After the Queensland floods, Stewart Franks’ research on the interaction of El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) driving cycles of drought and flood in Australia has been advanced as the rebuttal to the proposition by some politicians and scientists that anthropogenic climate change has had a role in recent events. And that the sceptic position forms a more rational and unique unheard insight into the climate system. That indeed it is business as usual, there is nothing to worry about except mopping up, and that the average rainfall of Queensland is (drought + flood) divide by 2.
Franks’ proposition is well based on physical processes and observed data. Of course there have been other supporters of the same position from various fields:
Peter Helman suggests cycles of beach erosion are influenced by IPO cycles, “The impact of sea level rise during the last few decades has not been expressed due to low storm energy (Callaghan and Helman 2008). Climate variability determines when and how sea level change will occur on the coast. Sea level oscillates with decadal and annual climate variability. Over decades, sea level changes are related to oscillation phases of IPO (Figure 3). It has been shown that during phases of negative IPO La Ninã events are more frequent (Verdon 2007), sea level rises at a faster rate than the long term trend (Goring and Bell 2001) and is higher than the long term trend with high storm energy, are periods of coastal erosion (Helman 2007). The longest period of negative IPO recorded was from the late 1850’s to the early 1890’s and the most recent was from the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s. Both of these periods resulted in major changes and erosion of the coastline (Helman 2007).
Francis Chiew (2003) “The relationship between hydroclimate and El Niño/Southern Oscillation has been used in forecasting rainfall and streamflow. A lag correlation analysis using rainfall and streamflow data from 284 Australian catchments that show that the ENSO-hydroclimate relationship is a lot stronger when the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) phase is negative compared to when it is positive. The remarkable contrast in the hydroclimate-ENSO relationship between the two IPO phases suggests that the IPO should be considered in developing forecast models, particularly for long lead-time”
McKeon et al (2004) note: “In eastern Australia, good seasons occurred in the early 1890s, late 1910s, early 1920s, mid 1950s, early 1970s and late 1990s. Because of the work of Power et al. (1999), we now suspect that quasi-decadal changes in the Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures (the Inter-decadal Pacific Oscillation or IPO) may result in the amplification of the effects of La Niña conditions on rainfall in eastern Australia (IPO negative phase). The retention of high stock numbers through subsequent drought periods resulted in the regional degradation episodes. Thus the impact of current favourable seasons in eastern Australia on stock numbers should be closely monitored as an early indicator of increasing risk of degradation, especially when the mode of Pacific Ocean behaviour returns to conditions that appear to make ‘big wets’ unlikely (i.e. positive IPO condition). Historical evidence indicates that where conservative stocking policies have been adopted, or when rapid reduction in stock numbers occurred in response to the onset of drought, degradation appears to have been minimal.”
We should also not forget the irony that seminal research on the physical basis of the IPO has been done by the Bureau of Meteorology (Power) and the Hadley Centre (Folland), alleged centres of the great “AGW conspiracy”.
And in terms of Bob Carter’s proposed Plan B there is one experimental long lead forecast system, SPOTA, that uses ENSO and the IPO to make a long lead forecast for Queensland. Interestingly this system uses gradients of seas surface temperature across regions not sea surface temperature boxes in an attempt to “climate change proof” the forecast i.e. the Norfolk Hawaii Index (NHI); and 2) the South West Pacific Index (SWPI)
So is there any evidence for any AGW effect (or interaction) on Australia’s rainfall climate in a sea of natural variability and how would you even find it?
Part 2 will discuss any evidence for AGW influence.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/about-spota1/about.html
http://www.mssanz.org.au/MODSIM03/Volume_01/A02/04_Chiew.pdf
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/cli2000/McKeon.html
http://www.coastalconference.com/2007/papers2007/Peter%20Helman.doc
http://www.cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/sbp/abstracts/CD_IPO.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Please try and limit your comments on each thread to one per day. And please try and stay polite.
With neg IPO we got storm energy but no SLR. Coastal erosion is not SLR and Plan B is and has been installed to handle the problem.
