THERE is nothing new about claims of a link between solar cycles and global climate. But now there is research which has been peer-reviewed and published somewhere reputable. Also, the work was by scientists at the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colorado. According to yesterday’s press release it shows that maximum solar activity and its aftermath have impacts on Earth that resemble La Niña and El Niño events in the tropical Pacific Ocean. This is what they say:
“THE research may pave the way toward predictions of temperature and precipitation patterns at certain times during the approximately 11-year solar cycle.
“These results are striking in that they point to a scientifically feasible series of events that link the 11-year solar cycle with ENSO, the tropical Pacific phenomenon that so strongly influences climate variability around the world,” says Jay Fein, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences. “The next step is to confirm or dispute these intriguing model results with observational data analyses and targeted new observations.”
The total energy reaching Earth from the sun varies by only 0.1 percent across the solar cycle. Scientists have sought for decades to link these ups and downs to natural weather and climate variations and distinguish their subtle effects from the larger pattern of human-caused global warming.
Building on previous work, the NCAR researchers used computer models of global climate and more than a century of ocean temperature to answer longstanding questions about the connection between solar activity and global climate.
The research, published this month in a paper in the Journal of Climate, was funded by NSF, NCAR’s sponsor, and by the U.S. Department of Energy.
“We have fleshed out the effects of a new mechanism to understand what happens in the tropical Pacific when there is a maximum of solar activity,” says NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, the paper’s lead author. “When the sun’s output peaks, it has far-ranging and often subtle impacts on tropical precipitation and on weather systems around much of the world.”
The new paper, along with an earlier one by Meehl and colleagues, shows that as the Sun reaches maximum activity, it heats cloud-free parts of the Pacific Ocean enough to increase evaporation, intensify tropical rainfall and the trade winds, and cool the eastern tropical Pacific.
The result of this chain of events is similar to a La Niña event, although the cooling of about 1-2 degrees Fahrenheit is focused further east and is only about half as strong as for a typical La Niña.
Over the following year or two, the La Niña-like pattern triggered by the solar maximum tends to evolve into an El Niño-like pattern, as slow-moving currents replace the cool water over the eastern tropical Pacific with warmer-than-usual water.
Again, the ocean response is only about half as strong as with El Niño.
True La Niña and El Niño events are associated with changes in the temperatures of surface waters of the eastern Pacific Ocean. They can affect weather patterns worldwide.
The paper does not analyze the weather impacts of the solar-driven events. But Meehl and his co-author, Julie Arblaster of both NCAR and the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, found that the solar-driven La Niña tends to cause relatively warm and dry conditions across parts of western North America.
More research will be needed to determine the additional impacts of these events on weather across the world.
“Building on our understanding of the solar cycle, we may be able to connect its influences with weather probabilities in a way that can feed into longer-term predictions, a decade at a time,” Meehl says.
Scientists have known for years that long-term solar variations affect certain weather patterns, including droughts and regional temperatures.
But establishing a physical connection between the decadal solar cycle and global climate patterns has proven elusive.
One reason is that only in recent years have computer models been able to realistically simulate the processes associated with tropical Pacific warming and cooling associated with El Niño and La Niña.
With those models now in hand, scientists can reproduce the last century’s solar behavior and see how it affects the Pacific.
To tease out these sometimes subtle connections between the sun and Earth, Meehl and his colleagues analyzed sea surface temperatures from 1890 to 2006. They then used two computer models based at NCAR to simulate the response of the oceans to changes in solar output.
They found that, as the sun’s output reaches a peak, the small amount of extra sunshine over several years causes a slight increase in local atmospheric heating, especially across parts of the tropical and subtropical Pacific where Sun-blocking clouds are normally scarce.
That small amount of extra heat leads to more evaporation, producing extra water vapor. In turn, the moisture is carried by trade winds to the normally rainy areas of the western tropical Pacific, fueling heavier rains.
As this climatic loop intensifies, the trade winds strengthen. That keeps the eastern Pacific even cooler and drier than usual, producing La Niña-like conditions.
Although this Pacific pattern is produced by the solar maximum, the authors found that its switch to an El Niño-like state is likely triggered by the same kind of processes that normally lead from La Niña to El Niño.
The transition starts when the changes of the strength of the trade winds produce slow-moving off-equatorial pulses known as Rossby waves in the upper ocean, which take about a year to travel back west across the Pacific.
The energy then reflects from the western boundary of the tropical Pacific and ricochets eastward along the equator, deepening the upper layer of water and warming the ocean surface.
As a result, the Pacific experiences an El Niño-like event about two years after solar maximum. The event settles down after about a year, and the system returns to a neutral state.
“El Niño and La Niña seem to have their own separate mechanisms,” says Meehl, “but the solar maximum can come along and tilt the probabilities toward a weak La Niña. If the system was heading toward a La Niña anyway,” he adds, “it would presumably be a larger one.”
[The photograph of the sunset was taken by Jennifer Marohasy in Darwin, Australia, in October 2005.]
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Think beyond CO2. Think ocean.
Stumbling into human malnutrition amongst Solomon Island people in 1982 and tracking reason why their traditional available seafood resources are devastated, has led to the following article and letter and apparently unseen links to climate change. Space has been a problem in writing but this site and thread may consider and expand clues further. Please see:
http://www.solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nwID=4043
and
http://www.solomontimes.com/letter.aspx?show=1969
I guess this explains the Modoki El Nino and puts Vecchi out of business.
But Jen – how can you possibly blog this – these guys are establishment scientists – and we all know that establishment scientists cannot be trusted, are lefty liberals, and have the subject of great abuse and derision by the denialist scum that frequent this fine establishment. Golly gee Meeh and Arblaster have – “gulp” – even written in IPCC reports.
And how could they be allowed publish such material when we all know there is a UN conspiracy (Hissink pers comm) that infests all establishment science globally to prevent such things occurring.
