments (~0.5 to 1 mm/yr) provide an annual resolution controlled by the annual diatom productivity.Our results show one significant regional maximum peak of winter precipitation (>900 mm) in the mid 20th century and a significant period with lower winter precipitation (<400 mm) before the 15th century, i.e. the late Medieval Warm Period. The first peak in the mid 20th century is confirmed by the regional precipitation database.
Prejudiced against elephant seals, too?
jeez Gavin, you should get out more or at least read a bit more widely. The tall wet forests of Tas and Vic have long been recognised as having the capacity to accrue biomass (and hence carbon) at levels greater than any other forest type on the planet, and that includes the Amazonian and Malaysian rainforests.
Brendan Mackey has always been behind the eight ball when it comes to forests and especially Australian forests. Really, his methods are still not especially good when it comes to Eucalypt forests. I guess it comes from developing his methods on Canadian boreal forest types. In other words continental scale forest types as opposed to very old and ecologically sifted Australian forest types.
You know you can have your forest, carbon sink and wood production as well.
Gavin:
“Recall? I don’t subscribe to the concept of a global MWP for starters.”
Geophysical Research Abstracts,
Vol. 10, EGU2008-A-10551, 2008
SRef-ID: 1607-7962/gra/EGU2008-A-10551
EGU General Assembly 2008
© Author(s) 2008
High resolution precipitation and wind record from the
Southern Hemisphere Westerly Zone, based on
speleothem proxies
R. Kilian (1), D. Schimpf (1), A. Mangini (2), C. Spötl (3), A. Kronz (4), H. Arz (5)
(1) Department of Geology, University of Trier, Germany, (2) Academy of Sciences,
University of Heidelberg, Germany, (3) Department of Geology, University of Innsbruck,
Austria, (4) Center of Geosciences, University of Göttingen, Germany, (5) GFZ-Potsdam,
Germany (kilian@uni-trier.de, Phone +49-651-2014644)
Holocene changes in the position and intensity of the Southern hemispheric westerly
wind belt are crucial to evaluate interhemispheric atmospheric linkages, but archives
with sufficiently high resolution and reliable age constrains are rare in this region.
We present the first high resolution stalagmite record from the southernmost Andes
at 53°S for the last 5000 years which has been dated by 16 U/Th ages. The stalagmite
was sampled in a small cave which was eroded along a fracture zone between
granodioritic and metasedimentary rocks. The drip rates and temperature in the cave
are closely linked with the regional climate, especially the precipitation and westerly
wind intensities. Our record includes three predominately drip-rate dependent proxies
which, however, reacted independently: 1) 18O and 13C values that are highly correlated
(r2= 0.81) due to a kinetically controlled isotope fractionation, performed at 2.5
year resolution. 2) The contents of insoluble trace elements (e.g. Y and heavy Rare
Earth Elements), performed at 40 year resolution, are associated with fine-grained silicate
detritus in the stalagmite, which has been flushed into the cave preferentially
during intervals of high drip rates. 3) The concentrations of soluble elements (Mg,
U and Sr) in calcite, controlled by increased dilution of drip water during periods of
strong precipitation, leading to low Mg/Ca, U/Ca and Sr/Ca ratios. Relatively low drip
rates were recorded during the Little Ice Age (700 to 150 years before present) and
also during the presumably cold period from 3500 to 2500 years, while the highest
drip rates occurred during the Medieval Warm Period from 1200 to 900 years and at
around 2000 years before present. The drip rate proxies indicate short periods of a few
years with very high precipitation at solar-related periodicities of 230 to 200 years
especially from 4500 to 3500 and from 2500 to 750 years before present. Wavelet
analyses also reveal sun spot cyclicities (88, 22 and 11 years) in the C and O isotope
data, as well as the Mg/Ca ratios. Compared to other precipitation records from
the southern Andes across the westerly wind belt from 33 to 55°S, our record indicates
that the whole westerly zone was affected by strong intensity variations, rather than by
a “simple” North-South shifting. On centennial to millennial time scales, intervals of
weaker westerlies are linked to periods with more frequent El Niño events, suggesting
a significant link between tropical and mid-latitude atmospheric circulation.
Must be in denial.
Claus: I appreciate your effort but are these suggestions re old climate based on various proxies any more solid than say some early IPCC global temperate projections?
Again, at glance I don’t see any temperature charts offered that aren’t a load of backward looking estimates. Give us some idea of your estimates in degrees C for the high points and their more critical rates of change for a proper comparison.
It’s like giving babies razor blades to play with.
“This shows only variance within the PDO climate; if there was a seperate anthropogenic signal based on increasing CO2 increases it would show as an increasing trend;”
No, if the rate of change is constant, that just means it’s going up at the same rate. It validates AGW.
NT: They’ve been looking for an anthropogenic component of ENSO for years and they haven’t found it. The only conclusion they’re able to make is, when global temperatures are rising, there are more El Ninos, and when global temperatures are falling, there are more La Ninas.