Since neg IPO ended in 1976 we have had reduced storm energy and no SLR.
http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/sydney-noaa.jpg
Had a look for the AGW signal, but haven’t had much luck so far. Just like to direct your attention to the work of Dr Baker et al. at UNE and the important issue of sea level change.
http://www.une.edu.au/news/archives/000810.html
Sorry, that should read: “Plan B CAN BE and has been installed……”
This current La Nina and neg IPO is not producing any SLR as I pointed out with yesterday’s king tide [the highest for a year] being 30 cms lower than 48 years ago.
Interesting info from Joe Basdardi talking about La Ninas and negative IPOs/ PDOs and co2 and sunspots.
He says jokingly that some of these emporers will be shown to have no clothes, but certainly feels we will have colder weather into the future .
http://www.accuweather.com/video.asp?channel=vbbastaj
REAL liberals are not climate change believers.
REAL liberals doubt, question and challenge authority from media, politicians, green corporations and corporate science. REAL liberals don’t bow to a politician who is making an election promise of lowering the seas and making the weather better with taxes. REAL liberals don’t wish, hope and pray for a climate crisis to happen, “just to show‘em!”. REAL liberals were happy, overjoyed and relieved about climate change being 100% wrong and thus avoiding massive suffering for our children from a dying planet caused by CO2. REAL liberals don’t sit in the dark for an hour once a year with the lights turned out and call it being radical. REAL liberals don’t look their kids in the eyes and tell them they will die an unspeakable death from unstoppable warming on a dying planet. REAL liberals don’t condemn billions to death by CO2. REAL liberals are open-minded and don’t demonize any opposing view and call it “neocon”. The real necons of fear, lying and war mongering are the climate change believer terrorists leading us to a false war of climate change. BUSH-GORE-LIBERALSIM?
Well, this is the money shot:
“So is there any evidence for any AGW effect (or interaction) on Australia’s rainfall climate in a sea of natural variability and how would you even find it? ”
The point is that all scientific climate and weather forecasting and policy is based not only on there being an AGW effect but that effect dominates natural variation; see:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/Foster_et%20alJGR09_formatted.pdf
What an amazing incorrect comment.
Seasonal forecasters are quite concerned about drift in their index foundations.e.g. a warming Indian Ocean was a major concern.
You would also know that a small change in probabilities renders marginal dryland cropping enterprises inviable . e.g. 3 years make money, 4 years break even, 3 years lose
So those scientists are actually engaged in serious Plan B while others fiddle. The establishments that have done the IPO research are also the alleged hot beds of evil AGW conspiracy.
Why post the rebuttal to an erroneous paper?
But … before getting into all the bad things that can happen because of AGW where’s the evidence of that warming?
Dr Roy Spencer discusses the 2010 global average temperature on his web site, over the 30 year base period 1981-2010 concluding that the difference between 2010 and the previous record high year, 1998, is hardly worth a mention.
In 1998 the world experienced the greatest El Nino ever recorded pushing temperatures to a new record.
In 2010, the world again experienced a very strong El Nino. Fuelled by that alone 2010 might have been another record year but for the intervention of a very deep La Nina, which immediately dragged temperatures down so they did not exceed the high temperatures of 1998. Then how much are the temperatures to be believed. Ira Glickstein at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/25/do-we-care-if-2010-is-the-warmist-year-in-history/ writes on 25/12/2010 GISS seems to analyze the data for decades, if necessary, to get the right answer. “A case in point is the still ongoing race between 1934 and 1998 to be the hottest for US annual mean temperature, the subject of one of the emails released in January of this year by NASA GISS in response to a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.’ Dr Glickstein writes about the ski lift adjustments made to 1998 and the ski slope adjustments made to 1934. The ultimate result ‘1934 has lost the hot race by about an eighth of a degree (0.12ºC). Tough loss for the old-timer.’ Thermometer records are also questionable. There’s the UHI and increasing urbanisation and the uncertainty described at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/22/the-metrology-of-thermometers/. Linked there is a recent paper from Pat Frank that deals with the inherent uncertainty of temperature measurement, establishing a new minimum uncertainty value of ±0.46 C for the instrumental surface temperature record. Anthony Watts reviewing the uncertainty associated with the act of temperature measurement itself and linking Marks study says ‘There are some enlightening things to learn about the simple act of reading a liquid in glass (LIG) thermometer that I didn’t know as well as some long term issues (like the hardening of the glass) that have values about as large as the climate change signal for the last 100 years ~0.7°C
As we all know mankind’s burning of fossil fuels (mostly coal, petroleum, and natural gas) releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere but where’s the evidence that this is causing GW? Shouldn’t that question be answered before we get into the droughts; floods; heating; cooling; cyclones and the myriad of other things that currently by some are attributed to GW?