Is Al Gore threatening to sue them. Or has Al invested in solar? Why didn’t Hansen shut them down?
And use of GCM models too – tsk tsk ! We all know models don’t work. So by definition their results must be crap.
Perhaps it may be a very sophisticated double double double counter-attack.
Or perhaps – another conspiracy – now that Jen is not with the IPA – she is blogging – “gulp” establishment science. OMIGOD ! Has Jen sold out ?!?
Personally – unless McIntyre, Stockwell and Watts have formally approved it – I’m SCEPTICAL
Hahahahahahahahaha
It is the exception that proves the rule, boy blunder.
No it just proves you’re a waddling hypocrite.
And isn’t it even more surprising that another press release from the same illustrious institution on the same day – just strangely has slipped through the cracks?
Now I wonder why that would be?
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2009/bolling-allerod-warming.jsp
Oh dear – perhaps we’re all about to crushed in a massive hypocrisy blackhole – we’ve just passed the confirmation bias event horizon.
And yoo hoo – Coho – given you think Gerry is a cool guy – have a listen – http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_133611.htm
I’m sure you’ll get off on it.
Kinda makes your Stockwell paper a bit amateurish eh? But that’s what ya get when ya don’t ask for some peer review eh? Oh the socractic irony of it all !
Heheheheheheheeee – this will help http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3s8sEYzHWQ
Luke,
You are a liar – I have never “pers comm’d” you ever, and posting here is not a pers. comm.
Yeah luke, I kinda expected that AGW would lay claim to the GPCS; the problem for AGW is that the nominated contributing cause of CO2 on the GPCS is contradicted by a larger amount of that contributing cause producing an opposite effect in 1998; CO2 is really the all purpose cause everything bogey man; actually I think CO2 is one of the villians in Harry Potter.
Not it just moved it from the 1960s. Poor Stockwell.
Its worded like a plea for more money. Its like these people are so desperately slow, retarded and behind the ball almost purposely to string out the funding. I just think sack all these creeps and get the energy production going.
No , surely it cant be related to the sun! There is a famous saying in business…KISS, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID. …
I can sympathise with Luke’s sentiments that these findings require modelling. It is only right that we remain sceptical of these findings. But when you add it to every thing else we know it certainly seems more plausible than the co2 hype we keep being fed.
Checked out Meehls talk. You have to remember that the seduciveness of
visualization is meaningless unless it’s put into the rigor of
classical statistics significance testing. Meehl understands this, as he
mentioned the problem with independence. He knows the limitations, and
all approaches have limitations, though climate science likes to generate
the pretty pictures as it gets grants. “A man has to know his limitations” Clint Eastwood.
Well gee David there is a paper too. Surely you have worked that out.
Meehl, G.A., A. Hu, and B.D. Santer, 2009: The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific and the relative roles of forced versus inherent decadal variability J. Climate, in press.
Try some independent peer review of your own David – we know you think you’re above it.
If you were really serious – you wouldn’t be wussing out to the Int J or Forecasting away from the climate science examination (sigh). And you’d be engaging some domain experts for comment. But we all know denialists like to avoid the front door.
Toby – make sure read the paper won’t you. It’s FAR FROM SIMPLE. And has modelling and greenhouse forcings too. Hence my mirth.
Scroll down to the end of each of:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7012/abs/nature02995.html?lang=en 3.
http://cio.gsfc.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/solar_variability.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=25149
“Try some independent peer review of your own David – we know you think you’re above it.”
Luke, We got comments from 2 domain-experts before sending it out to a peer-reviewed journal.
I personally think the standard of modelling in Int J or Forecasting is much higher than GRL
(in general).
I also think that Meehl is completely consistent with what we are saying. There
seems to be a growing appreciation of the role and origins of decadal-scale variability.
The sunspot-climate correlation has been established as a fact by reputable scientists since Sir William Herschel in the early nineteenth century. The mechanism has not long been known and is probably not yet fully understood and for this reason Lord Kelvin unjustifiably denied that it happened, and the IPCC’s official findings have clung fiercely to that denial, and often still do. The present American official findings are a desperately belated official acknowledgement of the long known facts, with some added detail.
No, no, no luke; you can’t hide behind Meehl and his magic what-if time machine; they have the same problem which Keenlyside has; they are claiming one side of the coin without dealing with the other side which cancels out their little model theories; for Keenlyside his problem is, even if there is a post 1998 ‘masking’ of AGW by natural variation, and I keep reminding you that removal of ENSO proves there is no AGW effect in the temperature data [or rather it is negative one], then there would have to be a natural variation amplification of AGW before 1998; so what is it? What are the natural and AGW components of the temperature trend per the Keenlyside principle from 1976 to 1998?
So to with Meehl; he and Santer [ a name to conjure with! ] say there is an AGW delay in the GPCS so that what happened in 1976 should have happened in the ’60’s; well ok, where does that leave us with the 1997-1998 climate shift which features a reversal of the natural variation; has AGW brought this one forward, or is the delaying mechanism still in play? Is climate science [sic] now a subset of fractal duality or has it jumped the shark and moved into philosophy and ideology? That’s a rhetorical question.
There’s more to modelling that stats. IMHO paper’s climate review is scant and assumptive. What interdecadal climate domain experts commented?
Anyway back to Meehl -he is making a case with your “pretty pictures” simply describing the oberved spatial patterns and EOFs (totally normal for most climate presentations you’ll find – hardly a “visualisation” – a sour comment – which make me wonder if you know). His point (to be believed or not) is that decadal variability delayed a break point from the 1960s to the 1970s. You see David, without some modelling to determine if the relative attributable forcings map add up – it’s very hard to say whether you have 1, 2 or 3 things happening. And wouldn’t an all knowing God give us a good run for any knowledge of such a system ? 🙂 LOL !
And Coho – “no no no” yourself – hand waving without any modelling of the factors is just doodling. Come on – stop being so tedious. You haven’t even read the paper.