Cohenite: I’ve got 50 posts on my blogspot and I’ve lost track of which ones have comparisons of temperature and solar. In addition to the figure number, please add a link or the title of the post and I’ll be happy to comment on whichever one you’re discussing.
Paul: What everyone seems to miss is the long-term oscillation in the North Pacific that is not the PDO. It’s similar in scale to the AMO, and it runs in and out of synch with the AMO. I’ve covered it a few times in the posts I prepared on Smith and Reynolds SST data. There are also similar oscillations that I believe are the result of THC/MOC at upwelling points in all oceans.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/06/smith-and-reynolds-sst-posts.html
SJT; who said anything about a constant rate of change, or for that matter, any rate of change?
Bob; I’m looking for a comparison of the non-anomalous temperature of, say 1905-8, with 1976-8.
“SJT; who said anything about a constant rate of change, or for that matter, any rate of change?”
That’s what this whole topic is about, the rate of change warming.
Bob – if you want to do a guest blog post – I’m happy to oblige.
As for TSI, Leif Svalgaard’s views may yet prevail, where TSI varies much less than was first thought – this could mean one of two things – the sun has very little effect on climate, or the climate is much more sensitive to small solar changes than is currently believed.
We present the first high resolution stalagmite record from the southernmost Andes
at 53°S for the last 5000 years which has been dated by 16 U/Th ages.
Our record includes three predominately drip-rate dependent proxies which, however, reacted independently: 1) 18O and 13C values that are highly correlated (r2= 0.81) due to a kinetically controlled isotope fractionation, performed at 2.5
year resolution. 2) The contents of insoluble trace elements (e.g. Y and heavy Rare
Earth Elements), performed at 40 year resolution, are associated with fine-grained silicate
detritus in the stalagmite, which has been flushed into the cave preferentially
during intervals of high drip rates. 3) The concentrations of soluble elements (Mg,
U and Sr) in calcite, controlled by increased dilution of drip water during periods of
strong precipitation, leading to low Mg/Ca, U/Ca and Sr/Ca ratios.
Relatively low drip
rates were recorded during the Little Ice Age (700 to 150 years before present) and
also during the presumably cold period from 3500 to 2500 years, while the highest
drip rates occurred during the Medieval Warm Period from 1200 to 900 years and at
around 2000 years before present.
Gavin:
“I appreciate your effort but are these suggestions re old climate based on various proxies any more solid than say some early IPCC global temperate projections?
Yep.
“Again, at glance I don’t see any temperature charts offered that aren’t a load of backward looking estimates. Give us some idea of your estimates in degrees C for the high points and their more critical rates of change for a proper comparison.”
Nope. It would be like giving babies razor blades to play with.
Paul; I would endorse that invitation to Bob; some fascinating solar stats at his website, including an interesting revitalisation of Scafetta and West;
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/
And it looks as though the PDO has been superseded by the North Pacific Residual.
Paul: I’d be honored to put together a guest post. I just sent you an email.
Regards
Bob
I slowly read through your most recent post on your site last night with great interest and thus await the forthcoming guest post with great interest. May I just make some comments (intended supportively) and it is these.
You say right at the end:
“Did TSI or CO2 rise significantly between the late 90s and now? No. That appears to leave only one climate forcing capable of creating the sudden rise in Arctic temperature: the 97/98 El Nino.”
Well, the answer to the latter – did CO2 rise significantly between the late 90s and now is actually, correctly worded, yes. The CO2 flux to the atmosphere did rise significantly between the late 90s.
There has indeed been an explosive growth in anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the last decade – up to a level of about 3.3%/year now. And these emission are a significant fraction of the net CO2 flux to the atmosphere.
However, the fact that global average CO2 levels only continued to rise 0.45%/year (somewhat higher in the NH) is largely an effect.
With respect, I think you may being inadvertently selective about the CO2 forcing effect here.
The only mechanisms which can remove CO2 from the atmosphere (and are actually subtly coupled) are simply chemical dissolution (a relatively coarse function of SST) and net conversion to cyanobacterial biomass and biogenic calcite by due to the primary productivity (a more sensitive function of both SST and atmospheric CO2 level)
If atmospheric CO2 has not risen BUT the net flux to the oceans has (which is self evident from the above) then we have to consider the climatic effects of that dramatic rise in flux rate, which IMHO is largely a result increased oceanic primary productivity.
Not surprisingly, the effects of increased primary productivity are:
(1) a tendency to lower SST due to the creation of evaporation-inhibiting organic monolayers, albedo-increasing coccolithophoric blooms and increased DMS-nucleated low level cloud; and
(2) marked changes to the lower troposhere via the resultant increased albedo, relative humidity and lapse rate effects.
In a nutshell, IMHO it is false logic to infer that a relatively low and constant rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels automatically leads to the conclusion that there can be no dramatic forcing effects of atmospheric CO2 on NPR etc. Wouldn’t it be a surprise to find there may well be (some) dramatic forcing effects in a negative direction!