Just post your “evidence” luke and don’t bother with the airs and graces and the faux indignation about an “erroneous paper”.
Val – face it – you will never be satisfied ! You only have 8 data sets telling you the same story.
Ocean (2) , land (2) , satellite (2) , borehole, species behaviour ….
Faux sceptics are simply stalling and obfuscating over minutia. And like faux sceptics do, there’s nothing better than returning to the same old myths year after year. No matter how many times they are batted out of the stadium.
As for quasi-periodic variation it’s been well vented here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/how-fast-is-earth-warming/ and here http://www.gi.alaska.edu/~bhatt/CJC/Parkeretal_2007.pdf
ENSO and IPO are wiggles on a trend line
As for “that” paper of Cohenite’s one wonders why they bother flogging a ten times dead horse. How embarrassing for a first outing by the faux sceptics.
Hardy har har, the ole Parker face paper and the 3 EMDs; well pardner, I’ll see your 3 EMDs and raise them to 4 with a paper which concludes natural variation is dominant:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/clim/reject/rejectex/132.html
And as David Stockwell has shown the PCA method of Parker does not recognise structural breaks in a trend:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0907/0907.1650v3.pdf
Are you still maintaining that there are no structural breaks luke? You may know them as tipping points since you sit starry eyed at the feet of Glikson, Karoly and the other doom-sayers.
Cohenite – now you’re becoming combative and we’re both well above Jen’s post limit. Your comment at doomsayers is simply gratuitous and irrelevant. I’m not citing them nor suggesting “doom” and Karoly has done a poor job of explaining his position.
David Stockwell hasn’t shown anything with his unpublished unreviewed philosophy. No mechanistic understanding which is why statisticians should be careful in climate science. Indeed some have even questioned whether the IPO even exists and is simply a manifestation of ENSO and/or anti-ENSO debris. What was the comment – the presence of quasi-periodic patterns in the data does not necessarily mean that all quasi-periodic patterns really exist. Get enough overlapping cycles and you can lap yourself !
As for the PCA method – it’s really very simple – it simply shows without attribution the basic trends in two ocean data sets when you ordinate the data – (1) centennial warming trend (2) IPO like pattern (3) AMO like pattern. It’s simple, powerful yet hardly revolutionary.
“This post is actually about the poor quality and processing of historical climatic temperature records rather than metrology.
My main points are that in climatology many important factors that are accounted for in other areas of science and engineering are completely ignored by many scientists:
1.Human Errors in accuracy and resolution of historical data are ignored
2.Mechanical thermometer resolution is ignored
3.Electronic gauge calibration is ignored
4.Mechanical and Electronic temperature gauge accuracy is ignored
5.Hysteresis in modern data acquisition is ignored
6.Conversion from Degrees F to Degrees C introduces false resolution into data.”
Read more at
http://pugshoes.blogspot.com/2010/10/metrology.html
where you’ll end up at
“In conclusion, when interpreting historical environmental temperature records one must account for errors of accuracy built into the thermometer and errors of resolution built into the instrument as well as errors of observation and recording of the temperature.
In a high quality glass environmental thermometer manufactured in 1960, the accuracy would be +/- 1.4F. (2% of range)
The resolution of an astute and dedicated observer would be around +/-1F.
Therefore the total error margin of all observed weather station temperatures would be a minimum of +/-2.5F, or +/-1.30c…”
luke, as you well know EMD, as a form of PCA, merely partitions and prioritises natural oscillations or variations according to the length and strength of the periodicity; the residue is supposedly the trend, but a couple of things about the trend.