But what’s this Coho – you’ve now fallen out of love with Meehl in just a few hours. LOLZ !
In any case mate – don’t be a “non-particpant” denialist – get on the email and ask the questions. DOn’t be sulking around in private clubs.
Who even says 1998 is a climate shift? Based on your chopsticks test ! Gimme a break. Gimme the EOFs. Give me the forensic detail.
Luke,
No one said it was a climate shift – but a shift in the data pattern.
I just realized that if we bowdlerized your posts, all of them would disappear.
Sometimes you burn my britches luke; you are being asinine; David has undertaken a simple, elegant analysis of the official temprature data which shows that the typical way of depicting that data as either a linear regressive straight line or as a smoothed undulating line, both with gradualist upward trends, is deficient to a high confidence level. David has found 2 break points in 1978 and 1997-1998; both of these break points correlate strongly with empirically observed and indisputable oceanographic events and well recognised PDO phase shifts. Easterling has been rejected, Tsonis is inferior and all that is left is the whimsy of Meehl. I will explain why Meehl is whimsy as plainly as I can.
Meehl states that the 1976 GPCS was delayed due to the effect of greenhouse gas levels; the shift should have happened about 15 years earlier if left to natural variation. So Meehl is saying the levels of CO2 were sufficient to interrupt a major oceanographic event, the partial cessation of the Eastern Pacific upwelling and all the consequent water movements AND to delay the advent of the +ve PDO by 15 years. A number of conclusions logically flow from this scenario;
1 The delay of the phase shift means that the -ve PDO would have naturally been an extremely, unnatural even, short one; about 15 years.
2 Therefore if left to natural process the 20thC would have had 2 long +ve PDOs and a very short -ve PDO in between. This combination would have produced a much higher temperature increase over the 20thC by virtue of there being a much greater +ve PDO domination.
3 By lengthening the -ve PDO the extra CO2 has actually produced a COOLING effect!
4 The 1997-1998 event is also strongly correlated with the rversal of the 1976 oceanographic process and is strongly correlated with another phase shift back to a -ve PDO.
5 Now the Meehl concept can be either said to be a one off, only affecting the 1976 events, in which case the GHG effect is a stochastic one. If AGW has stochastic effect than this contradicts all the AGW theory up to date which says that CO2 has a gradualist effect on temperature with the ECS for a given level of CO2 only subject to a curiously uncertain heat storage or pipeline lag response.
6 If CO2 increase [I’m using CO2 and GHGs and AGW interchangeably; anything elese is hypocritical] is not stochastic then it must have had an imput into the 1997-98 event.
7 The 1997-98 event saw a probable phase shift from a +ve PDO to a -ve PDO. So the effect of CO2 has been to lengthen the mid 20thC -ve PDO and then to shorten the subsequent +ve PDO which is just over 20 years in length. BY shortening the +ve PDO and producing a phase shift to a -ve PDO the increased CO2 is again having a COOLING effect!
8 It is important to concede that David’s statistical analysis does not preclude such a cooling role for CO2. But this cooling effect is based on structural breaks not a gradualist effect, so a certain level of CO2 will both lengthen a -ve PDO and shorten a +ve PDO to produce cooling. How versatile!
In S-F there is a sub-genre called alternate universes [AU]; in these Hitler won, JFK wasn’t assasinated, the incredible Hulk was purple and CO2 could do anything asked of it. Meehl’s study is an archetypal AU scenario.
It’s just a stats analysis. Might break points in the data but not mechanisms. Who knows. You have no climate understanding. No formal attempt to integrate the forcings. No MODEL.
And Stockwell thinks an EOF map is a “pretty picture” (Omigawd)
I gave you two simple tests which you guys ALWAYS run a mile from. Get some domain expert feedback. You know who ! Get published somewhere not rubbish. Hey I’m not doing this to derail you. Might lead to some actual appreciation and enlightenment.
You have solar, greenhouse, PDO AND AMO, volcanism, aerosols, land use change, all needing integration .. 1998 is NOT the 1970s.
AGW as stochastic – pffft !
As usual we see the sceptics dwaddle into universalism, single causes and uniformitarianism, i.e. an effect must always work everytime, everywhere regardless of circumstances, let’s only ever consider ONE influence EVER being able to operate. NEVER combinations allowed.
But don’t keep your eye off the locals either http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/99018498/abstract
But yes let’s remain sceptical – listen to this on another tack – http://ams.confex.com/ams/88Annual/techprogram/paper_131521.htm – would jaw drop many here
LOLZ !
These are straw men Luke. Of course it is statistical, but now we have Tsonis, Swanson, and now Meehl and Compo, painting a consistent picture of significant internal variation using semi-empirical statistical studies. You might want to check the references to the oceanographic studies in the paper as well. I don’t know why anyone would advocate not establishing statistical significance during rigorous model development.
The absence of other forcings was noted in the paper. Plenty of work to go around. The hypothesis as well illustrated by Tsonis and Swanson is that the major zigs and zags in 20th century temperature are regime-shift related. I also raised the issue that CO2 effect cannot be a proximal, and must be largely distal, that is influencing via ocean SST. As Compo says:
“The ubiquity of the warming is reproduced by sea surface temperature alone.” – Compo
Do you disagree with all of them too?
The use of break points allows the precise start of a regime to be identified. I think fitting of curves such as done in Tsoniis and Swanson would cause a later date for recognition of a change, and that is why Swanson said 2002 (although Tsonis thought earlier around 2000). That’s the advantage of the break point model. The disadvantage as you say, is that it would be difficult to extend the analysis into a physical-type model.
Beyond that I appreciate your concern for our edification. Although you seem to have a lot of resentment, and I don’t really know what you are objecting too, except that we are doing it. Unless you have more specific scientific concerns there’s nothing there to answer. You are always helpful with references. Much appreciated.