An associate and I are currently preparing a paper on the evident increase in primary productivity over the whole of the great Southern Ocean over the period 1982 – 2007 as a result of this (increasing) ‘CO2 fertilization effect’.
Please see an earlier article by myself in this blog on this subject. I hope that Jennifer will allow me to issue an update on this in the near future.
I would note in passing that eruptions such as Ell Chichon and Pinatubo, may well also have a (slightly delayed) fertilization effect on oceanic primary productivity due to fallout of ammonium and sulfite salts and iron as these are essential nutrients but this is a secondary issue to the (relatively well studied) CO2 fertilization effect.
Sorry about all the typos – in middle of big geochem modeling job – very rushed post.
Steve; very interesting; I think you should give the Chilingar et al paper, “Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission” another chance; they look at the operation of Henry’s Law on increased CO2 flux and oceanic uptake; then again this may be just another manifestation of my propensity to pick up on weird and weirder approaches to AGW; I’ll leave it to you; in any event I’m going to make a call; first, a potted summary; my interest was whether base period anomalising of temp trends was ignoring a 20thC temp pattern which was consistent with discernible and discrete climate phases; for convenience I called them PDOs; I acknowledge Bob’s, and others’, work in ascertaining that the PDO may be an after-effect of ENSO activity; regardless, I think he would agree that during the 20thC, there were 3 internally consistent but systemically different climate phases; within these phases there were temp trends which appeared independent of CO2 increase and AGW theory; this point was obscured by the base periods of the land data agencies straddling 2 of these phases and producing, not different curves, but step-ups on either side of the phase transitions before and after the base period; the result was that the first +PDO (again until Bob does his presentation and hopefully advises of a new term to describe these patterns, I’ll use the term PDO) had a temp commencement markedly lower than the 2nd +PDO, even though both PDO’s had almost identical internal temp trends which presumably were naturally occurring because of the associated phase caused climate rather than CO2, and, there was an upward temp trend for the 20thC; I postulated that a test of whether the base period was tainting in the way I described, was to actually compare the unanomalised starting temp for the first +PDO with the equivalent for the 2nd; if the first had an equal or higher temp than the second it would suggest that there was base period corruption and, more importantly, that any temp movements, up, down or roundabout during the century was a factor of natural trends within the phases; so, looking at the 1999 unadjusted GISS data for the US; and why the US and not a global indice? Because in the interests of fairness, and affording every opportunity for the 2nd to have a higher starting temp on the basis of increased UHI effect, and because the US GISS data sort of encapsulates the AGW data fiddling issue, I have decided to go with this deeply symbolic graph;
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
Looking at the graph it looks to be a too close to call situation between the temp range for 1905-8 and 1976-8; even on the adjusted 2007 GISS graph there is not much difference! So, I’m going to call it; any temp movements during the 20thC, up, down or all around were due to natural factors and not CO2 or AGW.
Cohenite,
I must say that the temp commencement for the first +PDO versus the second +PDO always bugged me, excellent work on this!
I think you may just have done it with this, sayonara to the AGW theory…
Anders S
THC/MOC? PDO? ENSO? AMO? SST? TSI? ACRIM? PMOD? NPR?
Ah, these climatologists just love their acronyms – and the physics and statistics.
Not so good at thinking about the chemistry and the biology though.
“Not so good at thinking about the chemistry and the biology though.”
That’s why they rely on the experts in those areas to get those answers.
I’m bitterly disappointed that you can’t play the game. Dare anyone put a temp curve through all those proxies? see Claus’s posts above.
While Shorty stuffs around with predictions for trapping CO2 in drifting slime and lime out in the briny I want to know what they both think on short term SL change based on proxies.
Gaia has only so much patience. When she comes to deal with us, that greedy lot we are, expect some long term punishment other than rising sea level like a ton of slimy barnacles for every bucket of ice left down under.
Couple of things (while still at work – this ain’t a PS office you know):
(1) I’m just south of Sydney 1.5 km from the shoreline. Two hours ago we just had another one of those massive ‘soft hail’ episodes. The place is white! All I can say is that I’ve been living in this area since 1978 except for 3 years in Germanyy and Switzerland and have never seen hail like this around here before – heaps of it, very mushy. Sure I agree it is hail – tiny little blobs but the sheer bulk is something unusual.
(2) Ernst Beck just sent this through.
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/CO2-cycle-e2.pdf
Steve; I think Beck’s next cold phase, due in 2025, is definitely early. An interesting thing I note from his ocean absorbing and degassing map is that uniform mixing of CO2 must be continually compromised by such variations in SST; I should have thought about it before but like everyone else I’ve been conditioned to think of uniform temps, CO2 mixing etc.
Cohenite:
“I think Beck’s next cold phase, due in 2025, is definitely early.”
