A new paper published in Climate Dynamics claims a temperature trend of -0.3°C over the last 1,500 years in an Arctic location. The paper by Håkan Grudd is entitled: ‘Torneträsk tree-ring width and density ad 500–2004: a test of climatic sensitivity and a new 1500-year reconstruction of north Fennoscandian summers’
The Abstract states:
This paper presents updated tree-ring width (TRW) and maximum density (MXD) from Torneträsk in northern Sweden, now covering the period ad 500–2004. By including data from relatively young trees for the most recent period, a previously noted decline in recent MXD is eliminated. Non-climatological growth trends in the data are removed using Regional Curve Standardization (RCS), thus producing TRW and MXD chronologies with preserved low-frequency variability. The chronologies are calibrated using local and regional instrumental climate records. A bootstrapped response function analysis using regional climate data shows that tree growth is forced by April–August temperatures and that the regression weights for MXD are much stronger than for TRW. The robustness of the reconstruction equation is verified by independent temperature data and shows that 63–64% of the instrumental inter-annual variation is captured by the tree-ring data. This is a significant improvement compared to previously published reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Torneträsk. A divergence phenomenon around ad 1800, expressed as an increase in TRW that is not paralleled by temperature and MXD, is most likely an effect of major changes in the density of the pine population at this northern tree-line site. The bias introduced by this TRW phenomenon is assessed by producing a summer temperature reconstruction based on MXD exclusively. The new data show generally higher temperature estimates than previous reconstructions based on Torneträsk tree-ring data. The late-twentieth century, however, is not exceptionally warm in the new record: On decadal-to-centennial timescales, periods around ad 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were equally warm, or warmer. The 200-year long warm period centered on ad 1000 was significantly warmer than the late-twentieth century (p < 0.05) and is supported by other local and regional paleoclimate data. The new tree-ring evidence from Torneträsk suggests that this “Medieval Warm Period” in northern Fennoscandia was much warmer than previously recognized. The paper concludes: The Tornetra¨sk records of MXD and TRW are updated to AD 2004. By including MXD data from relatively young trees in the most recent period, a previously noted apparent loss of sensitivity to temperature is eliminated. These new data enable a much improved reconstruction of summer temperature for the last 1,500 years in northern Fennoscandia. Previous climate reconstructions based on tree-ring data from Tornetra¨sk were biased by a divergence phenomenon in TRW around AD 1800 and therefore show erroneously low temperature estimates in the earlier part of the records. Tornetra¨sk MXD does not show this ‘‘divergence problem’’ and hence produces robust estimates of summer temperature variation on annual to multi-century timescales. The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetra¨sk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetra¨sk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised. The paper is available under 'Open Access.' See also World Climate Report: ‘1500 Years of Cooling in the Arctic’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
A slight cooling over the measaurement period?
This result tells me that whether data analysis and processing yields cooling, stasis, or warming of temperature proxies at the limit of measurement (refer to Irving Langmuir’s definition of pathological science), that data is essentially random – ie there are no background trends in the data.
This might suggest that the holocene maximum, and other anomalous climate periods, have causations not hitherto considered.
Let’s leave it to the gobbledygookers to pontificate on these possibilities.
This is a preprint from a paper by Syun-Ichi Akasofu. There is a wealth of data in here that also suggests that there was significantly more climate variability than that which the “consensus” accepts.
“One lesson here is that it is not possible to study climate change without long-term data. In fact, one way to learn about natural changes is to examine climate change before the greenhouse
effect of CO2 became significant, as attempted in this note…”
(Care the following is a 29MB PDF file)
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pdf/Earth_recovering_from_LIA_R.pdf
cheers
Arnost
Hang on – tree rings – crikey – where’s CA – has McIntyre personally resampled the trees and reworked the entire paper from front to back?
Akasofu’s “natural” and “recovering” is hardly scientific. John Mashey shredded it here http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/05/01/glaciers-al-gore-got-it-right/
A new report in Science (Feb 1 , 2008) reports that winter temperatures in Mongolia have risen a staggering 3.6C in the last 60 years. The permafrost is thawing and ecological consequences showing. There are more intense storms causing extensive soil loss from high impact rainfall events while drought frequency has increased in other years. Fires are also becoming more prevalent.
Luke, you forgot “cats and dogs living together!”.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, the RSS numbers are in for February and this time they really are into negative territory. Second coldest January in the last 15 years!
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/rss-satellite-data-for-jan08-2nd-coldest-january-for-the-planet-in-15-years/
UAH and CRU won’t be far behind. Meanwhile Hansen and his team will likely find yet another imaginative way to diddle the GIS numbers to try and hide the cooling that’s happening in the real world!
At some point the mainstream media parasites will have no choice but to jump sides and start questioning all the global warming hysteria. Then the game will truly be up for the Alarmists! (or maybe they’ll just jump back to the global cooling bandwagon!).
No Mark – that’s a massive cop out – you don’t just get get that sort of temperature rise “popping up”. Typical insular sepo comment – Mongolia is part of some of humanity’s world. And it’s right on the frontier of the zone of change.
David has already told you what CRU does not include so how stopping the nonsense eh? Statistically you have nothing except a big La Nina and some interesting weather. But keep talking it up.
Wow – a whole 15 years eh – holey cow. Denialist drongos.
Well I’m sure the quality of the temperature record keeping in Mongolia is right up there with the best of them particularly 60 years ago!
As long as strip-bark bristlecone pines aren’t used against NAS advice, the divergence problem is dealt with, no PC1 etc, the tree ring reconstruction won’t need auditing.