Statistics were historically calculated to describe a number of similar objects by a terse description.
That is it 🙂
David – bogus statistical effects are the first perishing rock of adventurous amateurs in climate studies – and Australians are well versed in sun-spots – hence early adoration of Inigo Jones and Lennox Walker.
– and hence the importance of this thread on revisiting sun cycle impacts – there’s enough quasi-periodic climatic behaviour going on to produce false impressions of cycles and effects that don’t really exist.
And back to your paper in preparation. You need more than stats. If you don’t have a physical mechanism(s) and you can’t model (synthesise) your humpty dumpty analysis back to explain the obs. – well don’t wait by the phone. Of course you don’t have to do this yourself necessarily. Called collaboration.
And again – you and Coho seemingly would run a mile before you’d seek an establishment view. Very telling David. Avoiding the mainstream journals is also concerning. 5th column denialist behaviour 101. So that makes one ponder if the work is essentially disingenuous/contrived/bounded. After all Coho is totally political on AGW. I’m just bolshy.
And of course Folland and Meehl by now will be way beyond what they have just reported in those papers. Again confirmation or concerns always build a better paper. e.g. the Meehl IPO x greenhouse interaction assertion quite threw me actually. As has other changes in quasi-decadal behaviour e.g. see changes in 20th century variability http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006PA001377.shtml and http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036924.shtml Coho should have these.
After all – we only seek the truth do we not?
David – bogus statistical effects are the first perishing rock of adventurous amateurs in climate studies – and Australians being great punters are well versed in sun-spots and climate – hence early adoration of Inigo Jones and Lennox Walker (have a Google).
– and hence the importance of this thread on revisiting sun cycle impacts – there’s enough quasi-periodic climatic behaviour going on to produce false impressions of cycles and effects that don’t really exist.
And back to your paper in preparation. You need more than stats. If you don’t have a physical mechanism(s) and you can’t model (synthesise) your humpty dumpty analysis back to explain the obs. – well don’t wait by the phone. Of course you don’t have to do this yourself necessarily. Called collaboration.
And again – you and Coho seemingly would run a mile before you’d seek an establishment view. 5th column denialist behaviour 101. So that makes one ponder if the work is essentially disingenuous/contrived/bounded. After all Coho is totally political on AGW. I’m just bolshy.
And of course Folland and Meehl by now will be way beyond what they have just reported in those papers. Again confirmation or concerns always build a better paper. e.g. the Meehl IPO x greenhouse interaction assertion quite threw me actually.
As have other changes in quasi-decadal behaviour e.g. see changes in 20th century variability http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006PA001377.shtml and http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036924.shtml Coho should have these.
After all – we only seek the truth do we not?
Luke said: “After all – we only seek the truth do we not?”
Well he could have fooled me, when he tacitly defends Nature’s issue of 30 April with its 8 articles all claiming that it is gross anthropogenic emissions that determine global warming. Nature’s own editorial endorsed all these papers when it stated the carbon “burden swells by at least 9 billion tonnes a year”, that being about the gross level of emissions at present, yet the increase in [CO2] as measured at Mauna Loa between mid-2007 and mid-2008 was just 4.33 GtC12, and just 3.26 GtC between June 2008 and June 2009. Does Nature seek the truth when asked by me to correct this gross error? Dream on! Like Luke it seeks only to create panic and adoption of extreme measures at Copenhagen – and just the odd freebie tickets & hotel room there for associate editor Michael White author of that barefaced lie.
It’s probably the standard of refereeing in the Bledisloe that’s annoying me but anyway I just relooked at the Meehl mess and realised I misread it; it really is a Keenlyside clone writ large and stupid; Meehl says;
“Thus this inherent decadal variability delayed to the 1970s what would have been a forced climate shift in the 1960s”
My mistake was reading that to mean that GHGs extended what would have been a naturally short -ve PDO; what Meehl is really saying is that despite the veneer of natural variability, if it wasn’t for the [inherent] natural variability dominating [or in Keenlyside terminology ‘masking’] the GHG forcing the GHG forcing would have produced the GPCS much earlier; that is, if everything wasn’t behaving naturally then things would be unnatural due to AGW. Seriously luke, tell me that is not what is meant by Meehl.
The Lough and Ault papers I have seen before; I haven’t warehoused them so I can only presume that I didn’t think they did the job which means I’ve had to rethink them; thanks for nothing luke! They both claim a trend to increasing variability in the 20thC with an increase in extremes rather than averages. I’ll let David address that but from my understanding of the F statistic methodology the formula;
F = (RSS – Ess)/ESS * (n – 2 * k) where RSS is the residual sum of squares and ESS is the error sum of squares would pick up such an increase in intensity of variability which Lough and Ault assert has occurred; the reason for this is that both Lough and Ault consider variability greater than one year; in David’s paper the BoM data consists of annual anomalies while the HadCRU data is based on monthly anomalies so both sets of data could be expected to manifest the putative increased variability if it were statistically significant; the rainfall results in figure 1(b) suggest that something significant post break happened, but again a one-off event hardly substantiates the Lough and Ault thesis.
The obvious objection is that both Lough and Ault deal with a greater range of ‘data’ than David’s paper; this means the F statistic would not find that inter-century difference in change of variability because the data tested does not cover both centuries; however, what the paper does show is that if there is an inter-century difference the variability does not change for the data period tested; that is, the increased variability between the centuries does not change in the 20thC; the revealed breaks are still the dominant statistical features of the 20thC and whatever effect AGW had on the natural variability occurred before the 20thC; which is an odd assertion to say the least since GHGs did not meaningfully increase until the 20thC.
From Curtin – “when he tacitly defends Nature’s issue of 30 April” – OH DO BUNG IT ON TIMMY – Mate I did no such thing – I simply declined to engage with someone who has a record of utter tripe – as witnessed by your embarrassing dissection at Deltoid. And in our recent encounter I catch you with your hand in the cookie jar – trying to claim yields are directly attributable to CO2 increases over time. Ignoring any genetic or agronomic improvement.