I agree. In fact I would say that the effect of the past more regular oscillations in the oceans’ (plural) sinking/upwelling CO2 conveyors (partially linked since the the opening of the Drake Passage to take the really long view) is now being over-ridden by the oceans’ responses to the recent rapid increase in anthropogenic emissions.
Gavin: “While Shorty stuffs around with predictions for trapping CO2 in drifting slime and lime out in the briny…”
Not only does this utterly trivialise what I’m saying (pearls before….), but little does the poor old buffer appreciate the total irony of his words.
“…..but like everyone else I’ve been conditioned to think of uniform temps, CO2 mixing etc.”
Precisely the problem, IMHO.
BTW, this stuff of Bob’s (and Beck’s) is starting to sound familiar – see:
Schlesinger, M.E. and Ramankutty, N. 1994. An oscillation in the global climate system of period 65-70 years.
Nature 367, 723-726
Gaia has only so much patience…….oh dear another nature worshipper.
Oh no; not E G Beck again!
This is where I recommend our readers do a Google and find some comments by others including Doug Mackie on the “fossil rabbit” and “soda water”
Gavin:
“Oh no; not E G Beck again!”
As always, it is just not as jackbooted, ram-this-darnya-throat simple as the AGW stormtroopers and other assorted hangers-on and professional wafflers would have it.
(1) No matter what one may think about Beck (and he clearly isn’t any genius), he should get credit for highlighting one simple fact and it is this. There is easily a sufficient body of evidence from many tens of thousands of direct chemical measurements of atmospheric CO2 pre-1957 i.e before the adoption of the Keeling method, of significant variability of distribution of CO2 both in time and in place around the planet. Many of those measurements were made by high scrupulous chemists, mostly Germans, using a method which any good chemist familiar with it agrees gave a precision to ±1-2% from at least 1900 onwards. Several of those chemists were Nobel Prize Laureates (like Arrhenius – someone held up by AGW bandwagonists as the acme of brilliance). To reject ALL that body of data in one fell swoop (e.g. as in the pathetically vindictive reviews of Beck’s paper), is just another rotten apple in the great basket of such apples that is the AGW bandwagon – right up there with the GISS/Hansen temperature record adjustments and re-adjustments, the hockey stick repudiations of the MWP and LIA, the repudiation of the high rate of warming at the end of the Younger Dryas, the post-Terminations CO2 lagging issue, repudiation of 200 years of solution thermodynamics to create ocean acidification real soon now fantasies, shonky hurricane frequency predictions, etc…. need I go on, and on?
(2) The 2004 paper by Polyakov et al. at the International Arctic Research Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska, Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, St. Petersburg, Russia and the Naval Research Laboratory, Stennis Space Center, Mississippi quoted by Beck IMO is soun. Quote: “Finally, it is found that the Arctic air–sea–ice system and the North Atlantic sea surface temperature display coherent low-frequency fluctuations. Elucidating the mechanisms
behind this relationship will be critical to an understanding of the complex nature of low-frequency variability found in the Arctic and in lower-latitude regions.” Ironically, this is essentially just what Keenleyside et al found by modeling – to the AGW bandwagon’s shock horror! It is also equivalent to what Bob Tisdale has been doing with the Pacific and the PDO. He is in very good company.
(3)Let us also not forget that very recently in this blog, it was the un-mistakeable mark of the PDO, (sweet irony again) so strikingly evident in the groundwater records of over 30,000 bores across Queensland and the Territory, which was ‘just another little shoot-yourself-in the-foot Inconvenient Truth’ which led to the rapid fadeout of you know herein, something Gavin no doubt dearly wishes to forget.
But hey mate, I’m here to rub yr nose in it every so often.
“Our readers”?
Given Gavin’s patronising tone elsewhere, it’s fairly clear he suffers us but the insinuation that Jen’s blog includes him as a simplenumerary, now that’s something else again.
Louis: This blog is a useful window without the usual “links” to the chain and beware; I play the devil’s advocate to build a case for and against a particular view.
Shorty: I reckon Jen just sits back and watches the sparks fly after creating her most controversial forum. I also find it interesting. Ammunition is gained in various ways. Recall, I’m truly retired.
Thanks.
Mackies soda water; the bad news is ocean acidification is going to cause teeth decay; the good news we are going to be able to use sea water to store power for our solar powered cars;
http://www.dentalgentlecare.com/diet_soda.htm
Short – stop misrepresenting – the paper was provided in refutation of the claim that aquifers were filling mysteriously from beneath and climate had no influence.
i.e. the PDO signal was actually (ahem) the entire point.
gavin: Gaia has only so much patience. When she comes to deal with us, that greedy lot we are, expect some long term punishment other than rising sea level like a ton of slimy barnacles for every bucket of ice left down under.
That there is what we call ol’ timey religion right chere. Brimstone and retribution. Oh my!