Face it – Arctic temperatures aren’t unusual or unprecedented, and Polar Bears should already be extinct.
Face it Luke – We are all deniers. While I may deny Alarmist myths, you deny the reality that there is no global warming crisis!
Sorry Luke,
Mene, mene tekel upharsin. The PDO has turned negative with AMO to follow in a decade at most. Solar TSI, flux and flaring is already low and declining, even NASA’s Hathaway predicts cycle 25 will be lower still. Earth’s albedo is crashing and geomagnetic north has moved 1500 miles in a decade and has declined 60% in 150 years.
You will be (if you are remembered at all) known to posterity as afflicted and debased by Gaia herself.
Paul – but how do we know it won’t need auditing unless Macca looks at it. Doesn’t seem rigorous to me. Who says their stats are any good till we get the CA all clear? Why would you trust any tree rings now after all has been said??
When’s Macca auditing the satellite data – surely lots of bugs in there. But we cynically notice he only audits where he can drive a wedge. A true denier.
Mark it’s well known that the Mongolians were fanatical temperature measurers and few heat islands to be concerned about. The melting snowlines and thawing permafrost may be a clue that the thermometers were right – sheesh !!!!!!!!
Gary – well maybe and maybe not. Let’s see first. But if so, greenhouse warming will be back with a double whammy when the cycle changes. CO2 doesn’t work alone. A small fact that many don’t get.
The Earth’s albedo is crashing is it? hmmmmm…. quite a few chickens counted before hatching I think. Deniers all white knuckled on their knees praying for all they are worth – “pls pls let it be true”.
Luke: You were right to question me, I believe I should have said spiking and it’s the field strength that is declining. The Mt. Wilson data was reported by Anthony Watts say early December.
As the emissivity of CO2 at STP is 9*10^-4 you’d better pave the world over if you expect to stay warm over the coming decades.
Gary; Please be very careful what you say about my good friend Gaia.
“Earth’s albedo is crashing and geomagnetic north has moved 1500 miles in a decade and has declined 60% in 150 years” Hey; can we guess your next contribution will include some gem from say Spencer who was just doodling around the net.
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
IMO any fool who has worked in a power station knows where the extra CO2 comes from. Down under there is great interest in the battle for the ownership of our global resources.
http://www.sharecafe.com.au/dreck.asp?a=AV&ai=7111
All this excitement tends to overshadow the bottom line, sea level rose 17 cm did it not?
Sure; what happens to that big freshwater ice block is minor news in the financial pages today but the rate at which solid bits slide out of it will be as time goes on.
Gavin: I take that to mean you grant my facts? As for Spencer’s latest, I’m waiting for his paper and time to review my intermediate statistics. I’m not clear on the force of the argument yet. Was that 17cm at Vanatu then?
Paul – “As long as strip-bark bristlecone pines aren’t used against NAS advice, the divergence problem is dealt with, no PC1 etc, the tree ring reconstruction won’t need auditing.”
Oh I see Paul. This tree ring data, that coincidently fits with your ideas, does not need auditing however MBH99 that goes against your ideas does.
See the problem here ……?
So the Scandanavian sector of the Arctic was likely to very likely (See IPPC AR4) warmer during the MWP than now.
Luke, re Mongolia, that article, while noting the rise of 3.6 degrees C, fails to note the average or mean temp in winter for Mongolia. I wonder also the effect of land cover change; their massive herds, and their Leninist-Stalinist past might have wrought more unpleasantness then the ecologists interviewed consider.
Speaking of Mongols, if anyone’s interested in a great read, I recommend Colin Iggulden’s Wolf of the Plains which is fictional account of Genghis Khan’s childhood.
Ender – read the paper. Does Mann have updated tree ring proxies up to 2004 or address the divergence problem?
“All this excitement tends to overshadow the bottom line, sea level rose 17 cm did it not?”
C’Mon – Sea level has been rising since the last ice age due to thermal expansion. The average ocean temperature is still only 3.8 degrees C so that’s likely to continue until the onset of the next ice age! Even the IPCC attributes most further increases to continued thermal expansion and not melting ice caps. That notion is just more Alarmist crap!
Paul – “Ender – read the paper. Does Mann have updated tree ring proxies up to 2004 or address the divergence problem?”
No because in 2004 we have things called thermometers and do not need proxies.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
“7) Basically then the MM05 criticism is simply about whether selected N. American tree rings should have been included, not that there was a mathematical flaw?
Yes. Their argument since the beginning has essentially not been about methodological issues at all, but about ‘source data’ issues. Particular concerns with the “bristlecone pine” data were addressed in the followup paper MBH99 but the fact remains that including these data improves the statistical validation over the 19th Century period and they therefore should be included.
Hockey Team *used under GFDL license 8) So does this all matter?
No. If you use the MM05 convention and include all the significant PCs, you get the same answer. If you don’t use any PCA at all, you get the same answer. If you use a completely different methodology (i.e. Rutherford et al, 2005), you get basically the same answer. Only if you remove significant portions of the data do you get a different (and worse) answer.”
Ender’s faith in Mann’s hockey stick is truely impressive. I feel like a visitor at Lourdes observing the faithful.
BTW, Pierrehumbert’s comment, in the above link, to RC re the educational importance of defending the hockey stick are very revealing.
“C’Mon – Sea level has been rising since the last ice age due to thermal expansion”
Hmmm; 400ft = thermal expansion hey?