No test which isolates a supposed non-variable trend can ever say that that trend is not a natural stochastic; secondly the concept of natural variation asymmetry is not considered by AGW and such asymmetry is a fact; thirdly, the ‘trend’ which is isolated is still not correlated with AGW; nor is the nature of the trend described; and that is why I referred to David’s neat little break paper which shows that the trend is both inconsistent with AGW and best described as a step incapable of being adequately described by regression.
Now I asked you whether you are maintaining that the idea of a break trend is realistic; you haven’t answered; here are some clues:
http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp495.pdf
https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.2002/abstract
There are many more.
After reading the Zhen-Shan et al paper I moved onto the IPCC 1.4.2 Past climate observation, astronomical theory and abrupt climate.
‘The importance of other sources of climate variability was heightened by the discovery of abrupt climate changes. In this context, ‘abrupt’ designates regional events of large amplitude, typically a few degrees celsius, which occurred within several decades – much shorter than the thousand-year time scales that characterise changes in astronomical forcing.
‘A similar variability is seen in the North Atlantic Ocean, with north-south oscillations of the polar front (Bond et al., 1992) and associated changes in ocean temperature and salinity (Cortijo et al., 1999). With no obvious external forcing, these changes are thought to be manifestations of the internal variability of the climate system.’
Is the sun’s impact negligible or substantial? Both sides of the debate have strong empirical and theoretical arguments to support their stand. This may require a rethink.
Ian thank you for that comment
do you have any comment on Dr Franks paper at http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=780#more-780
and on Dr Franks comment below in response to ‘Russ’
Your question about the “meaning” of a global average temperature really goes to the heart of the science. Chris Essex wrote a paper with Ross McKitrick and Bjarne Andresen, titled “Does a Global Temperature Exist?” (2007) J. Non-Equil. Thermodyn. 32, 1-27, in which they show that “global temperature” is a statistic with no physical meaning. Naturally, that fundamental flaw in current climate science has been roundly ignored by the AGW players.
Here’s the abstract to their paper:”Physical, mathematical, and observational grounds are employed to show that there is no physically meaningful global temperature for the Earth in the context of the issue of global warming. While it is always possible to construct statistics for any given set of local temperature data, an infinite range of such statistics is mathematically permissible if physical principles provide no explicit basis for choosing among them. Distinct and equally valid statistical rules can and do show opposite trends when applied to the results of computations from physical models and real data in the atmosphere. A given temperature field can be interpreted as both “warming” and “cooling” simultaneously, making the concept of warming in the context of the issue of global warming physically ill-posed.“
and for the rest of us here’s a link to another paper which evidences doubts as to accurate temperature measurement
Socioeconomic Patterns in Climate Data
http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/final_jesm_dec2010.formatted.pdf
Overall we find that the evidence for contamination
of climatic data is robust across numerous data sets, it is not undermined by controlling for
spatial autocorrelation, and the patterns are not explained by climate models. Consequently we
conclude that important data products used for the analysis of climate change over global land
surfaces may be contaminated with socioeconomic patterns related to urbanization and other
socioeconomic processes.
So where’s the evidence of GW – I understand we are arguing about .07 C increase in temperature over the last 100 hundred years or so; is that about right? If so it seems infinitesmal
sorry Jen; my last sentence above refers to land temperature; as Dr Spencer has said on his blog the satellite temperature shows no statistical difference over the past 30 years between 1998 – the previous hottest year and 2010 the current hottest year or not sufficient to worry about
val; the Essex et al paper on the fallacy of a GMST or GAT was subject to fierce criticism when it came out from the likes of eli rabet which I duscuss here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/ten-worst-blog-posts-a-note-from-cohenite/
Essex have been vindicated in many ways; the most elegant way was enunciated in a paper by Pielke snr et al:
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
Pielke shows that because of Stephan Boltzmann there is no way GMST/GAT can give a proper indication of the Earth’s energy budget [ERB] unless the average temperature at each point is dealt with seperately; this may be shown by the difference between these 2 formula for GAT: (A + B)^4 or A^4 + B^4; the Stefan-Boltzmann equation [SB] is E = sigma x T^4, where sigma = 5.67×10^-8, and T is temperature in K; what this means is that temperature variations at particular sites will contradict the efficacy of GMST even if a homogenisation process has established a commonality of trend; the reason is that the amount of the IR emission from a locality which is determined by the SB equation can show no alteration in ERB despite an alteration in GMST; what AGW does is (A + B)^4 or adds all the site temps and then applies SB to that total; this does not take into account the temp differences between the sites which is crucial to ERB rather than the trends at those sites; the second part of the equation is crucial for spatial difference A^4 + B^4 where each site has its SB emissions determined before adding to other sites.