Gavin’s is a vengeful deity. Sort of like Cate Blanchett in LOTR :In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair!
Back off sister.
Luke (originally):
“Probably explains then why aquifers reflect IPO activity (Not!). http://www.lockyerwater.com/doc/download/2002-01.pdf
But the actual reference says (and provides graphs to show):
“Typically, groundwater levels were falling in the mid to late 1960s, but then rose sharply until the late 1970s. Levels then
declined until the mid 1980s, when a brief recovery was followed by a further decline that continued until the late 1990s.
This pattern of groundwater level trend is particularly pronounced in central to northern areas of the state, but similar
patterns are observed in other parts of Australia, including the Northern Territory.
The impact of climate on groundwater levels was investigated through a representative time series. This was constructed
from the annual averages of monthly medians, in a historical data collection containing about 500,000 individual water
level records from over 30,000 bores. Similar time series were produced to represent median streamflow and salinity.
These time series were then compared with climatic indices, using multiple regression.
The water table time series proved to have a strong correlation with the rate of change of the Interdecadal Pacific
Oscillation (IPO). Streamflows were more affected by the SOI, with stream salinity being affected by both. The observed
patterns in all three time series can be explained through decadal scale balances between surface flow and baseflow.”
Luke (above, twice):
“Short – stop misrepresenting – the paper was provided in refutation of the claim that aquifers were filling mysteriously from beneath and climate had no influence.”
“i.e. the PDO signal was actually (ahem) the entire point.”
Sorry, Walker – I haven’t misrepresented you at all.
Just the little matters of your (unfortunate for you) use of the phrase “…reflect IPO activity (Not!)” in your original post reveals your sophistry as plain as day.
Or are you going to now ‘blow smoke and duck’ by claiming your use of the term IPO did not refer to PDO? It would be consistent with the Walker cesspit standard, I suppose.
Hey, the 1st sip of morning coffee did it – I’ve just guessed it! It’s going to be (dah dah):
“an implied double negative.”
Must keep her good self real confused as to whichaway ya gonna be lying in the bed each night (he loves me, he loves me not, he loves me..etc). James Mayeau could have some fun with this one.
IPO not quite the same as PDO but not the point. Yep my original quick comment was incorrect. A word was left out. My bad. “don’t reflect” was the intention. Which imemdiately you won’t accpet I know.
However, I don’t think I’d be producing an obscure reference like that (took some time to find as was from memory where it was published and names) – as an example of the opposite case. And it was in refutation to Louis – read above – I don’t think I’d be producing something that was agreeing with him if I was disagreeing with him? You did the same thing On Hollan communication – you have no good reason not to take my word and you chose not to. And your misrepresentation on “personal communication” and depth of personal attack have actually depressed me totally. So if that was your aim well done.
On PDO and boreholes Gavin can make his own assessment.
OK I’m easy going enough to cop the 7 – 8 fast, furious and nasty rebuttals you issued over the last 10 days prior to this in exchange for a final grudging admission. Thank you.
But we won’t say anything about your style of personal attack on all and sundry who threaten your fanaticism – stretching, I note, back years before I ever popped into this blog or had even heard from you.
But ever stop to consider just how many you might have ‘depressed totally’ along the way? Call it PKO = Personal Karma Index.
I gotta wonder at this point where you are coming from:
“Grudging admission” – tripe – is “(Not!” etc) all that was your issue? Wow !
On this single point of a text error you “appear” to have accepted my statement.
And I am sorry for making that error which you could quickly cleared up as a simple goof by me but chose to indulge your own need for a bit of biffo as it fulfils your POV and underlying intolerance.
People can slip up grammatically – but it’s usually apparent what they mean.
But that’s where the apology stops. You have suddenly moved from being reasonable to totally nasty. And I’m pretty interested in that actually. I view that now in the totality of everything you’ve said.
Whether I’d believe anything you say. Disappointing stuff as I had thought you were a good bloke actually.
So yep I have been pretty fanatical – but on the other hand I’m very interested – the issue is at the core of modern science policy. The probability of converting anyone on here is zilch. That’s not why one is here though. I consider the issue of climate variability and climate change to be very important. I assume you would agree that humanity and our environment gets periodically whacked by weather and climate and so these issues may be of some serious issue to all of us.
Indeed this blog continues to editorialise almost 80% of its posts on relentless AGW bashing. Do we accuse the blog owners of being fanatical?
It’s full-on. So if you want to be here be here. If you don’t – don’t.
I simply want to know the answers – but the political mix makes it intolerable.
You also have discounted the hundreds of attacks on me. You have parsed them from your view. Why – well to me it seems that any level of abuse or rubbish from contrarians is fine as long as it on the right side. i.e. it’s war and anything – any means is fair.
But immersed in the milieu of the mining industry what else would we expect? Ecology isn’t a subject is it?
Anyway all personally indulgent – but yep you win – demotivated to engage. Might see ya – might not.