“From 3,000 years ago to the start of the 19th century sea level was almost constant, rising at 0.1 to 0.2 mm/yr.[1] Since 1900 the level has risen at 1 to 2 mm/yr; since 1993 satellite altimetry from TOPEX/Poseidon indicates a rate of rise of 3.1 ± 0.7 mm yr–1”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
Check the “Post Glacial Sea Level Rise” graph in this link for the other story and recall one ice block contains about 90% of the freshwater ice left above SL
proteus – “Ender’s faith in Mann’s hockey stick is truely impressive. I feel like a visitor at Lourdes observing the faithful.”
proteus’s faith in McIntyre’s hockey stick analysis is truely impressive. I feel like a visitor at Lourdes observing the faithful.
Ender, no faith required. An auditor makes no positive claims about the past, s/he only makes claims about the analysis.
Ender
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mann’s “Hockey Stick” analysis of the last millenium’s temperatures challenged the historical understanding of same. It was/is an extraordinary claim. It is perfectly fair therefore to put this analysis under the microscope – more so than any other analysis supported by history.
proteus – “Ender, no faith required. An auditor makes no positive claims about the past, s/he only makes claims about the analysis.”
proteus, no faith required. An scientist makes no positive claims about the past, s/he only makes conclusions based on the analysis.
Arnost – “It is perfectly fair therefore to put this analysis under the microscope – more so than any other analysis supported by history.”
And what did this analysis achieve other than it’s objective to inject doubt?
“More Useful Doomsayers”:
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2008/02/11/cartoons_20080204?slide=10#showHeader
It’s amazing how this thread was side-tracked from actually discussing the subject of the post.
That is:
“The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetra¨sk record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer. The warmest summers in this new reconstruction occur in a 200-year period centred on AD 1000. A ‘‘Medieval Warm Period’’ is supported by other paleoclimate evidence from northern Fennoscandia, although the new tree-ring evidence from Tornetra¨sk suggests that this period was much warmer than previously recognised.”
Good point Proteus.
No doubt climate realists would have been subjected to the same Arctic scares during the 200 year MWP – when polar bears didn’t become extinct, and after which the world cooled again.
No.29,
http://www.searchlores.org/schopeng.htm
” when polar bears didn’t become extinct, and after which the world cooled again.”
Posted by: Paul Biggs at February 6, 2008 06:13 PM
The difference now is there are multiple threats to the polar bear population: illegal and legal hunting, contaminants, gas and oil exploration, shrinking sea ice etc.
According to Andrei Boltunov, from the Russian Environmental authorities, the 300 to 400 polar bears, that travel from the Wrangel’s Island( where they spend the summer) to Chukotka in Eastern Siberia, didn’t arrive this autumn to Chukotka. Nobody knows where they have disappeared/ swum to find sea ice. If they have been caught on land they will starve and get less cubs etc.
This news was in my today’s Swedish paper.
O.T. again I’m afraid.
Here’s a general overview of the current state of those “poster boys [and girls] for man-made climate change”, polar bears, their populations and their future:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4468/
Back on track: Why this focus on the supposed MWP I don’t know.
If we accept the work of Jones, P. D. & Briffa, K. R and others regarding the late Holocene reconstruction we can probably see a gradual decline in global temp from a high point well before the current millennia.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v376/n6536/abs/376156a0.html.
The real issue for me and the obvious Q: What happened to global Sea Level over the same period up to say 8000 BP. It should bring up the other Q regarding the hockey stick and possibilities of rapid SL change.
I have to wonder how much is known in climate science circles about recent southern hemisphere SL change 8000 – 1500 BP.
Let’s have it this way Paul; You can have the -.3C decline in global temp from NH reconstruction if I can have a similar decline in SL starting with the last known SH SL maximum.
Ann – good point:
“The difference now is there are multiple threats to the polar bear population: illegal and legal hunting, contaminants, gas and oil exploration, shrinking sea ice etc.”
So let’s prioritise and address the things we have control over in the short term: illegal and legal hunting, contaminants, gas and oil exploration” – and not worry so much about the “shrinking sea ice” which we can’t do much about today.
One of the principal methods used in pseudoscience is to overload the argument with rhetoric in support of the assumption.
Real science relies on the compulsion of empirical fact.
One characteristic of pseudoscience is to point to confimatory evidence, and that is to miss the point entirely – it is evidence that FALSIFIES an hypothesis that is paramount.
And AGW has been comprehensivel falsified by the oppressive weight of empirical fact.
And in order to counter THAT, pseudoscience then modifies its hypothesis to accomodate the new data, in itself an admission that the orginal thesis was either incomplete, or fundamentally wrong.
Notice how the gobbledygookers here present an ever increasing number of foofaraws to support their political position.
Back on track: Why this focus on the supposed MWP?
For the simple reason that there is nothing, (and I mean nada, zilch, ňic, i nogat samting), in published science that shows that what caused the Medeival WP is NOT a factor in the Modern WP.
History (and I don’t belive the hockey stick version) tells us that the Medieval, (and Roman, Greek, Climactic Optimum etc) Warming Periods were similarly warm to today.
As Louis points out, “Real science relies on the compulsion of empirical fact”. The globe has cooled over the last year by about the same magnitude that it warmed over the last century. This fact alone can demonstrate that natural variability can totally explain ALL the warming over the last 100 years.
Sticking my neck out – We are likely to have a multi-year La Nina. The PDO is projected to be negative over the next year. The sun is at a nadir and projected to be there for the next year or so. 2008 is going to be COLD (And I mean that last month is going to be considered a warm one in the year).
If the NAO swings to negative by the end of this year as some are suggesting – 2009 is going to be COLDER. It may not be as cold as the 50’s and 60’s, but it will be COLD.
This, if it occurs, will put an empirical dent in the doom and gloom of the AGW industry. And I hope that the billions channeled in to this industry go to projects that can do good.