AGW hasn’t picked up on this yet which explains all the hooplah from cretins like Cubby in the fairfax press and the like.
thanks for that elucidation cohenite
but I’m still looking for global warming
for a historical perspective check out
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/28/2010%e2%80%94where-does-it-fit-in-the-warmest-year-list/#more-30425
conclusion
So where do the 1934/1998/2010 warm years rank in the long-term list of warm years? Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010. Thus, regardless of which year ( 1934, 1998, or 2010) turns out to be the warmest of the past century, that year will rank number 9,099 in the long-term list.
The climate has been warming slowly since the Little Ice Age (Fig. 5), but it has quite a ways to go yet before reaching the temperature levels that persisted for nearly all of the past 10,500 years.
Interesting proof of reduced rainfall measurement in the MDB at the midpoint of the negative IPO.
I chose the years 1957 to 1967= 437mm ( 11 years ) to compare to 1946 to 1977 = 502mm
The midpoint weakened from say 1957 to 1967 and compared to 32 year total ’46 to ’77 the rainfall reduced by 65 mm per year.
The stronger start of the IPO 1946 to 1957 produced an average rainfall of 525mm per year. Subtract rainfall from the weakened IPO 1957 to 1967 shows an increase of 88mm per year during this stronger 1946 to 1957 IPO.
The stronger end of the IPO 1967 to 1977 once again shows an increase in rainfall of 68 mm per year.
Just proves to me that in a period of even reduced strength of a long IPO rainfall substantially reduces.
No need to believe in fantasies or mad cults based on 0.01% increase of co2 in the atmosphere.
Cohenite
The Stephan Bolztmann equation applies to the earth system in total, and that boundary is the stratopause. That boundary marks the limit of the physical earth, and corresponds to O degrees Celsius as computed by the SB equation. There is therefore no “greenhouse gas” effect, and no anomalous thermal signature to be concerned with. Using the surface temperature means ignoring the 48 km of radiating gas as part of the earth system. One might as well measure the temp 50 km below surface and conclude that there is a thermal anomaly.
The AGW camp have decided that AGW is a fact, and as shown last week, have also proposed to reverse the onus of proof, which simply means that CAGW isn’t a scientific theory but another example of technically complex intellectual virtuosity that resorts to the modern day equivalent of computer modelling to replace the previous practice of reading chicken entrails.
So looking for an AGW signal in the noisy data that is the physical behaviour of the earth’s atmosphere assumes that it’s there in the first place, is putting the cart before the horse. It means explicitly that there are no observations that might be termed anomalous that require explaining in addition to natural variability.
Let’s also be clear that the GCM’s all assume climate sensitivity as a starting point – but as above shows using the S-B equation, there isn’t a problem in the first place necessitating an explanation, just a misunderstanding of how to apply the S-B equation.
That negative IPO shown at the bottom of this rainfall chart 1946 to 1977. See weakened period 1957 to 1967 within this otherwise strong negative IPO.
http://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/products/pdf/AustraliasVariableRainfall_LowRes.pdf
Val, re
“Of the past 10,500 years, 9,100 were warmer than 1934/1998/2010.”
Don Easterbrook’s Fig 5 has a misleading baseline at 1855 (I checked with NOAA). The baseline should be approx 1.4-1.5C higher to compare “present” with the last 10,000 years. I’ve contacted Don about this but he is not conceding for some reason.
Even with a revised baseline, there would still be approx 4500 years that were warmer.