“Short – stop misrepresenting – the paper was provided in refutation of the claim that aquifers were filling mysteriously from beneath and climate had no influence.”
Seems oil has a similiar silly tendency to mysteriously fill reserves too.
Luke, ever considered the remote possibility that the mainstream ideas might be wrong? That water and crude oil might be what we abiotic oilers think it is? After all we have the science to back us up, you and your mates only technologically sophisticated rhetoric.
When it comes down to the crunch, I’ll back the engineers before the academics when it comes to dealing with practical application of science.
Luke,
You are really a sad case – scientists are converted to a theory by the compulsion of experimental fact, not by technologically sophisticated rhetoric.
All the attacks on you are self-inflicted, for you are the one who always starts the abuse, so cut the whinging, for heaven’s sake.
As for your slur on the mining industry, your whole lifestyle and existence depends on our efforts – you really are an ungrateful ingrate.
I am always willing to try a fresh start.
To err is human, to forgive divine – and that is about as religious as we ever need to get IMHO (;-)
How about Bob Tisdale’s interesting guest Weblog?
If anyone continues to be puzzled by some of the exchanges above which remind me of some aspects of life in the Public Service, I will say that I’m far more concerned by the lack of a date on that QLD ground water report. That’s me being difficult to please!
Also each industry has its own jargon which is often the main barrier for observers on the sidelines. Certain people forget the rest of us are not that bothered with details, para after para.
So, what about base period anomalies? Surely a better method would be, once Bob and Steve fine tune their ideas, to specify a discrete, coherent and periodic climate pattern and compare temperatures and other climate indices between similar phases of that pattern; the comparison would be able to be done on a global and regional basis since even though, as I showed on Bob’s post, El Nino, for instance, has divergent climate effects regionally throughout the world, the contrary (ie wet in one region, dry in another etc) effects would still be consistent for that pattern; allowance would have to be made for overlap and even contrary effects from multiple patterns; the point is, once a defined pattern is established, internal variations from one pattern to the other can be used to extract an anthropogenic signal.
Don’t go away angry luke. Some of your contributions were appreciated even if I don’t agree with your take generally on AGW.
Gavin – this paper will give you a broad date and a formal paper. http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci-discuss.net/3/2963/2006/hessd-3-2963-2006-print.pdf
The file name and PDF file info put the original file at early 2002.
“ever considered the remote possibility that the mainstream ideas might be wrong? ” – err yep – constantly. But having the IPO paper I suggest would be inconvenient for your proposition on water tables/aquifers.
As for AGW – yep it’s a risky business. Perhaps you might think that’s why I’m here – need to know.
“self inflicted” mmmm I’ll take some but not all – IMO Louis you guys normally start it; or it just carries on. You may find I only respond to stimuli and am far from universally aggressive.
And yes I’m grateful for my metals, gas and oil. No need for the lecture. Why is it a slur to have a geological milieu? You would also argue that mining alienates a very small proportion of land compared to agriculture and pastoralism’s 80%. But Louis we are all prisoners of our experiences and world view. Hard to trade places.
As for ocean acidification chemistry – yes already had been warned about Ca. And I accept Steve’s chemistry on SI and aragonite. I also noted the total lack of comments from either side. But I then am puzzled why some any seemingly intelligent researchers are chasing the issue? Are they nuts or is it something I’ve missed.
Bob Tidale’s guest post – yep very interesting stuff but may just sit out for a while and cool heels. It’s only in the last few months that the level of discussion has picked up to the state where it’s worth just sitting out and listening. Would be churlish to just rag on a thoughtful post.
Luke:
“But I then am puzzled why some any seemingly intelligent researchers are chasing the issue? Are they nuts or is it something I’ve missed.”
Fair comment. I’ve been repeatedly asking myself exactly the same thing.
I have a close associate, lovely feller, more AGW than me (we are working up the Southern Ocean paper together). An absolute authority on marine cyanobacteria (= algae to the old guys) especially coccolithophores i.e the ones that have biogenic calcite. At his urging, I reduced the Phreeqc modeling temperature to 0 C (he noted that some ice water mixtures deep under Arctic and Anarctic shelve get to -1.8 C) in an effort to even simulate circum-polar pteropods (calcite shells) for steven w – as the extreme case. Still could not get SI down to 0.00 any closer than 168 years out from now at current mean global CO2 increase rate (0.45%/year).
So the only possibly conclusion is that these seemingly intelligent researchers are assuming future significantly higher rate of atmospheric CO2 increase to get dates like 2020 – 2060 for decalcification to set in. I could even go with that if they were out front about it – but they NEVER state that key assumption. Why? I have no idea.
Other, fewer papers, even more puzzling, which claim to find existing decalc. effects right now must surely just be seeing the influence of confounding effects e.g. high dissolved phosphorus levels, natural organic acids, other pollutants – even marine viruses (yes, they do exist). Yet they never seem to check for these effects even though there is some limited past literature (pre-AGW movement) on them. These findings also fly in the face of the paleoclimatic literature on decalc. conditions for corals, forams, pteropods etc.