Bottom line – lets fix the important things we can now, see my previous post and this: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23156017-1702,00.html
Please, lets get our priorities right?
Arnost – no it won’t put a dent in the serious science, not yet by a long shot.
“Real science relies on the compulsion of empirical fact”. Yes but you do have to “see” not just “observe” which is unfortunately the problem for simple minds.
The fact that you’re predicting cold “factors” should tell you something very pertinent. i.e. these oscillations are still operating whether AGW exists or not? Did the IPCC report suggest they would not? Think about it – it’s subtle. You’re in a bloody big La Nina – does AGW predict that 2008 is somehow the most important AGW year?
If the MWP was a warm as today – is that actually helpful to someone doing physics on contemporary times. I would be more worried if anything – more warming spikes than we may have imagined are likely and the MWP was a drought wipeout. Nobody out there worried about an apparent poleward expansion of the sub-tropical dry zone.
In any case – you’re a mile away from any agreement with the major emitters. Nothing serious on CO2 will happen soon. Denialists and C3 plants rejoice.
This “natural” business is totally unsatisfying. It’s not science. So we’re now abandoning what science we know coz things “move naturally”. Gaia? God? “Just because”. What a slippery slope.
P.S. The last thing I would do (whether it happens or not) is predict a multi-year La Nina – why do you think it will be again in 2008-2009 – enjoying the cloud cover, current rain and wistfully admiring the PDO? That’s not a prediction – but tell us your logic.
Louis – “One characteristic of pseudoscience is to point to confimatory evidence, and that is to miss the point entirely – it is evidence that FALSIFIES an hypothesis that is paramount.”
Really?? So the double slit experiment proves that light is in fact a wave however the photoelectric effect proves that light is a particle.
So what is light then when two lines of evidence falsify each other?
Arnost – “The globe has cooled over the last year by about the same magnitude that it warmed over the last century. This fact alone can demonstrate that natural variability can totally explain ALL the warming over the last 100 years.’
Are you sure about this? Where is the reference?
NASA GISS
2000 .33 .45
2001 .48 .45
2002 .56 .48
2003 .55 .54
2004 .49 .55
2005 .62 .55
2006 .54 *
2007 .57 *
HADCRUT3
2005 0.482
2006 0.422
2007 0.403
So where is your data showing that the warming is back to zero?
Ender – “Last year” i.e. January 07 to January 08.
Luke, lets take it one by one.
“…you do have to “see” not just “observe” which is unfortunately the problem for simple minds…”
Seeing is BELIEVING – observing is SCIENCE. I am observing – I’m an ENSO junkie – I read everything I come across in this space. This is a good paper so lets start with this: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/papers/jgr2001b/jgr2.html
WRT to the start of an El Nino episode from above: “A build up of ocean heat content in the equatorial west Pacific progresses eastward and peaks some months before the surface event”. It does not go into why this is, but I suspect that it is propagation of sub-SSTs due to Kelvin Waves. I also believe that the converse is true – a build up of ocean “cold” content in the equatorial east Pacific progresses westward and peaks some months before the surface event driven (in the absence of Kelvin Waves) by the natural equatorial Walker circulation. (I made a mention of this a couple of months ago and- much to everyone’s chagrin – predicted a Nina early last year if you remember).
“These oscillations are still operating whether AGW exists or not”
Without a doubt – I believe this is correct. I have never denied that CO2 driven warming is a fact. However, I have always argued that the (upward?) oscillations are incorrectly attributed to CO2 in the models leading to over-estimation of the projected consequences (i.e. 5C+ temp increase in the next 100 yrs and assorted doom and gloom).
“You’re in a bloody big La Nina”
Beg to differ – by any measure this event does not make the top 5 in the last 50 years. (According to Klaus Wolter it – at the moment – it MAY rank about 8). It is not anywhere the same standard deviation from norm as say the 98 Nino was.
“If the MWP was a warm as today – is that actually helpful to someone doing physics on contemporary times”
Sure is! I repeat my quote from the Akasofu paper I linked at the start of this thread: “One lesson here is that it is not possible to study climate change without long-term data. In fact, one way to learn about natural changes is to examine climate change before the greenhouse effect of CO2 became significant, as attempted in this note…” It is critical to understand what caused the previous temp changes so that (in this case still fallaciously) you can apply the Sherlockian maxim – “If you eliminate the Impossible… Whatever remains, however improbable, has to be the truth”. The “impossible” in this case is whatever caused these changes. Only this way will you arrive at a “truth” of what the anthropogenic impact really is.
“Nothing serious on CO2 will happen soon”
Agreed – but what “non-serious” action will be taken is therefore a waste of time/resources that can be better spent elsewhere.
“This “natural” business is totally unsatisfying”
Roll back to a couple of hundred years ago – pls explain natural events such as lightning, gravity, and evolution etc without invoking divine influence… “Natural” is by definition something that occurs outside the influence of humankind – but it does not necessarily mean that humankind fully understands it. As unsatisfying as the admission that “we don’t understand” is, I think we better “man up”, admit it, and get our asses into gear and figure it out. As far as I’m concerned, the argument that “we can’t attribute the modern warming to anything else but CO2 – therefore that’s the culprit” just does not cut it. And since I mentioned Kelvin Waves earlier – you can fall into the same trap that Lord Kelvin did in claiming we know everything about physics in the 1890’s.