Then Timmy the Wonker says “Luke it seeks only to create panic and adoption of extreme measures at Copenhagen”. Have I suggested panic or adoption of extreme measures.” You really are a little verballer aren’t you. What was it from Nexus6’s rules of denialism “Make shit up”. Take a hike.
Luke claims with his usual concern for truth that I “Ignore any genetic or agronomic improvement”. I do not, but what is undenibale except by Uncle Tom Wigley and all 2500 donkeys of the IPCC is that such genetic and agronomic improvments would have no impact on yield if they could not take up extra CO2, as they do of course, but not in the world of the WIigley-IPCC MAGICC models. I realise it is beyond the scope of public servants like those at CSIRO, but CO2 is a necessary if not sufficient condition for genetic or agronomic improvements. Instead Canadell and all too many of the other donkeys (eg Raupach) at CSIRO would have us believe that the biosphere is already “saturated” so not even “genetic or agronomic improvements” can bear fruit. The latest data for increase in atmopsheric CO2 show that au contraire, the biosphere is indeed taking up more and more from emissions. But Luke like Nature and the IPCC has not the slightest interest in the truth from boring data.
Coho – you do have problems thinking in systems – “The mid-1970s climate shift in the Pacific was a combination of internally generated decadal variability and a forced response” – Chow-tests won’t tell you that mate ! The response was delayed from the 1960s. All you’re doing with your amateurish trend analysis is wiggle watching. You have no climate understanding.
Think about what I’m saying.
Not just a single effect – interactions – http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution_png
“that such genetic and agronomic improvments would have no impact on yield if they could not take up extra CO2 ” – hahahahahahahahahaha !!!!
They do comparative experiments in the one season – same CO2 – improved agronomy and continuously improved plant varieties.
This is ag science 101 mate – white pegs, elegant field trials analysed by ANOVA
Can be big differences in yields between treatments.
And diddly willickers – we also have trends in temperature, rainfall, evaporation and humidity. And Timmy Wimmy has single-handly pronounced all these factors are overwhelmed by CO2.
Current atmospheric CO2 fertilisation is at the limits of detection in field experiments.
TRUCK !
Knowing Mike Raupach – who you think is a donkey – mate – pullease – you’re a silly person. You are so far out of your depth it’s embarrassing. These guys are seriously clever. You’re an old coot.
I am utterly gobstopped by your silliness. Go back to uni and do first year biology. Typical frigging accountant. Get back on the reservation for heavens sake.
Yes luke, I’m Gerald Ford, I can’t chew and walk at the same time; and I can’t possibly understand more than one Fallon EOF at once; the Meehl model you link to is a PCM; the PCM model was included in Koutsoyiannis’s critique of the models vs empirical measurments [see page 5 of the condensed presentation]; it failed miserably. I’ve explained why the Chow test will pick up a combined imput and compare it to a break alternative; can you go into a bit more detail as to why you think it won’t?
Koutsoyiannis – how tedious – the last way you would evaluate climate models. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/08/hypothesis-testing-and-long-term-memory/
“I’ve explained why the Chow test will pick up a combined input and compare it to a break alternative;” – err – sorry to be tedious – can you recapitulate ?
A break point implies a mechanism “kicked in” – otherwise it’s just statistical amusement
The point about modelling is that it is a “formal” attempt to integrate solar, greenhouse, aerosols, volcanism, land cover change AND IPO through the time period. I just don’t know how one can keep all these interactions and feedbacks separately without modelling them?
“the revealed breaks are still the dominant statistical features of the 20thC” — err nope ! not at all
the centennial trend is the biggest factor. Parker et al. Folland Powerpoint.
I gave up on the RC treatment of K after the ungracious mauling they gave him on the first post about his paper; he doesn’t participate in this second bit of grandstanding. There are many things wrong with the RC assessment of K’s paper but I’ll deal with just a couple; from RC;
“Note also that K et al compare absolute temperatures rather than anomalies. This isn’t a terrible idea, but single grid points have offsets to a co-located station for any number of reasons – mean altitude, un-resolved micro-climate effects, systematic but stable biases in planetary wave patterns etc. – and anomaly comparison are generally preferred since they can correct for these oft-times irrelevant effects.”
This is simply terrible; K averages data at each location with most point data being over a century [and should therefore have Fallon’s centennial EOF twanging away in it] in length; to say that anomolous data would be better is to exclude all EOFs longer then the anomolous reference period or, equally bad, misrepresent data which crosses one or more EOF periods; it is simply much fairer and reasonable and realistic to compare the average of each point data to what the GCMs have predicted; it is highly disingenous for AGW supporters to say that the points are corrupted by localised micro-climate effects which prevent comparisons with other locations for 2 reasons; firstly K is not comparing point locations, he is comparing model predictions for point locations; that one point is inadequately modeled has no bearing on the model predictive defects for another point; secondly, AGW theory is based on regional and point disparities in AGW effect even to the extent of diurnal variation in temperatue at particular locations; it is pure hypocrisy to denigrate a study for concentrating on particular points when AGW is based on such a point and regional differentiation. In any event K addresses this complaint in his concluding remarks [which I bet you haven’t read];
“An argument that the poor performance applies merely to the point basis of our comparison, whereas aggregation at large spatial scales would allow that GCM outputs are crdedible, is an unproved conjecture and, in our opinion, a false one. Our future plan also includes a study of this question after refinement and extension of our methodology.”
“The Chow test will pick up a combined input and compare it to a break alternative”; luke, look at the formula; the ESS and RSS with k being the number of regressors will pick up all your EOFs; how else could they be statistically represented? If the centennial trend is present it will be represented; it can’t be the 1978 break because that break appears to be reversed in 1997-98; and as David has said the breaks are correlated with indisputable oceanographic events; do you deny they didn’t happen? Surely they “kicked in” somewhere!