Thanks Richard; then what are we arguing about; and what is this post about in that case
I’m confused and no one has answered that question; where’s the evidence that there is AGW?
“Conclusion
So, in the end, it’s all about what happens to the water, what happens to the wind, and what drives the clouds.
And even just ONE clear, dry, cold night with CO2 doing all it can but resulting in a record low EVER for that location pretty much says there is not a thing of importance being done by CO2. That even just one day away is drastically different says that the CO2 is not the “driver” here, it isn’t even in the passenger seat…”
Read more at
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/22/frostbite-falls/
And, to broarden our experience, try
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/mann-creates-a-roman-hockey-stick/#comments
and link
a couple of relevant links
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/normal-seasons-of-the-sun-gw-tiger/#more-32266
post by Ira Glickstein which includes a chart for the a graphic of the NASA GISS Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index that indicates the official climate Team estimate of about 0.8ºC net warming since 1880 the majority of which they allocate to human activities
so that answers my question of yesterday – how much warming are we talking about. But my other question of yesterday – where’s the evidence that it’s due to AGW remains
Ira Glickstein’s article checks out natural processes and cycles which have dominated the global warming experienced since 1880. It links to a previous post which looked at Data Bias.
The other relevant link is to a post by Frank Lanser Will global warming survive a strong La Nina?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/23/will-global-warming-survive-a-strong-la-nina/#more-32295
the trends 2002-2010 are just… flat.
As Louis says above ‘So looking for an AGW signal in the noisy data that is the physical behaviour of the earth’s atmosphere assumes that it’s there in the first place, is putting the cart before the horse.’
I totally agree Louis!
‘While there are no large changes in total SST availability, very strong events become less frequent and El Nino events develop over a narrower period within the seasonal cycle.’
Thomas Toniazzo using the HadCM3
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3853.1
I don’t believe it.
And I’ll just leave this animation to prove natural variability rules.
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/anims/eqp/sst12m.gif
Val – do you ever actually think – spatially explicit satellite data show the same trend as the land warming analysis. So do 28,000 studies of species behaviour. It’s more than obvious !
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/hadcrut3vgl
The trends from 2000 to now are far from flat
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/01/21/phil-jones-was-wrong/#more-3350
Intelligent non-faux sceptics would be looking elsewhere for issues.
Sure Luke – Tamino’s warming chart looks impressive until you look at the left hand scale – in 35 years the world has warmed .5C at most – that’s .14C per decade or 1.4C per century. Typical natural variation especially when you notice that since 2002 after the major El Nino/La Nina settled the trend has been flat!
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2002/trend
Luke you’re not convincing me, sorry, I suspet you don’t have a knowledge of historical temperatures, ie from little ice age to now and looks like from now to cooling
so I’m not just looking at the step up-wards ‘to the summit’ as Ira Glickstein says
so I suggest Luke (and I suspect you’re older than I am) that you start thinking and perhaps read Charles Dickens as well
Anecdotal evidence is evidence as well as not as nuanced – sorry Luke
Intelligence warmists would be looking at the evidence sceptis are looking at
LUKE, look at the evidence; and it’s not why the temperature is encreasing at the link you linked
have a look at the other links at that site
SORRY LUKE YOU’RE NOT CONVINCING ME BY YOUR BULLY TYPE REMARKS ‘do you actually think’ my question to you Luke is ‘DO YOU ACTUALLY READ HISTORICAL STUFF’
Oh look John – let’s play games http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2000/trend
So Val has now disowned the time series so beloved by sceptics – the satellite series. Mate you’ll have to sit down the back of the meetings if you’re going to do that. And you’ve obviously also bought into the “recovery” since Little Ice Age nonsense.
Anyway Val I don’t want to convince you – don’t want to deny you your fun.
But golly how do you know it’s cooling – you don’t believe the temperature record. Whoops !