“The last thing I would do (whether it happens or not) is predict a multi-year La Nina – why do you think it will be again in 2008-2009”
Mate, sometimes you go with the gut. Kelvin Waves have the capacity to change the ENSO state. The ‘06/’07 Nino was killed by a Kelvin Wave in Jan/Feb. There have been two starts of Kelvin Waves (and one just recently). Both fizzed out. Right now the negative central and east Pac sub-SSTs are strong and deep. It will take a couple of Kelvin Waves in succession to disrupt this pattern – and given that Kelvin Waves take months to traverse the Pacific, it just ain’t going to happen before the austral winter kicks in and reinforces the cold surface SSTs.
Mostly I think that weather/climate models are crap and are only a tool to backstop the human brain, but have a look at these:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/forecast1/for4p.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/people/wwang/cfs_fcst/images/nino3SSTMon.gif
I’ve been following the development of the Nina rather closely, these forecast models (I think) were the most accurate over 2007. They now forecast a negative PDO and a Nina into next year and support my “gut feel”. And I think that I have also mentioned this in previous posts on this forum – the best analogue is the 1949-51 event – so statistically rather than physically that is on my side as well. (And besides I have the advantage that if I bust – no damage but to pride).
“no it won’t put a dent in the serious science”
Oh yes it will…if the “serious science” ignores the effect of the ENSO/PDO/NAO oscillations and the extended solar minimum, the simple fact that the world DID NOT increase temps in the last 10 years while CO2 crashed upwards is going to take a LOT of explaining. The paper by Emile-Geay et al linked to in the other thread is but a symptom – and it’s good stuff! Right or wrong, there needs to be an explanation of previous climate variability before any sensible understanding of the anthropogenic GHG effects are understood. There hopefully is more to come.
The “science” is not settled – only a year ago “Australian of the Year” Tim Flannery was quoted as saying that the capital cities were going to die due to lack of water. Last November David said something along the lines that it is inconceivable that the drought will ever end here in Australia. I suspect that these claims (if not already) will be proven wrong. I similarly suspect that the doom and gloom of the AGW industry will also be proven wrong.
Bottom line, and I repeat myself – over a couple of posts today – we have limited resources and these should be invested in things that WILL have an effect.
cheers
Empirical observation without insight is an impoverished science.
Arnost if you’re a student of ENSO you’d also know about coming a cropper in predictions.
“I made a mention of this a couple of months ago and- much to everyone’s chagrin – predicted a Nina early last year if you remember).”
Lots predicted La Nina this year – doesn’t mean much.
Give us your last 100 years cross validation statistic – are you better than flipping a coin?
The serious science is not ignoring ENSO – and in terms of things like the PDO – are they predictable at all and do they even exist in reality – perhaps just a statistical artifact of hoperful minds.
The contrarian critique has also summarily ignored changes in the Antarctic circulation. No bias there.
“world DID NOT increase temps in the last 10 years while CO2 crashed upwards is going to take a LOT of explaining” – maybe – maybe not – that’s just your confirmation bias kicking in. Give the time series a go as you see one hot spike will wipe out your argument. Explain it – well Hadley – Smith et al have shown that these departures are distinctly possible. You’re just insisting “it can’t be” because that’s what you want it to be. You can accuse me of the same. Need more data and I wouldn’t be counting chooks yet.
As for “the drought” – well it still ain’t over everywhere but the reaction is like a close miss when driving when everyone starts laughing as stress relief. Perhaps shouldn’t laugh to soon. When’s the next drought sequence kick in. If it’s too soon the economic havoc created in rural Australia is almost intolerable. Bank that rainfall while you can !
I don’t think many in SE Qld would suggest we stop building the water grid despite dams now up to 31%. Level 6 restriction remain. The investigation into pipelining water from northern Australia (the Burdekin) continues. Do you suggest that government not bother with these projects?
Should we sit back and have a good nervous laugh – “phew that was close”?
Indeed as you’d expect Paul has left out heaps of climate science that doesn’t suit him from latest editions of Science journal (much which won’t get a run in the normal press either – his stated aim of publishing endless anti-AGW bilge here).
e.g. on applied water resources science – “Stationarity is Dead: Whither Water Management” http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/319/5863/573
So Arnost, your advice to water engineers then is?
” As far as I’m concerned, the argument that “we can’t attribute the modern warming to anything else but CO2 – therefore that’s the culprit” just does not cut it”
Thta’s a really crappy statement Arnost and you know very well why. Confirmation bias maximus. It’s not just what’s left when you exclude all other explanations. There is also a theoretical, physical and experimental basis. 0/10 for objectivity old son.
“Mate, sometimes you go with the gut” – agree – but don’t kid youself it’s science. It’s winging it in “a particular season”. Does right or wrong have any statistical basis therefore?
“Thta’s a really crappy statement Arnost and you know very well why. Confirmation bias maximus. It’s not just what’s left when you exclude all other explanations. There is also a theoretical, physical and experimental basis. 0/10 for objectivity old son.”
C’Mon Luke – You know the debate’s over the magnitude of the effect. Arnost is right, Alarmists do their curve fitting to come up with worst case scenarios driven by CO2 at the exclusion of other potential factors such as indirect solar effects, ocean current changes, etc. There is no theoretical, physical or experimental proof for the degree of CO2 warming postulated by the Alarmists. They just back into it and why not, it suits their objectives.
Mark for you to say that is appalling and indicative of why debating here is utterly futile.
So we have you usual gunk – alarmists, curve fitting, exclusion of effects – all the same tiresome wanky drivel – Confirmation bias maximus.
Maybe temperature peaked, maybe it’s cooling, – but there’s plenty of things going on to suggest it’s also just a wiggle maybe it’s about to go up. And that’s just one variable – temperature.