Otherwise, I am genuinely totally at a loss. At the end of the day it must all be subject to thermodynamics – toss that away and one may just as well discard AGW too! Science is not a simplistic ‘have your cake and eat it too game’, I’m sure you’d agree.
Steve
These researcher’s “believe” CO2 is the problem – their think as Socratists – where truths are determined by consensus among experts. Remember Arrhenius’s hypothesis has never been formally tested, and so it became accepted as a scientific verity.
Charles Lyell used the same method to change geology 200 years ago by persuasive reasoning that only a lawyer could command.
It happens so sciences that cannot have their basic tenets empirically tested – astronomy, geology and archaeology are three other sciences where the trap of allowing the deductive method to become dominant is all so easy to fall into.
It doesn’t happen in the hard physical sciences like physics, chemistry, electrical engineering etc, where new ideas are easily tested and falsified.
AGW is a purely deductive science – its practioners are adept, highly skilled, professional but unaware of the flimsy basis the science is based on.
And once such a science becomes established, it is nigh well impossible to change it – these sciences tend to have paradigm shifts – where a new paradigm appears not from the previous adherents being swayed by evidence, but from their gradual dying out.
Lyell achieved this in the early 19th century with geology as described by Grinnell.
AGW is not going away either, despite the contradictory experimental evidence – it’s basically Whig science.
This is the problem – those who support progressive ideas, leftism, etc, also practise consensual science, especially when the science becomes disconnected from direct physical reality. Such sciences are dominated by mathematics.
This does not mean that all the data collection and research is being done incompetently, not at all, but the problem lies in the fundamentals – in AGW’s case Arrhenius’ hypothesis.
Note that none of the AGW proponents defend it. It’s a done deal, it’s accepted by consensus to be true.
And others have noted some years back that climate science started out when students from the social science areas started to drift into the physical sciences – it all started off with this multidiscplinary approach to educatiion – I had to do some social science subjects for my undergraduate work and I hated it. It was Enid Blyton type of wiffly waffly stuff.
AGW can be attributed to this change in educational emphasis and there is really nothing we can do about it.
>To err is human, to forgive divine – and that is about as religious as we ever need to get IMHO (;-)
I’m still waiting for a simple apology from you Steve for misrepresenting me. I can’t understand why this is so hard for you.
I have had to search back very hard on this issue, But as far as I can tell, you are correct Travis – I did erroneously attribute the Harries 2000, 2004 references as having been made by you. It turned out to be someone else (in fact several others) when I checked. I apologise for attributing those references to you.
“But we won’t say anything about your style of personal attack on all and sundry who threaten your fanaticism – stretching, I note, back years before I ever popped into this blog or had even heard from you.”
Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick.
Luke has had so much **** piled on him it is unbelievable. Yet you ignore it all. In terms of content, Luke has provided much more than anyone else. Amazing how myths start. It’s an interesting process to watch.
Man made global warming is just a hoax, and a way to extract national taxes and ultimately global taxes from developed countries. Same old story, “Just follow the money.”
“In terms of content, Luke has provided much more than anyone else. Amazing how myths start. It’s an interesting process to watch.”
Hmmm….this from a guy who repeatedly referred to Harries, 2000 & 2004 about the other guy who also had resort to Harries, 2000, 2004, neither of whom picked up that the original paper disseminated shonky data based on spectral absorption databases found to have flaws acknowledged by Harries himself and the only possible shift in the 2004 paper was a single methane line which gave conflicting results for different measurement sources and hence was itself highly suspect. Furthermore, neither ever really bothered to check whether the original conclusions had passed the test of time some 3 – 4 years later. Amazing how myths start (and are kept alive).
SJT
In terms of parrotting the AGW litany, Luke has no equal, but the only reason he received so much **** was because he was the first to dish it out.
And all from behind a pseudonym – as you do SJW. You can libel us but we can’t return the compliment.
Has it ever occurred to you that AGW theory might be possibily wrong?
>I apologise for attributing those references to you.
It took you long enough Steve, and much annoying badgering on my part, but thankyou. Apology accepted ad appreciated. See, not so hard and painful after all.
>In terms of parrotting the AGW litany, Luke has no equal, but the only reason he received so much **** was because he was the first to dish it out.
Louis you are a classic example of a hypocrite. The good thing is, this, ‘one of the very best environmental blogs on the planet’ is archived, so the treatment Luke, Ender, SJT, Pinxi, Ann Novek, Gavin, Libby and numerous others here have received is archived for all to read. But don’t let us stop you from adding good fodder to it.
>And all from behind a pseudonym – as you do SJW.
Yes Louis (yawn) like Chohenite, KuhnKat, Eyrie, Ivan (idiot and counting the days), Spangled Drongo, NT……Yup, hypocrite.