Coho – I wouldn’t use words like “indisputable” when factions even argue whether the IPO exists or is a statistical artifact of El Nino and La Nina breakdown noise.
Forgive me if I find Folland’s ppt – a repeat of Parker et al. PUBLISHED HERE !- http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2007JD008411.shtml somewhat more convincing that our mate at Emerald’s statistical pronouncements. And I also find the modelling and EOFs of Meehl somehow more authoritative.
I don’t find Koutsoyiannis compelling at all – GCMs have lack of decadal ability – which at long term climate scales not so much of an issue. What aspects they produce of the climate well enough is enough to use them as a tool IMO.
You would have to get into downscaling techniques to do points – our previous flirtation with Stardex and hidden Markovs etc. That’s why downscaling is such a big science and NOBODY seriously drills out of the GCMs themselves. Except Koutsoyiannis
It’s all very exciting isn’t it? Pity we don’t live long enough.
But here’s a challenge – bounced off Jen – Rudd has started a blog – first topic is climate change – submissions for far all predictable. I wonder if we could as far apart as we are – put a solid but DIFFERENT 300 words in. (Yes waste of time I know – but just for the public duty of it all)
What do we all cumulatively really want to know? Presumably he’s completely biased and briefed by pure ideologues. Is there anything left to say?
Luke again: “They do comparative experiments in the one season – same CO2 – improved agronomy and continuously improved plant varieties”. What is the chemical composition of the resulting extra wheat or whatever? Does it have any extra carbohydrate or fat? Donkey Raupach says no, as no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated. So close down the agric divisions at CSIRO, they are wasting their time. The earlier CSIRO donkeys, Wigley & Enting (1994), introduced this neo-Malthusian (neolithic is a better fit for these donkeys) notion that no more CO2 can be taken up after a certain level of atmospheric CO2 has been reached. This level was reached in all IPCC projections from 2000, and above all in Nature’s Potsdam Meinshausens’ over and over again this year, since none of them show any new CO2 uptakes at all. Enting was hired by Garnaut to prove that uptakes of CO2 emissions by plants and the oceans would be a declining proportion thereof from here to eternity and delivered in spades despite zero evidence to that effect in the records (CDIAC) since 1958*. The actual proportion of CO2 emissions taken up by the biosphere in any year is variable depending on ENSO but has averaged 57% since 1958, it seems to have been 70% from June 2008 to June 2009. All of the above is beyond not only Luke but Nature, and PNAS etc will never allow such inconvenient truths to appear, given the presence of the Potsdam Institute’s Goebbels oops Schellnhuber on all their editorial boards. I wanted to say everything Luke puts up here shows he too is a donkey, but that is a slur on donkeys, who can be quite smart.
*Enting was even cleverer, see Fig.2.7 in Garnaut, and the corresponding more detailed Fig. 18 in Enting’s CASPI report commissioned by Garnaut, as his drawing makes it look as though more of emissions stayed aloft than were taken up by the oceans and plants. Not so of course, but spin is everything for these Madoffs: “Under increasing CO2 concentrations, the proportional sinks will decrease as the sustained emissions growth rate increases. Again this is a characteristic of essentially all carbon cycle models. The effect can be quantified in terms of how the airborne CO2 fraction increases as the emission growth rate increases” (p.42). At least donkeys are honest, this lot prefer models that fit their agenda to data that does not.
Yes Timmy – CO2 is a limiting agricultural nutrient. There’s so little left.
hahahahahahahahahahahaha – ew-or – ew-or ee-ore – ee-ore
Where did Raupach say “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated”
I’m still bemused by Professor Steffan, on behalf of Senator Wong and the government, saying that the current measures of AGW, OHC and sea levels, were, respectively, getting hotter and rising at an accelerated rate; this is not true, quite the opposite, Levitus and NOAA in respect of OHC and Jason-1 in respect of sea level show this. I suppose you could ask Rudd what he has to say about that.
Luke: “Forgive me if I find Folland’s ppt – a repeat of Parker et al. … somewhat more convincing”
So far you agree with PDO-related strong decadal to interdecadal variability, you agree with the result,
you just object to the means, the break test. But the claims that were being tested were:
1: Quirks “ramp-up” in Australian temperature with increases in temperature both sides of the ramp, and
2: Easterlings claim that singling out the global temperature trend in the last ten years was ‘cherry picking’ (without
statistical basis).
The break test is the appropriate test to look for sudden breaks, and show that there is no ramp-up in
Australian temperature, there is a sudden step at 1978, and flat temperatures before and after.
Similarly, the break test is the right test to show that there is a statistical basis for singling out
the last ten years, that 1997-8 was the date of a significant change, that is also seen in oceans and not in
dispute.
Moreover, the 20th century forcing due to CO2 or solar is incorporated as an underlying trend
of 0.5C/century in our projection, consistent with a number of empirical (Spencer, Douglass, Schwartz) and also
consistent with the observed century trend. Strato-eruptions are too short term to be reflected,
but could be if you were to dissect the 1976-1998 period.
You seem a bit like a man with a hammer thinking everything is a nail. Whatever the value
of PCA, and I am not against it or anything, its not the right tool for looking at discrete, step-wise
changes. As you say, a break must be a change in the mechanism, and there seems no dispute that
the dates 1976-78 and 1997-8 marked changes in the average polarity of the PDO.
David says “man with a hammer”; let’s hope its not this hammer;
Luke brayed: Where did Raupach say “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated”
1. See Chap. 6 in Canadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L (eds) (2007) Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World.
The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin HeidelbergCanadell et al, Chap. 6 Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink
Josep G. Canadell · Diane E. Pataki · Roger Gifford · Richard A. Houghton · Yiqi Luo · Michael R. Raupach, Pete Smith, Will Steffen.