So suddenly just on a couple of years “the debate is over” – sheeesh – haven’t we heard that before.
There is a good theoretical and practical basis for CO2 having an effect. There is no other explanation for the warming in the last 30 years. And a solar warming does not have stratospheric cooling as a symptom.
Run it out to 2015 and we’ll see what happens.
Your whole approach to this is about as unscientific as I have ever seen. “potential factors” – good grief !!
All you denialists are mired in this politico- anti-commie-marxist nonsense – which I think makes your objectivity ratshit. You’re running a political metafilter continuously. Rednecks looking to retrofit politics into science. About as bad as you can get.
C’mon yourself Mark, Arnost too; how do you know this tree ring reconstruction thing is not just some old piece of wood amplified “natural” event with a bit more rain, a bit more CO2 and a bit more sea level into the bargain? Why can’t you tell us there was definitely no SL fluctuation with that same bundle of wood?
Hey; anyone would think we had this “magic” instrument going way back in time with it’s accuracy better than plus or minus point one percent! C’Mon; we have at best about fifty years of decent global records. The rest is educated guesswork on the part of our modern climate scientists.
When a few bloggers on the fringe can point me to similar time series for the late Holocene sea levels I may take some notice of their squawks.
Perhaps Paul can come up with some other studies like bore holes down through coastal dunes and beaches.
“There is a good theoretical and practical basis for CO2 having an effect.”
But there is great debate over the magnitude of the effect! Alarmists have to claim totally unproven positive feedbacks to support their warming hysteria.
“There is no other explanation for the warming in the last 30 years.”
Well first off as you bloody well know, there has been little or no warming over the last 30 years once you take volcanic effects into account. Sure the temperature shot up from the late 70’s to the early 80’s as the PDO shifted to negative mode. Since then the temperature has plateaued and is now starting to head south. Look at the bleeding chart!
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
And a solar warming does not have stratospheric cooling as a symptom.”
From wikipravda:
However, the lower stratospheric record is mostly explained by the effects of ozone depletion, which has caused a cooling of the stratosphere.
And then there is the big question as to why the troposphere is not warming faster than the surface as it should if CO2 was having a major impact.
Face it Luke, with the cooling we are seeing all over the world the bullshit meter has gone off for the general public. Combine this with current economic concerns, and this whole Climate Change scaremongering campaign will soon be dead in the water. But not bloody soon enough!
Well said Mark and Arnost!!
Mark – “Look at the bleeding chart!
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html“
You are only looking at the one graph – how about looking at these bleeding graphs:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
and
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
also notice on the rise upward on both of the graphs are peaks and troughs. If you called AGW off at say 1985 to 1987 you would have been completely wrong. Again 1999 where the temperature dipped after the 1998 peak you would have been wrong again. So you will need to see at least 5 more years of data before calling AGW a dead duck.
Still no bites on MWP sea levels.
Weak as ….
Gavin, your probably desperately worried about that seaside holiday shack of yours.
Calm down old chap, the IPCC 2001 report assured us that “no significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.”
Here’s a link to a report which concludes:
“De waterstandswaarnemingen laten nog geen versnelde zeespiegelstijging zien” and
“Het is niet altijd goed gedocumenteerd of te achterhalen waarop de getallen voor de scenario’s gebaseerd zijn”.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61
I hope that sets your mind at rest.
chrisgo; let’s repeat the challenge: NO bites on MWP sea levels.
Gavin – I have unconfirmed Googles of 2-3 feet?
Mark you need a confirmation bias detox baby and Toby needs to stop being the cheer squad.
Stratosphere – cleverly worded but you don’t get the whole stratosphere profile if you don’t factor in both ozone depletion and Well Mixed Greenhouse Gases. Doesn’t work. So nice try Marcus.
The increase in downward greenhouse flux checks out OK. Climate sensivity is a debate point. But why not take some soalr guys Camp & Tung who reckon 2.9C is about right from using solar cycles?? Solar guys must be right eh?
As for no warming in the last 30 years – nobody is going to accept your unpublished little Excel wank. If you don’t add some extra forcing you only reproduce the temperature evolution of the 1st half of the 20th century.
As for PDO – who says it’s global or even has a major effect. Just adds to your unconnected factoid collection.
The RSS graph – how often has it dipped before only to rise again? Talk about a cherry pick.
And what’s the slope of the regression of RSS and the surface temperature record over time for the last 30 years?
Very very unconvincing Mark. Looks like you are tiring from praying for cold so hard.
And don’t forget the poleward expansion of the sub-tropical dry zone.
‘chrisgo; let’s repeat the challenge: NO bites on MWP sea levels.’
Some people can’t be helped.
The CLIMATE OF THE HOLOCENE
“A short warming trend took place from 2000 to 1500 BC, followed once again by colder conditions. Colder temperatures from 1500 – 750 BC caused renewed ice growth in continental glaciers and alpine glaciers, and a sea level drop of between 2 to 3 meters below present day levels”.
Chrisgo: How many degrees C?
http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/students/courselinks/fall04/atmo336/lectures/sec5/holocene.html
“Concurrent with climate variability is sea-level change. Sea level in the Florida Bay area has been rising at ~ 3 mm per year for the past 150 years, as measured at Key West and Miami. There is a dichotomy of opinion on the nature of sea-level rise along the Florida Coast. Many investigators invoke a slow and continuous rise in sea-level (Scholl and others, 1966; Robbin, 1984), while others present evidence of step-type changes in sea level. The latter suggest that a higher sea level than present (~ 0.5 meters) occurred between 600-1000 years BP (Fairbridge, 1974; Stapor and others, 1991), the time of the Medieval warm period”
http://sofia.usgs.gov/projects/geo_eco_history/geoecoabsfrsf.html
Chrisgo: Have you missed something?