Hmmm…Luke; climate versus weather – any comment
and looks like we might have to wait till 2019 to see if there is any trend
and why do you say ‘little Ice Age nonsense” – any comment?
oh sorry Luke but where’s your evidence that any increase in temps is caused by AGW? Are you just relying on increased temps or cooling temps, increased activity of floods; droughts; cyclones; hurricanes, floods; coastal erosion and/or whatever the latest disaster is
Maybe we should ask Jen before your next post to get an earth or similar expert scientist to give us a rundown on the incidents which affect the temperatures in a historical sense – the stuff that Dr Glickstein talks about
How about it Jen
OR Just read Dr Glickstein (I’ve put the link above)
Yes Luke – but I did mention the super el nino/ la nina event that swung temps in extreme directions so 2002 is a reasonable point to start.
In reality the warmists like you are the real cherry pickers because you take the lowest temperature point in the past 10,000 years and say we are warming from there using the term “Since records began” Thank G we are warming from there because “there” was hell on earth as history shows.
and Luke this might broaden your horizons
http://www.climatedepot.com/a/9435/Oh-My-2010-tied-for-hottest-year-Relax-it-is-purely-a-political-statement–Even-NASAs-Hansen-admits-it-is-not-particularly-important–Prof-mocks-hottest-decade-claim-as-a-joke
luke and his graphs; with all the gerfuffle about 2010 being the hottest year and only GISS shows that:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/uah/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1975/plot/gistemp/from:1975
Funny that.
“a rundown on the incidents which affect the temperatures in a historical sense ” – then look up the PETM Val – ROFL !
The warming is taking place in the Arctic, but it appears to be natural.
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/98789_south_baffin_swelters_in_winter_heat_wave/
As we all know this has to do with the jet stream and ‘blocking’ high pressure over Iceland, yet this should be of major concern as I think we have been here before.
Thought as much, at the end of the MWP and the beginning of the transition to the LIA Baffin Island had similar conditions.
http://www.co2science.org/articles/V4/N32/C1.php
relevant:
9 graphs summarising lower tropospheric temperatures (rebased Dec 2010 to 1981-2010 averages)
http://mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm
see under heading ‘Global’
John McLean says http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
The ABC headline screams “2010 the hottest year on record” and News Corp says “2010 warmest ever year says UN weather agency”. Forgive me if I’m not excited. Not only did the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) actually headlined its media release, “2010 equals record for world’s warmest year” but there are plenty of other reasons not to attach much significance to the claim.
There’s a huge difference between “hottest year” and “equal warmest”, especially when the difference between 2010 temperatures and 1998, 12 years earlier, was not statistically significant. The WMO states that two-hundredths of a degree separated 2010, 2005 and 1998, and that means that these high points are rather well spread over the 12 years, so much so that you would think the temperature was nearly flat.
The WMO media statement says that the data came from the UK’s Hadley Centre and two other sources, but data directly from the Hadley Centre tells a different story. It shows the 2010 average temperature anomaly (the variation from the 1961-90 average) as being +0.468. It gives 2005 as +0.474 and 1998 as +0.529, leaving 1998 as still the peak temperature after 12 years and incidentally after the addition of plenty of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. So much for claims of accelerated warming driven by a common greenhouse gas.
and at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/24/easterbrook-on-the-magnitude-of-greenland-gisp2-ice-core-data/
Guest post by Dr. Don J. Easterbrook,
Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University
The GISP2 Greenland ice core has proven to be a great source of climatic data from the geologic past. Ancient temperatures can be measured using oxygen isotopes in the ice and ages can be determined from annual dust accumulation layers in the ice.
conclusion
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the magnitude of global warming experienced during the past century is insignificant compared to the magnitude of the profound natural climate reversals over the past 25,000 years, which preceded any significant rise of atmospheric CO2. If so many much more intense periods of warming occurred naturally in the past without increase in CO2, why should the mere coincidence of a small period of low magnitude warming this century be blamed on CO2?
super El Nino .not. equal super La Nina – a duh
PETM
Well super may be a bit of an exaggeration
April 1997 to March 1998 Strong El Nino.
May 1998 to March 2001 Moderate La Nina
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/enlist/
Here’s one for the less humble:
John M. Wallace, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington, wrote some of the earlier papers. This time around, he said, it will take a lot of evidence to convince him that a few harsh winters in London or Washington have anything to do with global warming.