2. CSIRO Media Release 26 October 2007
3. PNAS 2007
Dreadful referencing.
Media release – couldn’t find it.
PNAS – I assume – http://www.pnas.org/content/104/24/10288.full.pdf
Didn’t find saturate or biosphere.
I trust you’re not going to looking at wiggle watcher short periods or conflating declining sink with “saturated”.
Cohenite,
I never really took any notice of the lyrics of that song – good grief – what a nasty little lad Maxwell was – I had never realised popular song lyrics were that political as well. And I come from that generation when the Beatles came out in 1964. But the implications you make are apt.
Cohenite,
Clearly Professor Steffan is talking about the GCM’s not physical reality. I am fast coming to the conclusion that the AGW people live in a different world to ours – do they ever detach themselves from their computer workstations?
Louis; that can be the only explanation for Steffan’s otherwise inexplicable statements; but it doesn’t remove his culpability; he is a respected scientist; if he is preferring modeling over contradictory empirical evidence from official sources then he should issue a caveat to that effect; it is grossly misleading.
Cohenite,
The interesting aspect of this whole issue is the philosophical background of the people running it. The same thing has happened in economics – the majority are enamored with Keynes’ theories but there is also a small group of contrarians, the Austrians who follow Mises and Hayek etc, and that group could be compared to the climate sceptics – both groups are empiricists, for example.
You will also find, as a general case, that government scientists tend to be socialists or progressives in political outlook, and this group establishes it’s truths by debate and consensus. It’s the familiar pseudoscience problem that I’ve often mentioned and published articles on.
Both Keynesians and AGW supporters seem to think in the same way – and that is because their thinking processes were never grounded in physical reality in the first place. They seem to exist in an imaginary utopia.
Steffan’s avoidance of personal responsibility is normal for his political class – if anything goes pear-shaped, then it’s not due to our failure in getting the science wrong, but due to some other factor which we were unaware of, type of thinking.
Steffan, and for that matter Barry Brook, Andrew Glikson, and Tim Flannery, are scientists who actually can’t do in situ experiments. Hence their science tends to become dominated by the deductive method because they assume, in the Platonic tradition, that certain core assumptions are true by consensus. In AGW that core assumption is climate sensitivity. Computer modeling then becomes a very deductive siren – but it’s basically electronically reified thinking when all is said and done.
Take Keynesian economics and the GFC – everything is being blamed for this debacle except the State itself from it’s manipulation of the money system by the activities of the central banks. Why do the socialists continue supporting things that, obviously, don’t work.
Faith. That’s all I can come up with. And the same mindset is behind the AGW movement, also faith based.
So I would not be too harsh on Steffan – ignorance is bliss, as they say.
“that certain core assumptions are true by consensus. ” WRONG
“core assumption is climate sensitivity” WRONG
“Computer modeling then becomes a very deductive siren ” – and do you propose to examine multiple factors of interaction and chaos – without a few hundred years and a replicate planet Earth or 12.
Louis – political philosophy is your core skill – BUT NOW me for you to tell us how YOU would go about climate research.
Prepare for smoke and/or crickets chirping.
“climate research”? Here would be a good place to start; note the reference to the Journal of Forecasting which David Stockwell has used for his recent ‘break’ paper;
http://www.heartland.org/publications/NIPCC%20report/PDFs/Chapter%201.pdf
What a bit of emotional qualitative nonsense from non-authorities. Heartland should get back to propping up the tobacco industry. This is the mob that put together dodgy lists which named scientists are not allowed to withdraw from. Coho – I spit on your choice.
ooooo Louis – Louis where r u? yoo- hooo !
1. Once again Luke (aka Eeyore) brayed: Where did Raupach say “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated” . I responded:
See Chap. 6 in Canadell JG, Pataki D, Pitelka L (eds) (2007) Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World.
The IGBP Series, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg Canadell et al, Chap. 6 Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink, by Josep G. Canadell · Diane E. Pataki · Roger Gifford · Richard A. Houghton · Yiqi Luo · Michael R. Raupach, Pete Smith, Will Steffen. Luke, please explain if you can with your smaller than a donkey’s brain what is meant by “Saturation of the terrestrial carbon sink”?
2. Eeyore also said: “dreadful referencing. Media release – couldn’t find it.” Sorry I gave the wrong date, was actually 22 October 2007. It said “There has been a decline in the efficiency of natural land and ocean sinks which soak up carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted to the atmosphere by human activities, according to findings published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the US (PNAS).” What does decline mean in this context if not saturating sinks? In any case all data since 2006 shows an increasing uptake of CO2 emissions.
2. PNAS etc – you assumed wrongly, actually see Canadell Raupach et al PNAS November 2007, where again “declining efficiency= saturating”.
3. Eeyore again: “Trust you are not going to looking at wiggle watcher short periods or conflating declining sink with ‘saturated’.” So what in Eeyore’s vocab does “declining” mean if not saturating?
4. Garnaut’s Enting shows “declining” sinks in both absolute and relative terms. What does that mean to you donkeys if not “saturating”?
What a ranter. Saturating may be far from SATURATED. Are you actually thick. Stop being disingenuous and get published rebuttals in the “offending” journals. Otherwise stay whining.
As for “PNAS etc – you assumed wrongly” – it is customary to provide decent references – but you obviously lack the normal basic formalities of science. And the other one a wrong date !
“no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated”
“SATURATED” !!!!!!
YOUR WORDS MATE – I’ll remember this one forever.
“In any case all data since 2006 shows an increasing uptake of CO2 emissions.” – you laughable little person. A wiggle watcher. Hey Tim – maybe the trend went down again after 9:05am yesterday?
This is so utterly appalling – that you can write 1000 word essays here old mate – I’m not wasting any time chasing down material which you wantonly misrepresent nor am I going to bother reading any of it. As found out over at Deltoid – a waste of time is our Timmy.
What an absolutely frightful little ranting person you are.