In MM’s SENATE MONORITY REPORT we find this gem,
“And sea level, we think, is the best indicator of global warming,” – Dr. Robert Giegengack.
Chrisgo: Have you missed something?
Chrisgo: Have you missed something?
“And what’s the slope of the regression of RSS and the surface temperature record over time for the last 30 years?”
What a sham! Once you take out the cooling impacts of volcanic events in the 80’s and 90’s and the super El Nino in 1998 there is little warming slope left. I know you’ll cry foul on that but in 5 more years that event will start working against the Alarmist cause when looking at a 30 year average. Sorry mate but I just finished shovelling 40 cm of the white stuff over the last 24 hours (as opposed to the brown stuff you shovel!). School has been cancelled for 2 days in a row now. Al Gore lucked out that there was an El Nino last year when he released his fictional film. Now people are waking up to the reality!
Don’t like the answer do you – probably coz it looks like. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png
And yes that’s right all the cross-linked supporting evidence such as a heat signature pentrating all the world’s oceans is the result of global cooling. You tosser.
Tell us when you have published your skanky little volcano analysis – might convince you as a fanatical denialist activist – but that’s about it.
Nice graph Luke. Why don’t you explain the significant dips in temperature that occurred in 1980, 1982 and 1991? Could they be related to the eruptions of Mt. St. Helens (1980), El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991)? Nah, couldn’t be could it? Any regression analysis to promote global warming scaremongering without taking these into account is just being plain dishonest. But then I’m not surprised since we’re dealing with Climate Alarmists here!
Oh what a load of codswallop – are you telling me that the volcanoes only affect the surface record. The troposphere looks to be following the surface record to me. The point !
Yep there’s all manner of things happening at once (volcanoes, El Ninos, La Ninas) but the trend is UNAMBIGOUSLY and steadily upwards – no solar explanation at all. Blind freddy can see that.
The work on integrating the various forcings from solar, volcanic aerosols and greenhouse checks out – that’s forcings not scratching around doing Frankenstein graphs with Excel and grafting chooks heads on giraffes.
With your “analysis” we almost have a step-function – explain that meteorologically. A sudden “burst” of energy which seems to contradict all the other lines of evidence including the progressive ocean warming signature to depth and a cooling stratosphere.
Get you little backwoods blog skank volcano analysis published or perish. It’s just a little denialist hack and try-on and you know it.
“Yep there’s all manner of things happening at once (volcanoes, El Ninos, La Ninas) but the trend is UNAMBIGOUSLY and steadily upwards – NO SOLAR EXPLANATION AT ALL. Blind freddy can see that.”
Well blind freddy (Luke me boy), I will be the first to point out that the “trend is UNAMBIGUOUSLY and steadily upwards” but your there’s “all manner of things happening at once”, can be equally used to shoot holes in your already leaking anti-solar bucket.
I will at the outset admit that this is an antagonistic and provocative post!
Our understanding of the role of solar variations in climate change is based largely upon observations of the Sun’s brightness variability – TSI. This excludes the impact of UV and higher radiation, excludes the impact of charged particle emissions from the sun, and most importantly excludes the biological response to the above.
TSI
There’s a truckload of papers on this topic. So not going to thrash these out in detail for present. Bottom line – in the last year or so the (TSI) bottom has fallen out of the sun. I’m also not going to get into the differences between the PMOD and ACRIM etc – but even by the “Alarmists” preferred measure it’s on its way south. See:
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
According to a recent paper from Hadley, there was a prediction that the globe was going to have a –ve 0.2C forcing as a consequence of the TSI change between minimum and maximum in the 2000’s.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci;317/5839/796
Takeout – the bottom in the last couple of solar cycles is higher than some of the maximums in the early part of the 1900’s (which supposedly caused the global warming in this period), and thus TSI can be assumed to contribute at least 0.2C of the observed warming over the last 100 years.
UV solar impact
As determined with modern measuring techniques, ultraviolet variability is much, much larger than the TSI variability. The impact of this – especially vis-à-vis ozone depletion and consequences is (by all accounts) very poorly understood. The impact of UV variability is not only direct and physical on the atmosphere – there’s also a biological response.
Phytoplankton produces dimethylsulphoniopropionate (DMSP) to keep their osmotic balance with seawater. If it does not produce DMSP, they would become dehydrated. DMSP is believed to be released when phytoplankton dies or is grazed upon by zooplankton. DMSP then breaks down in the sea to form DMS. About a tenth of DMS enters the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, DMS forms three compounds: sulphur dioxide, sulphates and methane sulphonic acid. Water vapor can condense around the last two and form clouds.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0702planktoncloud.html
And guess what, increased UV radiation over extended periods forces the phytoplankton into deeper water – google phytoplankton movement: orientation (moving up and down in the water in response to the amount of light) – therefore less DMS, less low level clouds, lower albedo -> more warming.
I’m running out of links before the blog rules crap out this post – but google UV flux and DMS…
Bottom line – increased UV will cause a biological response that will affect albedo and increase global temperatures.
Takeout – increased UV flux affects both stratospheric warming (and consequent tropospheric cooling) and phytoplankton orientation – each directly influencing global surface temperatures.
Solar Wind:
This topic has been covered thoroughly here. Mostly in reference to a reduction in Cosmic Rays (Svensmark etc) casuing a reduction in cloud forming nuclides increasing albedo – so I won’t go there – but let it remain a factor. But there’s a wrinkle. Every HAM (amateur radio operator) will attest that when the sun is at sun-spot maximum, the ability to use the higher frequency radio waves improves.