“Just when you publish something and it looks like you’re seeing a connection,” Dr. Wallace said, “nature has a way of humbling us.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/25/science/earth/25cold.html?_r=1&hp
Reading through that wonderful post by Dr Easterbrook, on the Gisp2 ice core, I glimpsed quite a few tipping points. Here is the sentence that interested me.
‘At the end of the Medieval Warm Period, 1230 AD, temperatures dropped 4 degrees C in 20 years and the cold period that followed is known as the Little Ice Age.’
As a precautionary principle we should enact Plan B now, let’s see how we would cope with mass migration.
el gordo; this lot is a good indicator of where we are going. The rest of you can excuse me butting in. I reckon such a precautionary foe is redeemable
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/retreat-of-tropical-glaciers
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/1/014005
http://glacierchange.wordpress.com/2011/01/12/imja-glacier-retreat-and-imja-tsho-lake-expansion-nepal/
Gavin, we accept glaciers are retreating, except for some in the Himalayas, but you miss the point. There has been natural global warming and cooling over millennia, it’s the abrupt climate change I can’t get my head around.
AGW is a no-brainer.
And all of the geologically recent “abrupt climate changes” have been cold ones; in fact the only hot “abrupt” climate change was the PETM; and that wasn’t so abrupt; and had nothing to do with CO2.
– was just another greenhouse gas called methane which breaks down to CO2. Massive temperature rise. Massive ocean impact. Lasting 1,000s of years.
The only event hey? hmmmm …
Wasn’t the PETM 55 million years ago? It’s hardly relevant.
‘The Little Ice Age of 400 to 200 years ago has been interpreted as the cold part of a D-O cycle, putting us (even without the effects anthropogenic global warming) in a period of warming climate (Bond et al..1999).’
Discuss.
400 years is a long while ago too – it’s hardly relevant. the rules of physics change every 30 years or so.
‘The rules of physics change every 30 years or so.’
I didn’t know that. Do you have a link to support that bold statement?
Looking a little further back to the end of the MWP, it’s a travesty that I can’t find my cooling signal. It’s supposedly in GISP2, but it doesn’t show up on this dodgy link.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/1200ad.htm
Wow, Luke’s open thread.
Came across a paper ‘Solar Forcing of Regional Climate Change During the Maunder Minimum’, with Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann onboard. I have a funny feeling of deja vu….. anyway here’s the abstract.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/294/5549/2149.abstract
In the paper they talk of a clear AO/NAO-type pattern of ‘alternating cold land and warm ocean’ temperature anomalies.
‘Both paleoclimate reconstructions and the GCM thus indicate in a remarkably consistent manner that solar forcing affects regional scales much more strongly than global or hemispheric scales through forcing of the AO/NAO.’
They even went to the trouble of lagging ‘to allow for inertia in the ocean’s response.’ The upshot is that when the sun is quiet there is a ‘shift toward the AO/NAO low-index state during periods of reduced solar forcing.’
In the Sargasso Sea temperatures were 2 degrees C cooler, yet in Newfoundland times were warming up ‘consistent with a reduced NAO.’
This has to be the signal to watch.
With every cold winter, so grows the skepticism. Britons go cold on global warming.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1351217/Climate-change-sceptics-double-4-years-Britain-goes-cold-global-warming.html
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Mpd1ozuoa64/TUM1_U8PMVI/AAAAAAAAC-w/v2RhCwrCM2A/s1600/Cartoon+-+Global+Warming+%2526+Penguins.jpg
‘Part 2 will discuss any evidence for AGW influence.’ Negligible and unimportant, compared with the imminent DO/Bond event.
Nevertheless, I found your global warming signal in the fourth century AD, when sea level was a meter higher.
‘So is there any evidence for any AGW effect (or interaction) on Australia’s rainfall climate in a sea of natural variability and how would you even find it? ‘
Direct observation.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
This large cyclone was spawned in relatively cooler waters, so the intensity developed as it moved towards warmer sst. It appears to be natural variability.
The other anomaly worth noting, is the cold water in the Atlantic moving north-east towards Europe.