>You can libel us but we can’t return the compliment.
Pffttt!!! What a complete crock! What about threats of violence Louis? In black and white for all to see, and not from Luke et al.
If you go back and see how ‘relationships’ have formed here over the years between regular posters, you get a picture of the culture that exists. You also get a picture of who has contributed and done their best to get a decent debate happening and worthwhile information out there to the regulars and lurkers. Mistakes happen on both sides, and the decent thing to do is admit them, apologise and move on. But it’s more fun to play the ball, not the man, isn’t it?
Travis
Threats of violence? Hope you can prove this assertion with some evidence by quoting it explicity here.
And accusing me of not playing the ball – well, well, well, dish it out but it comes back you complain.
Now who is the hypocrite.
But let’s see your evidence for your assertions first.
Travis
By the way you write under a pseudonym as well, while I don’t, so my comment re SJT could apply to you as well, don’t you think?
Let’s just try a recent one – “One solution would be to organise a few busloads of up-river folk to go down and dismantle the damned barrage by hand. Provoke a good brawl with the locals so it gets some headlines (and maybe thump some sense into a few blockheads) and make sure that bimbo Mayor flows in with the first tide.”
mmmmmm ….
I note a previous classic – encouraging smacking out NSW departmental staff – was deleted by Jen.
Then there was the oft suggested arson, Yakuza etc etc.
Then the deep felt concern about standards in science with your own blog sub-titled “This blog is the kamikaze version of some more mundane climate sceptical views. I get fed some ideas to then throw them as intellectual hand grenades into the blogosphere.”
Louis – do try to open both eyes – I know it’s hard.
Mate – try to be fair dinkum ! At least say you’ve had strong beliefs and you’ve given things a big shove regardless of quality.
Travis
Any reasonable reader here would assume that you meant that I personally wrote the comments you find offensive in your previous comment here.
Your first example I did not write since I have not posted any comment on the Murray River thread since it does not interest me, and I know nothing about the topic.
The second one I know nothing about and since it was deleted by Jennifer, it cannot exist on the archives either. Straw man argument.
The comment I made on my old blog has nothing to do with what I posted here. What next could you dredge up – something I might have written on the dunny doors in Gilmore House at Knox Grammar School during 1960?
And the threat of violence?
Travis, you are a 14 year old callow youth. I am not your mate, and your last sentence is a non sequitur.
Whoops,
I mistook Travis for Luke, or are the two the same individual.
Empirically we will assume Luke is Travis.
Luke
Oft suggested arson, Yakusa etc?
Googling are we, writing falsehoods to ensure that when someone Googles my name all this crap comes up in the database retrieval?
I am that a serious threat to your religion that you need to use the time honored methods of the Inquisition and its successors?
Well, two can play at this game – and my replies to your slurs here will focus on this factor.
Oh for heavens sake.
You asked for evidence – above comment from Travis – you got it – now that you have it, you’ve done your nana when confronted!
Indeed you are the fervent religious zealot. YOU have politicised the issue not me. And Louis – fantasise on – I AM NOT Travis.
Mistake II Louis – assume you have enough importance than anyone really cares what you think. Don’t kid yourself.
Luke, Medusa,
Travis never came up with evidence, only anecdotes, no url’s for checking.
And no Medusa, you are not Travis, you are Luke, but here your are, good grief, Luke.
Why Luke, welcome back, had a good holiday, purged youself of all the evil thoughts permeating your flesh?
Luke, I care not what people think about my comments, only on the amount they pay – and I got a payrise.
And a reasonable reader would not automatically assume you wrote those comments. Indeed you did not, except we assume, the blogosphere one. Travis’s post was a general comment on standards.
Well clearly you don’t care – that’s the point of irresponsibility. You should care. Mercenaries get pay rises too – doesn’t count for credibility though does it?
Luke
I did,
Problems with facts have you?
Gotcha
Travis
You have not supported your allegations as of this time.
Guys, please get back to cohenite’s base period anomalies …
>By the way you write under a pseudonym as well
Louis, I have told you before, my name IS Travis. If I posted my full name it would mean buckleys to you lot, so get over it and stop finding excuses.
>And accusing me of not playing the ball – well, well, well, dish it out but it comes back you complain.
The last paragraph was more of a general comment Louis, but you can own it.
Thank you Luke for providing some of the threats. There was a recent one by Mott, I think to Bernard J. Try http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003068.html#comments
Mott has made some nice treats to me too, not to mention the stuff he has written about my family.
>Empirically we will assume Luke is Travis.
LOL! Yup, that about sums up your ‘scientific’ method!!!
>Travis never came up with evidence, only anecdotes, no url’s for checking.
and
>You have not supported your allegations as of this time.
Louis, Travis never came up with any anecdotes or URLs. He has only revisited this site now, as he had more pleasant and worthwhile things to do in the last 24 hours. LOL! Unlike you Louis, I have a life outside of this cesspit.