Lets look at this logically – low frequency radio waves can bounce of the ionosphere more or less all the time. The HF radio frequency bands only become available at times of increased solar activity. The UHF bands – the “magic” bands – are only available at times of maximum solar intensity. But sun-spots have nothing to do with this. It is the response of the ionosphere to solar wind that allows the higher frequency radio waves to “bounce off” allowing communication across the globe. The logic leads to the premise that in times of high solar activity (solar wind / coronal mass emissions) the ionosphere becomes more opaque to / reflective of electromagnetic radiation.
Now, the low end of the Infra-Red spectrum – that which CO2 is supposedly blocking – is not much higher than the UHF radio bands that are “reflected” by the ionosphere at solar maximum. Is it therefore not possible that increased solar wind etc (as supported by measurements such as the aa Index which was at it’s highest AFTER 1985) increase the reflectance of IR?
This is a critical point that is never addressed anywhere – the “consensus” science tells us that the IR from the surface is absorbed/reflected downward by the increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere -> global warming. (And lets face it the increase in CO2 over the last 100 years represents something like a delta of 0.01% of the composition of the atmosphere). Then how possible is it that at high solar activity the reflectance of IR by the ionosphere (via a drunkards walk / monte carlo analysis) will show that the potential reflectance to be something approaching 50%!
This post is dragging on too long – but there are other effects that MUST be accounted for – surfactant pollution (again decreasing the entry of ocean particles into the atmosphere decreasing cloud formation / albedo); land changes (decreasing forests etc again decreasing albedo) and reduction in pollutants etc all affecting the influence of the sun on the globes surface:
WE JUST HAVE NOT FACTORED THESE INTO THE MODELS PREDICTING “DOOM AND GLOOM”.
Is it sensible then to rely on these models? Especially since they are based on “no solar effects” and incorporate a “grafting chooks heads on giraffes” methodology of splicing instrumental records on top of FLAWED paleo-proxy reconstructions (a shot at the “Hockey-Stick”).!
If I count the potential effects of all of the above, I get 0.2C for TSI, 0.2C for UV flux, 0.2C for solar wind, and 0.2C for land-change pollution. I am on record saying that I think that GHG contribute 30-40% of the increased temps over the last 100 years. Given that I have not even addressed the ENSO/PDO/NAO effects, I think I am being a bit too generous.
More research is required before we commit economic seppuku.
Final words:
I was going to leave this site blog alone for awhile for multiple reasons, but this is one of the very few Australian sites that allows “spirited” discussions of “politically incorrect” topics without fear of moderator censure. It is a valuable resource as such and good discussion therefore is a must. So I contribute.
It was a lowly patent clerk working in Switzerland at the turn of the previous century whose insight caused a paradigm shift in science and physics. If this lowly patent’s clerk had a forum like this available for him where he could discuss and refine his ideas – progress would be ever so much the faster. Let this blog live.
There are bright people contributing here – but unfortunately, these are also those unafraid of the scorn, unnecessary belittlement, and general derision levied by a minority of regular contributors. Can I please ask those – and you know who you are to chill a bit, accept that this is “controversial” forum and argue on merits. Maybe another lowly patents clerk (or equivalent) will raise an idea here that would otherwise die…
I for one would love to see more people contribute, and regardless of opinion, be made welcome.
cheers
Arnost
(PS – Where’s MOTTY? Does anyone know if he’s OK? I certainly hope that all’s well with him…)
Arnost: what a mouthful!!!
Better now?
We have to look into this UV in IR out problem hey
Arnost – don’t forget to count both sides – you could also add the additional of stored carbon in the biosphere waiting to be liberated in warming feedbacks – tundra, permafrost, peat bogs, rainforests.
How close are our oceans to being limited sinks.
Are we seeing an expansion of the sub-tropical dry zone? Is drought frequency changing?
How optimum was the MWP away from Europe?
Yep you can argue about all this too – but if you’re fair dink and doing some trawling – trawl both sides of the ship ! Coz you could be wrong on both sides of the ledger.
Motty’s OK last I heard he was staring at his creek and planning a new hydro-electic scheme .Just gotta get it through council.
Thanks wjp.
Luke: “Coz you could be wrong on both sides of the ledger” – Without a doubt 🙂
Arnost – “This topic has been covered thoroughly here. Mostly in reference to a reduction in Cosmic Rays (Svensmark etc) casuing a reduction in cloud forming nuclides increasing albedo – so I won’t go there – but let it remain a factor”
No it is not a factor until a link is found. As yet there is no research that shows a link between cosmic ray flux and cloud formation.
“Now, the low end of the Infra-Red spectrum – that which CO2 is supposedly blocking – is not much higher than the UHF radio bands that are “reflected” by the ionosphere at solar maximum.”
Are you serious? Did you take one second to calculate this. The highest bands that can skip is 6M or 50Mhz.
http://www.df5ai.net/ArticlesDL/NAEU171101/naeu171101.html
“However, it is a remarkable fact that the 6m band may support long-distance propagation modes equivalent to shortwave propagation because 50 MHz is considered a very high frequency in ionospheric plasma physics.”
The UHF bands that you refer to are 70cm or so wavelength. You only need to get out the old Frequency =Speed of Light/Wavelength to work out that the lowest band of infra-red is:
“Infrared radiation has wavelengths between about 750 nm and 1 mm”
So UHF is 750 times bigger in wavelength to the longest infrared and 1 000 000 000 times larger than the top of the infrared. Not even close.