“What an absolutely frightful little ranting person you are.”
What a wonderful example of the pot calling the kettle black
Luke the Donkey braying at me again: “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated” “SATURATED” !!!!!! YOUR WORDS MATE – I’ll remember this one forever.” One again look at the CSIRO’s lead donkeys’ (Canadell & Raupach) chapter title:
Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink.
Actually Luke would perform a real social service by restricting his comments to Deltoid where he knows no dissent will be allowed.
Simply cite the line where it says : “no more CO2 can ever be taken up, the biosphere is saturated” or remain infamous.
Saturation of the Terrestrial Carbon Sink.”Therefore the fertilization effect of N deposition on
C uptake at present is probably close to the saturation
level _if it has not already been reached_”.(p.64).)
from Canadell Pataki Raupach et al“Saturated carbon sinks” .
“Saturated carbon sinks
The researchers (Josep G. Canadell, Corinne Le Quere, Michael R. Raupach, Christopher B. Field, et al.) say that climate-induced shifts in wind patterns over the Southern Ocean have brought carbon-rich water toward the surface, reducing the ocean’s ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On land, extensive droughts have reduced the uptake of carbon by plants. ‘Weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2,’ said co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Global Ecology”.
In plain English, land and sea are saturated as stated in the headline reporting the authors’ media release.
The list of donkeys grows ever longer, so Luke is in good company. Pace Field, there is no accelerating, and the sinks took up around 60% in the last 2 years, up on the long term average since 1958.
Reducing and reduced are NOT saturated. In plain English you’re a dick.
“fertilization effect of N deposition on C uptake” – no idea what the context is.
For heavens sake man – get a grip. Honestly if you really think that’s what the words mean – see a doctor.
The actual press release says:
Decline in uptake of carbon emissions confirmed
Reference: 07/211
A decline in the proportion of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions absorbed by land and oceans is speeding up the growth of atmospheric CO2, according to a paper published today in the US Journal: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
IT DOES NOT SAY SATURATED you utter shonk.
And they certainly aren’t saturated;
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/ocean_heat_and_mlo_co2_rate_2004-20091.png
CO2 declining in tandom with declining OHC; where is Will Steffan when you need him?
Luke aka Donkey #1: “IT DOES NOT SAY SATURATED you utter shonk.”
What does this (Canadell Pataki Raupach et al“Saturated carbon sinks” ) say?
Luke “But Jen – how can you possibly blog this – these guys are establishment scientists – and we all know that establishment scientists cannot be trusted…”
No…you have it wrong. It is the mathematicians, atronomers, biologists, chemists, geophysicists and computer programmers passing themselves off as climate scientists who cannot be trusted. There are many good scientists who still use the traditional method of direct observation, rather than the virtual science used by climate modelers. Do get with it, Lukey.
cohenite “Yeah luke, I kinda expected that AGW would lay claim to the GPCS…”
If you’re refering to the models used in the study of ocean systems like ENSO, that’s a far different matter than the gobbeldy gook used in models in the AGW paradigm. Scientists have been using models since the 1960’s, when computers became readily available. Dr. Joanne Simpson was using them to model clouds back in that era, and when she retired from NASA recently, after a distinguished career as a meteorlogist, she claimed they were not accurate enough to use as climate predictors.
The models used in the study of oceans are used largely to model ocean currents and wind systems. Those variables can be directly observed and confirmed, whereas the climate cannot. That’s what the IPCC affirmed in TAR. Climate models start out with a universal equation into which is programmed reality as the programmers envision it. Unfortunately, not many of them have expertise in physics and many of the parametres programmed into the models are either wrong or poorly understood.
Ocean models have been around since the 1960’s and they are far more sophisticated than climate models.
cohenite “No, no, no luke; you can’t hide behind Meehl and his magic what-if time machine; they have the same problem which Keenlyside has;….”
The other side of that coin was the study by Tsonis et al. One person on that study (Swanson) was over at realclimate kissing butt and using Keenlyside’s argument that the lack of a warming trend was only temporary. IMHO, the Tsonis study was far more to the point and a compare and contrast is given here between Tsonis and the RC suck Swanson.
http://climateresearchnews.com/2009/07/natural-climate-shifts-swanson-v-tsonis/
Here’s what Tsonis had to say:
“But if we don’t understand what is natural, I don’t think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said.
Richard Lindzen interpreted the work of Tsonis et al to mean warming had leveled off, not that it was in remission. Only a crank modeler or one of their religious followers could read that into Keenlyside or Tsonis.
“If you’re refering to the models used in the study of ocean systems like ENSO, that’s a far different matter than the gobbeldy gook used in models in the AGW paradigm” – are you mental ?
the models are the same – if not using similar components. Do you think there’s a parts bin marked “AGW component”.
“Climate models start out with a universal equation into which is programmed reality as the programmers envision it” – utter bullshi
Coho disown this bozo. It’s stuff like this that just makes you ROTFL.
If you had a half a brain Robbo (stupid “if” by me) you would have read Parker et al and thrown yourself out the window. Remember who’s the crank – this is the bloke who’s had the full acid trip “THERE IS NO BACK RADIATION”. which got morphs to “Well it’s not doing anything” which got run over by his idol Spencer who gives CO2 the marks it deserves.
Robbo your pants are around you ankles and we’ve done your hair in plaits. Off to mummy with you now. Quietly does it. Don’t annoy Timmy the ranter.
ee-ore ee-ore ee-ore eey-ore
Hi Gordon; the Tsonis and Swanson paper on climate breaks is critiqued at Niche modeling;
http://landshape.org/enm/swansons-pc-projection/#more-2704
It’s not a critique, it’s a random bunch of people on the internet humming and hawing over something they don’t understand. Pretty much what happens here, too.
Google: “Rhodes Fairbridge solar inertial motion model of climate change” to get a good sense of where all this is taking us in the very near future.